Jump to content

The Holy Bible did not sanction slavery


Recommended Posts

Contrary to popular believe, the Holy Bible did not sanction slavery, nor contained any elements of slavery as was practiced in the Transatlantic slave trade, where a master has property ownership in another human being.  The word slave as implemented according to the slave institutions in America was identified as meaning the white slave master  had property ownership in the black slave. The slave was divested of all human and civil rights.  The patriarchs of the Old Testament were Hebrew and conducted their lives according to Hebrew law of divine guidance and righteousness and customs as written in primary sources of the Holy Scripture such as the Hebrew Israelite Scripture and the King James version of 1611. The term servant is used in these scriptures and has no connection to the word slave. To begin with, the master and servant relationship consisted of a servant who voluntarily entered into an agreement for which he was compensated and it was a common practice that the servant was paid in advance . If the servant did not complete his term of service he was to redeem or pay the money back.   Leviticus: 25:51-52  . During the time of Moses there were two types of servants, a hired servant and a non-hired servant. Leviticus 25:53 . This chapter not only verifies compensation for a hired servant but sends a clear warning  for mistreatment. In the Hebrew  holy year of  Jubilee if the servant has not completed his service and was advanced  payment he and his family are to be released from the agreement with no obligation. Leviticus 25: 54   . The almighty God makes it plain that the master servant relationship was based on voluntary servitude and were servants. in Leviticus 25:55. It is a well known fact that the slave holding institutions in America thrived on physical cruelty and the mistreatment of slaves. Under the Mosaic Law  there are stiff penalties for abuse. Exodus 21:20 . Unfortunately there are many misconceptions stating that the Bible sanctioned slavery. However as I have just proved with support from primary biblical sources these claims are false with no biblical support.   

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Addison

In the Bible, Israelites became slaves to one another, not through kidnapping or a lower societal birth, but because of debt or poverty.

According to most Old Testament slave apologists, selling one self into slavery during the time of the Israelites was a way to pay off debt. So, Israelites who owed money, goods or land, might sell themselves into slavery and even their children to pay off a debt.

If this is not condoning slavery, I don’t know what is. Because you will never read an absolute condemnation of slavery in the Bible.

For many historians, nothing was as bad as Chattel Slavery imposed on African or Freed Blacks in the U.S. This type of Chattel Slavery was full of cruelty, inhumanity and capricious violence.

But slaves to Israelites, who were supposed to be treated as hired hands, were not to be badly treated. If an Israelite slave was given a foreign woman as a wife and she birthed children for him, the foreign wife could not be freed, nor her children. That is slavery with no end.

This is how the Bible explains this when it came time to free an Israelite slave:

 

“If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her master’s  and he will go out by himself.” (Exodus 21: 4).

Now, pay attention to that verse. The so-called Master could GIVE the slave a wife. Think the woman or the children had any choice in the matter?

And as I mentioned in a previous post, some Israelite slave owners did mistreat their slaves, which is why laws had to be written about this.

“If a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.” (Exodus 21:26, 27)

In the Bible, slavery persisted into the days of the Roman Empire because Philemon, a disciple of Jesus, the Nazarene, owned a slave named Onesimus. (Philemon 16)

Even in the first century, slaves weren't treated spectacularly well as evidence by Paul's warnings to some folks who were apparently following his teachings. "And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." (Ephesians 6:8)

 

”Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.” (Col. 1:4)

You can ignore those scriptures all you want. However, those mild criticisms made by Paul are not condemnatory against the institution of slavery of humans, whether they sold themselves into slavery or were captured prisoners. 

Don’t make the mistake of confusing the term “slave of the Lord” for being an actual slave. Even a casual reader would quickly understand those phrases mean completely different things.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think that the bible did sanction slavery in the traditional sense,

 

But, some racist theologians have tried to justify slavery and Jim Crow by using the curse that Noah put on Ham in the Old Testament of the Bible.

 

This happened after the flood

 

Technically, there are only three geographically races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and African.

 

All three of them are descended from Noah's sons Japhet, Shem, and Ham.

 

Because Ham caught and exposed Noah in some sin that the Bible does not specify (although some may think that it may have been an orgy), Ham was condemned to serve Japhet.

 

Japhet is the father of the white race.

 

Ham is the father of the black race.

 

Shem is the father of the Asians and Jews.

 

So, I guess we have the postdiluvian Noah to blame for slavery and white supremacy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anonymous50,

 

Pray tell, what is "slavery in the traditional sense?"  Explain.

Because I have PROVEN to you that the Bible did condone slavery by citing several scriptures. 

The Bible never condemned slavery, but simply offered laws to regulate or govern it.

I am well are of how, centuries later, so-called Christians used the scriptures to justify the enslavement of what they regarded as inferior peoples. But that is NOT what this thread is about, is it? Nor is it about the progeny of Noah. 

The thread you created seeks to prove that the Bible does not condone slavery. I disagree.

Because no scripture explicitly condemns slavery. But there are umpteen others which govern the practice of slavery. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely wrong.

