David Sienkiewicz writes:

In a recent devotion, Jason added this bit, from his e-book:


< begin quote >
"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" claims:


Genesis 17:12-13, 23 - God tells Abram that all males must be
circumcised, even those whom Abram had bought with money. There isn't
the slightest evidence in this passage, or in any other in the Bible,
that the biblical God disapproves of slavery.


"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" responds:


Here is another "argument from silence." Much of the Bible is
historical narrative. Simply because God doesn't strike someone down,
it doesn't mean He is pleased with their behavior. However, in most
cases, we see the punishment for sin in the subsequent chapters of the
Bible.


< end quote >


So we're told by the SAB that there is no indication in the Bible that
God disapproves of slavery, which Jason dismisses as an "argument from
silence," followed by a vague and presumptive assertion, and then an
irrelevancy.


However, it IS true that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates
that slavery was displeasing to God. So THAT much of the SAB is
correct, and Jason cannot refute that, so he declares it an "argument
from silence."


I think we can see right off that this isn't a "correction" at all, if
only because the "argument from silence" goes both ways and, in this
case, works in the favor of the SAB. Given the amount of verbiage
found in the Bible on the subject of slavery, the "argument from
silence" actually works AGAINST Jason - not FOR him.


The fact is that God is, at best, unconcerned with the subject of
slavery and, at most, approves of it, at least in certain instances.
This is at least implied in the fact that it is allowed to exist as an
institution, particularly for the Hebrews. The mention of slavery
appears many times in both testaments, directing slaves to be
subservient and obedient, while directing slaveholders to be good to
their slaves. The only slaves to receive special treatment insofar as
they were to be released within a specific timer were HEBREW slaves -
they were to serve six years and then be released , though any children
borne of any wife "given" to the slave by the owner were to remain the
property of the owner. Exodus 22:3 even tells us that a thief whom
cannot make restitution for his thievery may be sold into slavery.
Deuteronomy 21 permits the enslavement of foreign women as a bounty.
The closest thing the Bible does to showing much sympathy for slaves
beyond the requirement that they be treated well and not overly abused
is also found in Deuteronomy, which declares that runaway slaves are
not to be returned to their masters.


Priests, whom allegedly represented God, had slaves.


Jason goes on to argue that "just because" God does NOT punish someone
does not mean that he approves of the behavior, but if we note that
there were special provisions for Hebrew slaves, that slaves were
DIRECTED to be obedient, that priests owned slaves and that one who
steals and cannot make restitution can become a slave, all under the
supposedly watchful eye of God over his "Chosen People" - of which I am
one, remember - it's apparent that God, at least, did not disapprove of
the practice, and allowed his followers to engage in it for quite some
time.


Jason asserts that we see "punishment for sin" later in the Bible,
which is so vague as to be irrelevant.


Yes, there is "punishment for sin," but NEVER for slavery, itself, and
of all the sins identified specifically as such, slavery is never
identified as a sin. Punishment for some vague sins is a
misdirection. We are talking about something rather specific here,
i.e., slavery.


The specific passage cited by the SAB that Jason presumes to correct
even points out that slaves were to be circumcised. This is a specific
RELIGIOUS instruction based on Hebrew principles at the time DERIVED
FROM GOD.


God seemed to speak a lot to the Hebrews in those days. It's a bit
unreasonable to assume that, on this subject and as a convenience to
Jason Gastrich millenia later, he'd be silent about it enough that
Jason can try to make his argument.


Jason's presumed "correction" to the SAB is that God, allegedly, didn't
say ANYTHING about slavery being good or bad, and so HE ASSUMES that
God would disapprove of slavery. Jason's assumption becomes the
"correction" and "explanation," but it is based on poor reasoning.
This is one of many, many examples of Jason simply disagreeing with the
conclusions of the author(s) of the SAB, and trying to explain AWAY the
point. There is no "correction" at all.


Discussion?


Jason Gastrich responds:

God's feelings about slavery were/are very similar to His feelings about
divorce. He didn't want either. However, He made laws to regulate both
because He knew that His people were not perfect.

If anyone thinks God is for divorce, then let me know. I'll gladly provide
the scriptures that say He is against it. Furthermore, we have a Bible
lesson on this topic at http://biblelessons.jcsm.org. God loves and
forgives people who get divorces.

If anyone thinks that the New Testament doesn't send a message of love -
especially regarding the treatment of others (which would include
"slaves") - then please let me know. I'll post those scriptures as well.

God's feelings about slavery were/are very similar to His feelings about
divorce. He didn't want either. However, He made laws to regulate both
because He knew that His people were not perfect.

< end quote >

If anyone thinks God is for divorce, then let me know. I'll gladly
provide the scriptures that say He is against it. Furthermore, we
have a Bible lesson on this topic at http://biblelessons.jcsm.org.
God loves and forgives people who get divorces.

If anyone thinks that the New Testament doesn't send a message of love -
especially regarding the treatment of others (which would include
"slaves") - then please let me know. I'll post those scriptures as well.

