Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2008, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I myself find thousands of valid reasons to reject various claims of The Bible, this story however is not one of them.

Agreed, and it shouldn't be.

Genesis 18, the "Akedah" account (Genesis 22), the vow of Jepthah (Judges 11), the prophetic allusions of Hos 13:2; Mic 6:7; and Isa 66:3 indicate that human sacrifice in Israel was acceptable to God. 2 Kings 16:3 and 21:6 hint at human sacrifice. Ancient cultic stipulations to give all the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 22:28-29), or to allow firstborn children to be ransomed while firstborn animals were to be sacrificed (Exod. 34:19-20), are indications that human sacrifice was a mandated feature of the early Yahwism, later tempered by animal substitutions.

Omitting Genesis 22 and Judges 11, which have already been dealt with, each of the rest only relate to those among Israel who did evil in the sight of YHWH, that these vile persons did commit human sacrifice is even admitted to by YHWH and by His prophets. Whether they offered up their children to Moloch (the "KING") or to YHWH, it was declared unacceptable and denounced.

DBT · 02-13-2008, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Been answered, and was further analysed verse by verse in the two links that I provided, (and I could supply a hundred more with like conclusions) your still asking these same questions shows that you have either closed off your mind, or never bothered to examine the evidence that was being offered.

You can keep on chanting that same old off-key tune of ignorance till the facts come up and bites you in the ass.

Now, now, Sheshbazzar, I can only hope to determine the meaning of the story by the words that are in front of me. So I'm sorry, unless the original text has in some way been mistranslated, truckloads of apologetics cannot change the wording, or the fundamental meaning of the story.

From your article;
''and if his neighbour or friend's wife, son, or daughter, visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them. Besides, human sacrifices were ever an abomination to the Lord; and this was one of the grand reasons why God drove out the Canaanites''

Yet God asked Abraham for what? A human sacrifice? And Abraham was in his own turn fully prepared to offer his own son as a sacrifice to God. Did not Abraham also have 'no right over' his own son? Sorry, but the apologetics just do not wash.

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2008, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Been answered, and was further analysed verse by verse in the two links that I provided, (and I could supply a hundred more with like conclusions) your still asking these same questions shows that you have either closed off your mind, or never bothered to examine the evidence that was being offered.

You can keep on chanting that same old off-key tune of ignorance till the facts come up and bites you in the ass.

Now, now, Sheshbazzar, I can only hope to determine the meaning of the story by the words that are in front of me. So I'm sorry, unless the original text has in some way been mistranslated, truckloads of apologetics cannot change the wording, or the fundamental meaning of the story.

And you just conveniently shove aside all the words of The Law that went before, that would inform your understanding of those words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

From your article;
''and if his neighbour or friend's wife, son, or daughter, visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them. Besides, human sacrifices were ever an abomination to the Lord; and this was one of the grand reasons why God drove out the Canaanites''

Yet God asked Abraham for what? A human sacrifice? And Abraham was in his own turn fully prepared to offer his own son as a sacrifice to God. Did not Abraham also have 'no right over' his own son? Sorry, but the apologetics just do not wash.

The request for a sacrifice, and Abraham's dominion, or lack thereof, over his son are two entirely different things.
By the narrative no human sacrifice was performed after all, so it offers no proof of such sacrifice either ever happening, or ever being acceptable to YHWH.

That Abraham was willing, whether by his former acceptance of the practice, or by his "faith" that YHWH would keep his promise, is only a matter of Abraham's character and conduct, as is the question of his assumed claim of any ethical right to even so offer up the life of another human being.

The narrative tells us it was only a testing of Abraham's willingness.
So there is nothing to apologise for, and nothing that needs explained away.

And for all of that, the story of Jephthah is set many centuries latter, after the giving of The Law, and after YHWH had clearly stated that such practice was an abomination to him.
So attempting to use what ever Abraham allegedly did, as a indictment to convict Jephthah, makes even less sense than would using the crimes of Martin Bryant to fashion an indictment against you.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-13-2008, 06:34 AM

Sheshbazzar, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether or not Jepthath was inclined to break the law, or abide by the law.

There are two laws here: the law banning sacrifice of firstborn infants, and the law which states that humans "devoted to God" must be killed (Leviticus 27:29 "No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death").

