Hello Sheng-Ta, thanks for replying.

You said:

"My point was to show that kidnapping was prohibited in many ANE cultures, which you admitted you were not aware of."

I didn't admit any such thing.

I wasn't aware of the specific passage in the Code of Hammurabi that you referenced. I had previously studied much of what it said about slavery, but could not find the specific passage in question. That's why I asked you for it.

You said:

"You can quibble about how limited those prohibitions are, but it is still a fact that slavery could exist in a society where kidnapping was not allowed. The reason is simple. Kidnapping is not the only source of slaves."

Quibble about how limited they are?

The focus of the laws is entirely different.

In the Bible, the focus is on keeping the person free.

In the other law codes, the focus is on punishing the thief and returning the slave.

You said:

"Exodus 21:16 does not prohibit all forms of slave trade. It only prohibits selling people who were kidnapped as slaves. This is a very important distinction, which you fail to make, leading to the erroneous conclusion that slavery is completely banned in Israel."

I didn't base my argument entirely on Exodus 21:16. It addresses one key part of the situation, but it is not sufficient by itself to ban all slavery within Israel.

That's why you need to appeal to Deuteronomy 23:15-16 as well, along a few other key passages throughout the Law. I've written about all of this in detail, here on Medium and elsewhere.

You said:

"If the kidnapped person was a slave before, why would you expect them to become free once the kidnapper was found out by the legitimate slave owner? If the kidnapped person was a freeman before, of course he was to be set free. What’s the problem here? What are you trying to argue?"

I'm pointing out the differences in the law codes.

There is no passage in the Bible where a slave is kidnapped, rescued, and remains a slave. The other law codes are quite specific in leaving the person a slave, even after they are recovered, going so far as to reward the person who returned the slave.

But in the Bible, any slave is free as soon as they want to be, per Deuteronomy 23:15-16.

It's why you do not find a slave market, slave auction, or slave traders anywhere within Israel. There was no market for slaves. It could not exist in a society where any servant or slave could leave their masters at any point, and the Law kept them free.

This is the essential difference: in Deuteronomy, the law protects a slave who escaped, mandating their freedom and preventing the former master from ever getting them back.

But in the other law codes, the law rewards those who return slaves to their former masters, and continues to treat them as slaves.

You said:

“But then it clarifies in the following verses that they can go out earlier, and in more ways, than the men.”

"But none of those ways were up to her. For example, one condition of being freed is if her master is dissatisfied with her. If you think she can just walk away by claiming that she was not taken care of, there is something really wrong with your thinking."

If she's a maid serving in the household, she can indeed walk away whenever she wants. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 gives her that right.

The only "permanent" slavery is the one described in the verses preceding this passage, where the servant themselves chooses not to go out, but to stay with their master. It is entirely the servant's own choice. It cannot be forced upon them.

You said:

“Leviticus 25:44-46 doesn't talk of slavery, but contract employment.”

OK. I am done. I am not going to spend time arguing with people who blatantly refuse to look at the facts. Do you not see the word “property” in the passage?"

Context is everything, my friend.

If the word was used in the context of a slave market, slave traders, or a slave auction, then yes, it could be translated "property."

But Leviticus 25 lacks that context.

Slave auctions, slave markets, and slave traders are outlawed in Israel in multiple ways through the Law. That's why you never see them in the biblical narratives.

In that context, the word is better translated otherwise.

The word is used by God to speak of Himself as the "possession" of the Levitical priests in Ezekiel 44:28. "Possession" in this case indicates a special relationship, but it does not connote slavery. God is not enslaved to the priests.

But He is the God of the priests. He is "theirs," even though He is not owned by them.

This is the kind of meaning that should be read into Leviticus 25. To the landowner, the workers are "theirs," in the sense that they work for the landowner, not for anyone else.

But passages like Deuteronomy 23:15-16 still grant to them freedom should they ever wish it.

You said:

"You argued that in Deuteronomy 20:10-11, people did not become property. Now in Lev. 25, the word “property” is used to describe the slaves, and you still don’t think they are slaves, but workers under contract employment?"

See above.

But also: the Law interprets the Law.

If there's any passage that seems to say you can keep people as property, check with the rest of the Torah. Does any other passage allow it? Does any forbid it?

In fact, multiple passages forbid owning people as property.

I sound like a broken record, but I keep appealing to this because it is key to the evidence: there are no slave markets, and no slave traders, and no slave auctions anywhere in Israel, throughout all the narratives in the Bible.

Why? Why weren't they found anywhere in Israel, when they were ubiquitous throughout the ancient world?

Because they were outlawed.

Everyone knew they were outlawed. It's why you don't find any slaves being passed on as inheritance throughout the narratives, which is what you should expect to find, if your interpretation of Leviticus 25 is correct.

But if my interpretation is correct, and everyone understood that possessing people as property was outlawed, then we should expect to find nothing of the sort -- no slave class, no slave markets, no slave being passed on as property.

And indeed, that's what we find, all throughout the historical narratives.

You said:

"Man, are you for real?"

Sheng-Ta, you have an interpretation which you want to uphold. You want to take a very dark view of the Bible.

I've shown you in detail the problems with that interpretation.

Instead of questioning your interpretation, you instead question me.

Are you for real?