The Black Hole argument in regard to the NT accuracy

The "black hole" argument is basically since we have no extant original manuscripts from original authors, and only fragments in the 2nd century, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates to the 4th century we cannot have any confidence as to what was originally written. The original author's words could have been changed prior to the 4th century, that "black hole" of manuscript data. source

If one looks at this graphic 

you'll see that there are 5 different families or lines of NT manuscripts; so if there were these changes in the texts during that "black hole" of manuscript data, why would all four families of texts, excepting for spelling differences and other minor changes, be basically be the same?

Note that these families are from geographically diverse areas; Egypt, Italy, Turkey, Palestine, Iraq. That's a lot of ground to cover travelling by foot. Highly unlikely that one person or group controlled or had influence in that wide of an area.

What theory best explains the essential agreement of all the NT extant manuscripts? 1) the copyists were very careful not to make changes [except for minor slips of the pen] from the start, or 2) copyists did make changes to the text including core doctrines up until the 2nd to 4th century and then stopped.

For 2 - I'd ask what was the catalyst for the stoppage? Was it just coincidence that they stopped the changes then; and that none of these textual changes have been found? Also, it seems that 2 is assuming, without any data, that major changes were made.

Conclusion/Thesis: the best explanation of the data is that those who took the time, effort, and expense to produce a copy of a NT manuscript were careful in the copying process, from the original authors down through the centuries.

The theory of evolution is untrue

Evolution that I examine here is commonly understood to be a natural process - i.e. a purposeless, unintentional unguided goalless process.

Microevolution vs Macroevolution

Microevolution is a small-scale change that affects a few genes within a population over a short period of time; bird beak size, moth wing color, etc. Macroevolution is a large-scale change that occurs over a longer period of time and can result in the formation of new species and groups; fish to amphibian transition.

While we have good reason and evidence for the former the latter is lacking.

Does natural selection guide evolution?

This is how it happens, but nothing there means guide as in "leads or directs the way", "steadying or directing the motion of something", "to direct, supervise, or influence, usually to a particular end". So, no natural selection doesn't guide evolution. 

Gradualistic evolution

I admit that Gradualistic evolution does sound plausible; I used to believe it was true, as the reasons for that conclusion were sound: Given enough time, random mutations coupled with random environmental stresses can produce new sub-species that was better adapted to the environment. And this process could eventually bring forth all the diversity of life. And there was the fossil record to prove it

Problem 1: lack of fossils 

The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their "dirty little trade secret:" most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction.

Eldredge and Gould (1972) pointed out, paleontologists were raised in a tradition inherited from Darwin known as phyletic gradualism, which sought out the gradual transitions between species in the fossil record. They viewed species as part of a continuum of gradual change in anatomical characteristics through time. 

Even their detractors concede that Eldredge and Gould were the first to point out that modern speciation theory would not predict gradual transitions over millions of years, but instead the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record punctuated by long periods of species stability, or equilibrium. 

Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode. The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their "dirty little trade secret:" most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction.

Many of the gradual evolution examples were restudied in critical detail, and turned out to be ambiguous, or actually demonstrated punctuated equilibria better than gradualism. Most studies fell short because they focused on a single lineage (neglecting faunal variation) from a single section (neglecting geographic variation), often showing change in only one characteristic (neglecting morphological variation), which had not been analyzed by rigorous statistical methods. Other cases failed because they were on the wrong time scale to be relevant to the debate, or too poorly dated to know anything about change through time. 

For example, one of the main proponents of gradualism, Philip Gingerich (1976, 1980, 1987), showed just two or three examples of supposed gradual evolution in early Eocene (about 50-55 million years old) mammals from the Bighorn Basin of northwestern Wyoming. But a detailed examination of the entire mammal fauna (monographed by Bown, 1979, and Gingerich, 1989) shows that most of the rest of the species do not change gradually through time. 

As paleontologists had known for over a century, most species are stable for millions of years, and change so rapidly that we rarely witness it in the fossil record. Of the hundreds of studies that have been reviewed elsewhere (Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 1986; Gould, 1992), a few stand out (Stanley, 1992). Cheetham (1986) and Stanley and Yang (1987) examined allthe available lineages of their respective groups (bryozoans and bivalves) through long intervals of time, using multivariate analysis of multiple character states. Both concluded that most of their species were static through millions of years, with rare but rapid episodes of speciation. 

Williamson (1981, 1985) examined the details of evolution of molluscs in Lake Turkana, Kenya, and showed that there were multiple examples of rapid speciation and prolonged stasis, but no gradualism. Barnosky (1987) reviewed a great number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents, that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages. He found a few examples of gradualism, but many more which showed stasis and punctuation

With one exception (gradual dwarfing in the oreodont Miniochoerus), we found that all of the Badlands mammals were static through millions of years, or speciated abruptly (if they changed at all). 

The discovery of stasis in most species for millions of years was an fact that biologists did not expect (as even Mayr, 1992, concedes). At first, they dismissed it as genetic homeostasis or stabilizing selection (Charles worth et al., 1983; Levinton, 1983; Lande, 1985). But such models are only appropriate on scales of a few generations, or at most a few thousand years. No environment is so constant that stabilizing selection can act for millions of years. 

Evidence from paleosols and land floras (Retallack, 1992) document a striking cooling and drying event across this boundary, with a woodland vegetation replaced by a wooded grassland, mean annual temperature declined almost 13 degrees C, and the annual range of temperature increased dramatically from 5 degrees C to about 25 degrees C. There was an abrupt transition from moist floodplains to semi-arid landscapes with abundant wind-blown volcaniclastic dust. Most of these events took place over a few thousand years. This is certainly one of the most severe climactic events since the extinction of the dinosaurs. In spite of all these changes, however, only one lineage of fossil mammal underwent a gradual change. All of the rest either remained unchanged through the interval, or went extinct, with new species replacing them. 

None showed the panselectionist prediction of gradually evolving to track their changing environment. If species are static through millions of years in spite of environmental changes, then there must be some sort of homeostatic mechanism that preserves this stability beyond what traditional reductionist Neo-Darwinism once postulated. 

Instead of the "rolling ball" metaphor so favored by evolutionary biologists, perhaps species are more like a polyhedron, which can roll rapidly over from face to face, but resists change when it is sitting on one of its stable faces (Gould, 1980b). Change only occurs when the threshold necessary to tip it over has been exceeded, and then the polyhedron will resist further change until that threshold is once again reached. Between stable states (the faces), however, the transitions are very rapid. 

Source for the above info 

 

So multiple independent scientific sources [the paper cites 40 different experts in the field] concluded that most of their species were static through millions of years, with rare but rapid episodes of speciation.