The reason why Chattel Slavery is considered one of the most evil incarnations of involuntary servitude is due to its severity. 

Thus far, the only peoples to have experienced Chattel Slavery have been African Americans. No other race or ethnic group suffered so distinctly, so horribly and for so long as U.S. Blacks. 


Chattel Slavery is the worst. And because it was so uncommon, it could never be considered a traditional form of slavery.

The scriptures I cited, which make allowances for eventual freedom for Israelite slaves in addition to liberation for grievous injuries to them, are proof of my contention. 

Because during Chattel Slavery, there were no provisions made for such compassion.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That didn't stop slaveowners in America from using the Bible to controls and justify their inhuman treatment of slaves. 

 

The Bible ha always been used to enforce mental slavery. 😎

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bible. Supports. Slavery. Bible. God. Supports. Mass. Murder. Genocide. Rape. Children. Raped. Girls. Kidnapped. Raped ,Incest ...Slave. Owner. Used. The. Bible. To. Justify. Slavery. ...Black. Preachers. Use The. Same.  Bible. To. Enslave  Black. People. And. Get. Their. Money. Their. God. Will. Not. Make. Money. Appear....Religion. Christianity. Is. Slave.  Chains. On. Black. People....Black. Christians. Love. Their. White. Jesus. With. Blonde. Hair. And. Blue. Eyes.... Churches. Are. A. Slave. Cabin. And. Pimp ,House....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2022 at 5:49 PM, Addison said:

Contrary to popular believe, the Holy Bible did not sanction slavery, nor contained any elements of slavery as was practiced in the Transatlantic slave trade, where a master has property ownership in another human being. 

 

@Addison I absolutely agree with mostly all that you have written.

 

On 3/2/2022 at 8:04 PM, Stefan said:

In the Bible, Israelites became slaves to one another, not through kidnapping or a lower societal birth, but because of debt or poverty.

 

@Stefan I believe that the word SLAVE is not interpreted correctly and is THE CONFUSION. 

 

I have researched this issue and don't remember all of the references, however, whenever I deal with this topic, I do try to go back over some past references to get a better basis for why I say that there is a huge confusion over this issue of SLAVERY versus SERVITUDE or BOND SERVITUDE. If the scriptures were not complete on this subject, it would be a great contradiction. Therefore, I will post the entire chapter EXODUS 21 so that it may be better understood why I say that SLAVERY was absolutely NOT CONDONED in any manner by God. As you did say, 'servitude' was addressed in detail, though. I also agree that Israelites became slaves to one another int he worst sense, but it was never condoned, 'In the Bible'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


i. Some think that the Bible is responsible for slavery.

The opposite is true; slavery existed long before Israel or Moses.

The Bible is responsible for the elimination of slavery, not its establishment. 

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Exodus Chapter 21

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

****************************************************** 

****************************************************** 

FIRST OF ALL the word SLAVERY used by many of the translations needs to be completely thrown out!!!

The KJV version only uses the word SLAVE or other forms of the actual word two or three times in the entire book!!!!

The definition of the term SERVITUDE is completely detailed also, in the KJV and this should be crossed referenced for those who choose to use other translations and this will reveal a huge contradiction.

****************************************************** 

****************************************************** 

 

@Addison You said, 

 

"a common practice that the servant was paid in advance"

 

I am not sure about that though, but I agree with everything else you wrote. And to add to what you wrote, the very story of JACOB/ISRAEL details his period of Indentured servitude under his uncle Laban and also how Laban mistreated him and cheated him. I recently watched a video of a woman from INDIA who gave an amazing breakdown on this subject and she defined Laban as being extremely arrogant. I learned a lot from her research!

 

@Stefan You said, 

 

"If this is not condoning slavery, I don’t know what is. Because you will never read an absolute condemnation of slavery in the Bible."

 

In reference to Hebrews sold themselves and/or their children to pay off debt, but this is NOT CONDONING SLAVERY. This is an absolute condemnation in the Bible under the term of SERVITUDE and here are some scriptures that outlined this in DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 15:

 

[1] At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. ... 
[3] Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;
... [7] If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:

 

 


[12] And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman , be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. [13] And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: [14] Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. ...

DEUTERNOMY CHAPTER 15: 1,3,7, 12-14.

 

this is a complete detailed definition of BOND SERVITUDE to last only a period of 7 years! Now, whether people stuck to that, is another issue, but the Bible does NOT condoned SLAVERY at all.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@Stefan You said, 

 

 

 "If an Israelite slave was given a foreign woman as a wife and she birthed children for him, the foreign wife could not be freed, nor her children. That is slavery with no end."

 

 

That is why I will post the whole chapter because this scripture is misunderstood. Within the same chapter the master is also directed about the servitude of his own daughter of which would help to better understand this scripture. 

 

You said, 

 

[This is how the Bible explains this when it came time to free an Israelite slave:

 

“If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her master’s  and he will go out by himself.” (Exodus 21: 4).

