Well, I could never I'm good conscience take on a slave, Roderick.
You probably couldn't afford it.
I left a bit of verse 46 off. The full text reads:
"You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.
But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."
The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.
All of the proof verses you've provide (with exception to the last) have been addressed in another thread (
Link). As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references."48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land.
No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”
I'm guessing you think the rest of that verse contradicts all the references I gave about the oppression against foreigners.
The first problem I see is with your statement
The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.
You're implying that there was bad treatment (justified by the law) against Hebrew servants. This is a bit puzzling since your current emphasis seems to be on the favoring of Hebrews in contrast to foreigners. What references can you provide for me suggesting the bad treatment (albeit less than what a foreigner experiences) of Israelite servants?
I'm glad you placed that link, because I was going to address this in that thread, but may as well move any discussion on slavery here. At least with you. However, I just don't see anything addressed that makes any challenge against the verses I've given.
Foreigners not being allowed to take part in some ceremonies is certainly not abuse. Each nation, even today have their own laws pertaining to who or how one can become a citizen, and what a non-citizen's rights they have, and rights they don't have. Even the Israelites themselves were not allowed the privilege to enter into places considered holy that was reserved strictly for priests. This wasn't discrimination, and wasn't even segregation.
And no, that part of verse 46 you originally left out does not suggest justification for the abuse of foreigners. That command applied to both Israelites and foreigners. That particular verse emphasizes the prohibiting of abuse against their Israelite brethren. The placement as translated into the English language may appear to contradict, but is not unusual. For instance, in the book of John there's a number of references to a man (John) beloved of God. You may understand that these don't imply that God only loves John, or even loves him more than others. But some people have read it that way. If John is the author, it could be easy to understand why that statement shows up in that Gospel.
I have to admit, some of the things you've stated probably need clarification for my sake.
From what I understand, you feel that since the word foreigner can potentially apply simply to a stranger or sojourner, not necessarily someone from a different nation, that the law stating if a slave runs away, that the law demanding his protection cannot be someone from a different nation?
