The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

[Subduction Zone]

Well... like I said. The woman is his "wife" not concubine, not handmaid. We agree to this point right?

Also, the verse is talking about a Hebrew slave. That's right there in the verse.

It's well known that intermarriage is forbidden in Judaism.

We're explicitly forbidden to make a covenant with any of them, the other nations. What do you think a marriage is? That's a covenant.

There was no official conversion in ancient times. The process happened often through marriage.

Earliest Form of “Conversion” was Assimilation

While there were no “conversions,” many non-Israelites joined the Israelite community, often through marriage or acceptance of the beliefs and practices of the community.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/conversion-history-ancient-period/
​

So, in this context, "wife" means Jewish.

Yes, the children would also need to go free after 7 years or Jubilee which ever came first. Yes, infants make terrible slaves. More reason that this law actually discourages rather than encourages.

No, I'm not reading it a particular way just because I don't like the ramifications. I am perfectly comfortable with all the issues, the brutality, the negative role-modeling, that happens in the Hebrew bible.

This one particular idea, tricking someone to becoming a permanent slave is creative, but, doesn't quite fit.

Yes, it does say "wife". I will agree with that. But I just checked, The translation that I used does not say that she is a "Hebrew". It only says that she is a slave. And chattel slavery was allowed and did exist. That has already been covered. Do I need to quote that verse? Those slaves were not to be Hebrews, but female Hebrew slaves did have quite a bit in common with foreign slaves. Their slavery was for life. So the wife, would was the master's property even if she was Hebrew.

And yes, eventually people were likely to have been assimilated. But we are not talking about that here. The passage made it very clear that the woman was still the owner's property. The children were still the owner's property. To be with his wife and children he had to volunteer to be a slave for life. To me that is tricking a man. A young lonely and horny man does not give a lot of thought to the future. If he was a decent person he would not have wanted to abandon his wife and kids.

Perhaps you do not like the word "tricked". How about blackmail? They are both rather vile ways to force someone to "volunteer" to be a slave for life.

 

[dybmh]

We've created the idea of marital rape since that was written, and forcing a woman to be married does amount to that, and it is treating the woman like property with no will of her own.

The point is... according to the context of the verse, she consented.

I'm not sure what the translations you're using are saying, but, in all 3 of the ones I use, verse 25 clearly states that the intercourse was "forced". This comes from the hebrew word "He-Chezeek"... a derivative of Chazak. That's with force. If a man forces himself on a woman, he's put to death.

The issue of being in a field is only to confirm hearing her cry is irrelevant. It's the force that defines the crime.

 

[Shaul]

Projection?

The verse is clear, if the slave continues to live for a day or two the owner won't be punished.

As i said, you are welcome to your interpretation. I take the bible as written

The verses absolutely say the striking person is punished. The punishment is simply limited simply to non-capital punishments. It says,
וְכִי-יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת-עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת-אֲמָתוֹ, בַּשֵּׁבֶט, וּמֵת, תַּחַת יָדוֹ--נָקֹם, יִנָּקֵם
אַךְ אִם-יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם, יַעֲמֹד--לֹא יֻקַּם, כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא
It absolutely says he will be punished. It merely says there are two different forms the punishment can take whether the servant who was struck dies immediately or not. That is it. You are flat out wrong on this point. Period. It isn't "my interpretation". It isn't about interpretation at all. It is what the text says.

And did you notice the "וְ" (vav) at the beginning? That indicates this is a continuation of the list that started at with the verse that reads
מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת, מוֹת יוּמָת

It is quite clear. These verses are part of an enumeration of capital offenses, of those things that are and are not capital offenses. There is nothing in the list that implies that things that are not capital offense have no penalties. That is adding to the text. Your statement that the striker does not receive a punishment because he isn't liable for the death penalty is (again) flat out wrong. And anyone that can read the original text can see that clearly as day.

