Slavery in the bible - a response to Epydemic2020

[ahmalala]

All ancient societies almost universally had slaves, the Bible is the only scripture which leads to the total abolishment of slavery over time and equal rights, but biased athiest will always see only what they want to see instead of taking the scripture as a whole.

Galatians 3:28

There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[galerouth]

@ahmalala

the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.

3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1)

Evid3nc3

if your god were real and just ---he wouldn't allow slavery.

[ahmalala]

@galerouth I seen that video series. Its nothing. In fact, Its been long refuted. Theres a good response video destroying it.  It reminds me of the movie Zeitgiest full of exaggerations, false assumptions and easily refutable inaccuracies.

[Creationcreed]

This does not prove the God is evil nor immoral, nor does it refute that God doesn't exist. The supposed refutation with Ex. 21:2-5 n Lev 25:44-46 is assuming immorality(which changes the way u interpret those scriptures) in the Bible. When ur talking about God who is holy(and this carries alot of weight: not just a saying) u have to assume the best, the good, then you can contemplate why or even what is going on. N remember this is Pre-Messiah, so I theres no surprise of stricter rules.

[YaleBreaker]

@Creationcreed "Refute that God doesn't exist" means "prove that God exists". Clearly you meant the opposite. And the purpose the video isn't to show God doesn't exist (which is impossible). And how can you assume that God is morally perfect? And if God is unchanging, why would he apparently change his rules?

[gpokriff2]

2:25 To be fair Exodus 21:16, said nothing about Hebrews and DID refer to all slaves. Overall,however, great response. Liked and subscribed.

[BogusJesus]

Epy, I Tim 6:2 states it is okay to serve your Christian master. Both you and the Apostle Paul are idiots. A slave master can beat your ass but you must still love him because both of you are Christians. Total foolishness if you ask me.

[BogusJesus]

Epy is a moron.

[nosajj12345]

Excellent!

I admit Epy almost had me convinced. Not in the existence of his god, I'm way too smart to fall for that, but that the indictments made against the bible, on the issue of slavery, may have been unjust. The verses he presented made me reconsider my position. But thanks to you, I now see that Epy was wrong and the kid needs to further study his bible. Again, excellent video!!

[psandbergnz]

To understand slavery in the Bible, you need to distinguish between Hebrew (Jew) and non-Hebrew (Gentile) slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves could be bought and sold like any commodity: “You may buy male and female slaves from the nations around you" (Lev.25:44). .Ex.21:21: "the slave is his master's property".

Non-Hebrew slaves were PERMANENT (not released after 7 years or Jubilee). They could be bequeathed to the owner's children, and the slave's children also belonged to the slave owner (Lev. 25).

[voncello]

By calling God "Yahway" you seem to want to turn God into a god of one group of people. There are many names of God in the Bible including God, Lord, All Mighty, All Merciful, Lord of Hosts, etc. Nowhere is He called "Yahway" neither in Hebrew or English. Furthermore, the concept of God is that He is the creator of the universe and the God of all. Obviously He would relate to Bronze Age folks differently than folks today. The Bible was meant to be a living document that adapts to new times.

[punchdrunkatheist]

@voncello What? "Then God spoke all these words. He said, ‘I am YHVH your God who brought you out of Egypt, where you lived as slaves. You shall have no other gods to rival me.’ In Hebrew, יהוה, or YHVH. It was translated Yahweh for the same reason it was translated Jehovah. There's no "w" sound in Hebrew, so it's an incorrect transliteration, but YHVH is indeed in the Bible. Choosing to pronounce it as Yahweh, is only incorrect because of the "w" sound.

[voncello]

@punchdrunkatheist As in all other Hebrew words, there are vowels that go along with the consonants. The word with the J is the correct pronunciation except the J is actually a Y. Jews know that to be the correct pronunciation but Jews do not say the name out of respect. Christians somewhere along the line started pronouncing the consonants without the vowels and came up with Yahweh but this word has never been used by Jews and is a made up word that is not the name of God.

