read more here.

http://relijournal.com/religion/the-tower-of-babel-and-aliens/

1. I see you’re changing the goal posts here from your original claim. But yes, I believe that Yahweh does say explicitly that it’s a sin to own other human beings as property. The condemnation of kidnapping and selling people into slavery by the Law (not to mention the legal requirements of the humanitarian treatment of servants), constitutes such a statement.

2. I do deny this. I haven’t seen any evidence from you that Yahweh says ‘It’s wrong to own Jews permanently, but this does not apply to the Gentiles’.

2a. If you have BDB, do you have the abridged edition or the full edition? I have the full edition of BDB, as well as HALT, TWOT, and Swanson. Let’s look at them:

* BDB: ‘long duration, antiquity, futurity’ (these are the opening words in the BDB reference, and yes BDB also states that the word can refer to eternity, but I did not dispute this meaning)

* HALOT: ‘long time, duration’ (these are the opening words in HALOT under the first entry in the definition; HALOT also states that the word can refer to eternity)

* TWOT: ‘Both words [Hebrew olam and Greek AIWN] came to be used to refer to a long age or period’ (TWOT also states that the word can refer to eternity)

* Swanson: ‘for a duration, i.e., an undetermined duration of time without reference to other points of time, with a focus of no anticipated end, but nevertheless may have limits’ (Swanson also states that the word can refer to eternity)

So that’s the four standard Hebrew lexicons in agreement that the word olam does not necessarily refer to eternity. This is agreement with the scholarly works I cited previously (Sarna, ‘JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus’, 1991, page 120, Christiansen, ‘Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy’, 2002, page 321). Case closed.

2b. Sarna (‘JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus’, 1991, page 120), says 15b, but that could be a misprint for 15a, thanks for the correction. The point being made from Kiddushin 15a was that olam in reference to a servant did not necessarily mean ‘forever’, and that this was understood by the early Jewish exegetes. This was the point you had disputed. The fact is that Kiddushin 15a says that the servants shall remain in service ‘until the olam of the jubilee’, that is, until the jubilee year. Clearly that is not permanent service.

I quote now Menachem Elon, ‘Jewish law : History, sources, principles: Ha-mishpat ha-Ivri’, volume 3, page 1031 (1994), which points out that Josephus understood the pierced servant to be free at Jubilee, and that this interpretation is also found in Talmud Babylon, specifically at Kiddushin 15a (which is quoted):

‘Josephus wrote:

‘[I]f he have a son by a woman servant in his purchaser’s house, and if, on account of his good will to his master, and his natural affection to his wife and children, he will be his servant still, let him be set free only at the coming of the year of jubilee, which is the fiftieth year.’

Josephus thus interprets “forever” as meaning “until the jubilee year,” which is the interpretation given in the Talmud:

“And he shall then remain his slave forever.” Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi] said, “Come and see that ‘forever’ means only fifty years, since it [Scripture] states, ‘he shall then remain his slave forever’—[but he remains in service only] until the jubilee year.”55

55 Mekhilta, Mishpatim, sec. 2 (ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 254); see also TB Kiddushin 15a: “‘le-olam’—to the olam of the jubilee [i.e., until the next jubilee].”’

Note there the citation of Talmud Babylon Kiddushin 15a, which explicitly identifies the ‘olam’ not as ‘forever’, or the life of the servant, but as ‘until the next jubilee’.

What about Deuteronomy 24:14, ‘You must not oppress a lowly and poor servant, whether one from among your fellow Israelites or from the resident foreigners who are living in your land and villages’? What about Leviticus 19:34, ‘The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt’? What about Deuteronomy 10:19, ‘So you must love the resident foreigner’?

So much for Israelite laws concerining servants only applying to Hebrew servants, not Gentile servants.

3. I see nothing in the Bible which says that the Gentiles were only to keep the Noahide laws (as you should know, Gentiles living in the land of Israel had to keep the same laws as Israel, Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:42, Numbers 15:16; 35:15, Deuteronomy 1:16), but this is irrelevant in any case. You’re supposed to be proving that God permitted chattel slavery, and that servants could be kept forever (I note again that you avoid mentioning servants were free to flee their masters and would be liberated and protected by law if they did so). The fact that God explicitly forbad chattel slavery in the Law of Moses proves that God does not approve of chattel slavery.