You claim to "take the bible[sic] as written". Well I copied and pasted the text above. It completely says what I have written and not what you have said it does.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, it does say "wife". I will agree with that. But I just checked, The translation that I used does not say that she is a "Hebrew". It only says that she is a slave. And chattel slavery was allowed and did exist. That has already been covered. Do I need to quote that verse? Those slaves were not to be Hebrews, but female Hebrew slaves did have quite a bit in common with foreign slaves. Their slavery was for life. So the wife, would was the master's property even if she was Hebrew.

#1. Question: Is intermarriage allowed in Judaism, yes or no?

#2. The verse following is changing the subject a bit. It is speaking about a special case. The young woman is not literally a slave. Yes, there is a transaction, but that's a dowry. The Hebrew here is she is an "amah". A young woman. This is law, the precise wording matters. She is treated differently than a slave. That's the whole point. See here:

Spoiler: Kiddushin 18a - laws of an amah

The Sages taught: There are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant and there are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew maidservant that do not apply to a Hebrew slave. The baraita elaborates: There are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave, as he leaves through serving a term of six years, and he leaves through the Jubilee Year, and he leaves through the death of the master, which is not the case for a Hebrew maidservant. And there are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew maidservant, as a Hebrew maidservant leaves through signs indicating puberty, and she is not sold for a second time, and one can redeem her against his will, as the Gemara will explain, which is not the case for a Hebrew slave. The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: There are details of the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. The expression: More than him, indicates that all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed apply to a Hebrew maidservant as well. Rav Sheshet said: This baraita is referring to a case where the master designated her to marry him during the six years. Consequently, she cannot be released from his authority by all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed, as she is his wife. The Gemara asks: If he designated her, it is obvious that she cannot be released in the manner of a slave, as she is his wife and therefore requires a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: It is necessary to state this explicitly, lest you say that the primary halakha is not nullified with regard to her, i.e., even after she has been designated she can still be freed as a slave would be, without a bill of divorce. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is referring to a case where he designated her, why does she leave through signs indicating puberty? If he designated her she becomes his wife, and signs indicating the onset of puberty should not affect her status. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he did not designate her, she leaves also through signs indicating puberty. § The baraita teaches: And a Hebrew maidservant is not sold a second time. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the baraita says this about a Hebrew maidservant, it can be inferred that a Hebrew slave can be sold a second time.

#3. A female Hebrew slave is indeed freed after 7 years. That's defined in a later verse. Deuteronomy 15:12. And the same rules apply for her as for the Hebrew male slave. If she doesn't want to leave, she can choose to remain indefinitely. Note that there is a specific Hebrew word here for female slave, and it's not "amah". It's the feminine form of "eved".

And yes, eventually people were likely to have been assimilated. But we are not talking about that here. The passage made it very clear that the woman was still the owner's property. The children were still the owner's property. To be with his wife and children he had to volunteer to be a slave for life. To me that is tricking a man. A young lonely and horny man does not give a lot of thought to the future. If he was a decent person he would not have wanted to abandon his wife and kids.

I hear you, and I agree, it doesn't make sense by today's standards. But, in the past men would leave their families for extended periods of time in order to find work. So, it's not the same comparisson, as a lonely young person, who of course finds companionship with he one given to him, and makes a family, and is tricked into servitude. In order for that to be the case, the person would need to have the same senibilites, the same desires as we do today. But, they didn't. Peddlers and migrant workers were a thing even way way back. So, for a newly freed slave, knowing his wife and children would be provided for and then released, it's not inconceivable to leave them, find work. Setup a home solo.

Perhaps you do not like the word "tricked". How about blackmail? They are both rather vile ways to force someone to "volunteer" to be a slave for life.

It's not about the word, tricked. It's about the verses, what they mean, and the context of being a slave, with no money, a wife, and children to care for.

 

[Shaul]

Mental gymnastics.

But not on my part. The Bible skeptics are the ones choosing a misinterpretation to suit their purposes. The text itself, in context, doesn't say what they say it does. Pointing that out isn't "gymnastics". It is clarity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

#1. Question: Is intermarriage allowed in Judaism, yes or no?

