Slavery and the Law of Moses

Mar 12, 2019
68
38
18
65
Merkel, Texas
No thats not what the letter says!
He wasnt related to onemisis at all he was his servant. But now, that Paul has begotten him i.e Onemisus has become born again, he is his brother. In the Lord.

How can you keep reading things backwards?? Again, what bible version are you looking at?
"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; 16Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?" KJV

Notice, in verse 16, Paul refers to Onemisus as a brother to Philemon in two regards. He was a brother both in the Lord AND in the flesh. Now, "in the flesh" could possibly be equivalent to one Jew regarding another as a brother simply because they are both Jews. I am not sure this applies here because these two men are both Greeks just as their names suggest, presumably from Colossae in Asia Minor. The Church at Colossae was a predominately Gentile Church. So, this would seem to imply that these two men were actual brothers in the flesh or they may have even been near relatives and not literal brother. Either way, this would seem to establish their relation according to the flesh.
 
Mar 12, 2019
68
38
18
65
Merkel, Texas
It seems NASB is not a word-for-word translation like the KJV its a formal equivalence. i just find it says things abit backwards and uses american idioms that would not have been what an english speaker would use and has differeent meanings. I had a LOT of trouble understanding people who used that translation even over little things cos it changed the words in scripture, or changed them around.

Anyway, maybe read the same passages in KJV and you will see what I mean.
The idea of a word-for-word translation is really something of a misnomer. When it comes to the Bible, there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation. That is simply an impossibility. I have a background in NT Greek so I have no problem comparing any translation against the original language. But, unfortunately, I have absolutely no knowledge of Hebrew. Both the KJV and the NASB are very good translations. When I teach from the New Testament, I generally use the NKJV.
 
Dec 19, 2014
5,374
2,351
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
The idea of a word-for-word translation is really something of a misnomer. When it comes to the Bible, there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation. That is simply an impossibility. I have a background in NT Greek so I have no problem comparing any translation against the original language. But, unfortunately, I have absolutely no knowledge of Hebrew. Both the KJV and the NASB are very good translations. When I teach from the New Testament, I generally use the NKJV.
Well thats funny cos its always said some bibles, like kjv, are word-for-word. And others are paraphrases, or dynamic equivalence. Maybe it was meaning the Hebrew? But I do know in some versions, they miss out a whole lot of NT scriptures, words here and there, even entire verses. You can easily compare them on biblehub, like some versions wont have all of acts 8:48 - there will be a complete blank where the verse is meant to be.

This is the reason why many people get confused over scriptures when they are reading from a bible version that just misses or skips words!
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldhermit
Dec 19, 2014
5,374
2,351
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; 16Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?" KJV

Notice, in verse 16, Paul refers to Onemisus as a brother to Philemon in two regards. He was a brother both in the Lord AND in the flesh. Now, "in the flesh" could possibly be equivalent to one Jew regarding another as a brother simply because they are both Jews. I am not sure this applies here because these two men are both Greeks just as their names suggest, presumably from Colossae in Asia Minor. The Church at Colossae was a predominately Gentile Church. So, this would seem to imply that these two men were actual brothers in the flesh or they may have even been near relatives and not literal brother. Either way, this would seem to establish their relation according to the flesh.
Oh ok I dont really see that implication but it seems you do.
You also seem to imply some other things that arent in scripture that I dont, but personally I dont know if its me being crazy for not seeing or vice versa..! Usually if its that obvious in the Bible it will say, otherise its not that important.

Brother in the flesh and in the Lord...well, why would you treat your own brother as a servant in the first place would be my question. Maybe again it relates back to, you arent supposed to do that anyway, as going back to the laws of Moses, you werent to rule over your brothers with rigour.
 