4. Yes, masters were permitted to discipline their slaves with beating. I note that once again you’re changing the subject to something new. This punishment was the same as the punishment for a freeman.

5. Israelites were forbidden to enslave people against their will by kidnapping, and were forbidden to sell people into slavery against their will.

6. Gentiles living in the land of Israel had to keep the same laws as Israel (Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:42, Numbers 15:16; 35:15, Deuteronomy 1:16).

7. I don’t agree that the Jews could ‘take advantage of someone else’s slave trade’, since they could only purchase slaves as indentured servants, were not permitted to sell them, were not permitted to treat them as chattel slaves, had to acknowledge their legal rights, and had to acknowledge that they were free to flee their masters if they wished (at which point they would be granted full liberty and protection from the Law).

8. Actually Exodus 21:16 refers to kidnapping people with the aim of making them slaves. This was forbidden. As Sarna says (page 123):

‘The prevalence of the slave trade clearly spurred this item of legislation. The principal motive for kidnapping was to coerce the victim into servitude, either to the kidnapper himself or to another master who is willing to pay for the human merchandise.’

When you can find the passages in which the Law of Moses instructed the Jews to enslave people by taking them in war, please show them to me. Conquered enemy nations were submitted to corvee labor (see the section I wrote on corvee labor), but were not enslaved. Israel had absolutely no capacity to enslave such a number of people, let alone feed them.

A handful of passages saying that it’s lawful to enslave someone against their will would be good. Actually even one such passage would give us something to discuss.

9. You haven’t answered my question. Here it is again. How can you say these practices were approved by God, when they are forbidden on pain of death? Yes I’m aware that the death penalty is proscribed for Sabbath breakers. This law applied to the Jews, and to any of the Gentiles living as resident foreigners with the Jews. What’s your point? You’re no longer talking about the practices previously under discussion. Why not?

1. Nowhere in the Bible does Yahweh explicitly say that it is a sin to own other human beings as property. Do you deny this?

2. Yahweh declares that it is wrong to own Jews permanently but this law does not apply to the goyim. Do you deny this?

a. I don’t own the books you mentioned but I do have a BDB, which clearly defines “olam” as “perpetuity” (for ever). This obviously implies permanent slavery.

b. The discussion in Kiddushin 15b refers to the redemption of Hebrew servants. Neither goyim nor permanence are mentioned at all. Are you sure that that was the right reference?

3. The Goyim are only bound to keep the Noahide Laws, which do not mention slavery. Are you saying that the Noahide Laws prohibit slavery? If so, show me. Or are you saying that the goyim are responsible for obeying additional laws beside the Noahide ones? If so, you stand against the consensus of the rabbis.

4. Masters are prevented from killing or from permanently injuring their slaves but beating them is still ok. Do you deny this?

5. You mentioned that there are no obvious references to a slave trade, and from that you assume that slaves bought from other nations must’ve sold themselves into slavery. Where did you get this idea since Lev 25:45 does not say anything about those people having sold themselves?

6. All of the verses you cited in your response refer specifically to Jews. Why are you assuming that these laws also apply to the goyim? I am sure that you don’t think the goyim should be circumcised (since the relevant passages specifically refer to Jews) so why are do you treat these passages differently?

7. Even if the Jews had no slave trade of their own, they could still take advantage of someone else’s slave trade. Do you deny this?

8. Exodus 21:16 refers to kidnapping. Slaves taken in war were not kidnapped. You said that the Mosaic does not allow for involuntary slavery. Are you saying that people defeated in war want to be taken as slaves?

9. You asked “How can you say these practices were approved by God, when they are forbidden on pain of death?” Are you not aware that the death penalty is proscribed for Sabbath breakers? And surely you aware that this law does not apply to the Goyim?