#2. The verse following is changing the subject a bit. It is speaking about a special case. The young woman is not literally a slave. Yes, there is a transaction, but that's a dowry. The Hebrew here is she is an "amah". A young woman. This is law, the precise wording matters. She is treated differently than a slave. That's the whole point. See here:

Spoiler: Kiddushin 18a - laws of an amah

The Sages taught: There are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant and there are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew maidservant that do not apply to a Hebrew slave. The baraita elaborates: There are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave, as he leaves through serving a term of six years, and he leaves through the Jubilee Year, and he leaves through the death of the master, which is not the case for a Hebrew maidservant. And there are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew maidservant, as a Hebrew maidservant leaves through signs indicating puberty, and she is not sold for a second time, and one can redeem her against his will, as the Gemara will explain, which is not the case for a Hebrew slave. The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: There are details of the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. The expression: More than him, indicates that all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed apply to a Hebrew maidservant as well. Rav Sheshet said: This baraita is referring to a case where the master designated her to marry him during the six years. Consequently, she cannot be released from his authority by all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed, as she is his wife. The Gemara asks: If he designated her, it is obvious that she cannot be released in the manner of a slave, as she is his wife and therefore requires a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: It is necessary to state this explicitly, lest you say that the primary halakha is not nullified with regard to her, i.e., even after she has been designated she can still be freed as a slave would be, without a bill of divorce. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is referring to a case where he designated her, why does she leave through signs indicating puberty? If he designated her she becomes his wife, and signs indicating the onset of puberty should not affect her status. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he did not designate her, she leaves also through signs indicating puberty. § The baraita teaches: And a Hebrew maidservant is not sold a second time. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the baraita says this about a Hebrew maidservant, it can be inferred that a Hebrew slave can be sold a second time.

#3. A female Hebrew slave is indeed freed after 7 years. That's defined in a later verse. Deuteronomy 15:12. And the same rules apply for her as for the Hebrew male slave. If she doesn't want to leave, she can choose to remain indefinitely. Note that there is a specific Hebrew word here for female slave, and it's not "amah". It's the feminine form of "eved".

I hear you, and I agree, it doesn't make sense by today's standards. But, in the past men would leave their families for extended periods of time in order to find work. So, it's not the same comparisson, as a lonely young person, who of course finds companionship with he one given to him, and makes a family, and is tricked into servitude. In order for that to be the case, the person would need to have the same senibilites, the same desires as we do today. But, they didn't. Peddlers and migrant workers were a thing even way way back. So, for a newly freed slave, knowing his wife and children would be provided for and then released, it's not inconceivable to leave them, find work. Setup a home solo.

It's not about the word, tricked. It's about the verses, what they mean, and the context of being a slave, with no money, a wife, and children to care for.

I am sorry, but it appears that you are just clutching at straws and trying to reinterpret rather clear verses.

 

[Father Heathen]

But not on my part. The Bible skeptics are the ones choosing a misinterpretation to suit their purposes. The text itself, in context, doesn't say what they say it does. Pointing that out isn't "gymnastics". It is clarity.

Nah, what's stated in the scripture is clear and damning.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It is if you're still facilitating it yourself by financing the slave owners.

Wait a minute, you're right. That isn't being sanctimonious, it's being hypocritical.

My bad.

This was the sanctimonious part:
"

So saying slavery is wrong and immoral is sanctimonious? That is ridiculous. Do you think slavery is wrong?

But even if I owned slaves, slavery would still be wrong.

You are choosing to attack me instead of engaging in the topic.

 

[dybmh]

I am sorry, but it appears that you are just clutching at straws and trying to reinterpret rather clear verses.

Here's a rather clear verse: Deuteronomy 15:12

And if your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, and serves you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let them go free from you.​

It appears you were wrong about a Hebrew female slave being held indefintely.

It appears you are ignoring Jewish law, even though, these verses are Jewish law.

It appears that you are refusing to answer a simple question about intermarriage because it undermines your claim.

Is intermarraige allowed in Judaism, yes or no?

 

[Quagmire]

So saying slavery is wrong and immoral is sanctimonious?

No, taking it upon yourself to remind a bunch of 21st century adults that slavery is wrong, as if you thought there might be a need to, or in your own words ". . .and I would hope all would have this view", it's just that weren is sanctimonious.

