The 10th commandment

.Moosejam

When I was a kid I was taught don't covet your neighbours goods, but the full version has 'or male or female slave'

which at best is a tacid acceptance of slavery I would have thought.

I am sure I must be wrong though if you could point out my error I would be appreciative.

It's probably been asked before but I ran a search and came a blank.

Fanny Cradock

What happened to the old Moosejam?

Overheal

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."

Fanny Cradock

As above the closest I can find to "salve" is actually "man servant" or "maid servant"(NKJ), which seems to suggest something closer to indentured servitude (debt bondage).

I'm not sure what translation you are using, but you seem to be referring to chattel slavery which is when the slave is considered to be the property of the master. This isn't condemned outright anywhere in the bible - new or old. The closet you will get are some guidelines that were supposed to endow some rights on the slave and prevent some forms of abuse.

Soul Winner

Never judge ancient cultural norms by modern day ethical standards. Who knows, maybe in a few thousands years the things that we practice today might be frowned upon by future generations, like destroying the earth in order to extract its wealth of fuel and minerals in order for us to have a better quality of life. Is there anyone here guilty of partaking of the modern day pleasures of life at the expense of the earth? Slavery was the norm for every society in ancient times, but its like everything else, it can be abused and made into a money making industry to satisfy the greed of the privileged few.

janeeen

The word slave is probably a bad translation. Most Bibles in Exodus 20:17 use the word manservant and maidservant, some say "man-servant and handmaid".

Even if the word slave was the proper translation, slavery back then would off been most common and while God would not agree with it he would probably say if you have slaves don't desire or covet them.

Personally if i believe if you read John 13:34-35
34:A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another 35: By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

If we have love among one another we would not commit any of the ten commandments anyway.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Never judge ancient cultural norms by modern day ethical standards. Who knows, maybe in a few thousands years the things that we practice today might be frowned upon by future generations, like destroying the earth in order to extract its wealth of fuel and minerals in order for us to have a better quality of life. Is there anyone here guilty of partaking of the modern day pleasures of life at the expense of the earth? Slavery was the norm for every society in ancient times, but its like everything else, it can be abused and made into a money making industry to satisfy the greed of the privileged few.

That sounds awfully relativist tbh. I thought that with objective morality things were either right or wrong and the date on the calendar shouldn't matter?

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That sounds awfully relativist tbh. I thought that with objective morality things were either right or wrong and the date on the calendar shouldn't matter?

Natch, you got there before me

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That sounds awfully relativist tbh. I thought that with objective morality things were either right or wrong and the date on the calendar shouldn't matter?

Let me guess.. slavery is objectively wrong according to God's moral rulebook, BUT the people of that time were fallible and choose to disobey his rules. They have free will after all.

'But aren't the 10 commandments the word of God?'

Parts of the Bible were written by fallible humans who may have misinterpreted God's word or depicted it using ambiguous or incorrect language.

Am I close?

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

Let me guess.. slavery is objectively wrong according to God's moral rulebook, BUT the people of that time were fallible and choose to disobey his rules. They have free will after all.

'But aren't the 10 commandments the word of God?'

Parts of the Bible were written by fallible humans who may have misinterpreted God's word or depicted it using ambiguous or incorrect language.

Am I close?

I don't think so I'm afraid. The ten commandments are the direct word of god as dictated to Moses so they can't claim those as one of the parts that are fallible

PDN

liamw wrote: »

Let me guess.. slavery is objectively wrong according to God's moral rulebook, BUT the people of that time were fallible and choose to disobey his rules. They have free will after all.

'But aren't the 10 commandments the word of God?'

Parts of the Bible were written by fallible humans who may have misinterpreted God's word or depicted it using ambiguous or incorrect language.

Am I close?

Nowhere near close.

If an atheist asks a question in the Christianity forum, I suggest you let one of the Christians have an opportunity to answer instead of a silly to and fro between atheists who are taking the piss.

In the Bible we see progressive revelation, whereby truth is revealed bit by bit to people as and when they are able to receive it. So, even those Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible understand that the Old Testament refers to certain practices as existing without necessarily condoning them.

Maidservants or manservants, as mentioned in the ten commandments, can refer to many situations - some of them as benign as having a waiter 'serve you' in a restaurant. Another example of a master-servant relationship would be where someone contracted to work for you for a set period if you paid off their debts. This, in essence, was to get your wages paid in advance for the agreed period - and then you were an indentured servant for that agreed time. This arrangement, similar to how many Irish immigrants to North America paid their boat passage, is not, in my opinion, immoral at all.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Nowhere near close.

If an atheist asks a question in the Christianity forum, I suggest you let one of the Christians have an opportunity to answer instead of a silly to and fro between atheists who are taking the piss.

In the Bible we see progressive revelation, whereby truth is revealed bit by bit to people as and when they are able to receive it. So, even those Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible understand that the Old Testament refers to certain practices as existing without necessarily condoning them.

Maidservants or manservants, as mentioned in the ten commandments, can refer to many situations - some of them as benign as having a waiter 'serve you' in a restaurant. Another example of a master-servant relationship would be where someone contracted to work for you for a set period if you paid off their debts. This, in essence, was to get your wages paid in advance for the agreed period - and then you were an indentured servant for that agreed time. This arrangement, similar to how many Irish immigrants to North America paid their boat passage, is not, in my opinion, immoral at all.