[voncello]

@punchdrunkatheist But my deeper point is that using words like Yahweh & Old Testament show that the speaker hasn't included Judaism in his understanding the Jewish Bible. Jews don't call their Bible the "Old" and the don't call God Yahweh. They also don't view God as one of many but rather as the one force that created the universe. Those who say "Yahweh was a monster from the Old Testament" seek to portray God as a pagan god rather than the source of all living and non-living things.

[voncello]

@punchdrunkatheist And what this video's author is doing is he's taking an English translation (of which he has no idea of its accuracy) and reading it literally without any reference to the Jewish tradition that explains in detail what these laws actually mean. As in the US Constitution every sentence gets interpreted many times through court cases and a history develops of what they mean. I point this out in some of my videos. Point being that this type of analysis is devoid of real knowledge.

[punchdrunkatheist]

@voncello Ah, I missed your point then. As far as Jewish tradition, I'd say not very many Christians read any Jewish literature aside from their translations of the five books of Moses, and Psalms, and only passing and apologetically at that. I assumed he was referring to Christians, who otherwise have absolutely no clue about Tanakh, or who have read or heard of Talmud. If that's the case, he wouldn't need to use anything other than Christian terms, and exclude Jewish tradition.

[punchdrunkatheist]

@punchdrunkatheist And I believe you're correct that that type of analysis is devoid of real knowledge. Which makes an entirely different point about the majority of Christianity. I've been to many churches in my lifetime, and visit many of many denominations now as part of a literary project, and not a single Christian church, of over 100 I've visited have Mentioned or shared interest in the knowledge of Jewish tradition. That seems more a scholarly debate than an every day issue of people.

[punchdrunkatheist]

@punchdrunkatheist And the way I learned Hebrew, there aren't written vowels, there are a few rare consonantal vowels like "vav" but the vowels sounds on pronunciation are traditional and I've met people who pronounce this differently based on their geographical location. It is sometimes spelled Yahweh and the synongogue in my hometown asserts that nobody knows the correct pronunciation since the name has not been pronounced since the destruction of the temple. Dealing with multiple beliefs...

[punchdrunkatheist]

@punchdrunkatheist ...is a bit sketchy, as not everyone believes the same, even in Judaism. I've seen it spelled many different ways in different jewish communities, but as it's not pronounced and we're not privy to some inside knowledge (such as being a high priest who pronounces the name on yom kippur), it's a bit nit picky to call someone out for pronouncing Yahweh. In the Ben Chayim Hebrew text of 1525, there are two spellings and two pronunciations, one is Yahweh, the other Jehovah.

[punchdrunkatheist]

@punchdrunkatheist Though still, YHVH is still unpronounceable, and I'd be skeptical of a Jew who used it, especially if they tried to pronounce or say it. Christians don't seem to care about mentioning whatever they believe the "ha shem" to be, so I don't get so upset over the usage of Yahweh. I was thinking context, I suppose. Where did you get the idea that using Yahweh was a pagan portrayal?

[voncello]

@punchdrunkatheist Good comments. The Torah was written without vowels but the rabbis passed down a tradition of vowels for each word. Yahweh is the pronunciation without vowels. One reason Jews don't pronounce the Name is that naming something tends to quantify it. And since God is the unknowable creator of all to name Him is to limit Him. And folks like this video's author want to limit Him to the status of a god who they can denigrate as "a moral monster" which is how he ends his video.

[punchdrunkatheist]

@voncello Thank you. If you were Christian, or your exposure was predominantly Christian and you were reading what they call the Old Testament at face value, without the aid of Talmud or Mishna, or what have you, you could be forgiven for thinking that God was a moral monster. Your points are valid, it would just be nice if /everyone/ was in the business of looking for peace between religions and non religions as you were. Too many extremists from both sides.

[voncello]

@punchdrunkatheist I agree and that is my main problem with Christianity. It's leaders sought to move people from Jewish understandings of a Jewish book (labeled the "Old" testament) to what they ascribed much more importance to: the so called "New" testament. But by doing so they insured that most of the world would be ignorant of what the Jewish Bible really means. My point, which you clearly get, is that to make peace we must move "Beyond Faith" and start to understand each others traditions.

