Nah. Moses and Company were probably corvee labor (conscripted govt workers). There is evidence of a many nomadic groups settling in Egypt, and plenty of evidence of a huge workforce that built the pyramids. By placing large numbers of the Israelites in labor gangs, it would break down their will to become independent and prevent any security threat to the government. It would also enable them to expand their building projects in the Delta region.

Robert Littman (Biblical Archaeology Review, July/Aug 2014, p. 69): "Scholars previously thought that the pyramids in the 3rd millennium BC were built by foreign slaves. Current thinking, however, is that Egyptians, possibly as conscripts or corvée, built the structures."

From Biblical Archaeology Review (July/Aug, 2015 pp: 24, 26): "Papyri and ostraca from Deir el-Medina, a workers’ village near ancient Thebes (modern Luxor, Egypt), give evidence of a government healthcare plan. The discoveries, dating to the 19th and 20th Dynasties (c. 1300-1080 BC), show many facets of the healthcare system, demonstrating such benefits as paid sick days and free visits to physicians. The documents show that the workers visited three types of medical providers: the swnw (physician), the hrp-srk.t (scorpion charmer), and the rh.t (wise woman). The physician was also a member of the workforce at Deir el-Medina, but while treating patients, he was excused from work and was paid rations by the Egyptian state. Dealing primarily in responsive medicine, he treated his patients with ointments and prescriptions."

From Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas Bible Background Commentary: "The man-hours needed for the massive engineering and construction projects undertaken in the ancient world made forced labor an institution. It was used as a form of taxation on the common people (for instance, they might work one month out of the year without pay on government building projects). When the government projects proved too ambitious to staff with native people and prisoners of war, and too expensive to hire labor, vulnerable people groups would be targeted for forced labor."

So it doesn't change the theme at all. As a matter of fact, it bears out the reliability of the biblical record.

So, Moses and Company were just working off their debt then, eh? Got it.

Kind of changes the whole theme there, doesn't it?

No, no, no. In the ancient world, a "master" bought and sold a "slave's" labor, not their person. People weren't owned, their labor was owned. It's a big difference, and it matter. Foreign slaves could have their labor owned for life, but not their person; they could easily have been debt slaves. The Hebrew system was nothing like the American system. But it's obvious that you don't believe the scholars I've quoted, you don't believe the sources I've quoted, and you don't believe the Hebrew I've explained. I have no idea what sources you're using, but I'm guessing it's just your opinion—that's my guess. You haven't shown me any research. I'm not sure the conversation can continue to be productive if it's a debate of research vs. opinion. So maybe we need to be done.

A slave that can be bought and sold is, by definition, a chattel slave. Even if they started as debt slaves.

That foreign slaves are slaves for life (regardless of any debt) indicates that they are not "debt-slaves".

The American system is exactly like the Hebrew one.

Like the American system, the Hebrew system distinguishes between Hebrew servants and foreign slaves

Like the American system, there was some punishment for killing a slave, and some "rights" for slaves against cruel treatment.

I'm sorry; I'm not trying to be rude, but you're making an uninformed assessment. Just because some Virginians mentioned purchase by Christians doesn't mean that the ancient Hebrew system and the American system are therefore similar.

As far as Leviticus 25, have you studied the whole text? Do you know what the Bible has to say about slavery? Or are you just cherry-picking a sentence and trying to make something of it?

"Property" in Lev. 25.45 is la’ahuzza, "possession." The false assumption is just presuming this is a chattel slave, not a debt slave. On what basis do you make that assumption? Almost all (if not all) slavery in ancient Israel was debt slavery (hopefully you read what I wrote). Given the cultural context, what makes you assume these are not debt servitude? The context of Leviticus 25 indicates that what the writer is saying is that the Jubilee doesn't apply to non-Israelite slaves. As I said, it does not imply that the slave is a piece of property. Foreigners could not own land in Israel. The only way for them to become part of society was to align with an Israelite family. And these foreigners were not totally integrated into Israel for generations. Milgrom says, "He might become rich (Ziba, the slave of Saul, 2 Sam. 9.10b; 16.4) and achieve high social status (Doeg the Edomite, 1 Sam. 21.8; Zelek the Ammonite, 2 Sam. 23.37; Uriah the Hittite, 2 Sam. 1.3, all high officers in the royal court or army). Even though he may have totally assimilated into Israelite society, even to the point of being a zealous worshiper of YHWH (a matter emphasized in the Doeg and Uriah accounts), he retained his ethnic label and was not reckoned an Israelite." That's what this verse is talking about, not chattel slavery. This is what makes understanding the context of the day such a vitally important place to start.