Pushback: it's a 30 yeard old paper. 

Reply: True, but science and facts don't have an expiration date.  If you have something that controverts what is cited in the paper please post it. Just saying, "It's an old paper" doesn't mean it's wrong.

The Engineering problem 

Stephen J Gould [one of the two scientists behind punctuated evolution] said in his book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory": I recognize that we know no mechanism for the origin of organismal features other than conventional natural selection at the organismic level [pg 710]

Here's a 20-min vid on how punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve the problem

Let's illustrate one of the difficulties with the fish to amphibian transition. There had to be changes from:

1) obtaining oxygen from water to directly from the air,

2) change from permeable scales to impermeable skin,

3) ventral, anal, and tail fins would have to go from steering to a) weight-bearing and b) to providing locomotion,

4) a two chambered, one loop heart system would have to transform into a three chambered, two loop heart.

And all of these changes had to happen 1) in concert, 2) on a molecular level and 3) while that species remained the fittest for its environment. The genetic code had to change in multiple proteins throughout multiple systems within the fish, all at basically the same time.

For example the Cambrian explosion the unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. The event was characterized by the appearance of many of the major phyla (between 20 and 35) that make up modern animal life.

As I said gradualism seemed plausible if there were 100's of millions of years for a system of hit or miss chance, but there is not; take that element away, as Punctuated Equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion shows, then design [a purposeful, intentional, guided process with a goal in mind] is the much more likely candidate than a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal.

The mathematical problem

And it gets worse for the evolutionist. There are dozens of DNA based micromachines in our bodies like the ATP Synthase which is a dual pump motor. The ATP Synthase has dozens of different parts; each is a protein which is formed from long strings of amino acids – 300 to 2,000 base pairs – which must be in a particular order, so they will fold correctly to perform a certain function.

But are there enough chances for evolution to occur since the universe began for evolution to work?

If every particle in the observable universe [1 × 10 to the 90th power] was a coin that flipped every Planck second [5.4 × 10 to the 44th power] since the beginning of the universe [4.32 × 10 to the 17th power - in seconds] there would be a max of ~ 1.07x10^133 events since the beginning of the universe. An average sized protein of 150 amino acids would take 7.2x10^195 to form via an unguided, purposeless, goalless process. That's more the amount of events in the entire history of the universe.

Note: ~1.07x10^133 takes into account the entire observable universe, but it's difficult to believe that particles outside the earth would affect evolution. Also, it's calculated from the beginning of the time [13.8 billion years] not the beginning of life [3.5 billion years], so the amount of total chances for evolution of life is much smaller. Somewhere around 2.5x10^61.

Also, there are vastly more ways of arranging nucleotide bases that result in non-functional sequences of DNA, and vastly more ways of arranging amino acids that result in non-functional amino-acid chains, than there are corresponding functional genes or proteins. One recent experimentally derived estimate places that ratio—the size of the haystack in relation to the needle—at 10^77 non-functional sequences for every functional gene or protein.

And we have many, many different kinds of these micromachines in our bodies. For instance, the ATP Synthase, the dual motor pump mentioned earlier, is part of the Electron transport chain; four other DNA based, multiple part micromachines.

Sorry, but the math just doesn't hold up for a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal for all those necessary genetic changes in multiple proteins in multiple organs that needed to for the fish to amphibian transition. Not to mention all necessary genetic changes in multiple proteins in multiple organs for the the 20 to 35 he major phyla in the Cambrian explosion.

An illustration: 

Let's say there is a cabinet that the drawers slide in smoothly, is level, hinges work perfectly, the fit and finish is high quality, and was built within tight time constraints. You have 2 choices as to who is responsible for it: A) a person whow was trying to build a high quailty cabniet, who has skills and years of experience, and can show you the blueprints or B) a person who says he was just putting pieces together randomly without thinking, wasn't trying to build anything inparticular. Has zero skill and experience.

Evolutionists want me to believe that person B is more likely than person A, in fact they don't think person A should even be a canidate. But in actuality, to choose B over A, is to be ideologically driven, rather than to be driven by the facts and logic.

Conclusion: Evolution by a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal does not hold up to scrutiny. Mathematically, the probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning.


The design objection 

Please don't say that design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] is unscientific, since SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural. An a priori non-design stance for evolution seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Pushback: This is a God of the gaps argument. 

A God of the Gap argument assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. But I’m not citing an unknown phenomenon or a gap in our knowledge. I am using the inference to the best explanation and citing what we do know about DNA, the difference between fish and amphibians, in order to choose between design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] over chance [a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal].

Other common pushbacks:

You have confirmation bias 

Confirmation bias "describes our underlying tendency to notice, focus on, and give greater credence to evidence that fits with our existing beliefs" But I wasn’t a Christian when I first encountered this, I became a Christian long after I rejected evolution.

You have a delusion 

A delusion is a false belief or judgment about external reality; so I'll ask, 1) what is reality and 2) how do you know?

I have wrong, outdated info 

Please state what specifically I got wrong?

Evolution has almost literal mountains of fossil evidence, evidence for evolution is overwhelming from multiple scientific disciples, there very good explanations for evolution, etc - 

Where is this info that vindicates evolution? Please cite your sources

Even if you prove evolution to be false you have done nothing to prove your god exists 

Proving God exists wasn’t the point of the post.

You aren't you dealing with the genetic evidence 

I did - it's under Mathematical problems

We shouldn't have to straighten out every misunderstanding people have about science 

If one making the claim that the info in the OP is wrong and that correct info is easily available they have the burden of proof.

Please read [this or that book on evolutionary theory] 

If you think there is some pertinent point is some book, please provide that point.

Evolution is simply the idea that we inherit some traits from our parents 

This is microevolution, not macroevolution

Belief in religious propositions IS a matter of choice

Has God has given you the free-will to choose to follow and worship him, or not?

Some think freewill in direct contradiction to how we come to believe as we do; they think that science shows that nobody gets to simply pick and choose what they can or can't believe. In fact, nearly every choice we make is made subconsciously, not consciously. For evidence of this they cite studies like this They argue that we aren't really making a conscious choice to accept or dismiss any claim.

Quick question: How many live sporting events have you ever watched? Surprisingly the answer is the same for everyone - Zero. Why? Because there is a time lag, even when one is in the stands, for the light reflecting off the player to reach your eyes. It is almost instantaneous but not quite.

Thesis: Results from studies like the one cited and like Libet's original experiments is exactly what we should expect if the Christian dualist-interactionist view of humans is correct.