[punchdrunkatheist]

@voncello Agreed. A little education would go a long way. I'm not an expert in theology, but I try to study as much as I can on my own. I think a sort of respect and tolerance would be easier achieved if more people would cross educate, even a little. And speaking of "Beyond Faith", I plan on buying your book, I'd like to learn more about your position.

[voncello]

@punchdrunkatheist Excellent! I'm sure you'll find it fascinating. I say that without ego since most of it is just me passing on the ideas of others. If you order it from my voncello website I'll throw in a CD! Feel free to send me a private email with your choice. :-)

[punchdrunkatheist]

@voncello Awesome. Thanks! I'll get with you in a few days on that.

[voncello]

Your conclusion that God is a monster seems to have been your premise from the start. Even your use of the words "Yahway" and "Old Testament" show that you have not be informed by Jewish views of the Jewish Bible. The fact is Orthodox Jews consider the Talmud (the Oral Torah) of equal authority to the Written Torah. If you study the Talmud you'll find that your interpretations of the Bible aren't accepted by the ones who wrote it and passed it down. Hopefully one day you'll expand your sources.

[mku17ra]

Jewish owners treated jewish slaves differently. This is a known historical fact

Good job on calling this guy's bullshit

[REBMike1]

Christian apologetics for slavery *Facepalm*. I just had a quick look at Epydemic2020 channel page, he's at a fundie fucktard bible clown shoes college. Also he might be homeschooled as well, fundies will always claim that slavery was a different context back in the Bronze Age than it was in 19th century America. There can be NO context were slavery can be used, it was wrong back then as it's wrong today. I guess some people can't understand this. Afterall how would you like it?

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

@crazypills2 I had the exact same conversation with a fundie over this.

They kept thinking slavery was 'reinterpretted' to involve servant.

Of course they couldn't explain passages where servitude was non voluntary.

[ToddAllenGates]

Great job, and thanks for making this. I was tempted to make a video response back when I first saw Epydemic's video, but just didn't have the patience!

[crazypills2]

@ReligionFreeDeist "Excellent video Steve."

Thanks my friend. So, what's up. Long time, no talk....

[Epydemic2020]

The last bit you mentioned, about captives of war, is not the same form of slavery at all. The practice you are referencing there is not indentured servitude or chattel slavery at all, but you are describing vassalage. Vassalage takes place when a conquered nation becomes under the winning parties protection and pays a tax. The tax can be through currency or manual labor for communal projects (like the building of defensive walls or digging of wells).

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 "Vassalage takes place when a conquered nation becomes under the winning parties protection and pays a tax. The tax can be through currency or manual labor for communal projects (like the building of defensive walls or digging of wells). "

Sounds kind of like the Jews in Egypt, doesn't it?

[Epydemic2020]

A law against beating a slave severely in no way implies that being a slave just a little is moral.

American laws against insults that cause emotional distress in no way implies that insults which do not result in emotional distress are moral.

It is clearly the case that "loving your neighbor as yourself" includes not beating the crap out of your neighbor. Plus you forgot about the "escape clause". If a slave feels mistreated He can up and leave without fear of retribution.

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 "A law against beating a slave severely in no way implies that being a slave just a little is moral."

Well, I'm not sure that the law prevented severe beating; I was kind of hoping to hear your case. But that aside, do you at least agree that the law allowed the slave to be beaten?

[Epydemic2020]

@crazypills2

Laws don't allow things, they prevent things. There are laws in place to prevent the mistreatment of slaves. There are three of them in particular.

1. Death for killing a slave.

2. Forced release of a slave for permanent injury.

3. The escape clause.

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 “Laws don't allow things, they prevent things.”



Really? For instance, doesn’t Lev 25:44-46 allow for lifelong slavery?

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 “Death for killing a slave.”

I don’t believe the evidence for this is conclusive. Although one may conclude this would be the punishment for killing a Hebrew slave, it would be irresponsible to state this as a matter of fact. Even if this was the case, to my knowledge, there is no evidence at all that this applied to inheritable slaves.

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 “Forced release of a slave for permanent injury.”

Is release definite for all permanent injuries? The text only lists injuries related to eyes and teeth. However, even if this meant ALL permanent injuries, does this prevent the owner from beating his slave as long as a permanent injury doesn’t occur?