Here let's try this:

If I say, "Standing on a street corner in a trench coat and flashing little old ladies is wrong"!

Nothing wrong with that, right?

Now let's try this,

"Gosh Clizby Wampuscat, standing on street corner in a trench coat and flashing little old ladies is wrong, and I really hope you understand that".

There are certain implications that go along with the question, as well as the way it's being asked, that most people would take exception with.

That is ridiculous.

I think posting loaded rhetorical questions then answering them yourself is ridiculous. And kind of desperate.

Do you think slavery is wrong?

Sure do. Do you think standing on a street corner in a trench coat and flashing little old ladies is wrong? Gosh I sure hope you do.

Just asking.

Me too.

But even if I owned slaves, slavery would still be wrong.

Uh huh.

You are choosing to attack me . . .

Nah, I'm just doing the same thing that you're doing.

I'm just being a little more upfront about it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, taking it upon yourself to remind a bunch of 21st century adults that slavery is wrong, as if you thought there might be a need to, is sanctimonious.

In context you have Christians on this site justifying the slavery in the bible. So in this thread there is a need to say that.

Here let's try this:

If I say, "Standing on a street corner in a trench coat and flashing little old ladies is wrong"!

Nothing wrong with that, right?

Now let's try this,

"Gosh Clizby Wampuscat, I really hope you understand that standing on street corner in a trench coat and flashing little old ladies is wrong".

It would be ok if I was saying god allowed it in the bible for good reasons.

I think you are just looking for a reason to fight. Most people answer no and move on unless they are trying to justify it (not saying you are).

There are certain implications that go along with the question, as well as the way it's being asked, that most people would take exception with.

In context of the conversation I disagree.

I think posting loaded rhetorical questions then answering them yourself is ridiculous. And kind of desperate.

Desperate how? This is just another insult which seems to be the reason you are here.

Sure do. Do you think standing on a street corner in a trench coat and flashing little old ladies is wrong? Gosh I sure hope you do.

Great, many here think it was ok in the bible. That is what I was discussing and what the topic is about.

 

[Quagmire]

In context you have Christians on this site justifying the slavery in the bible.

So in this thread there is a need to say that.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I have seen that you tend to throw the word 'justify' around a little bit too loosely.

Some people in here are trying to understand and explain why ancient people lived the way that they did.

I think it's a little silly to interpret that as an endorsement that we should continue living as they did.

Understanding doesn't automatically equate to agreement.

It would be ok if I was saying god allowed it in the bible for good reasons.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're saying it would be okay to stand on a street corner and flash a little old ladies if the Bible said it was okay.

Was that what you were trying to say?

I think you are just looking for a reason to fight. Most people answer no and move on unless they are trying to justify it (not saying you are).

Really? When you're being condescending and insulting in real life people just answer you politely and Let it go?

Where do you live?

In context of the conversation I disagree.

I'm pretty sure people don't like being subjected to sanctimony and condescension no matter what the context is.

Desperate how? This is just another insult which seems to be the reason you are here.

And once again you're asking a question and answering it yourself. This is exactly what I mean by desperate: you're desperate to get the spotlight off of yourself so you don't have to consider anything you're doing or anything anyone else is saying.

Great, many here think it was ok in the bible. That is what I was discussing and what the topic is about.

No you werent discussing anything, you were moralizing.

Now you're just ****ed off because somebody threw it back at'cha.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I have seen that you tend to throw the word 'justify' around a little bit too loosely.

Some people in here are trying to understand and explain why ancient people lived the way that they did.

I think it's a little silly to interpret that as an endorsement that we should continue living as they did.

Understanding doesn't automatically equate to agreement.

Sure but the point is why did God allow it, not why did people have slaves.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're saying it would be okay to stand on a street corner and flash a little old ladies if the Bible said it was okay.

Was that what you were trying to say?

No, I am saying that if God made rules for flashing old ladies and I was participating in special pleading that it was somehow ok for ancient people because God was involved but not for us now.

Really? When you're being condescending and insulting in real life people just answer you politely and Let it go?

