As I predicted earlier, you immediately jumped to justify the passage within its historical context, which isn't a very coherent position for someone who claims that their only faith is in whatever the Bible says. The passage itself may or may not be a good argument to argue about the morality of the Israeli peoples from that time compared to their neighbours (which would be ok if you wanted to claim the moral righteousness of your cultural tradition), but it establishes a terrible precedent in a book you claimed has been inspired by an All-Powerful, omniscient, and benevolent being (which I find far more relevant to this discussion, since we're discussing theology), as that means that this being would not care enough to make sure that the text that would supposedly contain their revelation for the rest of the history of humanity, would make it clear or not whether slavery is right or wrong. I don't believe in superstitions, but if I did, I would hold one that claims to be the ultimate judge of right and wrong to a much higher standard. Which is quite ironic, since you allow this hypothetical being of which you can't even verify its existence to squeeze you dry, but you won't even demand the bare minimum from it.

If you ever decide you've had enough trying to defend the indefensible, please be kinder to yourself. I don't think you deserve this punishment.