 

Now, pay attention to that verse. The so-called Master could GIVE the slave a wife. Think the woman or the children had any choice in the matter?]

 

This is what happened to JOSEPH! Now, even though Joseph was put to being 'captive' for life which was not condoned, the Egyptians gave him a wife of which he bonded with for life and this connects to what this passage addresses even though it is defined under the definition of 'servitude'. Joseph did not go out but remained in this civilization for life and his descendants ALL OF HIS DESCENDANTS COME FROM THAT VERY WIFE! NO women and children did not have the same freedoms as we do today, and I for one, am grateful I don't live under the law! However, back in those times, the priesthood had to be complete HUSBANDMEN or else women would not be able to thrive. it was a form of complete protection.

 

Now the next scripture you addressed, I had to get some references to refresh my memory:

 

[“If a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it,

he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl,

he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.” (Exodus 21:26, 27)]

 

I will post some CROSS REFERENCE SCRIPTURES to explain this LAW that regards CONTENTION. 

All of the scriptures, even within the very chapter state that if this situation occurs, it is an ABSOLUTE JUDGEMENT that AN EYE FOR AN EYE, etc!!!

 

Therefore, if a master has contention with his bond servant and takes out his eye or tooth, HE ALSO WILL BE DEALT THE SAME BLOW!!! And then even after that, the master loses his servant WORKER... HE LOSES HIS INCOME COMPLETELY!!! It is a major judgment that is being overlooked and now, I will post some references but, first to address, the FOREIGN WOMAN. If the Hebrew overlord/Master gives 'a foreign wife' to a servant, this addressed the intense Biblical subject of INHERITANCE. If you read the chapter completely, it should become clear why a foreign marriage under a Hebrew system is regarded distinctly different from a master giving his daughter to a servant. Back in those days, it was all about inheritance and big government. After the Exodus, the Hebrew men that married foreign women, could NOT get their inheritance if they did not completely separate from the foreign wives and the children from that union and, it happened again during the time of the Persian Empire. 

now if a foreign wife was taken after the Exodus, she had to cut all of her hair off and there is much more behind this law as well! 

 

 

No, the Bible absolutely rejects slavery but condones bond servitude even way beyond the Roman times. The Apostle Paul addressed being a servant to masters in the same manner of today, as citizens under America, we are supposed to be law biding government servants or else, God will not fight for us if the leaders are FROWARD. We are not suppose to aggressively attempt to overthrow a system, that God has allowed to set up, Moses almost got cut down for trying to do this too. Anyway, here are some references:

 

Exodus 21:26 Cross References

 

 

Prov 22:22-23

 

Psalms 72:12-14.

 

Job 31:13-15.

 

Ex 21:26 Cross References (11 Verses) (openbible.info)

 

 

EXODUS 21 – LAWS TO DIRECT JUDGES

. Laws regarding servitude.

1. (1) These are the judgments.

 

Employment law regarding the treatment of servants.

· Murder, manslaughter, and violent assault.

Enduring Word Bible Commentary Exodus Chapter 21

 

 

[19] And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
[20] Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
[21] And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
[22] Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country:

for I am the LORD your God.
LEVITICUS 24:19-22.

 

[14] Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
[15] At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.

DEUTERONOMY 24:14-15.

 

[21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

DEUTERONOMY 21:21.

 

******* My note; No respect of persons, if a master takes the eye of his servant, he was suppose to have his eye put out too. A great deterrent for abusing hired hands! LOL.

 

******************************************************************* 

******************************************************************* 

LAST BUT NOT LEASE EXODUS CHAPTER 21--Explains the laws that govern BOND SERVITUDE of which has nothing to do with

what today is known as INHERITED SLAVERY or slavery for life and from generation to generation due to being Black African, otherwise known as

CHATTEL SLAVERY. This is the reason for the First Passover when the Hebrews were delivered out of Egypt. They were slaves for life and beyond.

******************************************************************* 

******************************************************************* 

 

[1] Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
[2] If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
[3] If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
[4] If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. [*MY NOTE: if the man does not want the woman, then he can be the master of his own lineage if he does not receive the offer of a wife from the master. Israel received the daughters of Laban, and therefore in the BOOK OF EXODUS, Israel refers to himself as A SYRIAN!!!]


[5] And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
[6] Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
[7] And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
[8] If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
[9] And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
[10] If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
[11] And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
[12] He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
[13] And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
[14] But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
[15] And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
[16] And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. [*mY NOTE-- THIS IS SLAVERY!!!]
[17] And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
[18] And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
[19] If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
[20] And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. [*mY Note: This is the key scripture to understand this entire chapter!]


[21] Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
[22] If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
[23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
[24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
[25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
[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. [*My Note: Again, the other judgement is that the man/master also will have his eye or tooth put out and then he must let his servant be released with no debt]


[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. [*My Note: Tooth for tooth!]

[28] If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
[29] But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
[30] If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
[31] Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
[32] If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
[33] And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
[34] The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
[35] And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
[36] Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

EXODUS CHAPTER 21.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Chevdove
graphics
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2022 at 9:15 PM, anonymous50 said:

But, some racist theologians have tried to justify slavery and Jim Crow by using the curse that Noah put on Ham in the Old Testament of the Bible.

