Biblical Slavery: Response to Gavin Ortland
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 04. 2024
- A couple of weeks back, Christian apologist Gavin Otrlund from @TruthUnites published an extensive appraisal of slavery in the Bible. Dr. Kipp Davis @kippdavis, Derek from @MythVisionPodcast, and I are teaming up to address this important topic.
If you are interested in this topic and want to learn more about it, please see my recent and updated book-"Did The Old Testament Endorse Slavery?": a.co/d/ffpXmnx - Zábava
Josh - we are all here to learn from you and enjoy your eloquent communication. As far as we all are concerned, the more detail you go into, the more sources you cite, the more context, quotations, parallels etc etc, the more we are getting what we came here for. I won't ask you not to apologise; I don't want to ask you not to be your own, humble, self; but please know that you don't need to rush or skip through things, we are quite literally here for it.
On the topic of the video:
Weird that he admits that some people realised slavery was bad but immediately moves on. If some people can realise this before God reveals it, how is an omnipotent God not able to communicate this? Ashoka abolished the slave trade in India in the 3rd century BCE, on Buddhist principles.
The other argument that is often given by liberal Christians, is not that it would be impossible to reveal these moral truths to an ancient audience, but that it's just somehow “better” to have these things emerge slowly. It's more humanistic and beautiful. This is probably the argument that I find most disgusting.
Look at the history of slavery, the history of suffering and degradation, look at some of the individual stories. The idea that God allowed this to happen for thousands of years because it's somehow more aesthetically pleasing to a specific minority of modern Christians to do this is so gross.
I want my kids to learn moral reasoning for themselves and come to understanding through their own experiences and reflections, but if one of them was torturing a kid from the street, you know, I'd come down pretty quickly on that! There's a certain urgency in the immediate harm being caused.
Slavery is bad, at least to me, because it is self-evident that chattel slavery or indentured servitude is immoral. In fact, as a former Mor(m)on, I was taught slavery was good (if the slaves were black and to a much lesser extent other "black" races). I reasoned my way out of the belief in my teen years, with the help of public schools who in my time were very anti-racist at least where I lived. For example, we kids in about 5th grade were forced to read the book, "Black Like Me." Racism was a common topic in grade school in my time (JFK was president).
My dad claimed he would murder (I didn't believe him, but I wasn't 100% sure) any black person who married one of his seven children. One day, he was ranting against black people. Brigham Young said people who marry blacks, with even "one drop of black blood," should be "killed on the spot." So, I asked my dad, "Would you kill yourself if you found out you had one drop of black blood in you?" He looked like a deer caught in headlight, paused for a second, and simply said, "Yes." I like to think that is why I never heard him talk about killing blacks again (he was, after all, a Mormon when blacks could not hold the Mor(m)on priesthood).
Dr Josh is like a pediatric surgeon who spent a decade preparing to do neonatal heart valve replacement and brain tumor excision, and in reality all his cases are removing Tide pods before they burst. He’s still doing a good necessary thing and saving lives but he has the frustration that IF YOU WOULD STOP EATING TIDE PODS I COULD DO SOME REAL WORK
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Yet, not 200 years ago a US senator stood on the floor of the US senate, and declared that slavery is ordained by God from Genesis to Revelations. That guy went on to become the first and last president of the Confederacy, which caused a war that took the lives of an estimated 700 thousand soldiers alone, not including civilians. If it can be that horribly misinterpreted, it's worthless, even if it was the divine revelation of a god.
Amen!
When I see streams that are over 2 hours long I usually don’t bother watching, and if I do watch I rarely watch the whole thing. This was a rare exception for me.
"It's not so sinister..."
Just like how there's laws against killing people today in modern society, therefore, nobody commits murder.
Oh wait...