In Libet’s initial experiments people were instructed to press a button with one of their fingers while he monitored their brain activity. Libet discovered that prior to a person’s awareness of his decision to press the button, a brain signal had already occurred which resulted in his finger’s later moving.

So the sequence is:

1) a brain signal occurs about 550 milliseconds prior to the finger’s moving;

2) the subject has an awareness of his decision to move his finger about 200 milliseconds prior to his finger’s moving;

3) the person’s finger moves.

Some have taken the results to provide evidence for determinism and even materialism.

In a second run of experiments, Libet discovered that even after the brain signal fired and people were aware of their decision to push the button, people still retained the ability to veto the decision and refrain from pushing the button!

Some interpreters take the brain signal to indicate a “readiness potential” to initiate movement which the subject may go along with or cancel.

From the Christian perspective this is exactly what the dualist-interactionist would expect. The soul (or mind) does not act independently of the brain; the mind uses the brain as an instrument to think. So, of course, the soul’s decisions are not simultaneous with the conscious awareness of them. How could they be?

Given the soul’s reliance upon the brain as an instrument of thought and the finite velocity of the transmission of neural signals, of course there is a time lag between the mind’s decisions and the awareness of them. In Libet’s experiment, since neural processes travel at finite velocities, of course it takes time for the mind’s decision to come to consciousness. This is exactly what we should expect on a dualist-interactionist view.

It's a conscious decision, but because of the finite velocity of neural signals it takes time for the person to become conscious of it. Just as we never see present events because of the finite velocity of light, but only events just slightly past, so we do not have consciousness of our decisions simultaneously with our making them.

If the soul has the ability to decide without being causally determined, then in order to make free, responsible decisions, the soul just needs to be conscious of the facts relevant to the decision prior to making the decision. So there’s no reason to deny free will.

So, in no way do experiments of this type refute the Christian dualist-interactionist view; they in fact support it.

. 

Baptism Is NOT Necessary for Salvation

E. Calvin Beisner wrote this critical analysis of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in 1995; sorry for the length but I know of no better refutation of Baptismal regeneration:

In the study of Christianity the central doctrine is the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul understood the Gospel, the message of the saving work of Christ, to be so important that he said:

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).

In the face of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration we must consider precisely what makes a teaching "another gospel... than what we have preached to you." It will be my contention that the Scriptures teach clearly that baptism is not necessary for salvation. Baptismal regenerationists, on the other hand, teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. If the Scriptures deny the necessity of baptism for salvation, then its teaching is "another gospel" than that preached by Paul.

We will examine Scriptures purported to teach the necessity of baptism for salvation, and seek to understand their true meaning. We will also show that the New Testament teaches that salvation is strictly by grace through faith apart from baptism.

There are several religious groups which teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. Among them are several "Church of Christ" groups, some branches of the "Christian Church-Disciples of Christ," and many small groups in the Christian tradition. Of course, the largest and most well-known of the baptismal regenerationist groups is the Roman Catholic church. Such groups teach that water baptism is absolutely essential to the salvation of the soul. Many of them also teach that this baptism must be by immersion, not by pouring or sprinkling. However, we will not herein address the question of the mode of baptism, because baptism's relation to salvation is more important.

It is the purpose of this essay to analyze the doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation. In the following pages we will measure the teaching against Scripture, examining the New Testament texts used in support of it, and those which we believe show it to be incorrect. It is not our purpose to question the Christian faith of members of the groups teaching the doctrine of baptismal regeneration; there may well be many sincere Christians who are confused or misled on this issue.

Matthew 28:19-20

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen (Matthew 28:19-20).

We have here a command of Christ that we should make disciples of all nations, and instrumental in that task is the act of baptizing converts. In other words, baptism is part of making disciples. However, it does not say here that baptism is necessary for salvation. The same command also includes the clause "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ has commanded them. If we are to assume that baptism is essential to salvation, then by consistent interpretation of the context, we should say that absolute obedience to all of Christ's commands is also necessary for salvation.

But this, of course, is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Scripture tells us that no one, even the Christian, is without sin (I John 1:7-2:2). If, then, we are to say that believers who do not obey all of Christ's commands may be saved, then we may, unless some other text teaches otherwise, say that believers who are not baptized may also be saved.

Some argue, however, that this verse proves that one gets "into Christ" by being baptized in water. In support, reference is made to a marginal reading in the Revised Version which has "into" as the translation for "in the name of." But this certainly cannot prove the point: the Revised Version simply shows that this is one possible rendering of the phrase, while in fact the more accurate reading is simply "in." This rendering is chosen by the Authorized Version (King James), the Phillips Modern English Translation, the New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New International Version, and the Today's English Version. In addition, this is the primary meaning of the phrase (eis to onoma) in the Greek. A.T. Robertson, the greatest English-speaking Greek scholar of our century, makes no allowance for the possibility of translating this passage "into the name." A comparison with Matthew 10:41-42 will show that such a translation of eis to onoma ("in the name") would make many of its uses meaningless. This does not prove that one gets "into Christ" by being baptized in water.

Matthew 28:19-20, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation, or for coming "into Christ."

Mark 16:16

He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.

This verse is often quoted as supporting the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, a more careful analysis of the verse shows that it teaches nothing of the sort.

While the first clause says that all who both believe and are baptized will be saved, it does not say that all who neither believe nor are baptized will not be saved. In other words, the clause does not exclude any group, while it does tell of a group of people who will be saved, namely, those who both believe and are baptized. But the second clause negates one group: those who do not believe will not be saved. There is no negation of the group of those who believe but are not baptized. Thus, while the verse as a whole does teach that belief is essential to salvation, it does not teach that baptism is.

While this does not prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it does mean that this verse cannot be used to prove that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Luke 7:30

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him (Luke 7:30).

This was in reference to John the Baptist's baptism, not to Christian baptism. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove the necessity of baptism for salvation. Acts 18:24-19:7 shows that John's baptism is invalid now. This fact is even pointed out by "Church of Christ" writer Ernest Clevenger in his Pocket Ready Reference for Personal Workers. It is thus the more surprising that two other "Church of Christ" writers, A.C. Williams and J. Harvey Dykes, make reference to this verse as an argument in favor of the necessity of baptism for salvation in their booklet Ready Answers to Religious Error.

Furthermore, John the Baptist preached baptism. To reject his baptism, therefore, was to reject him. He was sent from God to testify of Christ (John 1:6-7), and therefore whoever rejected him rejected God. It was, then, not specifically the rejection of baptism which caused them to be against God, but the rejection of John which was entailed in the rejection of his baptism. But I will show later that the Christian is not sent to preach baptism, for the Gospel, which he is sent to preach, does not include baptism (I Corinthians 1:17).

