The slavery that was taking place back in ancient times wasn't like the indentured servitude that took place with Europeans coming to America paying their way by doing butler and maid jobs for Americans for a specified time per the contract, etc.
LOL!
I'll give you one thing, you're not afraid to keep coming back for one spanking after another. This is like the third discussion I've had with you--and the third time you've Googled yourself into some kind of a rational corner--and both of the previous times, you've just continued to insist that your error wasn't an error, and when I'd throw up my hands and walk away, you'd suggest that I only refused to continue beating your dead horse because YOU had proven ME wrong.
So I'm only gonna say this once, and then I'm outta here--whether I've proven you wrong or you've proven me wrong or whatever. It doesn't matter when we don't play by the same rules.
Now, slavery wasn't like indentured servitude?
Yes, yes it was. It was exactly like that--as the verse YOU CITED suggests:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children AS A PERMANENT INHERITANCE. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Did you catch the part where it said you may PURCHASE slaves? Who do you think was getting paid? Obviously, there were no "slave traders" like you're thinking of if you ever watched "Roots"--no one going around snatching the foreigners in back alleys to be sold at the slave market--this was already clearly forbidden and punishable by death (both of the slave trader and the slave owner) as I cited in my previous lesson.
The master paid the foreigner to be his slave, for some period of time, up to and including life. This was all at the behest of the potential slave--it was their choice. They could bring their wife and kids with them, and even be paid for the servitude of their wife and kids, if they so chose--but it WAS their choice. As I said, no one was going around kidnapping foreigners living among them and then selling them on the corner. This is pretty much exactly like indentured servitude, and remember, there were strict laws to regulate how slaves treated their masters, as well as how masters treated their slaves, so entering into a relationship of servitude was legally very much a contract.
Did you catch all that nonsense about wives and such? So basically, the slave holder could strong arm the male Hebrew slave into staying a slave by holding his wife and kids hostage. This is your just god?
Nobody would be "strong-arming" anyone. If the man was married before he entered into the relationship of servitude, then his wife and kids went with him, no questions asked. He would know this. He would also know, in advance, that if he got married WHILE he was under contract, then his wife (and any potential kids) would NOT be free to go with him. This was, of course, not to strong-arm men who were stupid enough to marry their true loves while under contract, but to prevent scheming women from marrying a "short-timer" from among the slaves, and then riding out on his coattails before she had fulfilled HER contract. Again, both parties would be aware of this law going in; if two people really wanted to be together "on the outside," they'd just wait until they both were free to be married. Duh.
So what proves your theory wrong? If slaves in those days were just trying to pay off a debt, there is no debt that a person in those days could incur that would justify holding them as a slave their entire life, and holding their wives and children as slaves too...
As we have seen, the potential slave got to decide that for themselves. If THEY felt they were getting a fair price for a lifetime of servitude, THEY were allowed to make that choice. You may not think it's fair that the man got to make the decision for his wife and kids, too, but that was a cultural thing, not a slavery thing. If anything, women and children had even lower social standing than slaves to begin with--they were mere property. Slaves were more like the hired help.
I won't engage you further on this matter. If it helps you to sleep at night by thinking that I've tucked my tail between my legs and run from the light of your penetrating exegesis, then do that.