Wow, so he thinks god could tell humans not to eat some foods, wear mixed fabrics, and so many other things, but couldn't tell them not to own people? Then god was, um, primitive. Well, duh! Excellent stuff, great start!👍💙💙💙🥰✌
Abraham circumcised himself and went to sacrifice his son without a moment’s hesitation, if he’d do that then surely he’d have freed Hagar and asked if she wanted to have his child if god had bothered to tell him so
Darn it, meant to catch this live. I love it any time Dr. Josh and Dr. Kill get together, especially to discuss the topic of slavery.
Already watched it at Dr. Kill's channel, just dropped by to like here, too! Love you all 3!
I don’t know about kidnapping Hebrew women, but if they raped a virgin they just had to pay her father and marry her and can’t divorce her. It was a property crime against her father. So kidnapping penalty couldn’t have been worse than that.
It appears to me that the purpose of having a daughter was to sell her as a wife, the father couldn’t sell her if she wasn’t a virgin anymore so you break it you bought it, and no divorce means the husband can’t foist her off back to her father again. So the father got his money and got rid of his daughter so he’s been made whole again. Kidnapping the girl without raping her seems like it would just be a tactic for negotiating the bride price and if the father got paid eventually he wouldn’t care, maybe a per diem charge for the work she wasn’t doing in the fathers house
This is so fascinating, still working through this long video. I'm just a former Christian (father was a Southern Baptist pastor when I was young) now atheist who just finds it all so fascinating having struck off my personal agenda to look at the Bible a certain way, so the history of it is so much more interesting to me now. I really found your explanation of Leviticus 25 and challenging Gavin's point there very fascinating. It seems to me that chapter does exactly what he says it doesn't... he says basically "see, it's not chattel race based slavery" when in fact it specifically is enforcing ethnic based slavery (basically everyone but Israelites can become slaves to Israelites). With a slight nuance that Israelites could sell themselves as slaves to a foreigner living there, but it still is ironically closer in many ways to antebellum US chattel slavery based on this Chapter's ethnic distinctions while Gavin tries to spin it as the opposite.
Then I love how he is basically like it's not racist slavery, yay! Sure it discriminates on ethnicity and nationality, but yeah that's sooo much better than race (a later construct essentially the sibling of the same idea).
Then he says the "differences were no absolute". Neither was it in US chattel slavery either. There were in fact free black people. Those people could in fact own black slaves themselves. Likewise the treatment of the slaves in the US wasn't absolute, it was extremely varied, including different States and localities that had different rules protecting slaves to some extent. It was brutal, but not absolute like he said. For example the Georgia 1798 state constitution Article IV, Section 12.
"Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been Committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection by such slave, and unless such death should happen by accident in giving such slave moderate correction."
The laws and enforcement was different per state and the enforcement was certainly per sub-region within those states too.
Who is asking for a secular alternative? The whole point of the objection is that if God wanted no slavery among his people, he could have commanded it and they would have obeyed. He made laws allowing slavery to exist in his country Israel. That strongly implies fundamental endorsement of the practice; fiddling with the details of how to practice it doesn't change that fact. Otherwise God didn't inspire that part; the writer's hubris and personal biases took over to give him an excuse to have slaves.
The people wouldn't have obeyed because slavery was closely ingrained in ancient culture. Banning slavery outright wouldn't be feasible. (Unless God completely removed free will and forced people to obey everuthing) OT Israelites were constantly breaking the commandments that God gave them, so stricter commands would likely have been completely ignored.
A lot of things were temporarily tolerated because ancient people were so attatched to them. Instead of removing them right away, they were slowly restricted & phased out with later revalations.
Similar things happened w/ divorce. NT teaches that divorce is virtually never acceptable, but was tolerated in the OT b/c people weren't able to live up to that high of a standard (Matt 16:7-9). It was restricted in the OT, before being almost completely banned in the NT.