JG

David Sienkiewicz writes:

In a recent devotion, Jason added this bit, from his e-book:


< begin quote >
"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" claims:


Genesis 17:12-13, 23 - God tells Abram that all males must be
circumcised, even those whom Abram had bought with money. There isn't
the slightest evidence in this passage, or in any other in the Bible,
that the biblical God disapproves of slavery.


"The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained" responds:


Here is another "argument from silence." Much of the Bible is
historical narrative. Simply because God doesn't strike someone down,
it doesn't mean He is pleased with their behavior. However, in most
cases, we see the punishment for sin in the subsequent chapters of

Bible.


< end quote >


So we're told by the SAB that there is no indication in the Bible

God disapproves of slavery, which Jason dismisses as an "argument

silence," followed by a vague and presumptive assertion, and then an
irrelevancy.


However, it IS true that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates
that slavery was displeasing to God. So THAT much of the SAB is
correct, and Jason cannot refute that, so he declares it an "argument
from silence."


I think we can see right off that this isn't a "correction" at all,

only because the "argument from silence" goes both ways and, in this
case, works in the favor of the SAB. Given the amount of verbiage
found in the Bible on the subject of slavery, the "argument from
silence" actually works AGAINST Jason - not FOR him.


The fact is that God is, at best, unconcerned with the subject of
slavery and, at most, approves of it, at least in certain instances.
This is at least implied in the fact that it is allowed to exist as

institution, particularly for the Hebrews. The mention of slavery
appears many times in both testaments, directing slaves to be
subservient and obedient, while directing slaveholders to be good to
their slaves. The only slaves to receive special treatment insofar as
they were to be released within a specific timer were HEBREW slaves -
they were to serve six years and then be released , though any

borne of any wife "given" to the slave by the owner were to remain

property of the owner. Exodus 22:3 even tells us that a thief whom
cannot make restitution for his thievery may be sold into slavery.
Deuteronomy 21 permits the enslavement of foreign women as a bounty.
The closest thing the Bible does to showing much sympathy for slaves
beyond the requirement that they be treated well and not overly

is also found in Deuteronomy, which declares that runaway slaves are
not to be returned to their masters.


Priests, whom allegedly represented God, had slaves.


Jason goes on to argue that "just because" God does NOT punish

does not mean that he approves of the behavior, but if we note that
there were special provisions for Hebrew slaves, that slaves were
DIRECTED to be obedient, that priests owned slaves and that one who
steals and cannot make restitution can become a slave, all under the
supposedly watchful eye of God over his "Chosen People" - of which I

one, remember - it's apparent that God, at least, did not disapprove

the practice, and allowed his followers to engage in it for quite

time.


Jason asserts that we see "punishment for sin" later in the Bible,
which is so vague as to be irrelevant.


Yes, there is "punishment for sin," but NEVER for slavery, itself,

of all the sins identified specifically as such, slavery is never
identified as a sin. Punishment for some vague sins is a
misdirection. We are talking about something rather specific here,
i.e., slavery.


The specific passage cited by the SAB that Jason presumes to correct
even points out that slaves were to be circumcised. This is a

RELIGIOUS instruction based on Hebrew principles at the time DERIVED
FROM GOD.


God seemed to speak a lot to the Hebrews in those days. It's a bit
unreasonable to assume that, on this subject and as a convenience to
Jason Gastrich millenia later, he'd be silent about it enough that
Jason can try to make his argument.


Jason's presumed "correction" to the SAB is that God, allegedly,

say ANYTHING about slavery being good or bad, and so HE ASSUMES that
God would disapprove of slavery. Jason's assumption becomes the
"correction" and "explanation," but it is based on poor reasoning.
This is one of many, many examples of Jason simply disagreeing with

conclusions of the author(s) of the SAB, and trying to explain AWAY

point. There is no "correction" at all.


Discussion?


Jason Gastrich responds:

God's feelings about slavery were/are very similar to His feelings

divorce. He didn't want either. However, He made laws to regulate

because He knew that His people were not perfect.

If anyone thinks God is for divorce, then let me know. I'll gladly

the scriptures that say He is against it. Furthermore, we have a

lesson on this topic at http://biblelessons.jcsm.org. God loves and
forgives people who get divorces.

If anyone thinks that the New Testament doesn't send a message of

especially regarding the treatment of others (which would include
"slaves") - then please let me know. I'll post those scriptures as

Here is another "argument from silence." Much of the Bible is
historical narrative. Simply because God doesn't strike someone down,
it doesn't mean He is pleased with their behavior.

God's feelings about slavery were/are very similar to His feelings about
divorce. He didn't want either.

However, He made laws to regulate both
because He knew that His people were not perfect.

If anyone thinks God is for divorce, then let me know.

I'll gladly provide the scriptures that say He is against it.

If anyone thinks that the New Testament doesn't send a message of love

especially regarding the treatment of others (which would include
"slaves")

- then please let me know. I'll post those scriptures as well.