I'm sorry, but your view of the text is extremely tortured. The Hebrew system is actually very similar to the American south version.
America employed indentured servants from European nations-- people bound to serve contracts for a certain number of years as punishment or as satisfaction for a debt. This is the same situation as the Hebrew debt-servants.

By contrast, the American system distinguished slaves as people originating from "non-Christian" nations. Here's an excerpt from the
Virginia definition: "whether Negroes, Moors, mulattoes or Indians who and whose parentage and native countries are not Christian at the time of their first purchase by some Christian ..."

Similarly, the Hebrew system distinguished Hebrew servants and foreigner slaves. From Leviticus 25:

39"If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. 42For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

I'll note that, again, the text refers to the slaves as property. And they can be slaves for life, which contradicts the first line of your response. (I'll also note that Hebrew servants can be for life as well if they marry an owner's slave, or if they're women)
Finally, even American southern slaves had "rights", similar to those under Jewish law. These were known as Slave Codes. Like Jewish law, they imposed a punishment if a master killed a non-runaway slave (usually a fine). Also like Jewish law, they applied (rarely enforced) provisions for freedom or forced sale if a master mistreated a slave.

I'm not going to trust your translation analysis on the Jewish punishment for killing a slave, without additional explanation. Your analysis regarding property/money/silver was off the mark. Exodus 21:20 just says "punishment" in the English translation. The most convincing argument you can give is if it uses the same word in the previous verse, Exodus 21:12, where the punishment for killing another is death.

American slaves also had "rights", but they were still property. Similarly today, animals have rights, but they're still property.

No, I didn't. Sigh. Have you studied the whole text? Do you know what the Bible has to say about slavery? Or are you just cherry-picking a sentence and trying to make something of it?

"Property" in Lev. 25.45 is *la’ahuzza*, "possession." The false assumption is just presuming this is a chattel slave, not a debt slave. On what basis do you make that assumption? Almost all (if not all) slavery in ancient Israel was debt slavery (hopefully you read what I wrote). Given the cultural context, what makes you assume these are not debt servitude? The context of Leviticus 25 indicates that what the writer is saying is that the Jubilee doesn't apply to non-Israelite slaves. As I said, it does not imply that the slave is a piece of property. Foreigners could not own land in Israel. The only way for them to become part of society was to align with an Israelite family. And these foreigners were not totally integrated into Israel for generations. Milgrom says, "He might become rich (Ziba, the slave of Saul, 2 Sam. 9.10b; 16.4) and achieve high social status (Doeg the Edomite, 1 Sam. 21.8; Zelek the Ammonite, 2 Sam. 23.37; Uriah the Hittite, 2 Sam. 1.3, all high officers in the royal court or army). Even though he may have totally assimilated into Israelite society, even to the point of being a zealous worshiper of YHWH (a matter emphasized in the Doeg and Uriah accounts), he retained his ethnic label and was not reckoned an Israelite." That's what this verse is talking about, not chattel slavery.

This is what makes an understanding of the context of that day so vitally important as a place to start.

You ignored one of the most important parts:

"they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

That is the very definition of chattel slavery.

> This is inconsistent with the narrative of Jesus and the NT.

Not at all. I'm not sure "absolved" is a biblical word (doctrinal accurate). Our sins are atoned, but the NT is clear that the sin nature still lives in us (Rom. 7.7-25; 8.12-14; Gal. 5.16-18, and many others), wreaking havoc and causing us to sin.

> Why would a god need to accomodate human behavior?

Jesus is firm in denouncing sin and its harmful effects, using Gen. 2.24 as his foundation. In Deuteronomy 24.1, we find that divorce is tolerated, but not authorized or sanctioned (Mal. 2.16). We can surmise that divorce was accommodated out of concern for the wellbeing of the women. Dt. 24.1 makes provision so the women are treated properly and protected. He is not making divorce acceptable, but limiting its harm.

If you read it carefully, Jesus didn't say in any that God had lowered his ideal. But he is a compassionate God, understanding the reality and effects of sin. He's a God of mercy, and doesn't just squeal with glee at any opportunity to slam us.

> Is this god powerless to move against human wishes?

Not at all, but why are you so eager to begrudge his grace?

> Wow, not at all. When God accommodates human behavior, He is not, then, declaring that behavior to be good, He is merely permitting less than the ideal because of our weaknesses.

This is inconsistent with the narrative of Jesus and the NT. Our sins were absolved through the sacrifice of Jesus. There is no further "accommodation". Also, why would a god need to accomodate human behavior? Is this god powerless to move against human wishes? The logical problems here seem to be grow by the second.

And with respect, I don't feel your response is much of an answer. Can I imagine a god who does as you say? Certainly. But possible does not equate to probable. I see no evidence for your position and it is certainly not supported by scripture. Your response is simply ex post facto reasoning for something that you cant justify.