What's so interesting about this, as someone who as a hobby has spent many years studying the antebellum pre-Civil War, the Civil War, and the post war Reconstruction era in US history there are MANY people who use this exact same strategy of cherry picking to make an argument that has no legs. Gavin points to Job saying he maybe could've listened better to his servants is no different than Lost Causers who point to specific examples of slaves being sorta kinda treated ok and basically both groups are saying the same thing... "See! Slaves in X society weren't considered so poorly!"... Even if this is true in these specific cases (which often falls apart, but the rare cases do of course exist) it doesn't eliminate the vast majority of the system of slavery (in either society) that was cruel, barbaric, and nothing close to considerate. It's basically a text book definition of cherry picking. Look at this one good case and ignore all the bad cases surrounding it. I'm not sure Gavin realizes how his strategy and reasoning mirrors the Trans Atlantic US chattel slavery system defenders so strongly.
Josh’s bow tie goes hard….
Got Josh to swear so...
Excellent stream, thanks. I tried watching the Ortland vid when it came out but it was too depressing. It's important that you experts can call out what is, imho, a pretty dark side of apologetics.
The very last question got to the heart of the matter. I suspect, however, that many people simply can't look at the text without seeing it as inerrant (however they gloss that).
I'd be very curious to know if anyone ever left the faith but retained their apologetic view on slavery in the bible. My hunch is that as soon as the pressure to retain inerrancy is gone, the slavery passages are just obviously morally problematic.
Anyway, good video - important video - thanks.
That pop in was so freaking good 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Keep up the important work!
Slowly move from slavery ----> Bad. Why not do the same for Adultery, Murder, Stealing?
No slavery in Persia during reign of Darius I possibly during the entire Achaemenid Dynasty.
I'm amused that you guys are under the impression that we don't practice slavery today-specifically through our penal system and potentially, via Selective Service, military conscription. The only form of slavery that we have outlawed in the United States is race-based, private ownership of individuals by individuals, and that claim probably would not stand up to scrutiny as well as we might hope.
Both Gavin Ortland and the panel are beginning from a dubious premise: That there has been civilizational progress on the sovereign rights of individuals; upon which you then quibble which ideology deserves credit. When in fact the so-called "progress" is conditioned upon economic forces and technology, essentially a matter of social convenience, and not even remotely redemptive, either from a religious or from a humanist frame.
The accent was on point!!
Bow ties are cool
The Eleventh Doctor approves ❤😊
Just curious as to your thoughts on the Greek translation of Exodus 21 when it comes to the word "smite" or the Hebrew word "naka". Notice that the Greek translation has two words for "naka". I believe it is patasso and typto. I discovered this difference when reading about an unjustified beating of a slave in a parable from Jesus in Luke 12:45 as I was meditating on the issue of slavery in the Bible on my way to work this verse played. And I was wondering the night or some nights just before about Exodus 21 beating or smiting or "naka". I discovered that the Greek word in Jesus' parable was "typto" if I remember right. And so I thought I would see if this is the same Greek word in Exodus' beating of a slave and discovered it wasn't. It is "patasso" I believe. And then I saw another smiting of a son his father and mother in Exodus 20 and that in Hebrew it was "naka" like the beating of a slave but the Greek translation had there "typto". So, it appears that "typto" would possibly equate to an unjustified "naka" whereas "patasso" would be either a justified "naka" or an accidental like in some verses above in Exodus 20. So the Greek translation which I believe predates the Masoretic text (though I could be wrong) seems to clarify this. So, the Greek translation of a more original Hebrew could be saying that even when a master is using justified force that he needs to do so with care. If a slave is quarreling with another slave and the master uses justified force to stop this then he still must be careful. In other words a master could not use force on one who merely dropped a hoe on the ground or dropped to ground because of some sickness. And as far as he losing any time loss like the issue in the verses just before this one that there is no loss of time or service since any loss of time would be unto the master anyways. Anyhow, is this a fair and possible/plausible understanding of these verses from a scholars mind such as yours or others. And concerning other codes outside of Scripture in the ancient world: Did they two have as much of an emphasis on how the judicial process was to be carried thru like in Exodus 18:21,22 and Deuteronomy 1:16,17, 16:18-20, 17:8-13, 19:15-21 etc etc etc. Can you point me to a script in whatever form of an ancient source other than the Scriptures that is as concerned with fairness like this. I assume there are but just curious to see what other ancients were like the Israelites law and what were not. Maybe they all were on this issue. I don't honestly know. God bless and thanks for your time. As far as my dates and understanding of the Greek translation and what not I do invite correction as I admit I am no scholar and that is one reason why I am running these thoughts thru yours (even if a skeptics thoughts agree to some degree is helpful or if not also to know why and where I may be in error). God bless...Bob Dylans song Property of Jesus is amazing! Lol😊 It's of the Shot of Love album I believe.
