what don't I understand

Bloody heck, this Wi-Fi...

Freaking hate my schools wi-fi, I'll have to come back later

lmao I understand

its not really context of the time, but context of the word slavery, people are saying that slavery as said in the exodus verses means a Voluntary indentured servitude in where the 'master' is paying the 'slave' or servant in other translations. The problem here seems to be a lack of solid definition of the word slavery in that verse.

Not true. Indentured servitude is never voluntary and never right

I wouldn’t say that the Bible is pro slavery just because it has slavery in it, if anything, it’s anti-slavery, Jesus constantly identified with the poor, slaves, and sinners, also let’s not forget that Joseph is a man that is sold into slavery and ends up second only to the Pharaoh! That shows that through God you can do anything!

God would know what is ultimately moral, and if he says people won't be punished for owning and beating "their property" then that is equally abhorent

@Onespicyboi God says people who own indentured servants won't be punished unless they KILL THEM

this is wrong, people have many times in history worked for somebody else to recieve something in return out of their volentury choice to work for them

He only objects to his chosen people being enslaved

That's not what indentured servitude is

then how do you define it

Indentured servitude is involuntary labor, usually in regards to ancient POWs

i thought it was a contract where you say "hey im gonna work for you if you do this for me"

I want to see the receipts...

scroll up

Or damage the body of the slave. Nothing wrong punishing a slave but you can't damage the slave. Reread exodus 21

bruh

that's what I'm saying

Punishment or physical harm is not prohibited unless they don't recover in 3 days

Well that's interesting... Reading Exodus 21

6 ¶ And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

So slavery is illegal

26 ¶ And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake

If the master punishes the slave unto permanent damage, such as missing eye or hand he is required to let the slave go

Or what wound he caused will be inflicted on him

Also, servants are not slaves, there's a difference between the two

@Ranger_720 , we were all wrong, it isn't indentured servitude, if the man puts himself on the market and bought he is to be treated fairly.

I won't be responding for a while, data is expensive...

Servant/slave is a difference in translations. Moreover, this just highlights the fact that the bible contradicts itself multiple times.

This whole argument proves Christianity is sketchy because, even citing valid verses, its true meaning is up for debate!

These are novice level "Contradictions."
Tell me, if killing a person is wrong why do we use the death penalties for serial killers? Better yet, why do we bother to kill war criminals? Why do we bother to even have an army that are TRAINED to kill?
This just highlights the fact that government contradicts itself multiple times.

And if the government contradicts itself it has to be some fiction someone created right?

Well, thats what your arguments logic implies anyway.

Not at all

That is stupid logic

Absolute idiocy

The contradictions are not b/w translations, but b/w messages. Here, it says slavery is bad, there is says it is good *because slaves are property and can be beaten w/o consequence*. Contradictions w/in the bible on fundamental messages instantly tarnish its reputability. An army, which is meant to protect our sovereignty, is not even CLOSE to being comparable to the death penalty which I agree is immoral. Your rebuttal is based on misconceptions and false analogies.

It was your logic.
Slavery is a contradiction if it exists in that system and it condemns it.
I just changed the word slavery for killing and the floor fell out from the bottom of your argument when I applied it to something modern.

Here it says ANYONE who is caught engaging in their group kidnapping or selling slaves should be put to death. If they already had slaves, or Servants as is highly supported (as people who had no money for food would often submit themselves as servants to people who had food or money so they could live) which if you read anything beyond 3 verses you would understand.
Let also not forget the cultural point I mentioned that "This was a barbaric age where people would enslave you if they had a sharper stick than you and would kill you, sell you, torture you or worst rape you, because they could."
And in the bible ANYONE who was gentile and willing to become part of the group would have to follow the rules as stated now.

It also talks about humane treatment of servants. I would LOVE to see any document you can pull that predates these ones on humane treatment of people before the bronze age.

Context is irrelevant, slavery is still immoral