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 “The escape clause.”

Many scholars feel this applies to slaves who have escaped from foreign nations. Would it make sense for a person who sold himself into slavery because of debt or became a slave for reason of theft to simply leave and be taken in by another Hebrew? Doesn’t the law clearly demand repayment of the debt? And since inheritable slaves were property of Hebrews, this is unlikely to apply to them. Simply read the laws related to property protection.

[Epydemic2020]

Leviticus 25:46 says "and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly"

You interpret "ruthlessly" as the ability to beat them. However, as it clearly the context of the passage, it is talking about length of time allowed to be a slave.

Foreign people can become slaves for life.. but you can't do that to Hebrew slaves.

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 "You interpret "ruthlessly" as the ability to beat them. However, as it clearly the context of the passage, it is talking about length of time allowed to be a slave."

'Perek', the Hebrew word translated 'ruthless', means "harshness, severity, cruelty." Can you honestly say that this 'clearly' means "length of time?"

[Epydemic2020]

@crazypills2

Yes. The verse says that you can have non-hebrew slaves for a lifetime but don't rule over fellow Israelites severely.

That is pretty clearly contrasting the "severe" thing it had just said about having non-Hebrews slaves for a lifetime.

The verse would be totally random if it meant "you can have non-Hebrew slaves for a lifetime but don't beat your Hebrew slaves".

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020

(1 of 2)

“The verse would be totally random if it meant ‘you can have non-Hebrew slaves for a lifetime but don't beat your Hebrew slaves’.”

I didn’t have time to get into this in my video, but I’ll briefly address it here.

The key part of this passage is the word ‘`achuzzah’ which is translated ‘property’. It means “inherited possession.” This is different from the word ‘keceph’ that is also translated ‘property’ in Ex 21:21, but means ‘money’.

[crazypills2]

(2 of 2)

When something was ‘`achuzzah’, the owner implicitly had a bundle of rights associated with it. Some of these rights included the ability to will (Lev 25:46) and also to sell (Lev 25:25) the ‘property’. Here, we find that the slaves are described as ‘`achuzzah’. They became more ‘property’ than people, almost like land. Hence, the owners had the right to ‘radah’ (dominate) them with ‘perek’ (cruelty).

[Epydemic2020]

Also, as to the term "alien" it means the same thing in Hebrew as it does in English. The word for alien "ger" refers to aliens, foreigners, or immigrants.

Obviously, not all foreigners are servants and not all servants are immigrants. So it is no surprise that verses exist referencing both aliens and servants.

The verse saying "The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself" would clearly include "aliens" who happen to also be servants.

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 "The verse saying 'The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself' would clearly include 'aliens' who happen to also be servants."

Would it? Instead of embarrasing you here, I will simply ask you to review "ger toshav" to understand what an "alien within your gates" actually means.

[Epydemic2020]

@crazypills2

The verse in question, Leviticus 19:34, does not have the phrase "ger toshav" in it. It has "ger guwr".

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 “The verse in question, Leviticus 19:34, does not have the phrase ‘ger toshav’ in it. It has ‘ger guwr’.”

The key is to view 19:34 in light of 19:33. The meaning of “living with you” (v34) is explained in v33 (“lives with you in your land”). These were not individuals actually living with Hebrews as slaves, but sharing their community. That said, I will allow you to show me my error. Simply produce a passage that clearly describes slaves as aliens and I will recant.

[Epydemic2020]

When talking about slave traders being put to death I mentioned two verses. You only addressed Deut 24: (which references fellow Hebrews) but omitted Exodus 21:16 that talks about kidnapping "another" gets you the death penalty. Another seems to be a blanket term. (It uses the Hebrew word "ish" which literally means "all, any man, anyone, another, fellow, etc) This word would certainly be inclusive of non-Hebrew people.

[crazypills2]

@Epydemic2020 "Another seems to be a blanket term."

You are correct, Ex 21:16 doesn't specifically mention Hebrews. However, let me ask you a question. If Hebrews were not the intended subject here, then why does Deut 24:7 specifically mention them? To understand these verses, you must read them both. This is similar to understanding Deut 21:15-16 by reading Ex 21:4-5.