I sincerely hope you guys watch and respond to Dr. Ortlund's video rebuttung some of the things you guys are saying in this video. Lots of misrepresentation going on.
We are speaking with one another, but I obviously disagree that we were misrepresenting his position with any significance. I think, as it turns out, that he misunderstood us.
@@DigitalHammurabi Sounds like you should have him on!
I would like people claiming "slavery is a species wide institution" to explain how the term came into Lithuanian via the Scandinavians, in the 9th century (AD).
I would say, that means that the Indo European cultures didn't have slavery inherent but came from abroad
Gavin specifically said he thought that slavery in the bible was as compassionate and as moral a system as could be possible---anything less cruel was something his all powerful and all loving god could not expect of humans. To call taking girls as war spoils to keep as sex slaves was the best god could do. And Trent went on to explain that taken as a whole, since Jesus will come back and make everything Okay--basically don't worry about it. Who cares about human suffering when there is a Greater Plan. It is truly scary when people can justify such horrors as "good" because they believe it is sanctioned by God. Abhorrent practices and atrocities are within the reach of such people who re blinded by their religious faith.
The apologetics for this are usually terrible, and he didn't disappoint...but that bit about the rituals surrounding the marriage/consummation of a war captive near the end was something else. Do they just not entertain the idea that women didn't exactly have a lot of (or any) agency in these situations?
A lot of them don't want women to have any agency *now!*
1.33.30ish well made point that nuisances a normally black and white topic. More recent slavery often colours discussions on this topic. For some reason the focus is usually in Europe, but slavery was universal and has always caused suffering. The Atlantic Slave trade is just a spanner to through in the works as a Christian. At least Islam doesn't have an issue with slavery 😬😶🤒😢😏
With Due respects WHY NOT LIVE CHAT WITH THOSE WHOM STILL LIVE THIS LEVITICAL LIFE AS THEIR CULTURE. IT'S 2024 Time to admit on the West Coast of Africa live the remnants of the tribes of Yisrael - The Children of AKOBI (The First Born). PLEASE COME AND SEE WHY THOSE THAT RULE REFUSE TO LEAVE THE PEOPLE OF YAH IN PEACE! BE YAHLY BLESSED.
‼️ demot / dmota
Means image dr.Kipp, you are right
Dmota in ASSYRIAN/ Aramaic means looks like/ image
Just as Derricks other guest Mr Miller claimed that the 'Sea of Galilee' was wrongly named "sea" to fit Homer's sea voyage setting, and should have simply been termed " Lake of Galilee', so also is it anachronistic to take our modern word " slavery" and apply it to ancient terms. As if the ancients could distinguish between a large lake (like the Sea of Galilee) and an ocean. It is interesting to note that the word we read as "slave," or "servant", a-b-d, although applied mainly to darker skin peoples, is etymologically cognate the Arabic word for white (abyud) and pharaoh Sheshonk subjugated the Indo-European, or Indo-Aryans, at Abydos
good thing the bible doesnt exactly describe being pro chattle slavery, the kind where you enslave your enemies, other people, and use for labor, sex, etc...OH WAIT
well in ancient times you could own a human being as property to sell or pass down to your children, which is chattel slavery. also the lake of galilee is small enough you can see the far shore from its banks. if it was the size of the great lakes i could see them thinking it was a sea, other than the fact of fresh vs. salt water
@@smitty1647 nice try, not. Please point to an ancient language familiar to the Gospel author that had a word to distinguish between sea and lake. By the way, I doubt that you could see all the opposing sides of Sea of Galilee
@@smitty1647 I thought you'd stf u
@@danielhopkins296Luke correctly calls it the lake of Gennesaret, soo....
