There is a good resource I recommend
Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan.
Here is a quote from the book
>"Joshua’s conventional warfare rhetoric was common in many other ancient Near Eastern military accounts in the second and first millennia BC. The language is typically exaggerated and full of bravado, depicting total devastation. The knowing ancient Near Eastern reader recognized this as hyperbole; the accounts weren’t understood to be literally true.4 This language, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen observes, has misled many Old Testament scholars in their assessments of the book of Joshua; some have concluded that the language of wholesale slaughter and total occupation—which didn’t (from all other indications) actually take place—proves that these accounts are falsehoods. But ancient Near Eastern accounts readily used “utterly/completely destroy” and other obliteration language even when the event didn’t literally happen that way. Here’s a sampling:5
• Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later fifteenth century) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC. • Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322–1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).”
• The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (around 1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”
• In the Merneptah Stele (ca. 1230 BC), Rameses II’s son Merneptah announced, “Israel is wasted, his seed is not,” another premature declaration.
• Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.
• The Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (701–681 BC) used similar hyperbole: “The soldiers of Hirimme, dangerous enemies, I cut down with the sword; and not one escaped.”
You get the idea." - Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan
>In no social context or "time" is slavery ever "okay" so continuously trying to refer to it but saying I'm "anachronizing" is simply fallacious.
Except I've given you reasons why it was better than not, at that time period.
> By implying that the person purchased something (a slave) which then means he is "owed". I say it once again, take the element of being "owed" out of the equation.
But you. can't. do. that. If he's providing for them out of his own resources, he's giving up resources he and his family might need to survive. He also needs to have an arrangement with them on how he's going to keep things going after they leave, once he's come to depend on their labor for his livelihood. Say you are running a business, and then all your employees quit after using up your funds. Then what?
>Simple, no "slave" or "servant" title required
Because that's what he'd have been called in this time period. You don't get to exclude a fact like that.
> It doesn't differ from what the bible explicitly prescribes.
Then you haven't researched enough, I feel. I at least encourage you to read the links I provided, especially the Christian one.
> This fits EXACTLY with the same definition of "slavery"
It also fits what I've described.
>No, I don't... The meanings are clear and they are used in the same manner, the bible even clearly describes the definition of slavery when it uses the word.
Which is also perfectly consistent with how I used it. Again, read the links.
>You are actually simply appealing to moral relativism (which you fail to address every time I mention it), by implying that "slavery" is moral relative to the time we're talking about...
I'm saying that it's more moral than the alternatives in certain conditions.
>This is simply backwards and not true - it isn't, never was and never will be moral.
And you haven't established this. Your argument amounts to, "It's not, because human dignity. /anger" Here's a question... is prison labor moral?
>The fact that biblical times create a scenario where all of what a lot of people know is being a slave or not is already in itself a stark reminder of the utter failure of your so called "god" at creating a world where love, compassion, empathy and forgiveness is the commonality.
And none of that is our fault? Really, it's a byproduct of creating a world that evolves and grows. (And that's not getting into issues of whether or not this world is the result of God's sole creation.)
>Just because biblical times, which your god helped to shape by his divine input in the endless slaughters of cities etc (such as in the conquest of the promised land)
At least you finally brought this one up. The problem is that you refer to it as though it means something to me, when I already told you I don't think we're talking literal history there. >created the situation where people thought it was the "norm" to have slaves and force people into slavery, doesn't make it "moral", yet again you appeal to moral relativism.
What I'm appealing to is something that seems to be going over your head.
>The fact remains that it is still immoral no matter the setting, I really struggle to grasp why that doesn't compute with you.
Because you're insisting on a particular idea of slavery that doesn't reflect the reality of the time we're talking about. It's clear why that doesn't compute with you: you hear the word slave and react emotionally.
>The best? Again, I have already shown how it isn't the best and highlighted a "better" situation without any baggage that the term "slave" carries under the prescriptive decrees in the bible.
And I've pointed out some flaws in your thinking. And again, you show you're having trouble with the word "slave" because of the emotional reaction it gives you.
Is it ideal? NO. But again, I implore you to read the links I gave. I can recommend a book as well, though I hesitate because I don't agree with everything in it.
And of the two links I gave already, I especially repeat this one.
>Well was it or wasn't it?
It wasn't, not strictly speaking. It's myth.
>What methods do you use to conclude that it either was a literal event or wasn't?
I already told you. Studying the literature, comparing it to similar literature, examining the sources, and incorporating what archaeology gives you.
>Ok, you're starting to stretch semantics out further and further now...
No, I'm not.
>You, at some point, have to stop being vague and implying things without taking a position and affirming what you actually believe in regards to what we're talking about.
I'm not being vague. I said myth can be true, without being literal.
>If it is non-literal and is true then WHAT about it is true?
That depends on a story by story basis. For Noah? In the Sumerian story, he was warned by some of the gods that some of the other gods were planning on bringing a flood, so he was advised to build a boat, take some animals, the whole thing. He survived the flood and was granted immortality. As an archetype, he represents mankind's experiences with floods, as well as the good people that survive major catastrophies. His story teaches the lesson that by being good, you will be redeemed in the end. The ultimate version of this is passing from death to life.
The Israelites added their own details to the story. Rather than representing him as being granted immortality like the older stories, they attributed three "sons" to him, representing the three major people groups known to them as "Shem", "Ham," and "Japheth," making him a metaphorical ancestor of all humanity. Similar, I guess, to how I could take note of a group of people called "Americans" and symbolize them with a mythical ancestor called "Americus" or some such thing.
>How do you reach that conclusion and can you provide evidence for your claim that it is indeed a "true" part of a non-literal story?
Again, study the literature, especially comparable literature, and see what the writer is trying to do.
>That indefinitely voids your argument.
No, it doesn't. If he hasn't prosecuted her by that point, he's not going to. The risk for why the law is in place has passed.
>Your reasoning is terrible but I look forward to what other arguments you can present which can be easily thwarted.
You've yet to thwart anything.
>You have no reliable means to decipher what is literal and what isn't.
Yes, I do. I've already given you some clues how. That you insist the texts be treated like a fundamentalist is ignorant.
>It is THAT exact issue coupled with the unchanging nature of the text that will forever leave it open to believers to act immorally believing they are doing so in accordance with scripture.
And why the common understanding of sola scriptura is not a good idea.
>Your god doesn't act with goodness, he is callous and cruel, genocidal and punishes people for insignificant crimes in an unjust manner, time and time again.
And that's because you interpret things like a fundamentalist.
>I am happy to give you a plethora of examples of him him acting exactly in this way which contradicts his supposed "omnibenevolence".
Go right ahead and give a few, and I'll see what I think.
Have you done any online research into these verses? It might be worthwhile to seek out a theologian's view before making any snap judgements. Often we do not see the cultural context, nor do we understand the language. An excellent example of this is the laws on "slavery", which some use to claim the Bible endorses slavery as it was in the antebellum south. This is false, because what is called slavery in the OT is entirely different than what happened in more modern times. This is an excellent explanation if you are interested: http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
A book I am reading through now that may be useful to you: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004EPYPY4/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o00_?ie=UTF8&psc=1
As for Lev. 26, it came true later on when the Israelites began to worship Canaanite gods, which involved child sacrifice. God then withdrew his protection and Israel was under siege from the Babylonians. The Israelites ate their own children rather than ask God for forgiveness and turn from their false gods.