|
Slavery
Oct 31, 2014 0:23:11 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2014 0:23:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Slavery
Oct 31, 2014 0:23:32 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2014 0:23:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Slavery
Oct 31, 2014 4:13:41 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2014 4:13:41 GMT -5
mkl
|
|
|
Slavery
Oct 31, 2014 4:24:58 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2014 4:24:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Slavery
Oct 31, 2014 4:25:07 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Oct 31, 2014 4:25:07 GMT -5
SLAVERY - Slave labor prohibited [Lev 25: 39-40]
- Freed in Jubilee Year [Lev 25: 41-40; Ex 21:2]
- Foreign slaves not freed [Lev 25: 41-44]
- Permenent repurchase rights [Lev 25: 47-49]
- Terms of Repurchase [Lev 25: 49-55]
|
|
|
Slavery
Nov 7, 2014 13:04:30 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Nov 7, 2014 13:04:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Slavery
Nov 11, 2014 5:31:19 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Nov 11, 2014 5:31:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Slavery
Nov 11, 2014 5:41:57 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Nov 11, 2014 5:41:57 GMT -5
Were Jewish soldiers allowed to keep "sex slaves"?The Mosaic law prohibited sexual activity outside of marriage by way of written sanctions. If one has sex with a virgin girl one was obliged to marry her, and there was not clause that stipulated that non-hebrew girls were an exception. If a girl resisted sex and could prove rape* then the above laws still applied*. Marriage subsequently, by law guaranteed a woman full heritary rights for her children whether she was a first or a secondary wife (concubine) and whether she was a Hebrew wife or a foreigner. In the town this would involve her screaming, in isolation if she fell pregnant there would be ample evidence she had had sex. On identifying the father and she would have the right to benefit from the same rights as any hebrew girl in similar circumstances. So no, there was no provision in the Mosaic system for keeping a girl as a "sex slave" nor for mistreating her. Under the Hebrew system all foreigners came under the protection of the law and had recall for that law for protection against mistreatment. If a slave could produce physical evidence of mistreatment (a broken tooth, arm, etc) they were guaranteed automatic freedom under the law**. It was illegal to return a runaway slave to his or her master and the premeditated murder of a slave (male or female) carried the death penalty. JW **Slaves must be released for grievous bodily injury caused to them: the master must let the slave go free "for his eye's sake" or "for his tooth's sake" (Ex. 21:26–27), if either be gouged out or knocked out by him. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/slavery.htmlCONCLUSION While non-hebrew slaves were indeed obtained primarily through military conquests, and certain laws applied to Hebrews that did not apply to non-Hebrews, the point is that protections afforted to a non-hebrew virgin girl under the Mosaic law at the time, made keeping her as a "sex slave" (ie. abusing her physically, raping her with impunity, denying her or her children any rights under law, physically restraining her (tying her up, locking her in a cage etc)... and/or prostituting her for financial gain) absolutely illegal under hebrew law.
|
|
|
Slavery
Sept 16, 2016 16:03:31 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Sept 16, 2016 16:03:31 GMT -5
"but save [keep/spare] for yourselves [other translations say "keep for yourselves" "spare for yourselves" "keep alive for yourselves"] every girl who has never slept with a man." Numbers 31:18No. The Israelites soldiers were also on occassions told to " spare" or " take" animals for themselves; does this automatically imply they were keeping them for sex? The girls were selected by whether they had had sex or not to filter out their age and avoid taking mothers (who would probably seek revenge for their killed husband and children). Indeed if "spare for yourselves" were a euphemism for "have sex with" we may well ask why limit the choice to virgins at all since older women can also be raped or kept for sexual purposes? In any case "spare" or " spare for yourselves" is never an expression in the bible equated with sexual intercourse. Refering to only choosing girls that have "not known (Heb yada)" a man is obviously an allusion to sex but not an indication that the girls were to be used as " sex slaves" (see previous posts on the Hebrew Law). Are the words "take” the young virgin girls a euphemism for "have sex with" or "rape" the young girls?In today's English " take" can be both a euphemism for "had sex with" (as in "take me I'm yours" or "I took her three times that night") or simply to remove from one location to another, as in "I take my daughter every day ... to school". Comparing various translations, it seems evident that any translations that do choose "take" at Num 21:18, are not doing so to indicate that the Israelite military were being instructed to "take" (have sex with) the girls but rather to take (remove, displace, obtain) them. No translation I have seen uses the verb " take" in this passage. (various translations: biblehub.com/numbers/31-18.htm )
|
|
|
Slavery
Sept 11, 2017 5:25:48 GMT -5
Post by Admin on Sept 11, 2017 5:25:48 GMT -5
|
|