 

 

I agree, the Bible did not sanction slavery 'in the traditional sense' however, you are interjecting false statements.

 

NOAH cursed CANAAN, not Ham, the father. Therefore the other three sons of Ham were NOT cursed

 

On 3/5/2022 at 9:15 PM, anonymous50 said:

 

 

Technically, there are only three geographically races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and African.

 

This statement is NOT in the Bible. The Mongoloid false 'racial construct' ignores the entire Mongolian Empire of which the very origin was a Black African woman! 

The Mongolian people were a mixture of people that included millions of African-typed people at one point in time.

 

The racial construct of what became 'White Caucasians' stem from the origin of Black Negroes. LOL. The original Caucasians were definitely 'Negroid'. 

 

On 3/5/2022 at 9:15 PM, anonymous50 said:

All three of them are descended from Noah's sons Japhet, Shem, and Ham.

 

All three patriarchs came from Noah, a Sheth man [Seth] therefore, the three of them were all pure BLACK as Noah was PERFECT in his generations. Noah was NOT a perfect man, but he was perfect in his generation, meaning that his wife was also pure Seth as he had been. 

 

 

On 3/5/2022 at 9:15 PM, anonymous50 said:

Japhet is the father of the white race.

 

Ham is the father of the black race.

 

Shem is the father of the Asians and Jews.

 

GEEZ. lol. Jap-HETH was black, CHAM was black and SHEM was also black.

Out of Ham also came White people too. AbraHAM was Hamitic; he was a Ram. He was AB-original.

On 3/5/2022 at 9:15 PM, anonymous50 said:

So, I guess we have the postdiluvian Noah to blame for slavery and white supremacy.

 

Noah was a captive, himself, under White Cainites. smh. 

His son, JapHETH brought a White woman on the ark, nevertheless, no one person is to blame for White supremacy, All modern humans stem from goodness, but many chose to be evil, no matter what color they were.

White supremacy began way before Cain covered the head of an evil brown woman. 

 

Edited by Chevdove
add to explanation of the sin of Canaan, spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/5/2022 at 9:15 PM, anonymous50 said:

 

 

Because Ham caught and exposed Noah in some sin that the Bible does not specify (although some may think that it may have been an orgy), Ham was condemned to serve Japhet.

 

 

Ham was not condemned to serve JapHeth. JapHeth lost his birthright of A FIRSTBORN to Shem and that is why Shem is listed first; Shem, Ham and JapHeth.

Ham, sons 'legitimate sons' never served JapHeth by judgment because JapHeth had already been judged himself for SODOMY and GOMER by Noah.

 

The Bible does detail what happened to Noah as he came out of his drunkeness and realized that 'his nakedness' [his wife] was having sex with her son; Ham.

Ham ran out of the tent and summoned his brothers to save the life of their mother. They ran in the tent and took a blanket and covered Noah's wife [His nakedness] as she backed out of the tent away from Naoh. She returned to her sin due to some type of festival that brought all three of Noah's son back in his vicinity and Noah was abruptly made to realize that Canaan was not his son as he had been deceived to believe. She let Canaan be raised up in the east but by that time, the timeline shows that Canaan was alive at this time and he was a very old man him self about 300 years old. Noah came out of the tent and pronounced judgement against Canaan, because he realized that he was not a patriarch like he thought, born after the flood, but he was a bastard. Immediately. all of the Canaanites lost their inheritance, meaning landrights. Noah acknowledged JapHeth's respect and relaxed his judgement but he still did not receive his birthright. 

 

Ham's ending was not good though, but the gospel reveals that the Creator did not receive any of Noah's sons. Melchizadek, the Canaanite became the High Priest during the lifetime of Shem. Everything that I have just written is in the Bible. 

 

*My Note: I posted this comment about the judgement of Canaan as an edited format in the previous quote, but it was lost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/19/2022 at 1:09 PM, Stefan said:

Yes, the Bible sanctioned Slavery. Period. 

 

@Stefan I addressed your references directly that outlined 7-year servitude. 

There is nothing in the Bible that condones chattel slavery meaning slavery for life. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you meant temporary servitude to pay off debt, the Bible does call for freeing of Israelites after seven years.

However, I pointed out that not all Slaves to Israelites had an option to be freed. Many were prisoners of war and some were treated pretty shabbily. Those scriptures should never be ignored.

Nor should the truth that ancient Israelites were at times,  ordered to slaughter tribes and people who were living in their "promised land."

“However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite ….” (Deut. 20:16-18)
 

“Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Why would any Israelite want to free someone who had been condemned by their God and could work for them for free forever?


Most do not understand the Bible actually contained two different sets of rules for Slaves in ancient Israel. One for Israelites who fell into debt and one was for those who were non-Jews. And they were mostly individuals captured in war.

You do some research. But most do not.

I really do not like to compare Chattel Slavery with what other races of people suffered.