Dec 19, 2014
5,374
2,351
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
Actually, a bond-servant is the same thing as an indentured servant. According to the Law, an indentured servant was bound to serve six years for his or her indebtedness. An indentured servant was not the same thing as a hireling because he is indebted to the master. The hired man could come and go as he pleased. However, the bond-servant was to be treated with the same dignity as a hired man. He was not to be ill-treated or denigrated. This same law did not apply to those held as actual slaves. There is a great deal of difference in the law about the treatment of indentured servants as opposed to that of a slave.
If its the same then the KJV has it right then because it does not even use the word slave.
The bondservant was for life but was to be treated with dignity. Thats same word bondservant in other bible versions is translated as slave.

So, it seems that you just adding a strawman with the different bible version that use the word slave instead of bondservant.
 
Mar 12, 2019
68
38
18
65
Merkel, Texas
Well thats funny cos its always said some bibles, like kjv, are word-for-word. And others are paraphrases, or dynamic equivalence. Maybe it was meaning the Hebrew? But I do know in some versions, they miss out a whole lot of NT scriptures, words here and there, even entire verses. You can easily compare them on biblehub, like some versions wont have all of acts 8:48 - there will be a complete blank where the verse is meant to be.

This is the reason why many people get confused over scriptures when they are reading from a bible version that just misses or skips words!
There is nothing nefarious about that. Translations have variant readings in both testaments for a great many reasons that have nothing to do with bias. It simply depends upon which ancient texts were used as a foundation for a given translation. Clearly, some ancient text are more credible and more reliable than others. Some translations, such as the NT created by George Lamsa was not taken taken from Greek texts at all. The foundation for this translation was the Pashita which was taken from the Aramaic text.

It needs to be understood that there is a great deal of difference between translational errors and textual variances. These are not at all the same thing. All translations without exception have issues with translational errors.

Translational errors are the misrepresentation of a word, whether deliberate or accidental, from the original language into another language. I think one would be very hard pressed to find any translation in any language in the world where such misrepresentations do not occur. The KJV is certainly no exception. These sometimes reflect the bias of the translators, whether it is a translational committee or an individual as in the case of the Phillips translation or the Moffit translation or the Berkley translation or the McCord translation, etc.

Translational variances occur for a number of reasons. Sometimes these are due to the fact that there are some words in the Hebrew or Greek languages that simply do not have an English equivalent. This is why there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation. In such cases, the only thing the translators can do is try to convey the idea the original word expresses. This can sometimes be subject to personal bias among scholars.

Textual variances are the result of differences between the ancient manuscripts themselves. These differences are the result of a number of possibilities that have nothing to do with deliberate or nefarious intent. These contributing factors include such things as fatigue, misspelling, poor lighting, line confusion, poor eye sight or just simple carelessness on the part of the scribe who was copying the document. Other times, a variant reading may be the result of not having a complete copy of a given document. There are lots of reasons why variants appear in the Greek manuscripts. Unfortunately, these variants are transfered into all translations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Mar 12, 2019
68
38
18
65
Merkel, Texas
If its the same then the KJV has it right then because it does not even use the word slave.
The bondservant was for life but was to be treated with dignity. Thats same word bondservant in other bible versions is translated as slave.

So, it seems that you just adding a strawman with the different bible version that use the word slave instead of bondservant.
Why would you think the KJV is right in this particular instance over another translation. Do you base this on any linguistic expertise in the Hebrew or do you prefer it because it better fits an idea that you are more willing to accept? Regardless of whether we choose the word slave or bondsman, we are still confronted with the description of such a person. In Lev 25, they are still regarded as a permanent possession. indentured servants were not. They are still bought an sold, an indentured servant could not be bought or sold. They could be inherited as part of an estate, an indentured servant could not. They could be severely beaten, an indentured servant could not. They were considered property, the indentured servant was not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major

ModeratorTeam

CFS Moderators
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Mar 3, 2007
711
182
43
www.christianforumsite.com
The staff placed a caution in this thread at Post # 39. Unfortunately, that caution was not heeded regarding forum Rules. Therefore this thread is being halted at this point. It may be reopened at a later date, however we caution all members who have differences of opinion with other members to carefully read The Common Courtesy Series 2 Forum Rules.