Yeah but with indentured servants the servant willingly entered into the contract which was not always the case with biblical man servants and maid servants

Also, as far as I know indentured servants signed up for a certain time period and not their whole life which was also not always the case with biblical man servants

And I could be wrong about this but I doubt that the contracts for indentured servants allowed them to be beaten, even within certain limits

Slav

If one actually reads the Bible they will have no questions on what its position towards the slavery actually is.

From the Bible it's quite clear that there is no slavery in the Kingdom of God. Humanity was created without slavery as there were no masters or slaves in Eden. Same in the New Jerusalem where "there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all" (Colossians 3:11)

For those who did not read the Bible and did not go past the 10 Commandments in the classroom (but still feels an urge to open someone's eyes on the topic of Christianity supporting slavery) here we can arm you with something more powerful then the 10 Commandments:

"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered" (1 Timothy 6:1)

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favour when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart" (Ephesians 6:5-6)

"Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you" (1 Corinthians 7:20-21) (*)

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh" (1 Peter 2:18)

Enjoy!


(*) 1 Cor 7:21 in almost all English translations is continued with something like "although if you can gain your freedom, do so" (New International Version). I believe those translations are wrong; the original μαλλον χρησαι should be translated not as "do so" but rather as "go for more" which changes the meaning of this phrase to the opposite of the NIV translation, i.e. if you can gain your freedom from slavery then you'd better be looking for a more important sort of freedom instead. What exactly -- is explained in the next verse. That's even better, isn't it?

krudler

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think so I'm afraid. The ten commandments are the direct word of god as dictated to Moses so they can't claim those as one of the parts that are fallible

Maybe he took them down wrong, chiselling stuff into stone tablets must take a while, especially with a deity watching over you as you do it

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

Nowhere near close.

If an atheist asks a question in the Christianity forum, I suggest you let one of the Christians have an opportunity to answer instead of a silly to and fro between atheists who are taking the piss.

In the Bible we see progressive revelation, whereby truth is revealed bit by bit to people as and when they are able to receive it. So, even those Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible understand that the Old Testament refers to certain practices as existing without necessarily condoning them.

Maidservants or manservants, as mentioned in the ten commandments, can refer to many situations - some of them as benign as having a waiter 'serve you' in a restaurant. Another example of a master-servant relationship would be where someone contracted to work for you for a set period if you paid off their debts. This, in essence, was to get your wages paid in advance for the agreed period - and then you were an indentured servant for that agreed time. This arrangement, similar to how many Irish immigrants to North America paid their boat passage, is not, in my opinion, immoral at all.

Natch, you got there before me (and said it better than I could)

chozometroid

krudler wrote: »

Maybe he took them down wrong, chiselling stuff into stone tablets must take a while, especially with a deity watching over you as you do it

Umm....God wrote them, not Moses.

janeeen

liamw wrote: »

Let me guess.. slavery is objectively wrong according to God's moral rulebook, BUT the people of that time were fallible and choose to disobey his rules. They have free will after all.

'But aren't the 10 commandments the word of God?'

Parts of the Bible were written by fallible humans who may have misinterpreted God's word or depicted it using ambiguous or incorrect language.

Am I close?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16)

CIE

PDN wrote: »

Maidservants or manservants, as mentioned in the ten commandments, can refer to many situations - some of them as benign as having a waiter 'serve you' in a restaurant. Another example of a master-servant relationship would be where someone contracted to work for you for a set period if you paid off their debts. This, in essence, was to get your wages paid in advance for the agreed period - and then you were an indentured servant for that agreed time

Just to make things more clear, the Hebrew words translated "manservant" and "maidservant" in Exodus 20:17 (and Deuteronomy 5:21) were "ebed" and "amah" respectively. These words, UIM (and I don't believe I am) can mean anything from chattel slaves to hired workers. Since even today only a comparative few are self-employed, the existence of the "ebed" and "amah" are quite contemporary and widespread. (Resources like the Strong's Dictionary are quite handy and informative.)

santing

The 10 commandments were not written for the government, but for individuals to obey. As such it is a perfect instruction that we should not covet ... our neighbours slaves. This doesn't mean an endorsement of slavery, but a prohibition of coveting.

The rule would indeed extend to employees in our days.

chozometroid

santing wrote: »

The 10 commandments were not written for the government, but for individuals to obey. As such it is a perfect instruction that we should not covet ... our neighbours slaves. This doesn't mean an endorsement of slavery, but a prohibition of coveting.

The rule would indeed extend to employees in our days.

The commandment about coveting applies to anything. The fact that servants are mentioned in the commandment only shows that those were one of the few valuable things people actually possessed in those days, along with house, wife, and animals. It is closed with "nor anything that is thy neighbor's" which pretty much sums it up.
Today we have a lot more specific valuable things to covet like cars, boats, golf clubs, shoes, swimming pools, and bar-b-que grills.

.Moosejam

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What happened to the old Moosejam?

I'm one of those who have no access to the email I regged with, I probably wasn't supposed to create a new account yet but I can't see it getting sorted so Oh noes I'm a noob again, and I had just passed 5k posts too, the inhumanity :eek:

chozometroid

.Moosejam wrote: »

I'm one of those who have no access to the email I regged with, I probably wasn't supposed to create a new account yet but I can't see it getting sorted so Oh noes I'm a noob again, and I had just passed 5k posts too, the inhumanity :eek:

Sounds like you might be the real deal. Maybe we should vote you in.