This allows a bunch of folks who really don't like us to add their uninformed and untrue views to any debate in attempts to deny the awful truth or soften what really was dished out to us. I've heard the 'Irish immigrants were slaves, too" canard for decades. 

Some Irish did become indentured servants. But their lives could not be easily taken at the whims of their owners or overseers. 

The fact is some Slaves in ancient Israel could not go free under Biblical rules. 

Myths about Black Slavery in the U.S.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/10/2022 at 7:37 PM, Stefan said:

If you meant temporary servitude to pay off debt, the Bible does call for freeing of Israelites after seven years.

 

Yes, I agree! @Stefan

 

On 4/10/2022 at 7:37 PM, Stefan said:


However, I pointed out that not all Slaves to Israelites had an option to be freed. Many were prisoners of war and some were treated pretty shabbily. Those scriptures should never be ignored.

 

No. I absolutely covered that in my previous post! In the very same chapters about 7 servitude of Israelites, it is also detailed about non-Israelites in that they were absolutely NOT to be mis-treated. However, after 7 years, non-Israelites could re-sign up for another 7 year period. As far as 'prisoners of war', that is another issue. As you outlined, certain people were slaughtered but I as far as 'prisoners of war' can you give scripture reference?

 

On 4/10/2022 at 7:37 PM, Stefan said:

Why would any Israelite want to free someone who had been condemned by their God and could work for them for free forever?

 

No. The Israelites were not to enslave anyone! And, also they were intermixed with these people too because they did not do as they were supposed to do, therefore, it was actually the Hebrews that would end up going back into oppression under these people, so says the scriptures.

 

As far as the scriptures you cited about the certain Canaanites such as the Jebusites, Amalekites, etc. the Bible gives detail during the Exodus about them! 

I've done years of research on these Headhunters, pedophiles, etc. and extremely incestuous people. 

 

AMALEK----AmaLEK--KELTOI --- KELTS-- The Origin of the TRIANGLE SLAVE TRADERS

Amalek, the First of Nations

Gog & Magog...

 

 

********************************** 

 

[14] Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy,

whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
[15] At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it;

for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.

DEUTERONOMY 24:14-15.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noah was not a Slave to anyone. He was one of only eight survivors of a global flood.

And Chevdove is absolutely correct. God cursed Canaan, not Ham.

And the progenitor of the Black Race is believed by most anthropologists and Bible scholars to be Cush or Kush, a son of Ham and grandson of Noah.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 4/20/2022 at 6:12 AM, Stefan said:

And Chevdove is absolutely correct. God cursed Canaan, not Ham.

 

Absolutely! @Stefan I don't understand why this has been a confusion when the scriptures clearly state this.

I think maybe, the Church has failed to show us the truth and so, many people have been confused due to the wording.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 6:12 AM, Stefan said:

Noah was not a Slave to anyone. He was one of only eight survivors of a global flood.

 

Yes, the reason for the flood was due to a great degradation of humanity, however, the term 'slave' was not ascribed to Noah!

 

On 4/20/2022 at 6:12 AM, Stefan said:

And the progenitor of the Black Race is believed by most anthropologists and Bible scholars to be Cush or Kush, a son of Ham and grandson of Noah.

 

Yes, I can see where this is partly of great truth as well, however, long before even the birth of Cush Ham, the scriptures reveal that the Black race was a dominant presence. Way before the flood and the birth of Cush even, the secular records attest to this as well. I visited the fine arts museum in boston a few years ago and was astonished at the artifacts dated that confirm this.

 

Even though, many so-called 'Black people' today aggressively state that there is no such truth as true 'Black people' and will argue this down to a scientist, however, they need to go see ancient artifacts. Long before Cush was born some of those 'Black devils' migrated from the east into Mesopotamia and Egypt. So no, it was not just the descendants of Ham that were the progenitor of the Black race, but before and after the flood, the people of HETH, those Egyptians came west and soon, some of them inter-mixed with the people in the land. 

 

I saw some of these same idols in the fine arts museum and they were indeed completely Black and contrasted to other idols that were dark brown/bronze and completely White and dated back before the flood around the 3000s BC:

 

 

SC227869_4x3_0.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

PWPWOO5DJJHS3DHSPW2T7BTNQY.jpg

 

I believe that the first depicted is of Menkaure way before the flood.

 

img_8422.jpg

 

Shabtis that reflect color variation. 

 

image.png.34cf50680c4b9ad268b7d1d46e689247.png

 

https://www.stlmag.com/downloads/328811/download/Shawabties%20of%20King%20Taharqa%2C%20690-664%20BC%2C%20Excavated%20at%20Nuri%2C%20Courtesy%20of%20Boston%20Museum%20of%20Fine%20Arts.jpg?cb=6e6e69d5a689772844be238a12da9ecb&w=1000

 

In this link the name 'Taharqa' shows color variation thousands of years after the flood--no black depictions. 

BUT, I was stunned at how many black idols were in that museum way before the flood. 