Apparently, the laws conflict here. What is your basis for assuming that Jephthath could freely ignore Leviticus 27:29 (which, incidentally, confirms the reality of human sacrifice in some form), while being unable to similarly ignore the prohibition on infant sacrifices?

makerowner · 02-13-2008, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

No argument that in the past there has been no lack of commentators, Jewish, Christian ,and atheist, who did so interpret the passage in that argumentum ad-populum fashion.
These, just as the majority in this thread, made their pronouncements with little or no allowance for any ambiguity.
Now, the wind is changing directions, Their children are realizing that the "old" interpretation is only damaging to the faith, and of no advantage at all.
That long held dogmatic position is being assailed, questioned, challenged, and being revealed as deficient, and is being renounced by an increasing number of Biblical scholars of all stripes.

So now you propose, "Or is it possible that the passage is ambiguous" ?
Like so many of those pathetic Fundies on here, whom when they see one of their long cherished dogmas being shredded and coming unravelled under the onslaught of examination and reason, seek for a shred that they can salvage, whining can't we just settle for a compromise?
Don't you get it yet? The opponents of your position are already holding the winning hand, wrangling a compromise or a concession out of me here in this thread is not going to change the fact.
The forces against that old and untenable position are right now gathering strength by the hour, and the hour is now near where they (believers in the most, with everything to gain, and very little to lose, in revising their opinion of Jephthah) will begin to draw together, united in promoting a "new understanding" of those passages.
You either learn of those details that mitigate against your cherished interpretation, or your adversaries having learned them will use them to reveal that deficiency of your knowledge, or that evasion that you will be forced into.

There are ten thousand far better and solider arguments, ones without ANY "ambiguity", that are still available to refute the claims and validity of the Bible.
So, no, I say No. There is no room for compromise here. What may have served as "a reasonable interpretation or conclusion" in the past will no longer cut it.
The opposition itself is no longer buying that line, not from within, and most certainly will not from without.

If you want to do the right thing, make the wise choice, and do what is best for Atheism, for Free-Thought, and to help prevent others from being sucked in by religions lies, you will back carefully away from any further posturing over these "ambiguous" passages.

If you are uncomfortable about changing your interpretation, then at least have the decency to your fellow Atheists, to keep it out of the public view.

I have no desire to change my interpretation; I was extend the courtesy to you. The interpretation I've presented seems obvious to me, but since yours seems obvious to you, I acknowledged that the text is ambiguous. This is not "whining for a compromise": I still believe that my interpretation is the correct one, but unlike you, I'm giving the other viewpoint a respectful hearing, and conceding that I'm not omniscient and could be wrong.
The only argument that you've presented so far that holds any weight for me is the one about the conjunction possibly meaning 'or' rather than 'and'; I don't speak Hebrew, so I can't make any evaluation on the validity of that claim. Everything else just seems like apologetics. The main thrust of your argument seems to be "he wouldn't do that, because YHWH liked him". By this same logic, Samson couldn't have married a Philistine, because he had the "spirit of YHWH".

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Sheshbazzar, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether or not Jepthath was inclined to break the law, or abide by the law.

There are two laws here: the law banning sacrifice of firstborn infants, and the law which states that humans "devoted to God" must be killed (Leviticus 27:29 "No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death").

Apparently, the laws conflict here. What is your basis for assuming that Jephthath could freely ignore Leviticus 27:29 (which, incidentally, confirms the reality of human sacrifice in some form), while being unable to similarly ignore the prohibition on infant sacrifices?

Plowing the same field again, To your first paragraph;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Sheshbazzar, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether or not Jepthath was inclined to break the law, or abide by the law.

Your charge against me here is baseless, as there is not one single sentence or statement made by me, to be found anywhere within this thread, where I have claimed or even insinuated that Jephthah was breaking any Law, my defense of Jephthah has been consistent throughout that he was entirely innocent of all of these charges, and of the breaking of ANY Laws.
Would you care to produce the quotation from my posts that backs up your patently false claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

There are two laws here: the law banning sacrifice of firstborn infants, and the law which states that humans "devoted to God" must be killed (Leviticus 27:29 "No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death").

