The Bible condones slavey as seen in colonial America

Now I will rebut Pro’s arguments. Did the Israelites only enslave "wicked" pagans? The purchase of slaves from other nations was expressly permitted by God in Leviticus 25: 44-46. These people were not enslaved due to “wickedness”; they were simply bought. They are referred to as “property.” Unlike Israelite indentured servants, they can be made “slaves for life.” Yes, the Israelites purchased slaves from foreign slave traders Referring to Leviticus 25, Pro says: These slaves weren’t purchased from some foreign slave trader** as the Bible is clear in condemning such people...in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Let’s examine 1 Timothy 1:10. In the NIV, this verse refers to “slave traders.” Let's look at some other translations. The NKJV refers to "kidnappers"; not "slave traders." The KJV refers to “menstealers." In the Bible, kidnapping was considered an abominable practice, whereas buying and selling slaves was okay. Heck, the Old Testament has instructions (from God, no less) on how to sell your daughter into slavery. (See Exodus 21:7-11) In this verse, Paul is condemning kidnapping; not the slave trade. ** Who do you buy slaves from, if not a slave trader? There is no stipulation about "wickedness" In Round 2, Pro states, “The reason as to why these people have been enslaved was because of their wickedness.” In Round 3, Pro asserts, “The slaves you refer to in Leviticus 25 come from Israel’s pagan neighbours which I have pointed out have committed wicked atrocities…” Really? You're telling me that the Israelites went to another nation and purchased these slaves from a slave trader because of their "wickedness"? Dream on. In reality, there is no stipulation about “wickedness” in Leviticus 25:44-46 or anywhere else in the Bible. It does not say, “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves if they are wicked people who burn children.” Sorry. The Israelites killed children, too Pro applauds the Israelites for enslaving pagans: “Enslavement is a rather humane option to the alternative of slaughtering them all.” Sure, I guess? Except the “enslavement” option wasn’t always on the table. Check out Deuteronomy 20:16-18: When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, and the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. But wait, there’s more: However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites — as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping other gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. So, the punishment for child-sacrificing pagans was genocide; not slavery. “Do not leave alive anything that breathes” means that women, children and babies would have been slaughtered by the Israelites. The so-called “humane" Israelites murdered their fair share of children. The Bible reserves some of its greatest criticism for hypocrites. Re: Exodus 21:16 Of Exodus 21:16, the Net Bible says, “The implication is that it would be an Israelite citizen who was kidnapped and sold to a foreign tribe of country (like Joseph).” The Pulpit Commentary says, “Kidnapping, or stealing men to make them slaves, was a very early and very wide-spread crime…Most kidnapping was of foreigners; and this was a practice of which the laws of states took no cognizance, though a certain disrepute may have attached to it. But the kidnapping of a fellow-country-man was generally punished with severity.” Compare Exodus 21:16 with Deuteronomy 24:7: If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. Biblical slavery had everything to do with nationality Pro argues, “While it is true that Israelite slaves have special laws protecting them, it has nothing to do with racism or nationality. They have more rights because they are citizens of Israel.” Notice the contradiction here? If they have more rights than non-Israelites because they are citizens of Israel, they have more rights because of their nationality. Protective laws don't necessarily protect slaves from abuse Regarding protective laws, Pro says, “Looking at how slaves were treated in the South, it is clear that these laws weren’t enforced and broken all the time.” Yes, American slaves were horrifically abused in spite of protective laws. That's my point: the existence of protective laws in the Bible does not ensure that the slaves were actually well-treated.