 

The presence of Black people has a long history that has a presence in the ancient east world as well as in other parts of the ancient world. I think because of early decline of early east world civilization for various reasons, ancient people migrated westwards and overtime, Hamitic people were dominated. According to the scriptures, the east world Egyptians were NOT all negative but added a lot of rich history to Africa. But it was the negative aspect that eventually led to great oppression and this kind of history is most vital to understand, imo because it connects to these times. 

 

Edited by Chevdove
expand conclusion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chevdove

And here is where I leave the debate which began with the Bible. 

Fantasy, supposition, theories and feel-good tales are good for the soul and the ego. But I will never look to ancient Egypt for inspiration or the source of my ancestors. 

They were Slavers, too. And according to the Bible, Yahweh whooped their butt, drowning the then-Pharaoh along with his vaunted chariot force in the Red Sea. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2022 at 6:12 AM, Stefan said:

And the progenitor of the Black Race is believed by most anthropologists and Bible scholars to be Cush or Kush, a son of Ham and grandson of Noah.

 

One black child is the part that cracks me up! Do you feel this is a case of colorism: light-skin vs. dark-skin. Because according to these scriptures - Emzara gave birth to all of Noah's children. Further, Kush is Canaan is Kemet -KMT is Mizraim is Egypt is Ethiopia. Nearly all of the land by the Nile river. So really, Noah's story is more of a story of migration. While some people feel these stories are "holy," - I see a report of a people, their record of movement, practices, and their knowledge of the universe, solar system, and Earth.  

 

Case-in-point, take these two supposed Greek letters "Nu (Nv) and Mu. The Greeks based their alphabet on the KMT (Egyptian) hieroglyphs. (The Phoenicians popularized the hieroglyphic system - but that's another story). 

 

These two "hieroglyphs" together loosely translate into "created from the primordial waters) 

 

Nu is the name of the oldest Egyptian god, who is the father of the Sun god, Re. Nu is also the symbol for primeval water that began all creation. 

 

(By the way, there's also an updated 'feminine' for this translation, which means the ancient Egyptians were not originally a patriarchal society - which was probably another source of contention for surrounding societies.

 

Mu is also the symbol for water - offspring from the primordial waters.  

 

Archaeologists say Egyptian hieroglyphs date back to early 27 - 28 B.C.  

 

So riddle me this. How did ancient Africans know that water was the oldest element in our universe? It was only 2014 when modern scientists discovered Earth's water (via a study of ice molecules ) is older than Earth and the sun?  

 

Scriptures have a lot of information, but very few "scholars" have extracted its wisdom. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mel Hopkins said:

Scriptures have a lot of information, but very few "scholars" have extracted its wisdom. 

Adding to the confusion, scholars wrote, er, interpreted these scriptures filled with *wisdom*.😁😎

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were a debate, the original poster @Addison's position would be "The bible is holy, slavery is in the bible, then slavery is holy.

 

This syllogism's crux hinges on believing that if the bible is good, it couldn't endorse something horrific as slavery. 

 

@Stefanshows that the bible condones slavery but codifies ethical treatment in the rabbinical literature. Condoning slavery is the point where many believers suffer from cognitive dissonance - and try to justify their belief that their God would never justify slavery so they can continue to believe God is good all the time. 

 

BUT the very people whose ancestors wrote and lived by the Old Testament with commentary (Talmud) tell us the Hebrew word "ebed" means slave. 

 

- "Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines (Lev. xxv. 49)."


When one is referring to the old testament, one must take into consideration Hebrew transliteration. They must also consider the Talmud/oral history (Mishnah) that corresponds to understanding the history of Rabbinical literature. In this case, foreign-born enslaved people couldn't own anything - they had no agency.

 

So, it's a stretch to conclude the bible doesn't endorse chattel slavery. It does. 

 

The Hebrew people had to contend with this fallacy, too - maybe right up until the Egyptians enslaved them. 

 

"Not until the Greek and Roman period, however, does the emancipation of slaves attain, as an institution, any importance for the Jews. According to a not wholly reliable authority, most of the Jews captured by Ptolemy I., Lagi (322-307 B.C.), were taken to Egypt, where they were ransomed by his son, Ptolemy II., Philadelphus (285-247), for a considerable sum and set free (Aristeas Letter, ed. Wendland, § 22). " 

 

So maybe if believers deal with the bible endorsing slavery - they will better be able to understand Jesus ransoming his life to free the Hebrews and others who chose to follow his way of life.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 9:39 AM, Stefan said:

And here is where I leave the debate which began with the Bible. 

Fantasy, supposition, theories and feel-good tales are good for the soul and the ego. But I will never look to ancient Egypt for inspiration or the source of my ancestors. 

 

@Stefan And I can respect you leaving this debate on this wise, however, 

 

because the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt and the Bible records their plight, I strongly believe that it is vital to understand the history of Egypt as it applies to the Bible. 

 

One of my ancestors [if not more] is from this vey land, Egypt, and like the descendants of Joseph, many Hebrews are heavily inter-mixed with Egyptians.