23
 

ModeratorTeam

CFS Moderators
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Mar 3, 2007
711
182
43
www.christianforumsite.com
After careful staff evaluation, this thread is open once again for member participation.

Please use common courtesy in any future postings and please keep the beliefs of others in mind while posting.

Thank you.



23
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Feb 23, 2019
60
47
18
32
USA
I read through much of that link and his treatment of many of the texts is completely unwarranted and completely lacking of scholarship. He completely ignores the language of the test. He is failing to differentiate between the indentured servant and the slave. He attempts to lump all of these passages into one theme. If you think chattel slavery was forbidden under the Law of Moses then could I please ask you to explain to me the context of Deut 20:10-18? Could you also please explain why the Law of Moses provides two separate sets of regulation regarding the treatment of each?
No, there is no lack of scholarship. What is lacking is the realization that the type of slavery American's are familiar with in our history is not at all prescribed in the old testament. There is no scholarship to the contrary. God's word is clear that chattel slavery was punishable by death.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF EDIT: Removed confrontational text aimed at another participant - even after the Staff placed CAUTIONS in this thread. Any more of this and Warning points will be issued at a bare minimum, and this thread will disappear.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Sep 3, 2009
11,945
4,592
113
Florida
No, there is no lack of scholarship. What is lacking is the realization that the type of slavery American's are familiar with in our history is not at all prescribed in the old testament. There is no scholarship to the contrary. God's word is clear that chattel slavery was punishable by death.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF EDIT: Removed confrontational text aimed at another participant - even after the Staff placed CAUTIONS in this thread. Any more of this and Warning points will be issued at a bare minimum, and this thread will disappear.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with your comments brother. There are many things that happened in history past which God did not condone. Polygamy is another one of those things that is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. Polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained.

It has been my understanding that the Bible does not support slavery, it undermines it. In fact, it was mainly committed followers of Jesus (such as William Wilberforce, Clarkson and Charles Finney) who ended the slave trade and abolished slavery. Jesus never kept slaves, while other prophets like Abraham and Muhammad (p) had many slaves. The Bible clearly teaches the equality of all people:

Colossians 3:11...……….
“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

However, some passages of the Bible seem to accept slavery. Why is that? Mainly because ancient slavery (generally indentured servitude) was very different than modern slavery which is what you have stated and I agree with...…….
  • It was not based on skin color.
  • Often it was voluntary, poor people who couldn’t provide for their families or repay debts would put themselves under the rule of another.
  • Indeed slaves could own land and property, and some were doctors and lawyers.
  • Some chose to remain slaves permanently because they liked their masters.
  • A king’s subjects could be called his ‘slaves’.
 
Feb 23, 2019
60
47
18
32
USA
I agree with your comments brother. There are many things that happened in history past which God did not condone. Polygamy is another one of those things that is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. Polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained.

It has been my understanding that the Bible does not support slavery, it undermines it. In fact, it was mainly committed followers of Jesus (such as William Wilberforce, Clarkson and Charles Finney) who ended the slave trade and abolished slavery. Jesus never kept slaves, while other prophets like Abraham and Muhammad (p) had many slaves. The Bible clearly teaches the equality of all people:

Colossians 3:11...……….
“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

However, some passages of the Bible seem to accept slavery. Why is that? Mainly because ancient slavery (generally indentured servitude) was very different than modern slavery which is what you have stated and I agree with...…….
  • It was not based on skin color.
  • Often it was voluntary, poor people who couldn’t provide for their families or repay debts would put themselves under the rule of another.
  • Indeed slaves could own land and property, and some were doctors and lawyers.
  • Some chose to remain slaves permanently because they liked their masters.
  • A king’s subjects could be called his ‘slaves’.
Agreed. The Bible is clear that chattel slavery is punishable by death. As that is repeatedly the case and forbidden by God, any intent to countermand that by man's desire to uphold chattel slavery as a practice of the Jews is not of God. The motivation therefore is not scholarship related to scripture nor can it be defended nor upheld by even lay understanding of scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major