Yes, because in context of the conversation it makes sense. I did not just go up to someone and ask them if they thing slavery is wrong out of nowhere.

I'm pretty sure people don't like being subjected to sanctimony and condescension no matter what the context is.

If someone says it is ok for God to write rules for the Hebrews to own slaves and that is ok because we cannot understand the good reasons God has for it, then asking the question is not condescending.

And once again you're asking a question and answering it yourself. This is exactly what I mean by desperate: you're desperate to get the spotlight off of yourself so you don't have to consider anything you're doing or anything anyone else is saying.

Ok

Now you're just ****ed off because somebody threw it back at'cha.

No, I am trying to have a conversation and you are trying to score points. Think what you want but anyone who tries to justify God's rules for slavery is wrong. People do that all the time today, so asking that question in conversation is relevant. I am not saying you ever did.

 

[Quagmire]

Because you asked the question

Remind me: which question was that exactly?

 

[Shaul]

Nah, what's stated in the scripture is clear and damning.

Well, you got it half right. It is clear. But it is certainly not damning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a rather clear verse: Deuteronomy 15:12

And if your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, and serves you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let them go free from you.​

It appears you were wrong about a Hebrew female slave being held indefintely.

It appears you are ignoring Jewish law, even though, these verses are Jewish law.

It appears that you are refusing to answer a simple question about intermarriage because it undermines your claim.

Is intermarraige allowed in Judaism, yes or no?

No, intermarriage in no way refutes the argument. Now the verse that you quoted does indicate a limit for a laborer, but a woman sold to be a sex slave does not appear to have a limit:

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

By the way, what arguments have you been quoting to me? When were they written? They sound a lot like Christian apologists. Christian apologists will lie to preserve their faith. It appears that you found some that do the same.

So how does intermarriage destroy my argument?

 

[dybmh]

No, intermarriage in no way refutes the argument. Now the verse that you quoted does indicate a limit for a laborer, but a woman sold to be a sex slave does not appear to have a limit:

It only appears that way if you ignore the words that are used.

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

7 Now if a man sells his daughter as an "Amah", she shall not go free as the "slaves" go free.

An Amah is not a slave. She does not go free in the same way that a slave goes free. That doesn't say there's not limit. It says there is a different way that she goes free.

8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.

8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her.

The Amah cannot be sold to another person. If the "master" does not want to keep her. Instead she is redeemed, not freed. Redemption means bill of divorce. Redeem like coupon is redeemed.

If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.

9 And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel].

If she is designated for his son instead, she is no longer an Amah. No longer a maid servant, regardless of how long she has been with them.

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

10 If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations.

The "master" has certain obligations which cannot be abrogated by taking another wife.

11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

11And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go free without charge, without [payment of] money.

The Amah goes free automatically if the "master" does not fulfill their obligations.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, where in here does it say that the Amah is indefinitely held against her will?

By the way, what arguments have you been quoting to me? When were they written? They sound a lot like Christian apologists. Christian apologists will lie to preserve their faith. It appears that you found some that do the same.

I brought you the Jewish law. Is it a lie that it exists? Is it a lie that it is legally binding?

The point, which you are avoiding, is that the subject has changed between verse 6 and 7. That's what it said in the Talmud, but it is easily shown.

Here's the verse you are quoting which you claim is showing someone how to trick their slave into being permanent.

אִם־אֲדֹנָיו֙ יִתֶּן־ל֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֔ה וְיָֽלְדָה־לּ֥וֹ בָנִ֖ים א֣וֹ בָנ֑וֹת הָֽאִשָּׁ֣ה וִֽילָדֶ֗יהָ תִּֽהְיֶה֙ לַֽאדֹנֶ֔יהָ וְה֖וּא יֵצֵ֥א בְגַפּֽוֹ
​

Here's the verse you are quoting which you claim appears that the wife given to the Hebrew slave stays indefintely.

