Psalm 137:9

[Redbeard The Pink]

Ummm...that's an admonition against kidnapping, not forcing people into servitude. Hence:

Look dummy, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you're clearly ignorant of scripture, now you're just crossed all the way in to stupid territory.

Taking someone against their will IS kidnapping, what you do with the person afterwards DOESN'T NEGATE THAT FACT.

The Bible is clear, the penalty for kidnapping is death.

That being said, what did I tell you guys about bible translations? Stick to the KJV because there is a lot of nuance to how it uses words as compared to later translations.

Leviticus 25:44-46King James Version (KJV)

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

"Heathen" and "nation" do not mean the same thing, but more importantly, "possession" and "property" are not the same (as your version conflates the two), Just because something is in ones possession doesn't mean it's their property. If I let you borrow a tool, that tool comes into your possession but is NOT your property... got it?

What the bible is describing IS NOT CHATTEL SLAVERY, it is indentured servitude which was entered into on a completely voluntary basis, it was quite common for one to sell themselves into servitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

Voluntary slavery (or self-sale) is the condition of slavery entered into at a point of voluntary consent. In ancient times, this was a common way for impoverished people to provide subsistence for themselves or their family and provision was made for this in law. For example, the code of Hammurabi stated that "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an individual might sell himself or a family member into slavery". In medieval Russia, self-sale was the main source of slaves.

In ancient times, one of the most direct ways to become a Roman or Greek citizen was by means of a self-sale contract. The laws surrounding Roman and Greek manumission made it quite possible for such erstwhile slaves to then become citizens or near-citizens themselves.

As long as slaves were bought and paid for via "legitimate" means, they were basically oxen. They had practically no rights unless they were Jewish, and even Jewish slaves could be kept forever if they didn't want to leave their families behind. The bible is pro-slavery. Your gymnastics are unimpressive.

Again, another bald faced lie...

How do you explain this then?

Leviticus 25
10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

sounds like a "right" to me...

Oh really? What's this then?


So, to be clear, voluntary manslaughter of one's slaves is not to be avenged because those slaves are literal property. What was that about knowledge of customs?

I already addressed this, are you seriously going to double down? If he survives a day you two and DOESN'T DIE he is not to be avenged... if he dies, it is the right of the family to take revenge, no if's, ands, or butts.

In the first example if you injured someone who wasn't a servant, you were responsible for his care and paid for his loss of time.

If you permanently injured your servant, he was allowed to go free, you didn't give him money BECAUSE YOU ALREADY PAID HIM FOR HIS TIME WHEN HE SOLD HIMSELF TO YOU.

Exodus 21
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

Either way, you lost money.

For someone who keeps calling me a liar, your argumentation is pretty dishonest.

First off, your semantic games with the KJV are not impressive. To Old Testament Jews, heathens and foreigners are inherently the same thing. It might say "servant" and "possession" rather than "slave" and "property," but the text in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy is clearly talking about buying, keeping, and working people as if they are pieces of property. Slaves were only allowed to go free in particular circumstances, and aside from those provisions slavers were free to detain and even beat their slaves, provided they didn't lose eyes or teeth or die right away.

And yes, if a slave died a day or two after a beating, he was not to be avenged. The previous passage about assault and manslaughter has nothing to do with slavery. Read the book or get honest about it.

The bottom line here is that in no place and at no time does the bible say "Do not buy or sell human beings; you may not own other humans as property."

What it DOES say is that (within certain guidelines) you may buy, sell, bequeath, and beat other human beings, and the circumstances under which they can gain freedom are specific and remote.

That. Is. Chattel. Slavery.

Your bible authorizes and regulates it in the old testament, then doubles down in the new testament by telling slaves to obey cruel and kind masters alike. That's why, when pressed about biblical slavery, apologists like you have to go scurrying off to passages about kidnapping and loving your neighbor. The passages that actually address slavery don't say what you want them to, so you have to bend others into shape to make your point.