Luke 7:30, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

John 3:5

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).

If "born of water" means water baptism, then this verse proves that it is necessary to be baptized in water to be saved. About that we can be sure. But I will give several reasons why "born of water" cannot mean "baptism in water."

First, at the time that Christ said this, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. There was no such thing at that time as baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It therefore would have been impossible for Nicodemus to understand "born of water" as referring to water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Also, this must be seen in the context of verse 6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and of verse 7: "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'" This shows that being "born again" (see also verse 3) is being "born of the Spirit." Being "born again" cannot be being "born of the flesh" (verse 6), so it must be being "born of the Spirit."

If "born of water" meant water baptism, then verse 5 would contradict verse 6, which requires for salvation only being "born of the Spirit," while verse 5 would require being baptized in water and being born of the Spirit. But if being "born of water" does not mean water baptism, and instead is a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit," then verse 5 does not contradict verse 6.

There is good reason to believe that "born of water" could be simply a figurative way of saying, "born of the Spirit." The word "water" in connection with salvation, the covenant, regeneration, rebirth, is often used in Scripture as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself used water this way when He said:

If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water (John 7:37-38).

In the next verse, John added:

But this He spoke concerning the Holy Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive.... (verse 39a)

With this interpretation in mind, the reader should note the following verses, and see if they make more sense understanding "water" in each case as a symbol of the Spirit, not as the physical element: Isaiah 12:3, 35:6, 55:1; Ezekiel 36:25; Jeremiah 2:13; Zechariah 14:8, cf. Ezekiel 47:1-5; John 4:10; Revelation 21:6, 22:17. These verses make more sense if we see "water' in them as symbolic of the Holy Spirit. We therefore have good precedent for understanding "water" in connection with salvation as symbolic of the Holy Spirit, and this means that it would be reasonable to do so at John 3:5 as well.

If this is the case, then John 3:5 would be understood as follows: when Jesus said, "You must be born of water and the Spirit," He used water as a figurative way of saying "born of the Spirit," and then made Himself perfectly clear by reiterating the thought in plain language. Such a form of speaking was common, to the Jews and to Jesus' own teaching. It would readily be understood by Nicodemus, who as a Pharisee would be quite familiar with the Old Testament symbolic usage of "water." Water baptism, on the other hand, in the Christian formula, could not have been understood by Nicodemus, because it did not exist at the time.

John 3:5 does not even refer to water baptism, or to any form of baptism. It therefore does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

John 19:34

But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out (John 19:34).

Quite curiously, W.C. Johnson refers to this verse as proof that it is baptism which identifies us with Christ's death where He shed His blood, which saves us. But the objective reader can see no connection between this and baptism. Does Mr. Johnson think that whenever water is mentioned, it must refer to baptism? This would be ridiculous (we have seen that it does not in John 3:5).

Quite simply, this verse shows us part of the physical cause of Christ's death on the cross. Dr. W. Stroud explains in his work The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ that the remmission of water from Christ's chest cavity when He was pierced showed that the sac surrounding the heart, which contains a substance most commonly described on sight as water, burst, so that the water was mixed with the blood which flowed from His ruptured heart. (This means, significantly, that Christ died of a "broken heart.").

Not every historical narrative in the Bible has a symbolic significance. Hence it is not necessary that there be one in John 19:34.

The text itself appears as simple historical narrative, which does not bear symbolic meaning. But if symbolic meaning is sought in it, it would seem most reasonable to take "water" here as referring to the Holy Spirit, as was noted in our discussion of John 3:5. Water is more frequently used symbolically in Scripture of the Spirit and therefore it would seem that this would be the most likely candidate, if we were determined to find some symbolic meaning in it. But the best interpretational procedure here is to leave it as an historical statement.

John 19:34, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

This is one of the favorite verses of those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation. They point out simply that it says that we must be "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," and since remission of sins is necessary for salvation, baptism is therefore necessary for salvation.

A careful study of the Greek grammar at this point shows that it is repentance, not baptism, which is "for the remission of sins." The Greek text reads (translated):

You (plural) repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (the) remission of the sins of you.

This makes it clear that "remission of your [plural] sins" is the result of "you [plural] repent[ing]," not of "each one [singular] being baptized." The command to repent is given in the plural number and second person; the command to be baptized is given in the singular number and third person; the sins remitted belong to "you" in the plural number and second person. It is therefore improper to refer "remission of sins" to "baptism" as its cause, for this would mean that each one was baptized for the remission of the sins of all those present.

To take baptism here as causing the remission of sins would be to make the text say, "Let him be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and "Let him (another) be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and "Let him (yet another) be baptized for the remission of all your sins," and so on to each person in the group. Thus, each one would be baptized for the remission of the sins of all the people in the group.

But the grammar instead is quite clear. Remission is the result of repentance, not of baptism. You repent and your sins will be remitted. You all repent and the sins of all you will be remitted. Acts 2:38, therefore, does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Acts 8:35-38

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture [Isaiah 53:7-8], preached Jesus to [the eunuch]. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him (Acts 8:35-38).

There is nothing on the surface of this account which teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation, but teachers of baptismal regeneration refer to this as a good example of the manner of salvation. The eunuch had heard the Word, he had been taught, he had repented, he had believed, and finally he was baptized to complete the process. They contend that baptism must be involved in "preaching Jesus," because otherwise the eunuch would not have known about it. If "preaching Jesus" included preaching baptism, they reason, baptism must be part of the Gospel, and since the Gospel is the way of salvation, baptism must be necessary to salvation.

But this neglects the context. Verse 27 tells us that this eunuch had come to Jerusalem to worship. He was therefore familiar with the Jewish religion, if not actually a convert to it. If he were a convert, or if he were considering becoming one, he must have known of the Jewish practice of baptizing all converts to Judaism (which had been done for several centuries). The Jews used baptism as an initiation rite for Gentiles who were converted to Judaism, and in other religions as well. Hence the eunuch would have been familiar with this use of baptism even if Philip never mentioned baptism.

What is more, the eunuch was reading from the book of Isaiah, and happened at the moment when Philip joined him to be reading Isaiah 53:7-8. But the tense of the verb "read" in verse 28 is imperfect, meaning that he was continuing to read; that is, he had been reading before Philip got there and was still reading when Philip walked up to him. This makes it very probable that he had also just read Isaiah 52:15, which begins, "So shall He sprinkle many nations." The eunuch, familiar with Judaism as he must have been since he had gone to Jerusalem to worship, would almost certainly have known that the Jews referred to this passage in connection with their rite of baptizing converts as initiation.