[Epydemic2020]

@crazypills2

I don't think the verse which says ""Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." doesn't refer to "another" but only refers only to Hebrews.

[bradreed]

im guessing home schooled

[TheraminTrees]

A thing of beauty! ;8) It always seems such a shame that so many resources are wasted in generating unworkable defences of biblical contradictions. It's like the killer's father who finds endless justifications — eg, maintains his son was 'corrupted', etc.. If he accepts he son enjoyed those murders, he has some painful re-examining to do.

[crazypills2]

@TheraminTrees "It always seems such a shame that so many resources are wasted in generating unworkable defences of biblical contradictions."

Yep. When I was a christian, I remember spending hours attempting to harmonize passages. I should have gotten laid instead.

[finalcloud13]

Man that kid sounds so annoying I just want to sock him in the mouth.

[jgoemat]

At 6:50 when talking about being a servant for life, you forgot to mention that this section also only referred to Hebrews.

[crazypills2]

@jgoemat "At 6:50 when talking about being a servant for life, you forgot to mention that this section also only referred to Hebrews."

Yep. I had it in my original video, but had to cut out a lot of stuff to get it down to 15 minutes. Thanks for bringing it up here.

[kleenex3000]

Beware of Christ-psychotic and other Theophrenic CREATards.

This is an example how these persons with incurable Abrahamic delusion falsely apply and generalize dotsized observations in order to create their universe of global TRUTH.

The complexity of nature points to a creator IF NOT THOUSANDS OF CREATOR GENIUSES!

HOWEVER this creator/these creators are not in the slightest related to MAN-MADE G-Ds in Holy Scriptures that these were compiled by human brains.

[tyendanega]

Excellent as always!

[crazypills2]

@tyendanega "Excellent as always!"

Thanks for stopping by.

[Epydemic2020]

Ah I didn't realize you had already posted your response. Setting it on auto allow makes it so that I don't get a notification. Gotta get ready for class now, but I'm looking forward to watching this video soon.

[wilfredthebold]

Does Epydemic believe debt-bondage is a good thing?

[Imgoing2LoveYou]

Awesome video mate. I'm subscribed, I think you would really dig my videos mate :)

[crazypills2]

@Imgoing2LoveYou "Awesome video mate. I'm subscribed, I think you would really dig my videos mate :)"

Thanks for stopping by. I'll checkout your channel.

[TheNakedAtheist]

Just another example of how people will try to justify anything in order to justify their belief in a loving god, and the flip side of justifying anything that you believe is done in the name of god, or that you believe god would approve of.

[Ceberuss]

@TheNakedAtheist When I see these kinds of bending, justifications, excuses and reinterpretations of the Bible qoutes, I see how more free we atheists are. If the two atheists were to have some argument (about abortion, wars, situational ethics, whatever), they would be free to eventually say "you know, I was wrong, you provided good arguments and I change my opinion". But Christians are prisoners of their Bible and they have to adjust their opinions to match it's content. Pity.

[AuntieDiluvian]

Brilliant! Beautifully done.

[crazypills2]

@AuntieDiluvian "Brilliant! Beautifully done."

Ahhhh, I love when you stop by. By the way, I would really like to do a collaboration with you. The problem is I can't sing...

[johnycannuk]

Wow, justifying the owning of one human by another?

Even if what he says is true (and it isn't) it still justifies one of the most repugnant things humans have ever done - allow one human to own another as chattel.

Man this kid would have loved to live in the pre-Civil War South...

[Kousaburo]

Is that guy a giraffe?

[ElvisKnucklehead]

@Kousaburo Nah, giraffes are cuter....and probably better able to apply logic.

[AtheistdotEDU]

Repression rocks. :)

[Redbloodedsky]

@crazypills2 hey man, have you read "The God Delusion" and "God is not Great"? are they any good? I'm looking to buy them. Any advice?

[Iced1992]

@Redbloodedsky Well, I advise you to first purchase and read the God Delusion; after this, when you've learned to look at the religious with either scorn or contempt, you read Breaking the Spell, which will explain to you how such monstrosities came to be.