* ‘in the end the answer is still that God condones slavery’: You don’t actually define what you mean by ’slavery’ in this sentence, but it seems from your next comment that you refer to chattel slavery. You don’t provide any evidence that God condones chattel slavery.

* ‘The Mosaic Law does not apply to Gentiles, nor is chattel slavery condemned if it only involves gentiles’: I provided evidence that the Law of Moses made no provision for any slave trade. It was permissible to purchase men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, but not to sell them (Exodus 21:2, Leviticus 25:39, 42, 45, Deuteronomy 15:12). Taking men and women and enslaving them against their will, or selling them into slavery, was expressly forbidden on pain of death (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7).

I can’t see any passages which say that the Israelites were permitted to make chattel slaves of the Gentiles, and you didn’t provide any, so I’m not sure what evidence you’re relying on. What I have demonstrated in the articles is that the Law of Moses did not reduce anyone (Israelite or Gentile), to the position of chattel slavery, and that standard scholarly literature confirms this. The Law of Moses permitted servants to flee from their masters, and granted them liberty when they did so. This is the opposite of chattel slavery.

Chattel slavery did not exist under the Law of Moses. There was no form of servitude under the Law of Moses which placed them in the legal position of chattel slaves. Legislation maintained kinship rights (Exodus 21:3, 9, Leviticus 25:41, 47-49, 54, providing for Hebrew indentured servants), marriage rights (Exodus 21:4, 10-11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage), personal legal rights relating to physical protection and protection from breach of contract (Exodus 21:8, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage, Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27, providing for Hebrew or foreign servants of any kind, and Leviticus 25:39-41, providing for Hebrew indentured servants), freedom of movement, and access to liberty (Exodus 21:8, 11, providing for a Hebrew daughter contracted into a marriage, Leviticus 25:40-45, 48, 54, providing for Hebrew indentured servants, and Deuteronomy 15:1, 12; 23:15, providing for Hebrew or foreign servants of any kind).

* ‘The institutions of enslavement maintained by other ANE cultures are therefore approved by God, since they are not on the list of “detestable practices” for which those nations were destroyed’: You’re committing the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Just because it isn’t on the list of ‘detestable practices’ doesn’t mean it was approved by God. On the contrary, taking men and women and enslaving them against their will, or selling them into slavery, was expressly forbidden on pain of death (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7). How can you say these practices were approved by God, when they are forbidden on pain of death?

* ‘Besides all this, your view of Deut 15:3 and 20:11 are completely unjustified. You have incorrectly defined the words in question’: You later clarify ‘I meant Leviticus 25:46 and Deut 20:11′, but you haven’t actually specified the ‘words in question’, nor provided any evidence that I have incorrectly defined them.

It seems you mean that I was wrong to suggest that ‘olam’ referred to a limited rather than a permanent duration. To you this looks like 21st century Christian apologia. But it is not simply my view. It is a view found within the scholarly community (Sarna, ‘JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus’, 1991, page 120, Christiansen, ‘Word Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy’, 2002, page 321).

Evidence for this view comes from some of the earliest Jewish commentaries, which interpreted it in this way (Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael in Mishpatim 2, Kiddushin 15b, and Targum Jonathan at Exodus 21:6). Note that Targum Jonathan is one of the earliest extant commentaries on the passage, dating to around the 1st century.

The argument I am making therefore is firmly evidence based. It is recognized within the relevant scholarly community, and supported by the earliest historical commentaries on the passages.

* ‘Both are in support of the permanent enslavement of pagan slaves (who can only be lawfully acquired through non-compulsory war)’: As we can see, and as you seem to have realized, pagan servants could lawfully be acquired through indentured service (Leviticus 25:45), not only by non-compulsory war. As for the permanence of that servitude, see above.

Hebrews were permitted to purchase people who had sold themselves into indentured service to another individual. Sometimes that individual would sell them off in order to recover their debt more quickly. Hebrews were permitted to purchase such indentured servants, who would work off their purchase price as servants to the Hebrew who bought them.

‘Also, does the Bible simply explain the Mosaic law, or is it literally God’s commandments to his people?’

The Mosaic law is explained throughout the Bible.