So, I will continue to regard the history of Egypt as a vital source in understanding the Bible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2022 at 12:46 PM, Mel Hopkins said:

One black child is the part that cracks me up! Do you feel this is a case of colorism: light-skin vs. dark-skin.

 

@Mel Hopkins lol. Yes it could be.

 

 

 

 

On 5/19/2022 at 12:46 PM, Mel Hopkins said:

Emzara gave birth to all of Noah's children. Further, Kush is Canaan is Kemet -KMT is Mizraim is Egypt is Ethiopia.

 

yes.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chevdove

I really admire you. But you started off basing your contention on the Bible.

Now, you want to bring in feel good stories and a bunch of findings by archaeologists, ancient historians and those who consider themselves expects on Egypt. 

No thanks. 

I never looked at ancient Egyptians as heroes. I was never that insecure. We Black people have our own heroes. And they are not Egyptian.

I view issues differently because I am trained news writer, fact finder, blogger and news editor. I am also a teacher and love history myself. 

So, it has always been incumbent upon me whether in a news room, tutoring immigrants or teaching my students, to speak the truth. Which I could prove.

I got asked so many questions outside the range of what I was teaching and tutoring and by my photography clients that I had to remind myself constantly to note what was my personal beliefs and ideas and what I could prove as truth.

I acknowledge that individuals have their own ideas, beliefs and theories. But unless they can be decidedly proven, they remain theories.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any of you ever perused Stewart Synopsis?  This website is one of the most detailed history of the African Diaspora I’ve seen on the internet. 

 

I’ve never fact checked the work but it is fascinating.  I think I chose the link about Africans and the bible but there is so much - much more to review.  

 

https://stewartsynopsis.com/dogon-tribe-palestine-and-benjamin-banneker

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stefan said:

Chevdove

I really admire you. But you started off basing your contention on the Bible.

Now, you want to bring in feel good stories and a bunch of findings by archaeologists, ancient historians and those who consider themselves expects on Egypt. 

 

 

@Stefan

Thank you very much for your kind words.

I want to address your other comment; In no way am I bringing in false statements. My research is solely based on the Bible, my usage of other publications absolutely support the Bible. As a professional writer you too have to use references. 

Jesus said we have to research the scriptures and the word of God says write and publish. 

 

I addressed your statements about "anthropologist" belief on Kush being the origin of the Black race.

I used valid references to explain that cannot be true with respect to the Bible. 

My reference was the Fine Arts museum and etc. and of course, those dated artifacts stem from Art Historians and more.

I do not understand why you think it is false and non-Biblical. 

I use the term 'PEOPLE OF HETH' to define THE EGYPTIANS and would love to expound more since you may have miss why I used that term.

 

 

3 hours ago, Stefan said:

 


I never looked at ancient Egyptians as heroes. I was never that insecure. We Black people have our own heroes. And they are not Egyptian.

 

 

Stefan, I am! LOL.

There is good and bad history in all of us humans, and I understand why anyone 'Black' would not like the negative aspect of Egypt. 

Egyptians are not my heroes and guess what, neither are many of the evil Hebrews as well! I won't claim them either. LOL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stefan said:

 


I acknowledge that individuals have their own ideas, beliefs and theories. But unless they can be decidedly proven, they remain theories.

 

 

I understand. I hope you continue to love history as I do. 

Again, as @Mel Hopkinsalso comment on about the wife of Noah, I base my point on that wise too.

 

Kush being the start of the Black race is not true. It's not even a theory when you apply the Bible. 

Again, the people of HETH is how I referred to this topic because it is the name of the son of Noah and 'Erzama's son. And his name is directly 

connected to the word EGYPT [ie EGUPT, EGYPETAH...].

JAPHETH, the oldest son of Noah listed in the Bible has this name and like KUSH, CANAAN, KEMET... He was Black. 

Solomon married an Egyptian queen because the Bible says that the Lord told them they could inter-mix with them after the 3rd generation of the Exodus.

Stefan, my son went against my wishes and took a DNA test when after I already told him, my ancestry. But he did it anyway and was shocked to find out, I already told him that his great-great grandmother was from that region in southern Egypt. ... 

 

I think that many Black people like you have not understood completely about this subject, me included!

I think that we have been accused of telling fancy tales to the point we believe it. We need to re-look at history and try to confirm it as you say.

We need to take history out of the 'theory category' and confirm it or dismiss it. Anyway, thank you for your comments. 

1 hour ago, Mel Hopkins said:

 

 

I’ve never fact checked the work but it is fascinating.

 

Oh WOW this is interesting. I will read it!

I remember a little about the Dogon.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2022 at 7:13 PM, Mel Hopkins said:

Have any of you ever perused Stewart Synopsis?  This website is one of the most detailed history of the African Diaspora I’ve seen on the internet. 

 

I’ve never fact checked the work but it is fascinating.  I think I chose the link about Africans and the bible but there is so much - much more to review.  