A further reason to believe that Philip's preaching of Jesus did not include telling the eunuch of baptism is that Paul himself separated the preaching of the Gospel from baptism (I Corinthians 1:17). If Paul had left baptism out of the Gospel and Philip had it in the Gospel, there would be a contradiction in Scripture. But the simple answer is that Philip did not include the teaching of baptism in his preaching of Jesus.

It is perfectly allowable that Philip could have mentioned baptism, however, without making it a part of the preaching of Christ. The passage only mentions that he preached Christ to him, but this does not mean that after preaching Christ to him, he could not also have told him about baptism, and indeed about many other things. He could, therefore, have told the eunuch about baptism without saying that it was actually part of the saving Gospel.

With all of this in mind, it should be perfectly clear that Acts 8:35-38 does not prove that baptism is a part of the preaching of Christ, that is, a part of the Gospel. It certainly gives no clear indication that Philip taught that baptism was necessary for salvation, or that the eunuch believed it was; indeed not only does it give no clear indication, it gives no indication at all.

Acts 8:35-38, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Acts 10:48a

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48a).

This text is often called upon by baptismal regenerationalists to show that baptism is necessary for salvation. But certainly there is nothing inherent in it which proves this. We all agree that we are commanded to be baptized, and that neglect or rejection of baptism is sin. But some hold this sin to be unforgivable, since one cannot be saved unless one is baptized. I will contend, on the other hand, that this is not the "unforgivable sin," and that the one who commits it, while yet having faith in Christ, is forgiven of this sin and saved anyway.

First, the mere fact that we are commanded to be baptized, and that is all this verse says, cannot show that baptism is necessary for salvation. We are also commanded not to sin. Does that mean that if we sin, we cannot be saved? But this would be nonsense since in Christ we have forgiveness of our sins. Therefore it is possible to disobey commands of the Lord and yet be saved.

Now what makes this command from the Lord any different from the general command not to sin, or the commands specifically not to lie, covet, etc., so that disobedience to this command cannot be forgiven while those can? There is nothing in the text which makes that difference, and there is nothing anywhere else where baptism is spoken of that makes that difference. The command which we cannot disobey and yet be forgiven is the command to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 16:16b; John 8:24; Acts 16:31). But the whole point of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is that it is obedience to this very command which brings forgiveness for disobedience to any other command (Colossians 1:14; I John 1:7-2:2). True faith in the true Christ brings immediate justification (Romans 3:1-5, 23-28), and justification is an absolute guarantee of salvation (Romans 8:29-30).

Acts 10:48a, then, does prove that we are commanded to be baptized. It does not prove, however, that baptism is necessary for salvation.

There is another reason for rejecting this verse as a "proof" of the necessity of baptism for salvation. Those who claim that it is such a proof must ignore or seriously misconstrue the context. Peter was speaking to Cornelius and his friends, and then he turned to the other Christians around and said:

Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? (verse 47)

Peter said that this group of people had received the Holy Spirit "just as we have." He acknowledged that these people were already saved. Just as truly as Peter and the Christians with him had received the Holy Spirit, so Cornelius and his friends had received the Holy Spirit. Having received the Holy Spirit was proof that they were already saved, as Romans 8:9-16 shows.

Those who have received the Holy Spirit are the children of God. They are "born of the Spirit." They are "born again." They are guaranteed their inheritance (Romans 8:1 1; II Corinthians 1:22, 5:5; Ephesians 1:14). They are, in fact, saved. Cornelius and his friends were saved before Peter commanded them to be baptized.

Acts 10:48, therefore, does not prove that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Acts 22:16

And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord(Acts 22:16).

Baptismal regenerationists often refer to this verse as proof that baptism is necessary for "washing away" sin, that is, for regeneration, for remission of sin. There are several reasons why this cannot be the case.

First, a careful study of the Greek text shows that "wash away" is coordinated with "calling." That is, it is by "calling on the name of the Lord" that Paul was to "wash away" his sins, not by being baptized.

Even the English does not say, "be baptized washing away your sins," or "wash away your sins being baptized," but rather "be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This shows that washing away the sins and being baptized were separate acts, and that the washing away of the sins was done by calling on the name of the Lord.

Second, being baptized was not a part of the Gospel which Paul preached. We know this for two reasons. First, Paul carefully distinguished baptizing from preaching the Gospel in I Corinthians, chapter one. There he wrote:

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel... (verses 14-17a)

Baptism, then, cannot be part of the Gospel. The Gospel is the "power of God to salvation" (Romans 1:16). It tells us what is necessary to know in order to be saved. Paul left baptism out of the Gospel. Therefore Paul did not consider baptism necessary to salvation.

Secondly, Acts 22:15 says that Paul was chosen to be Christ's "witness to all men of what [he had] seen and heard." Paul, however, did not preach baptism as part of the Gospel.

Hence we must see Acts 22:16 as telling us simply of an historical fact. Ananias told Paul he should be baptized, and Paul was therefore baptized. But the grammar does not support the idea that his baptism was the washing away of his sin. It shows instead that his calling on the name of the Lord brought forgiveness (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10). Baptism was not incorporated into what Paul considered to be the Gospel. Therefore Acts 22:16 does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

A.T. Robertson admitted the grammatical possibility that this verse could be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, or baptismal remission. But grammatical possibility is far from actuality. There is also the grammatical possibility, and a stronger one in fact, that the washing away of sin is accomplished by calling on the name of the Lord. The grammar alone, therefore, cannot settle it, and discussions such as those above are necessary to clarify the matter. Robertson wrote:

It is possible... to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so in my opinion is a complete subversion of Paul's vivid and picturesque language. As in Romans 6:4-6 where baptism is the picture of death, burial, and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way (verse 10). Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.

It is possible, by isolating this verse from its context and from other New Testament teaching on the subject, to take this as teaching baptismal regeneration. But again, this is only one way to understand it. It has already been shown that this would not fit the context, it does not fit the most clear understanding of the grammar, and most importantly, it is contrary to Paul's entire teaching of what the Gospel is (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10; I Corinthians 1:17; Galatians 1:11-12). Possibility must not be confused with either probability or actuality.

Acts 22:16 does not teach the necessity of baptism for salvation.

Romans 6:3-4

Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4).

Some insist that this passage teaches that water baptism is the means of getting into Christ. But does it really teach this? There are several reasons why it does not.