כִֽי־יִמְכֹּ֥ר אִ֛ישׁ אֶת־בִּתּ֖וֹ לְאָמָ֑ה לֹ֥א תֵצֵ֖א כְּצֵ֥את הָֽעֲבָדִֽים
​

Is אִשָּׁ֔ה = אָמָ֑ה?
Is אָמָ֑ה = עֲבָדִֽים?
Does minor = adult?

If a law is given to a minor, what happens to the law when the minor reaches adulthood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It only appears that way if you ignore the words that are used.

7 Now if a man sells his daughter as an "Amah", she shall not go free as the "slaves" go free.

An Amah is not a slave. She does not go free in the same way that a slave goes free. That doesn't say there's not limit.

8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her.

The Amah cannot be sold to another person. If the "master" does not want to keep her. Instead she is redeemed, not freed. Redemption means bill of divorce.

9 And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel].

If she is designated for his son instead, she is no longer an Amah. No longer a maid servant, regardless of how long she has been with them.


10 If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations.

The "master" has certain obligations which cannot be abrogated by taking another wife.

11And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go free without charge, without [payment of] money.

The Amah goes free automatically if the "master" does not fulfill their obligations.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, where in here does it say that the Amah is indefinitely held against her will?

I brought you the Jewish law. Is it a lie that it exists? Is it a lie that it is legally binding?

The point, which you are avoiding, is that the subject has changed between verse 6 and 7. This is easily shown.

Here's the verse you are quoting which you claim is showing someone how to trick their slave into being permanent.

אִם־אֲדֹנָיו֙ יִתֶּן־ל֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֔ה וְיָֽלְדָה־לּ֥וֹ בָנִ֖ים א֣וֹ בָנ֑וֹת הָֽאִשָּׁ֣ה וִֽילָדֶ֗יהָ תִּֽהְיֶה֙ לַֽאדֹנֶ֔יהָ וְה֖וּא יֵצֵ֥א בְגַפּֽוֹ
​

Here's the verse you are quoting which you claim appears that the wife given to the Hebrew slave stays indefintely.

כִֽי־יִמְכֹּ֥ר אִ֛ישׁ אֶת־בִּתּ֖וֹ לְאָמָ֑ה לֹ֥א תֵצֵ֖א כְּצֵ֥את הָֽעֲבָדִֽים
​

Is אִשָּׁ֔ה = אָמָ֑ה?
Is אָמָ֑ה = עֲבָדִֽים?
Does minor = adult?

If a law is given to a minor, what happens to the law when the minor reaches adulthood?

You found an exception. You did not find the general rule. Please note yours is the exception because it has a qualifying term added to it.

And no, I am the one that is going by what the scripture says. You are the one that has do try to jump through crazy hoops to defend it.

 

[dybmh]

You found an exception. You did not find the general rule. Please note yours is the exception because it has a qualifying term added to it.

First, you didn't answer the question.

Is a minor = an adult?

Second, What's the term added?

And no, I am the one that is going by what the scripture says. You are the one that has do try to jump through crazy hoops to defend it.

No you're going by a faulty english translation. You don't need to know the language to look at the shape of the letters and see that two different words, and two different concepts are being discussed.

Is אִשָּׁ֔ה = אָמָ֑ה?
Is אָמָ֑ה = עֲבָדִֽים?

Where in verses 7-11 does it say anything about indefinite servitude?
In verse 9 it says she ceases being a servant. In verse 11 it says she goes free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, you didn't answer the question.

Is a minor = an adult?

Second, your logic is faulty. A general rule is clarified by a later more specific rule.


No you're going by a faulty english translation. You don't need to know the language to look at the shape of the letters and see that two different words, and two different concepts are being discussed.

Is אִשָּׁ֔ה = אָמָ֑ה?
Is אָמָ֑ה = עֲבָדִֽים?

Where in verses 7-11 does it say anything about indefinite servitude?
In verse 9 it says she ceases being a servant. In verse 11 it says she goes free.

You didn't answer my questions.

And no, a general rule may be clarified for specific cases. That is all that your example did. The woman in the verse was clearly doomed to be a slave for life. The clarification that you used had a key word. She and her children were to be slaves.

And I really do not care about your "minor" argument. You would need to show that minors become free as adults. You do not get to assume it.