The God of the Holy Bible endorses slavery today

My opponent states that the word "Slavery" is incorrect. So all I have to do is show that the slavery of the Bible is relative to the slavery of more recent times. First lets start with what the CON says about slavery: "The modern meaning of slavery is very different from what it used to mean. I know when I think of slavery, I think of American ships carrying kidnapped Africans to be sold into forced labor, where they were abused and underfed, and overworked. However, this is not the slavery of old, infact the Bible says in Exodus 21:16 ""He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death. " 1. The CON defines slavery as: Kidnapped, forced labor, abusive, underfed, and over worked. A. Kidnapping: Judges 21:10-12 10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 "This is what you are to do," they said. "Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin. " 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan. (NIV) The Bible says that they took the virgins for themselves. This follows in the lines of the definition of kidnapped. What were they going to do with the virgins? If someone came and killed your family and took you for sexual purposes would you not consider yourself a slave? Abusive: Exodus 21:7-11 NLT When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. This is straight up slavery for sex, which is also abuse. This is the buying and selling of human beings. The CON: "Yes, the God of the Bible does outline laws pertaining to "slaves". HOWEVER, we must remember that these laws were to protect these individuals. " When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing. This does not sound like protection for the slave, it sounds more like protection for the captor and his right to beat the slave to an inch of his life without any guilt or punishment. The biggest point here is the last part of the verse that says: "since the slave is his own property". So are these servants being beaten or are they slaves? Secondly: The CON wants to substitute servant for slave. The author Jason Long had this to say about the difference between servant and slave in Leviticus 25 in his book Biblical nonsense: " A servant is someone who chooses to do work for another person, usually in exchange for compensation. Servants are free to depart as they please and aren't subject to the cruel treatment endured by slaves. Many Christians, at least the ones who take the time to read the Old Testament, honestly accept the KJV translation that leads them to believe that all instances of ebed refer to a servant or someone who volunteered to become a slave. First and foremost, no one volunteers to be treated like a slave. The other half of this hypothesis clearly doesn't hold water either when Leviticus 25:39-40 is considered. Within this passage, God informs the Israelites that there may come a time when one of their fellow compatriots will become indigent and have no possessions left to impound. If someone sells this hypothetical individual to pay his debts, the owner is not to treat him like an ebed, but as a "hired servant. " If all the references of ebed in the Old Testament refer to a servant, as the apologetic hypothesis maintains, the passage from Leviticus actually reads, "Don"t treat him like a servant, but as a hired servant. " Why is there a distinction between the treatment of a servant and this hypothetical man, who the owner should treat as a hired servant? Since there"s no defining difference between a servant and a hired servant, the KJV translation and Christian interpretation are 100% redundant. On the other hand, there"s an enormous contrast between a slave and a hired servant. That must be the precise distinction attempted by the passage because its words could not possibly serve any other purpose. Slave owners treated their slaves differently from the way people treated common servants, and that"s the reason why these instructions were included. In short, God didn't want his chosen people treated like slaves. " . http://www.biblicalnonsense.com... Leviticus 25:39-40 39 "If a [a]countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave"s service. 40 He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. (NASB) Point: There is a distinction being made between servant and slave, although there is a distinction being made between servant and slave, God still permits both throughout the Holy Bible. In concluding: I have shown that people have been taken against their will, that the Bible allows the beating of slaves, the selling of daughters. This follows the definition of the CON'S points on slavery that the CON " thinks" of in their first argument. I have shown you one example in my opening statement of a man named Jefferson Davis who advocated for slavery according to the Holy Bible during the Civil war era. I have shown that slavery was not always voluntary. Therefore the first premise still stands, and my opponent has not proved it wrong. Just because slavery ethics may be slightly different in time, does not negate the fact that slavery is permissible by God. Slavery still happens today, whether we want to admit it or not. Slaves today are not servants, just as slaves in biblical times were not all servants and the God of the Bible is okay with that. Whether the conditions of slavery are varied does not negate slavery in and of itself. Thank you for this most engaging discussion.