First, the Greek word here translated "into" would be translated better "in" or "unto." Thus Robertson wrote regarding Romans 6:3:

Better, "were baptized unto Christ or in Christ." The translation "into" makes Paul say that the union with Christ was brought to pass by means of baptism, which is not his idea, for Paul was not a sacramentarian.... Baptism is the public proclamation of one's inward spiritual relation to Christ attained before the baptism. See Galatians 3:27 where it is like putting on an outward garment or uniform. "Into his death"... So here "unto his death," "in relation to his death," which relation Paul proceeds to explain by the symbolism of the ordinance.

Therefore we see that the Greek grammar itself does not teach that the baptism here spoken of is actually the means of getting "into Christ."

Second, Paul is speaking in figures and symbols throughout the first half of this chapter. Would the proponents of baptismal regeneration take verse 6 ("our old man was crucified with Him") literally, or will they recognize it as symbolic? It is symbolic, and it paints a vivid picture of dying to self and being alive to Christ. But this gives us precedent to interpret "baptism" in this passage as symbolic, too.

Another key to the fact that this passage is to be interpreted symbolically is verse 11, which reads:

Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All along, it is this "reckoning" that is emphasized. The "also" tells us that we reckon ourselves not only dead to sin, but also reckon other things of ourselves. These are expressed in the two symbols of being baptized in Christ and being crucified with Him (verses 3, 4, 6).

Thus Paul is simply using baptism as a symbol to paint a vivid picture of what happens when one is identified with Christ: that is, when one has "put on Christ," and has been "born again." Baptism gives an excellent picture of what it is to become a Christian, for it pictures the burial and resurrection. But the baptism itself is not that burial or resurrection. As Robertson put it, "[A] symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality." Baptism, therefore, symbolized identification with Christ.

Third, that baptism symbolizes identification can be shown by two studies. In I Corinthians 10:2-4, Paul wrote of the Israelites:

All were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

This clearly shows that "baptism into Moses" was a symbolic way of speaking of their identification with him: they ate the same meat, and drank the same drink: they were identified with him.

Furthermore, a careful reading of Romans 5:12-6:11 shows clearly that identification with Christ, on the one side, or with Adam, on the other, was Paul's theme. It is by our identification with Adam that death passed upon all men (5:12); it is through his offense that the many are dead (5:15); and by the judgment of him that all stand condemned (5:16); and because of his offense death reigns over all men (5:17) until they are saved (7:25, 8:1); by his offense judgment came on all (5:18); by his disobedience many were made sinners (5:19). But on the other hand, it is by our identification with Christ that we have life: Adam pre-figured Christ in this sense, that identification with him brings on us the things which apply to him, and identification with Christ brings on us the things which apply to Him (5:14). Yet the benefits of identification with Christ far outweigh the tragedies of identification with Adam (5:15); by identification with Him God's grace abounds to those who are identified with Him (5:15); by identification with Him the gift of justification comes to us (5:16); identification with Christ brings abundant righteousness in life (5:17); identification with Him brings justification and righteousness unto life (5:18); identification with Him applies His obedience to us (5:19).

Paul uses baptism often as a symbol of identification. He does it in 1 Corinthians 10:2. He follows the tremendous passage on identification with Christ on the one hand and with Adam on the other with a more in-depth passage on identification with Christ (Romans 6:1-11). As Christ died for our sins, and "became sin for us" (II Corinthians 5:21), so He died to sin because He had taken on our sins (Romans 6:10). Thus when we are identified with Him, we too are "dead to sin" (Romans 6:2); we are identified with His death (verse 3), with His burial and resurrection (verse 4), with His newness of life because of this resurrection (verses 4-5), in His crucifixion (verse 6), in living with Him (verse 8), and in dominion over death forevermore (verse 9). Paul concluded this line of thought by writing:

For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all, but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord (verses 10-11).

The entire passage of Romans 5:12-6:11 is concerned with our identification first and naturally with Adam, and second and by spiritual rebirth with Christ (John 3:3-6). It is correct, therefore, especially in the light of Paul's usage of the term in I Corinthians 10:2, to understand "baptism" in Romans 6 as symbolic of identification. Therefore it is not water baptism which actually puts us "Into Christ" or is necessary for our salvation, but identification with Christ: dying with Him to sin, rising with Him to life, living with Him to dominion over death and sin.

Romans 6:3-4, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation.

I Corinthians 12:13

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13).

Williams and Dykes call on this verse as a proof that baptism is the means by which we get into the Body, or Church, of Christ. There are several reasons to reject this teaching. They teach that this refers to water baptism. But there is nothing in the context to make us think this. The Bible makes reference to baptism in water (Acts 10:48), in fire (Matthew 3:11), in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5), and in Christ (Romans 6:3-4). It is therefore not necessary that we understand I Corinthians 12:13 as referring to water baptism.

Certainly it is by being baptized by the Holy Spirit that we get "into the body of Christ," but there is nothing to identify this baptism by the Holy Spirit with water baptism. Indeed, the language of Paul both in this verse and elsewhere in this epistle to the Corinthians makes it highly improbable that he meant that this was baptism in water.

First, Paul goes on after saying that we are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ to say that we also all drink of one Spirit. If we are going to insist on a literal interpretation of "baptism" in the first half of the verse, we have a right to insist on consistency and interpret the "drinking" of the second half literally. But this would be nonsense. If we take "drinking" in the second half figuratively, we have a right to take "baptism" in the first half figuratively.

Second, when considering Paul's words in I Corinthians 1:12-17, it is highly unlikely that Paul would identify baptism by the Spirit into the Body of Christ with baptism by any man. Being baptized by Paul caused some Corinthians to say they were "of Paul"; being baptized by Apollos caused some to say they were "of Apollos"; or by Cephas (Peter) caused some to say they were "of Cephas"; and some retorted arrogantly, "Well, I am simply of Christ." Since this was the case with the Corinthians, it is inconceivable that in writing to them Paul would intend for them to understand baptism by the Spirit as water baptism by a man or men.

Thirdly, the context of I Corinthians 12:13 is figurative language. Even the word "body" is used figuratively to describe the unity of the believers in Christ. Verses 7-11 all speak of a spiritual, not a physical, working by the Holy Spirit. Verses 12-31 all speak figuratively of their various topics. Therefore we have good reason to believe that "baptism in verse 13 is used figuratively of a spiritual, not physical, act of the Holy Spirit.

The baptism spoken of in I Corinthians 12:13 is figurative, referring to identification. It is done spiritually by the Holy Spirit, not through any physical means, and involves regeneration, the act of making the believer a "new creation" (II Corinthians 5:17). It does not refer to water baptism.

I Corinthians 12:13, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Galatians 3:27

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).

Williams and Dyke argue that this verse proves the necessity of water baptism for salvation, because it is by such that one gets "into Christ." But there are several reasons why this is not the case.