My problem with the god portrayed in the first few arguments is that it is a weak and near-sighted god. This god could have introduced humane slavery practices, could have planted the seed of equality between slaves from the same tribe and from other tribes, could have introduced a rule whereby the third or the fifth generation after the original slave would be free, and the list goes on. The idea that an omnipotent god was limited to making tiny changes in the already accepted laws governing the life of slaves is ludicrous.
*LOD Growl* WHAT A RUSH!
Hey I got a quick q! I am a believer in God's Word as much as Jesus in the gospels directed me to be. So, I come from that perspective. I believe I have been purchased at a valuable price of the blood of Jesus and I have no problem being a slave of a good master like Jesus at such a great and meaningful cost (I know He will take great care for His property and I am grateful to be called His property and to come under his protection as opposed to mine own protection or anybody elses) so concerning slavery I have a question. By the way I found you guys on spotify and am enjoying your book and I want to better understand this issue of slavery better and not to skirt around the issue but be truthful as Jesus would have me be. From my understanding without pointing to any scriptures though I could take time too but trying to ask a quick question for now or maybe 2: Were Hebrews allowed to sell Hebrews unto foreign nations? I do not believe they were but I could be wrong and Secondly, what other nations had similar laws about selling their own people to other nations? I guess I have a couple more questions. Do you have the Biblical timeline of when the Biblical laws were introduced into the world given the dates of the world being literal in Genesis (like YEC position would hold as opposed to OEC) and then how are the dates of the other nations that had this similar law (if any) and there dates given a Biblical literal timeline. And then the dates given the consensus of scholarship timelines whether YEC or OEC or just secular views which will probably comport to OEC positions? Thanks and I am sorry for my bad bad hellish grammar. Love ya all in Jesus name, and God bless. Check out the Bob Dylan song Property of Jesus. John 8:33,34.
Hi Tim. Good to have you with us! Let’s see if I can help a little. 1) No, it does not seem that Israelites were allowed to sell other Israelites into slavery to foreign nations, at least not explicitly from the text. There do seem to be hints at this in passages like Exodus 21:7-11, where it might be understood that a slave could be sold to a foreign people group under normal circumstances, but this would certainly have to have been a chattel slave. But I don’t think we can speak to that with any real certainty. 2) There were certainly other nations and cultures that had laws concerning the social institution of slavery, and some of these laws can be seen or inferred from the law collections, but they would likely have been quite similar to those found in the OT. The problem with the law collections (just as in the OT) is that they were almost certainly not intended to be thorough in the topics that they covered. That makes it difficult to say some things with specificity. 3) As far as the timeline is concerned, if you are taking the text to indicate that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago, then traditional dating of the Exodus and wandering in the wilderness would be roughly 1447-1407 BCE. This dating has fallen out of favor, though, and Evangelical scholars tend to date the Exodus to closer to the latter half of the 13th century BCE. In either case, the earliest law collections that we have that deal with the topic of slavery go back to the late third millennium BCE, around 2100 (Laws of Ur-Namma). We then have things like the Laws of Lipit-Ishtar, Laws of Eshnunna, Laws of Hammurabi, Hittite Laws, and the Middle Assyrian Laws. Hope that helps! Josh
@DigitalHammurabi what a quick response! Thanks so much. So, it is generally agreed amongst Bible scholars that Israelites were not allowed to sell Israelites to foreign nations, generally speaking. I think this is because God owns them having redeemed them from Egypt (an argument could be made much like I as a Christian in Christ have been redeemed from sin and I am now His). But that let aside. I would like to press you on any evidence that is equally evidently clear as in the Hebrew Scriptures but in other near east ancient laws that held this same law for their own people. Can you point me to an actual script that some may interpret this as such and is as evidently clear as it is in the Hebrew Scriptures? Thanks and God bless...
