Skip to main content

Slavery, Darwin, and the Bible

Misotheists and other unbelievers frequently try to find errors in the Bible, or to simply make God a bad guy. One of these is found in the annals of atheistic soi-disant reasoning, equivocating on the definition of slavery. For people today, the word generally has connotations of Antebellum slavery in Southern American.

We have seen that context is vitally important for properly interpreting and understanding the Bible. A cursory reading ancient texts translated into modern languages does not provide all the necessary information to do this properly.

Pharaoh clipart by Free Christian Illustrations
What we can call harsh slavery has been around for millennia. It was often a consequence of losing a war or battle, but the children of Israel were born into it (Exodus 1:8-13). Such slavery spanned years, cultures, ethnicities, and languages — which means no group can make a pretense at exclusive victimhood. Also, harsh slavery exists today, especially in Communist China and North Korea as well as some Islamic countries.

Not all forms of slavery were harsh, nor were they necessarily permanent. In ancient Rome, being a slave could mean importance and responsibility. Sometimes, freedom there could be purchased or granted. Slavery was an important part of the Roman economy.

There were slaves in the Bible. In some cases, they were taken by Israelites after winning battles. Something many people may not realize is that this was common throughout history. (Indeed, sanitized "histories" of Native Americans often neglect how tribes warred against each other and took slaves.) It may surprise some people that taking slaves of conquered people by Israelites and (later) by Romans was an alternative to slaughtering them or leaving women, children, and other non-combatants to starve. This kind of enslavement had nothing to do with skin color or "racial inferiority."

The predominant form of slavery in the Old Testament was that people were more like servants than property. Israelites often sold their family members or even themselves into servitude to pay debts. Critics are willingly ignorant and fail to mention that God regulated it very tightly, not allowing the mistreatment of servants that was characteristic of the Atlantic slave trade, and Exodus 21:16 clearly outlawed kidnapping. Also, Hebrews were required to set their slaves free after a period of time. They knew what harsh slavery was like.

I have come across some appallingly ignorant attacks that slavery was not opposed in the New Testament. In fact, some thought the Christians should slap leather with the entire Roman empire! Christians are to live peaceably (Rom. 12:18), and there is unity in the body of Christ (Gal. 3:28). Take a look at the very short epistle to Philemon.

Ironically, atheists use straw man attacks on the Bible (including equivocation) but ignore some important facts. One of these is  very simple: Since they have no objective moral standard, they inadvertently appeal to the ultimate moral standard — God — in order to attack the Bible. In addition, it was not atheists that abolished slavery, but Christians like William Wilberforce. Unfortunately, there were professing Christians in the past who supported slavery, but this was not based on a proper understanding of Scripture.

Something else that mockers willingly overlook is how Darwinism contributed to racism and race-based slavery. (Again, I must emphasize that there are no races in the Bible and I am only using the word for convenience.) Charles Darwin was a blatant racist, but he opposed slavery. His views exacerbated racism. Further, evolutionary thinking naturally upholds slavery if practiced consistently. (It is not practical to hold such views in today's "cancel culture" where people claim to be offended over computer terminology ) Some fake evolutionary science was used to create "facts" to justify racism.

Bible critics have no legitimate basis about it supporting slavery because they disingenuously switch word meanings and take the worst connotation. Not only are misotheists dishonest because the truth is readily available, but they hypocritically ignore how their own foundational beliefs support racism and slavery.
My critics claim that the Bible taught racism and slavery, referring to passages such as the curse on Ham in Genesis 6. The Bible, they say, is regarded by evangelical Christians as the inspired word of God, revealing truth from Genesis to Revelation. In contrast, Darwin was not viewed as inspired and it is recognized that he was wrong on many points. Furthermore, they claim, the Bible supported slavery but Darwin was openly opposed to slavery. In an article published in “the best American writing,” Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg listed his reasons for rejecting belief in creationism as well as in God. Among them he included the notion that “Christianity, like other world religions, lived comfortably with slavery for centuries, and slavery was endorsed in the New Testament.”

. . . 

In my article, I focused on the fact that Darwin’s racism was finally openly admitted in an article by a Princeton University professor and published in the most esteemed science journal in the world . . . Professor Agustín Fuentes, wrote that some of Darwin’s racist “assertions were dismally, and dangerously, wrong. ‘Descent’ …. [of Man, Darwin’s 1871 treatise, is a book] not to venerate” as is common among most evolutionists today.

I encourage you to read the entire article at "The Bible Does Not Condone Slavery; Darwinism Does." Also recommended: "Doesn’t the Bible Support Slavery?" and the video and/or transcript, "Does the Bible Support Slavery?"


Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us