First, we have already seen that Paul often used "baptism" as a symbol for identification. This usage here would fit the meaning of the text. If it is symbolic of "identification," the meaning would be as follows: "For as many of you as have been identified in Christ have put on Christ." We have good reason from Paul's other writing, as shown previously, to take this figuratively, and it fits the context that way. Therefore the figurative is the most likely meaning.

Second, the verb in Greek translated "put on" has the meaning of putting on a badge or uniform of service like that of a soldier. According to A.T. Robertson:

This verb is common in the sense of putting on garments (literally and metaphorically as here). See further in Paul (Romans 13:14; Colossians 3:9f; Ephesians 4:22-24, 6:11, 14). In I Thessalonians 5:8 Paul speaks of "putting on the breastplate of righteousness." He does not here mean that one enters into Christ and so is saved by means of baptism after the teaching of the mystery religions, but just the opposite. We are justified by faith in Christ, not by circumcision or by baptism. But baptism was the public profession and pledge, the soldier's sacramentum, oath of fealty to Christ, taking one's stand with Christ, the symbolic picture of the change wrought by faith already (Romans 6:4-6).

In other words, even if "baptism" is taken as referring to water baptism, the language which Paul uses shows it to be an outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly. The baptizing itself then would be an entirely outward event, with no spiritual effect, but only a spiritual significance. Hebrews 9:13ff reminds us that no outward ceremony has a real effect on the heart.

Third, the word "into" in the King James Version would, again by Robertson's principle quoted earlier, be better translated "in" or "unto," meaning "in reference to" Christ, thus showing that the baptism itself is not the means of getting to be "in Christ."

Fourth, Galatia stood in the middle of an area infested with the mystery religions, and these bodies made much of outward acts. Paul was refuting the teachings of these religions, and so there is the initial probability that he did not want "baptism" in Galatians 3:27 to be taken as the literal, outward act. Baptism in water was a common initiatory rite in the mystery religions, and Paul knew that from his own travels in the area. It would be extremely unlikely that he would speak of it in the same way they did.

Fifth, it is by the receiving of the Holy Spirit that we know we are saved. In fact, those who have received Him are saved (Romans 8:1-16). But Paul in Galatians 3:2-3 points out specifically that it is by faith that the Galatians received the Holy Spirit. To say then that Galatians 3:27 teaches baptism as the means of regeneration would make it contradict verses 2 and 3.

Sixth, in verse 6 Paul quotes the fact that Abraham was justified when he believed God: that is, when he had faith. But Genesis 15:6 shows that this justification came before any physical act, specifically that of circumcision. Now the fact that Abraham was justified by faith without works is proof that he was saved (Romans 8:29-30; cf. Romans 3:1-5, 28). Circumcision is the Old Testament counterpart to baptism in the New Testament (see discussion of Colossians 2:12 later). Therefore we can be saved before and even completely without being baptized in water. (The use of Abraham as an example of the manner of our justification is supported in Galatians 3-28-29, and by Paul's whole argument in Romans 3-4).

Baptism in Galatians 3:27 does not refer to physical baptism in water, but is figurative of our identification with Christ which is achieved by faith (John 1:12-13), as was the case in I Corinthians 12:13 and Romans 6:3-4. It cannot be used as proof that baptism is necessary for salvation. But even if it did refer to water baptism, it would not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation, for it specifically speaks of it as an outward sign. We know that outward signs do not affect the heart's relation to God, and we know that there are those who were saved before they were baptized in water (Cornelius and his friends, Acts 10) or were circumcised (Abraham, Genesis 15).

Galatians 3:27, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Chattel Slavery is NOT Endorsed or Condoned in the Bible

So I listened to the lecture in the Youtube link from this Reddit thread by Joshua Bowen. Now I’m more convinced than ever that: “Chattel Slavey is not Endorsed or Condoned in the Bible” [thesis statement]

First, I was struck by the definition of slavery that was used: A condition in which An individual or rights to their labor is owned by another either temporarily or permanently; the owner controls and benefits from their actions and activities of the owned individual.

But this is overly broad - An employer today could be seen as “owning slaves” under this definition. Since when one clocks into work their employer “owns the rights to their labor” and “benefits from their actions or activities”, even though it's a temporary situation. And yes, one could say that the employee is benefiting as well [paycheck - healthcare] but so would an indentured servant in the OT [food, housing, paying off debt, taking from the flock, threshing floor, winepress upon leaving per DT 15:12-14

This definition allows him to equivocate and conflate two very different ideas. 1) a temporary, voluntary situation where one commits oneself to work to pay off a debt, and 2) permanent, involuntary labor for another. Perhaps this is because Bowen thinks that “Any type of slavery is atrocious” and that slavery is horrible in every circumstance - [quotes from the Q/A section about the 1:20 mark] But this seems to be an a-priori conclusion that drives his analysis. I say this because what is horrible and/or atrocious about indentured-servitude - i.e. paying off one’s debt?

Debt slavery wasn't very different from our concept of employment: working for someone else so you could pay off your debts. We call it employment; they called it bond-slavery or indebted-servanthood

Furthermore "Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom [Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.4:1190]

A better definition of chattel slavery would seem to be a situation that includes one who is 1) involuntarily owned, 2) treated as property and 3) used as forced labor since this is in agreement with what most reference as chattel slivery - that of the antebellum South.

To further complicate things the same Hebrew word ebed is translated as servant, slave, worshippers (of God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel), servant (as form of address between equals. This is a major problem for those who contend that the Bible condones chattel slavery since that concept is not in the word ebed. Critics seemingly just presume that any time they see the word "slavery" it must = chattel slavery. But there is no reason from the text or context that this is true

I also want to touch on the word buy - The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract such as in modern sports terminology a player can be described as being bought or sold the players are not actually the property of the team that has them except in regards to the exclusive right to their employment as players of that team - [Stuart, Douglas K.. Exodus: (The New American Commentary) (KL:13449)

Secondly, Bowen sees himself as a “conduit of Biblical scholarship” and that “Everything I say is consensus biblical scholarship”, He wants “To be able to say to a non-specialist, ‘here is what they all say about this topic’” Conservative and liberal scholars “all agree on this topic“ [starting at the 1:14 mark]

Two problems. First, arguing by citing "consensus" isn’t scholarship, it’s an attempt to appeal to authority [he’s a scholar who insists that all scholars agree with him [so who would even think to disagree with that deck stacked against you?] - but scholarly consensus can be incorrect as the Geocentric model of the universe was the scholarly consensus until it was proven false.

Secondly, not all scholars agree with him - shocking as it sounds, it’s true.