Apparently, the laws conflict here. What is your basis for assuming that Jephthah could freely ignore Leviticus 27:29 (which, incidentally, confirms the reality of human sacrifice in some form), while being unable to similarly ignore the prohibition on infant sacrifices?

There is no conflict in The Laws, it is your lack understanding of, and improper application of them that is deficient.
All of these objections that you raising, have already been addressed, both within this thread and also in far greater detail in those links which I provided, but Leviticus 27:29 seems to be your stumbling block, and it was well explained here; http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/vi...ud&chapter=011

You do misapprehend "Leviticus 27:29 (which, incidentally, confirms the reality of human sacrifice in some form)"

The subject of Lev.27:29 is not ritually performed "human sacrifice" on an altar as an offering, but rather being DEVOTED to DESTRUCTION, killed, utterly destroyed, whenever and whereever, as it is with rabid dogs.

The whole article, but particularly beginning at;

Quote:

"THE following is Dr. Hales' exposition of Jephthah's vow:- "

which is an explanation too lengthy and too detailed to post here.
That careful examination and exposition is not invalidated simply because it is not polite nor acceptable to quote long excerpts of text here.
Your opponents are getting the drop on you. You are still trying to selectively employ and interpret only such texts as you can manipulate to support your losing proposition. Whereas your opponents are marshaling the entire body of Scripture to refute your error.
I close again saying, You are not doing the Atheist or Free-Thought movement any favors by continuing this particular line of argument.
You have already lost, and the longer that you continue trying to kick that old dead horse that you rode in on, back to life, the more shame you are bringing upon honest and ethical Atheists, both now and in the future.
Bury it, it stinks.

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2008, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

No argument that in the past there has been no lack of commentators, Jewish, Christian ,and atheist, who did so interpret the passage in that argumentum ad-populum fashion.
These, just as the majority in this thread, made their pronouncements with little or no allowance for any ambiguity.
Now, the wind is changing directions, Their children are realizing that the "old" interpretation is only damaging to the faith, and of no advantage at all.
That long held dogmatic position is being assailed, questioned, challenged, and being revealed as deficient, and is being renounced by an increasing number of Biblical scholars of all stripes.

So now you propose, "Or is it possible that the passage is ambiguous" ?
Like so many of those pathetic Fundies on here, whom when they see one of their long cherished dogmas being shredded and coming unravelled under the onslaught of examination and reason, seek for a shred that they can salvage, whining can't we just settle for a compromise?
Don't you get it yet? The opponents of your position are already holding the winning hand, wrangling a compromise or a concession out of me here in this thread is not going to change the fact.
The forces against that old and untenable position are right now gathering strength by the hour, and the hour is now near where they (believers in the most, with everything to gain, and very little to lose, in revising their opinion of Jephthah) will begin to draw together, united in promoting a "new understanding" of those passages.
You either learn of those details that mitigate against your cherished interpretation, or your adversaries having learned them will use them to reveal that deficiency of your knowledge, or that evasion that you will be forced into.

There are ten thousand far better and solider arguments, ones without ANY "ambiguity", that are still available to refute the claims and validity of the Bible.
So, no, I say No. There is no room for compromise here. What may have served as "a reasonable interpretation or conclusion" in the past will no longer cut it.
The opposition itself is no longer buying that line, not from within, and most certainly will not from without.

If you want to do the right thing, make the wise choice, and do what is best for Atheism, for Free-Thought, and to help prevent others from being sucked in by religions lies, you will back carefully away from any further posturing over these "ambiguous" passages.

If you are uncomfortable about changing your interpretation, then at least have the decency to your fellow Atheists, to keep it out of the public view.

I have no desire to change my interpretation; I was extend the courtesy to you. The interpretation I've presented seems obvious to me, but since yours seems obvious to you, I acknowledged that the text is ambiguous. This is not "whining for a compromise": I still believe that my interpretation is the correct one, but unlike you, I'm giving the other viewpoint a respectful hearing, and conceding that I'm not omniscient and could be wrong.
The only argument that you've presented so far that holds any weight for me is the one about the conjunction possibly meaning 'or' rather than 'and'; I don't speak Hebrew, so I can't make any evaluation on the validity of that claim. Everything else just seems like apologetics. The main thrust of your argument seems to be "he wouldn't do that, because YHWH liked him". By this same logic, Samson couldn't have married a Philistine, because he had the "spirit of YHWH".

