The Bible Advocates Slavery

For the final round, i shall avoid direct last questioning and rap up this argument. I would also like to thank my opponent for his responses. My opponent has stated that the word Ebed had multiple meanings. And i completely agree. The word Ebed had both the meaning of manservant, and as a slave. However, this is exactly why the KJV sometimes used the word "Slave", and the word "Servant". This was because, when translating the text, the preists took the context of the sentence and made the appropriate translation. Much like how "Gay" can mean both "Homosexual" and "Happy", but depending on the context of the sentence, can change its meaning. And this is my point. People, well read scholars, who were well versed in the OT, in christianity, in the hebrew texts, greek texts, and their subsequent languages, deliberately chose to translate the words according to their context. My opponent is trying to argue against such brilliant, well versed scholars who have spent their entire lives reading, interpreting, and translating such texts. New Testament. 1. Reading 1 Cor 7:22, it is obvious that Paul is talking about how you are a servant either way: "For he that is called in the Lord, [being] a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ's servant." Being a servant to another man, you are a lords Freeman. Being a free man, and you are still a servant of Jesus. Reading 1 Cor 7:21, Paul says not to care about being called a servant, but rather care about who you serve when you are a free man. Therefore, 1 Cor 7:23 speaks of how you are still a servant and should serve god and not Man, even if you are free. 2. This is the same as the "Do unto others" stuff. It has nothing relating to Slavery, since Jesus still told Slaves to obey their masters in 1 timothy 6:1-2. Mat 22:39 is the same thing. 3. Every christian disagrees with you as this completely disregards Sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Bestiality is a Sin. Lusting after flesh is a Sin. Yet all of these, and many more, can be accomplished without breaking those two commandments. 4. First off, if the NT truly preaches love and peace, those slaves, who had converted to Christianity and therefore know that Slavery is immoral, would not revolt, especially after reading passages like 1 Timothy 6:1-2. If they did, then that is no different than Hitler using the bible to slaughter Jews, and therefore, has no bearing on christianity. Secondly, Jesus openly teaching to break the Sabbath would also lead to much bloodshed, as the penalty for that was Death, and by your conclusions, massive revolts would occur. This is no different. Thirdly, as no source is given that whos that the NT teaches that change is to take place from the inside out, i have no way of verifying this. 5. Col 3:22-24, refers to doing things not because you have a man for your master, but because God is watching, and serving your master is the correct thing to do under Gods eyes. Again, 1 Tim 6:1-2 supports my argument more than it does yours, and I have not received any Counter response on this point. As for it originally designed to serve the poor, my opponent has again provided no source. Yes, Lev 25:35-43 is not one verse. I was making a joke, referencing the Lord of the Rings, because i had just watched that movie on Television. But thanks for concentrating on that, instead of my argument. I agree that Hebrews were considered slaves. However, my opponent has completely disregarded the original point that i had made. That being, I agree that Hebrew slaves were more of a employment contract. However, regardless, there existed the form of slavery through Warfare, and that, my friend, was a non-compliance, Life-long slave system. As for Lev 25:23, if you are talking about how hebrews were servants to god, then i agree, they were. However, again, this has nothing to do with our argument. Again, Lev 25:42 talks about someone who is hired, who cannot become a slave, or sold as such. Lev 25:40 clearly states this. And yet again, in the prev round, i have shown how the original Hebrew text clearly shows that the context of Servant wasnt even the hebrew word "Ebed", but rather "Naar"(1). "The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel." This is absurd, as Gods "Theoretical" scenario of if a man kills another man, the punishment is death, is clearly something that would be implicated if it ever occurred. Even if no person ever killed another in the land of Israel, this punishment still stands as a law, and MORALLY acceptable, AND supported by God. And the bible. Also, as a side note, Deut 2:1-23 says nothing about not waging war outside Israels borders. God simply says not to attack two specific landmasses because they are "Possessions of Lot". If the only two countries, aside from Israel, is Ammon and Moabites, then yes, i agree. Its a shame that History tells us otherwise. Lev 25:39-41, again, regards only those who were hired. Read again. "[But] as an HIRED SERVANT, [and] AS A SOJOURNER, he shall be with thee, [and] shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: " "Concerning 2 Samuel, source?" Source (1). I am sorry that you feel the need to require a source, since i already gave you the verse, and i am guessing you also have access to the internet. However, i suppose this is regardless, since this source basically crushes your argument either way. "Ziba- Originally a servant or slave of the house of Saul." This is interesting, because Onesimus, is clearly designated as "Slave of Philemon".(2) One would speculate why the Author decided to use the word "or". "We have conflicting sources, so I guess I will remove it from my argument then if you can prove your source exists." This is the probelm with current translations or interpretations. They are, sorry to say, biased towards pointing out that the bible does not advocate slavery. And to be fair, i will also agree that before slavery was banned, for example, when preists were advocating slavery in the 1800s, their interpretations would also be biased. However, this is the most important aspect of the Hebrew word "Na'ar". Even looking at all possible translations, the direct translation of "Slave" is curiously missing. And this is the point. When there already exists a word for Slave, and another is used which does not mean slave, then something clearly is up. 1c. You still missed my point. Nor have you addressed it either. 1d. Actually, sojourner has only one meaning. Ger has two meanings, one of being a sojourner, and the other, which is being a foreigner, with Conceded rights. 3d. Yes. So? Lev 25:44: "of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." 3e. Assuming, of course, that by "The slave" i am reffering to Philemon. Which i was not. Thanks for trying to read between the lines. Not everything is as cryptic as you think. As for Exodus 21:20, Here it goes: My opponents main argument rests upon the fact that even the ones who were in debt forever, were not slaves, because they were not "wholly subject to another". In the 1800s, It was illegal for a master to teach a slave how to read or write(3). So clearly, there were restrictions, to which the masters could not do to their slaves. My opponent has said that since it was illegal for a master in the OT to force his slave to, say, work on Sabath, that therefore that slave is not "wholly subject to" its master, since there are certain restrictions for what a master can do to his slave. My opponent has already agreed that Blacks fit the definition for Slaves in the 1800s. Therefore someone is still a slave, despite his masters restrictions. I have proved my point. Source 1 http://www.blueletterbible.org... 2 http://www.stempublishing.com... 3 http://www.inmotionmagazine.com...