White Rabbit and Reformed Apologetics Atheist Denials of Biblical Slavery and Property

  1. Your rejection of human property then demands that children should be owned by the state and not their parents and that marriage should be abolished and a community of women replace marriage. Because that is consistent, while a denial of this is complete pathological dishonesty. Read Marx on this issue here. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
  2. Concerning your disgusting translation of vs 21 as “that is his money” as not referring to the slave as property, Jewish Scholar Rashi states,

    “To clarify this, the Torah says: “because he is his property” (verse 21). Just as his property is his permanent acquisition, so is the slave [in question] one who is his permanent acquisition.” http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9882#showrashi=true

    I think the Jews know their own language better than you pathological liars. Another Hebrew scholar John Gill states,

    “for he [is] his money; is bought with his money, and is good as money, and therefore it is a loss sufficient to him to lose him; and it may be reasonably thought he did not smite his servant with an intention to kill him, since he himself is the loser by it.” http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/exodus-21-21.html

    Other Hebrew Scholars Keil & Delitzsch state,

    “for the simple reason, that it is hardly conceivable that a master would intentionally kill his slave, who was his possession and money. How far the lawgiver was from presupposing any such intention here, is evident from the law which follows in Exodus 21:21, “Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two (i.e., remain alive), it shall not be avenged, for he is his money.” https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/kdo/exodus-21.html

    Moreover the fact you admitted the daughter could be sold as property but not as a slave is in itself an admission that the girl was owned as property. That should be enough humiliation to silence the slithering tongue of your 7 headed hydra.

  3. You deliberately left out the condoning of owning foreign slaves hereditarily in Lev. 25:46 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.
  4. Your appeal to the runaway slave was disgusting. Deut 23 is speaking of a foreign slave running away into Israel not a native Israelite slave running away from an Israelite master. Dabney, Defence of Virginia, page 128-129
  5. Your use of Gal. 3:28 would make Paul’s instructions about women null and void. Women can then marry other women and be pastors on your interpretation.
  6. You left out the clear condoning of slavery in Philemon. 15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
  7. You also have no moral standard since you people reject the law of Moses as being binding. You don’t know what part of the bible still stands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s