[Redbloodedsky]

@Iced1992 Thanks :) I'll look for them both.

[dankru]

@Redbloodedsky I know you're not asking me but my two cents is that they're both good reads

[crazypills2]

@Redbloodedsky "hey man, have you read "The God Delusion" and "God is not Great"? are they any good?"

I have read the Dawkins' book. It was a good read, but it would depend on what you are looking for. Dawkins is a great scientist but, if you're looking at philosophy, he wouldn't be by recommendation.

[exodus21v20]

Crazypills:

You forget to mention children born into slavery.

I love how that kid says slaves have the same rights as masters!!! That is so obviously not true. A Hebrew slave doesn't get to take away his masters wife and children; but a master can take away a Hebrew slave's wife and children if the master had given the man a wife. What does it mean to be born into slavery and if your own father leaves you stay and belong to the master along with your mom as the bible teaches?

[crazypills2]

@exodus21v20 "What does it mean to be born into slavery and if your own father leaves you stay and belong to the master along with your mom as the bible teaches?"

Good question. I can only speculate, but my guess is that we're all thinking the same thing.

[violentlygraceful]

Both you and TheoreticalBullshit have been making excellent critiques of Epydemic's various points. Thank you.

[crazypills2]

@violentlygraceful "Both you and TheoreticalBullshit have been making excellent critiques of Epydemic's various points."

Well, I don't put my videos in the same class as TBS, but thank you.

[hedleypanama]

@crazypills epydemic is not "smart" as he thinks

[TheMudbrooker]

Whenever I punish one of my slaves, I've found it's a good idea not to hit them in the face, broken noses and such reduce re-sale value. Also, I never let them lose conscienceness while beating them, it reduces the effectiveness of the beating.

YHVH approves of my techniques, so they must be morally correct right?

[LordCustos3]

@TheMudbrooker

I found that remote controlled shock collars are a great deterrent against excessive "uppityness" amongst my biological "farm impliments"

I'm sure old testament yahweh would approve of using electricity to "smite" the "pride" out of the heathen so-called people I abduc....*ahem*...."Liberated" from their sinful state of not loving Jebus.

[crazypills2]

@TheMudbrooker "Also, I never let them lose conscienceness while beating them, it reduces the effectiveness of the beating."

I knew there was some reason I liked you....

[kelarael]

I thought epydemic misinterpreted those passages somewhat with his conclusion that slavery was somehow not bad in the bible, sure it wasn't so bad if you're an israelite male, you were effectively a servant, but for a woman or a non israelite slave. Even the male slave can choose to leave, but what about his wife? she doesnt get that option does she? And if she did, the children still dont.

Somehow he also seems thinks beating your slave ALMOST to death is ok.

Excellent response.

[crazypills2]

@kelarael "Excellent response."

Thank you.

[adrenacrumb]

I woulld put serious money down Epydemic has not actually taken the time to read the OT. If he has then he is incredibly dishonest. I would like proof there were eve ant Jews or Jewish slaves in Egypt to start with.

[bestboymusic]

Epydemic is not a very sturdy man. Don't think that twat would last a day as an Old Testament slave.

LOL He sounds like Sid the Sloth from Ice Age. Might be better if he waits till his braces are off to make videos.! Ad hominem I know, but it's really hard to take this douche seriously.

[crazypills2]

@bestboymusic "Don't think that twat would last a day as an Old Testament slave."

Probably not. Fortunately for all of us, our morality has evolved since then.

[LazySundayClub]

Your gentle tone and scholarly approach really shines through here, as usual. You may be the Mr. Rogers of youtube atheists (I'm a big Rogers fan).

I had to listen again at 3:31 - I wonder whether he said "slavery 'seen' in Israel" or "slavery-scene"? (as if there's a difference)

[crazypills2]

@LazySundayClub "You may be the Mr. Rogers of youtube atheists (I'm a big Rogers fan)."

Well, I'm glad you're a fan. My wife says I'm boring, and I know she's right.

[damaxman]

Great video. Has Epydemic2020 responded to any of your videos?

[crazypills2]

@damaxman "Has Epydemic2020 responded to any of your videos?"

Only with a few comments.