It isn't EXACTLY the same, but there are strong similarities, before the age of majority. Likewise, the slaves were liberated in the year of jubilee, although that was only once every 50 years.
Adoption brings inheritance rights; slavery doesn't.
Irrelevant. The will determines inheritance rights. Washington willed that his slaves be set free and anyone can cut an adopted child out of his own will.
But, I would expect the so-called Bible-believing Christians to bend and twist in order to justify what's in the Bible, even if it is morally repugnant.
You are saying that what the Bible teaches is morally repugnant, that part of God's Holy word is morally repugnant. What, then, is the source for your morality? If not the Bible, is it instead the Church, or what you feel is moral yourself? Note that whatever your answer, it will be in contrast to the Bible. You will have to say that your source for morality disagrees with what the Bible says.
Oh, boy, how noble, given that average longevity in those days wasn't much past that number!
Irrelevant. The will determines inheritance rights
Irrelevant? So, adopted children are just like funriture? I don;t think so. But slaves were exactly that, like cattle.
You are saying that what the Bible teaches is morally repugnant, that part of God's Holy word is morally repugnant. What, then, is the source for your morality?
Not Leviticus! Imagine how you'd feel if you were separated from your wilfe and young children and witnessed her being sold to someone, knowoing you will never see her again, and your children to someone else who can kill them if he so desires, and then tell me if that is repungnant. Yet, the OT won't tell you it is.
You will have to say that your source for morality disagrees with what the Bible says.
Yes it does! I find the slavery of Leviticus repugnant.