@@Hebrews109 Well, there isn’t univocality among the biblical sources, but let’s assume for the moment that the law collections of the Hebrew Bible were unique in this regard, that they were not allowed to sell citizens to foreigners. Now what?
@DigitalHammurabi not sure either, but just curious as to some differences between the various laws and to know what is unique and what is not sparks an interest in my mind. It would show some extra care to those within one's own borders which would be a great example for all nations to follow and would (if all nations implemented the same law...lol...but theoretically and in principle) eliminate the slave trade though there will always and forever be rebels to ANY good law. It would also be a piece of evidence that could come into play in some debate concerning something on this issue. The Scriptures themselves would be claiming that the other nations sell their own unto other nations and the God of the Scriptures didn't want this for His own and is this historically accurate and if so gives evidence of the description of the history of the area and what not that the scriptures paint. Also, as a Christian and a spiritual application of these things that God will never sell off His own who are walking with Him by faith and what not. But I only wish to believe the truth of the matter and even if this isn't the case it doesn't shake my faith any but is more of an interesting thought experiment of a sort. The truth matters and I believe will lead to further truth and correct understanding of God and life and what not. Love rejoices in the truth...I am the....truth...lol God bless. You being a scholar would probably know better than I that all these differences and what not can make big differences in our understand of the Bible and it's surrounding context. What an interesting truth to discover if this is the case and how this effects our understanding and further understanding down the road I don't know but maybe it makes a difference in the scholarly world somehow. God bless...Also, may give evidence of who influenced who back in the day or was this a completely unique law to the Hebrews only. Blah blah..just rambling...
Preserving God's reputation is one of the most, if not THE most important goal for an apologist. It's non negotiable. Admitting the bible allows slavery as well as a host of other disgusting things, is just never going to happen. Unless it's a tiny minority who have come to their senses and they can join the Clergy Project.
We still have "slavery" today, even in the West. It's called employment. We've only gotten away from "forced slavery." But the principles of ancient slavery are the same as modern-day employment. Imo
Slavery issue is not limited in “ Bible “ , Quran also doesn’t condemn slavery , many of Islamic laws originate from Hebrew laws .
Disgusting !
If god can't forbid inevitable bad behavior, why prohibit adultery and murder and stealing? Such a lame argument.
2:40 Gavin is being entirely disingenuous and dishonest for a very specific purpose, because he knows the reality is disgusting and horrific. He did not misspeak.
Also, let's not forget that Yahweh was the commander of these genocides as well as the command to "keep all the virgins for yourself."
At those rates of fines (2.16), slaves could buy themselves out and set up life, no? Manumission with no cash doesn't look so generous.
Would depend on who the fines are paid to, no? And whether or not buying their freedom was even an option in the first place.
Ahhh just intellectually dissecting scripture without understanding. An ox represents a faithful teacher... to be gored by an ox is what happens when your "teacher" teaches false doctrine. You guys are soooo smart but will never understand scripture without your spirit coming alive through Christ. Blessings in Jesus.
Support for your claim?
@@DigitalHammurabi you could start in 1 Timothy but the point is mute since the wisdom of man is foolishness to God and the wisdom of God is foolishness to men... you are men of wisdom.
@@JacobSerwinski-fx3on I suspect it is moot, but you have simply made a claim with no supporting argument or data.
@@DigitalHammurabi so 1 Timothy didn't help??
@@JacobSerwinski-fx3on So, your argument is “Read 1 Timothy”? The Force is not strong with this one.