Owing to the existence of numerous designations for the non-free and manumitted persons in the first millennium BC. throughout Mesopotamia in history some clarification have the different terms in their particular nuances is necessary the designations male slave and female slave though common in many periods of Mesopotamian history are rarely employed to mean chattel slave in the sixth Century BC in the neo-babylonian context they indicate social subordination in general [Kristin Kleber, Neither Slave nor Truly Free: The Status of Dependents of Babylonian Temple Households]

Westbrook states :At first sight the situation of a free person given and pledged to a creditor was identical to slavery The pledge lost his personal freedom and was required to serve the creditor who supported the pledges labor. Nevertheless the relationship between the pledge and the pledge holder remained one of contract not property. [Rachel Magdalene, Slavery between Judah and Babylon an Exilic Experience, cited in fn]

Mendelshon writes: The diversity of experiences and realities of enslaved people across time and place as well as the evidence that enslaved persons could and did exercise certain behaviors that would today be described as “freedoms”, resist inflexible legal or economic definitions. Economic treatises and legal codes presented slaves ways as chattel while documents pertaining to daily life contradict this image and offer more complex picture of slavery in the near East societies. Laura Culbertson, Slaves and households in the Near East

Some of the misunderstanding of the biblical laws on service/slavery arises from the unconscious analogy the modern Western Hemisphere slavery, which involved the stealing of people of a different race from their homelands, transporting them in chains to a new land, selling them to an owner who possess them for life, without obligation to any restriction and who could resell them to someone else. Weather one translates “ebed as” servant, slave, employee, or worker it is clear the biblical law allows for no such practices in Israel Stewart Douglas, id]

I’m not citing these scholars to disprove Bowen’s view per se but just to demonstrate that not all scholars agree with him.

So the question of chattel slavey and the Bible must be addressed not by fallacies but by data

These are the passages where Bowen attempts to make his case:

Exodus 21:2-6

Bowen contends that the male slave only has 2 options, remain a permanent slave or go free as a single man as the wife remains a permanent slave. But this is simply untrue,

1) He could negotiate a marriage payment for his wife/kids. (Slaves did have to pay betrothal fees:… they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. [History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Raymond Westbrook],

2) We know that a person could continue to work/provide services inside a household (as a post-servant) and earn the bride-price, like Jacob did for Rachel and Leah (7 years for each),

3) Some of the gifts the master was supposed to send him out with at his release could be used as marriage payment see Deut 15:12-14

Exodus 21:7-11 Bowen contends this condones sex slavery.

Since the Bible teaches monogamy, any sort of sex slavery is simply out of the question. Later in the video Bowen contends that the Bible is not a text that has “one voice”; it has many contradictory voices so the answer that this was a marriage arrangement is simply not considered even though in context it does speak of the woman’s “marital rights”. Vs 10

Exodus 21:20-21 - Bowen is upset by the beating of slave/servant but is seemingly unaware that this treatment was no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizens. Being punished by the legal system via rod-beating was common in the Bible Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Perhaps you do not agree with corporal punishment, but that is a different discussion.

Proverbs 29:19-21 I’m not sure why Bowen brought this up. If you’ve ever encountered someone who is undisciplined, lacking self-control or good behaviour then you know how true this passage is.

Exodus 21:26-27

Bowen cites lex talionis - the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed in kind and degree. His complaint is that the owner should have his eye/tooth knocked out, not for the slave/servant to go free. But wouldn’t the slave/servant rather go free then the former? And is this consequence in addition to lex talionis, and not a replacement?

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 Bowen seems to have concerns with slave/servant staying in this position

It is important to point out that When a Hebrew slave/servant goes free after their 6th year they do not go out empty handed - They are given liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. See verses 13-14. If the slave/servant desires to stay permanently he may; but why would any want to? Given the economic realities of the times being a servant may have been the better option then going it alone.

LK 17: 7-10 Bowen contends that this shows 1) the reality of slavery during Jesus’ time, 2) the appropriateness of drawing on that reality for the analogy, 3) the complete lack of condemnation of slavery.

But again, what is meant by slavery? Chattel slavery? No, Bowen has failed to make the case that "ebed" must mean chattel slavery. Indentured servanthood/employment? That fits the passage perfectly; indentured servanthood/employment was 1) a reality during Jesus’ time, and was thus 2) appropriate for the analogy. And Jesus would 3) have no reason to condemn servanthood/employment.

Lev 25: 44-46 - this is the “big one” as it supposedly 1) Allows chattel slaves from other nations/strangers, 2) who become property, 3) passed down to children, 4) for life

But let’s slow down a bit. Bowen has yet to [and in fact never does] say how/why he gets “chattel slave” from “ebed”. So the passage above can mean, and most likely does mean "servants". As Stuart notes above, "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.

And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, but it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force. Given that this passage loses all of it bite

The verses that that critics ignore that will further show that Lev 25 cannot mean what they want it to - i.e. that foreigners were chattel slaves.

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.[Leviticus 19:33-34]

“You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt*. [Exodus 23:9]

*Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them *

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” [Exodus 21:16, see also 1 Tim 1:9-10]

This is clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT

“You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.” [Deuteronomy 23:15–16]

These four passages outlaw chattel slavery in the OT:

1) the Israelites were commanded to treat foreigners well; "shall not oppress", "you shall not do him wrong", "you shall love him as yourself".

2) You cannot steal a person, which means you cannot enslave a person against their will.

3) You cannot sell a person, which means people are not property.

4) If a person working for you wants to leave a slave/servant situation they can, and the Law protects their freedom to do so.

Bowen dismisses DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere to be found; DT 23 is just miscellaneous laws . Verses 1-8 is concerned with who is excluded from the assembly. Verse 9-14 it’s uncleanness in the camp. Verses 17-18 Cult prostitutes, 19-20 interest on loans, 21-23 vows to God, 24-25 conduct in your neighbor’s fields Verses 15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin. No matter what the cause of their servitude, nor the cause of their refuge, God still says that extradition is NOT to be done!

TL;DR

Chattel slavery means 1) involuntarily owned, 2) treated as property and 3) used as forced labor.

The Hebrew term ‘ebed [slave/servant] designates a range of social and economic roles. Thus no reason to conclude that a use of "ebed" must mean chattel slavery.

The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract.

Israelites had multiple ways out of slavery/servanthood

God definition of marriage precludes any sort of sex slavery.

Beatings were not a punishment reserved for slaves; it was a common punishment even for free persons.

The no kidnap, no buying or selling of people was punishable by death.

The Israelites were commanded not to oppress, but to love foreigners .

The non-return of run away slaves/servants applied to all.