 

https://stewartsynopsis.com/dogon-tribe-palestine-and-benjamin-banneker

 

@Mel Hopkins I scanned a little of this article and I have not, as you say fact checked all of it, but I am so astounded to read part of it because it resounds what I've said.

 

The original Hebrews were Ethiopians and Egyptians who left Egypt

and migrated with their caravans on foot to the land Canaan.  This is

the Land of Africa where Abraham lived for 10 years and married

Hagar the Egyptian (Gen 15: 3).

Dogon Tribe, Palestine, and Benjamin Banneker (stewartsynopsis.com)

 

I shared this before in another thread, in that my son told me that at times in college, he had gotten so tired of Arab people thinking that he was Ethiopian or Muslim and from those regions and trying to explain to them that he was not, that he just started to answer their questions when they put a microphone up to interview him and he started commenting on the international soccer games and let them think what they wanted to believe. People from India would tell him that he looked like he was Ethiopian. People from Rwanda would tell him that he looked like he was from Tigray. People from Ethiopia will tell him that he looks like he is Habesha ... I just laugh. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chevdove said:

People from Ethiopia will tell him that he looks like he is Habesha ... I just laugh. 

 

Africans asking about your son's "tribe"  makes me so happy! I got so giddy reading your reply. And I think it has something to do with my experience while working for United.

 

One of my passengers looked like my Nana. She didn't speak English. She didn't know how to find the person supposed to meet her when our flight landed in Dulles. I think it was a delay or something. Because she looked like my Nana - I gestured if she spoke "Amharic," She did! I went to another passenger - who appeared to be from West Africa (he was wearing cultural garb), I know their language can be Yoruba, but I took a chance and asked if he also spoke Amharic, and he did! I was able to help my "nana" looking woman -and the West African brother agreed to help her when they disembarked.  

You already know I did a lot of research for my book. So without that background, I wouldn't have a clue to make the connection between the two if I hadn't, especially since I'm just a regular black American woman who happens to share mtDNA with North Africans/Ethiopians. 

 

All this to say, I'm not surprised your son looks like Habesha. And here's why I think it's a given. When I was in Lima -some of the Peruvians thought I was from there. When I flew to Jamaica, WI, and Aruba, some locals asked me if I had family there. We can learn a lot from the people who call us out. I know I did. For example, I learned the people from Aruba are Arawak (Taino), also from West Africa and Peru, and spoke a language-remix called Papiamento.

As I was traveling around the world, I felt so proud to be African - even where they "hate"  black people they still paid deference. It was a bit unsettling but in a way that made you wonder about your place in history.  

When we Black Americans travel abroad or find ourselves in a global setting, we see our people. I believe we (our ancestors) were nomadic people for so long that we crossed the whole African continent!  

On 5/21/2022 at 8:50 PM, Chevdove said:

as @Mel Hopkinsalso comment on about the wife of Noah, I base my point on that wise too.

This thread was eye-opening for me. Another one of "there is no right or wrong; simply belief" Although I used logic (as in debate) to tackle the topic, I still realized that my way of reading scriptures is more Hebrew than it is Christian. I even found an article in  Time magazine that tackled the same theory of how Hebrews (Jews) and Christians read the Bible differently. I've always read the scriptures as a story of the Hebrew people, how they viewed their Creator, and their interaction with the Tribes they met along the way.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2022 at 4:42 PM, Mel Hopkins said:

This thread was eye-opening for me. Another one of "there is no right or wrong; simply belief" Although I used logic (as in debate) to tackle the topic, I still realized that my way of reading scriptures is more Hebrew than it is Christian.

 

@Mel Hopkins Thank you. 

I believe the Diaspora has had a great impact on what we believe.

I can see that you have a lot of insight because you have traveled abroad while I have not. That's probably why I am more geared towards the Christian doctrine. 

When it comes to African Americans, I don't choose to be judgmental in what we believe because, I feel that it will take a long time before we can really get to the whole truth. I just hope that we keep on trying!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addison

I haven't read all of the comments yet but to sit up here and deny that the Bible condones slavery is indeed DENIAL itself.

Those scriptures that you provided refers to how Israelites should treat OTHER ISRAELITES....not the other races they came into contact with.

It indeed supports slavery starting with Canaan being allegedly being "cursed" to be a slave to his brothers, as well as giving the Israelites permission to enslave OTHER groups of people who were not of their race like the Canaanites and other groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2022 at 11:20 AM, Pioneer1 said:

I haven't read all of the comments yet but to sit up here and deny that the Bible condones slavery is indeed DENIAL itself.

Those scriptures that you provided refers to how Israelites should treat OTHER ISRAELITES....not the other races they came into contact with.

 

You obviously did not read the scriptures @Pioneer1. Those scriptures were NOT only directed to Israelites but to all. There is one chapter about Israelite--Israelite servitude but the scriptures posted in this thread about all. 

 

You've been mis-educated by this American system. The scriptures state in REVELATION CHAPTER 18 that God would destroy the government due to SLAVERY and BUYING SOULS OF MEN.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...