I'm not sure what you're talking about here, so a text or an explanation would be helpful. The Bible never mentions race, but only clans, ethnic groups, or people groups. There is never any mention of black, white, Asian, or anything else as racial divisions. The Bible mentions groups like Amorites, Jebusites, Canaanites, and such, but those aren't racial divisions. They are clans. So you'll have to explain what you mean.

The Bible is not racist. The Bible never mentions races. It never divides people by races. It certainly never discriminates people according to race. The issue of race has nothing to do with what the Bible says, period, let alone anything it says about slavery.

> The issue of race has nothing to do with what the Bible says about slavery.

I don't know how you can say that when the Bible prescribe different treatment to slaves of different nation.

We have to understand the ancient texts in their ancient context. We have to understand ancient terms as ancient terms. Meanings do change through the years. Fifty years ago "gay" meant "happy," now it means homosexual. "Chickadee" in the 1950s was a hot girl. We don't use it like that today. Eras matter in how we understand terminology. The challenge of Scripture is not just to read it in English. Sometimes the cultural context makes a difference, and it's responsible scholarship to find that out.

See, when you hear the word "slavery," you assume "chattel slavery". Why is that? Because you're a modern person. But if there was not such thing as chattel slavery in the ancient world, if the horrors of Rome and the U.S. antebellum South had not yet happened, they wouldn't assume "chattel" when they heard the term "slave."

Rule #1: The Bible is an ancient document, and to understand it properly we have to do as much as possible to understand the author's intent. The language of the text is embedded in the ancient world, not in ours. When we read Exodus or Leviticus, we are reading an ancient document and should begin by using only the assumptions that would be appropriate for the ancient world.

> Since there was no chattel slavery in ancient Israel, we cannot understand and interpret Lev. 25.44-46 as chattel slavery.

If we presuppose that the Bible doesnt endorse chattel slavery, then passages that seem to clearly describe and endorse chattel slavery must mean something else! Airtight logic there.

In the ancient days, debt slavery was very much different from chattel slavery. If someone owed money to another individual, they could work for someone else, or even the creditor, to work off the debt. That's very different from the abusive chattel slavery we saw in ancient Rome or the U.S. antebellum South.

> And actually it is the way most 21st century people envision slavery given that 85% of human trafficking is in trading and dealing with indebted human labour

Actually, a lot of human trafficking has nothing to do with someone paying off a debt. They are often kidnapped, or hired under abusive conditions. It's horrendously abusive, but not at all a reflection of ancient Israelite society. Ancient Israel was mostly agrarian, and debt slavery was nothing like chattel slavery.

> Unless you're unaware of the scale, scope, and evil that is modern day slavery.

I'm decently informed. Modern day slavery is just plain evil.

>No one does. As I said, in the Bible they didn't own people as property. They owned their labor. They were debt slaves, not chattel slaves.

Debt slavery isn't the same as chattel slavery, but it's still slavery. And actually it is the way most 21st century people envision slavery given that 85% of human trafficking is in trading and dealing with indebted human labour, and it is considered illegal under international law. Unless you're unaware of the scale, scope, and evil that is modern day slavery.

> Asians and Native American's were not tied up in chains, auctioned off as slaves, blacks were.

That is correct. I didn't claim anything different. I only claimed that the issue of race has nothing to do with what the Bible says about slavery.

> some founding USA fathers and forward said slavery was our divine right from God

I'm very well aware of this. They were terribly wrong, tragically incorrect.

> during the civil war, was any of the slaves generations of Asians or Native Indians?

No they were not. I have agreed with you all along.

> You ever been to the USA deep South? I have, Many whites still want those days today

I know. It's terrible. It has no place in a civilized society, and it has no place in humanity. it's just wrong.

> your whole comment failed to contribute to the discussion

I only addressed the content and nature of your comments.

>But don't overlook the horrible treatment the whites also gave the Asians and the Native Americans.

Asians and Native American's were not tied up in chains, auctioned off as slaves, blacks were.

>some founding USA fathers and forward said slavery was our divine right from God......what do you think the Civil war was mostly about? one side wanted the labor still for free, the other said its inhumane

during the civil war, was any of the slaves generations of Asians or Native Indians? no, they where black......facts served

You ever been to the USA deep South? I have, Many whites still want those days today

your whole comment failed to contribute to the discussion

Ex. 21.21. First of all, it's casuistic law—hypothetical situations to guide a judge. There is no indication that such things are actually happening. Second, it is considered within the rights of the owner to discipline the servant. Third, the passage affirms the servant's full personhood. He is not a "thing," but a human being to be treated with dignity. If the servant "recovers" (again, case law), the implication is that it was disciplinary, not a real beating. The guidance for the judge is that the owner is not to be punished if there was no real harm. If there was harm, the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.26-27), and if there is death the owner is to be executed (Ex. 21.12, 20).

This law is protective of slaves. They cannot be beaten without repercussion. It is not protecting the abuser. If there is injury, the slave goes free. If there is death, the owner is executed.

Remember that the slave text is in the same context as the pregnant woman text. The case law was considered to be similar, so what it says about the preggo woman is also true for the slave. It's all part of the same category of "personal injuries." Those responsible for injury—any injury, whether fetus, baby, slave, animal, parent, or friend (please read Ex. 21.12-36 to get the flow)—are punished for that injury.

Therefore, the book is NOT literally protecting an abuser. The book is protecting the victim, the innocent, and the underdogs.

The eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth stuff is about hitting a pregnant woman.

" If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. "

So no.

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. "

The book is literally protecting an abuser from receiving any punishment. Its saying if a person does this, but the slave does not die, the book forbids that person from receiving punishment for beating their slave.

Its shielding the abuser from punishment; protecting them from punishment, if you will.