Slavery in the Bible

Lately I've been going through sort of a "truth searching" of sorts and have been investigating passages in the bible that I've always found strange but have just ignored until now.Throughout the Bible God sets moral standards for living. Yet neither God nor Jesus ever speak out against slavery. In fact many passages in the OT allow the owning and even beating of slaves. If the Bible is God's word why would God allow one man to control another if we are all made in the image of God? Here is a list of quotes that supports the above statements. If anyone can show me how I'm misinterpretting these, please do."If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free." Exodus 21:2So does that mean you can keep an Egyptian servant for life?"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the women and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free" Exodus 21:4This is refering to Hebrew servants once again. I belive this proves that servants were not simply men who worked for others but were actually slaves. If not why do they speak of freedom?"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do" Exodus 21:7"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished fit the slave get up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." Exodus 21:20Here I'm a little confused. Why are some slaves referred to as servants while others are simply called slaves?"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye" Exodus 21:26"As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city you may take these as plunder" Deutoronomy 20:14In reference to battle plundering. So women and children are in the same class as cattle? They can be owned?

ok, first of all i dont belive in god so dont yell at me for defending the bible but, all those passages are from the old testiment, ture it does say these things but in the new testiment is sort of retracts these statements. yes well it says that god does not change his mind but he does belive me, i mean the story of noah is him changing his mind, and well yahh... so when u want to look for flaws or contradictions in the bible the best ones are old testiment vs new testiment. the funniest one tho is when juses say ( let me be frank ) " do not call anyone a fool, for if you do you are a fool yourslef" then later on he calls all these peoples fools. HA jesus goin to hell.. jesus goin to hell.

Not really. I seem to recall a New Testament parable where Jesus referes to slaves. Never seems to imply anything wrong with it either.

My great-great-grandfather, Ebenezer Dickey Junkin, D.D., was a Presbyterian minister and college president who wrote a couple of books in the 1850's and 60's. One of them, of which my mother has a copy, is a catechism (that's an FAQ that you had to memorise, back before computers and FAQ's existed....) subtitled "Particularly for the Instruction of Coloured Persons." It has a whole section that draws largely on the New Testament to assure slaves that, if they are faithful to their masters, they, too, will be able to get to heaven.Chattel slavery was perfectly acceptable and moral - even a duty of the noble white man to the ignorant savages he enslaved - to christians in general up until people started thinking more humanistically - Quakers, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution come to mind. The Bible certainly is perfectly OK with keeping non-Jewish slaves as permanent property. It only began to be interpreted as "against" when it became socially uncool to keep slaves. Mark Twain wrote a great little essay on this - I'll try to figure out the name and post a link.Oh, my manners! Hi, Manning! We needed at least one Aggie on here! [This message has been edited by Coragyps, 12-06-2003]

Slavery and indentured servitude were common LBA and Iron Age practice having little to do with "noble" and less to do with "white". That Exodus and, later, Deuteronomy would place constraints on the treatment of slaves suggests, if anything, a comparatively enlightened attitude.

What about being able to beat a slave to near-death or nailing a slaves ear to the doorpost?How is this enlightend?

I appreciate all of the replies. I'd still like to here from a Christian who believes in the infallability of the ENTIRE Bible. Also, do any of you guys understand why servant is often used as opposed to slave? Is it just a translation error or are there two different Hebrew words used?Thanks for the welcome, Gig 'em!

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.htmlThe above is a link dealing with exactly what my initial posts were about. It's kind of a text overload so its hard to refute it. Anyways, read it and let me know what you think.

I'm against it. Go read 21:6 again, and try to understand what you're reading. I believe I spoke of "comparatively enlightened attitude". What is it about the word 'comparatively' that you don't understand

The bit where a beating so savage as to cause partial loss of sight goes unpunished.

Exodus 21:26 was clearly designed to protect slaves against harsh treatment. You're being childishly argumentative.

Consequent, why didn't the Lord just outlaw slavery altogether. Why did he simply place limits on it?

And that's fine by me - but I feel a little cheated by not having a yet-much-more enlightened attitude just four generations back in my own family.
Here's Twain's essay:
The Atheist Community of Austin - Page not found (404)

Perhaps because the Judeo-Christian God is a myth?

1st of all, Jesus would go to Hell for doing what he did just as you would go to heaven believing what you believe. Both aren't happenin'. God does not retract stateents concerning slavery in the New Testament. Third, there are no OT / NT contradicitons in the Bible. There are no contradictions period. All the common "contradictions" that are set forth are easily remedied. A large amount are remedied by simply looking at the culture in which the author lived and recognizing that he was in a culture writing to a culture.Matt