You are using very selective words, called, "epithets". For example, the term, "slave" or the way you are phrasing alleged texts. First you have to prove that slavery is in the bible according to a specific definition of slavery. You have not provided what the text says. Does the original Hebrew use the word slave, and what do we, as modern people, define as slave, hyper-specifically?
Very well, let's look into this.
Let's use the letter X where the NIV says "slave" and see what we can make of it.
An X is "property" (Exodus 21:21, Leviticus 25:46). People are "forced" to become Xs (Jeremiah 34:16). Xs are "held in bondage" (Jeremiah 34:9, Jeremiah 34:10). The opposite of X is "free" (Deuteronomy 32:36, 1 Kings 14:10, 2 Kings 9:8, 2 Kings 14:26). To cease being an X is to be "freed" (Exodus 6:6, Exodus 21:26, Jeremiah 34:9, Jeremiah 34:10). The masters of Xs "oppress them with forced labor" (Exodus 1:11). An X may be "bought" (Leviticus 22:11, Leviticus 25:44, Ecclesiastes 2:7) and "sold" (Leviticus 25:42, Deuteronomy 24:7, Esther 7:4, Job 3:19, Psalms 105:17). An X may be given as a gift (Genesis 20:14) or bequeathed by his master to his children "as inherited property" (Leviticus 25:46). If through negligence someone causes the death of an X, compensation is paid to his "master" not to his family (Exodus 21:32). It is legitimate to beat an X with a rod, so long as the beating is not so severe that the X dies as a direct result of the beating (Exodus 21:20-21).
Moreover, the slaveowning cultures of the classical Greeks and Romans translated X as δούλος (slave) in the Septuagint and
servus (slave) in the Vulgate, respectively.
You ask "What do we, as modern people, define as slave, hyper-specifically?" A modern English definition of "slave" is as follows (from the Free Online Dictionary):
One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
And here's Wikipedia:
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.
Now, this is exactly what the OT describes. Xs are "held in bondage", they are "property", they are "bought" and "sold", and they are "oppressed with forced labor". It seems, then, that the correct English word for X is in fact "slave".
You see, you WANT it to be regarded as something which is, "bad" which people call, "slavery". My fair response is to request that you prove that it was exactly the same slavery you are defining, to explain why slavery is "bad" and then prove this kind of bad-slavery is what took place in the OT, rather than using the epithet, "slavery". (Google "epithets")
In the end, there is no point in arguing about words. If you refuse to call these people slaves, I cannot make you do so. In that case, let us think of another word for their status. Let us call them "snaves". A snave is a human being whose legal status is as property, who may be bought, sold, given as a gift or inherited, who is forced to work for his owner and may be beaten at his owner's discretion.
Now, let us say, if you wish, that the Bible never mentions slavery. It does, on the other hand, have a great deal to say about snavery. So, tell us, please, is it right or wrong to ensnave another human being? Should it be a crime to be a snave-owner, or to traffic in snaves? If it is wrong, why does the Bible institutionalize snavery rather than condemn it?
You may wrangle with words, but you cannot deny the
substance of the thing whether you call it slavery or snavery: such a state existed, whatever you choose to call it. Now let us hear what you think about the moral status of snave-drivers.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