I gave that other viewpoint fifty-eight years of my hearing and consideration, and held the same opinion you are yet defending, it has only been since I have became an Atheist, that I have been able to see the weaknesses in that ill considered, and erronous position.
I do not acknowledge that the text is "ambiguous", when it is properly read with its words informed by a working knowledge and comprehension of the intricacies of The Law.
The vow, was fully founded and bounded in Jephthah's knowledge of and application of The Law, and of his attendant obligations thereunder.
His "vow" could only be accomplished within the framework of The Law; thus when the text states that Jephthah "did with her according to his vow which he had vowed:" It can mean nothing more than that Jephthah kept his word and turned her over to the Priests of The Levites because the stipulations of The Law would allow him no other options.
Thus, even if his daughter was made a "burnt offering" (and I AM NOT allowing here that such was the case) it would not have been performed by the hands of Jephthah himself, but rather by The Priests of The Levites.
Thus his handing her over to the Priesthood would have fufilled the obligation of his vow.
He did not need to, and was in any event, barred from the act of making a "burnt sacrifice" of her by himself. (Leviticus 10:1-7, Numbers 3:4-10 )

mens_sana · 02-13-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Agreed, and it shouldn't be.

Genesis 18, the "Akedah" account (Genesis 22), the vow of Jepthah (Judges 11), the prophetic allusions of Hos 13:2; Mic 6:7; and Isa 66:3 indicate that human sacrifice in Israel was acceptable to God. 2 Kings 16:3 and 21:6 hint at human sacrifice. Ancient cultic stipulations to give all the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 22:28-29), or to allow firstborn children to be ransomed while firstborn animals were to be sacrificed (Exod. 34:19-20), are indications that human sacrifice was a mandated feature of the early Yahwism, later tempered by animal substitutions.

Omitting Genesis 22 and Judges 11, which have already been dealt with, each of the rest only relate to those among Israel who did evil in the sight of YHWH, that these vile persons did commit human sacrifice is even admitted to by YHWH and by His prophets. Whether they offered up their children to Moloch (the "KING") or to YHWH, it was declared unacceptable and denounced.

I am rather surprised that you are reading the text as if the Deuteronomist's version were the original. May I refer you to Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (0-300-06511-6) and to Shalom Spiegel, The Last Trial - on the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice, The Akedah (1-879045-29-X). Both are very interesting books, from a Jewish perspective, of course.

In the mean time ...

Gen. 22:2 is a direct order from God requiring that Abraham sacrifice his only son, his promised heir. That v. 1 indicates it is a test is whitewash from a later period. Abraham made no protest whatsoever. This shows that human sacrifice was not at all foreign to that society, though by itself it does not show that sacrifice of the firstborn was a general practice at this time.

The story derives its extraordinary power from notions of human sacrifice as the ultimate devotion to God. And it should be remembered that a "holocaust" ‡ was a devotion to God, a burning devotion comprising an entire city, all its inhabitants, and usually all its goods.

In 2 Kings 3, the Israelites and Edom have attacked Moab. Moab suffers a crushing defeat. Only the walled town of Kir-hareseth remains. The king of Moab makes of his son a burnt offering on the wall; "And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land." (v.27) Human sacrifice was common in the area and Moab was related to Judah.
Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter is not just an ill-conceived oath. The sacrifice itself could not take place in a society that did not accept such sacrifices.

1 Kings 16:34 notes two child sacrifices, as does Joshua 6:26, 2 Kings 16:3, and 2 Kings 23:10 and possibly 21:16. Hezekiah never concerns himself with outlawing the existent Molech cult (cf. 2 Kgs. 18:1–4) and the Topheth in the Hinnom Valley, outside Jerusalem, site of human sacrifice was not destroyed until Josiah's reform. Even then, the practice endured well beyond the late pre-exilic period in Judah (cf. Jer. 2:23; 7:31; 19:5–6, 11–14; 31:40; 32:35). Inscriptions and historical reports from Phoenicia and its colonies in Carthage and Malta, from the seventh through the fourth centuries, speak of child sacrifice in time of national crisis. Ezekiel implies that Yahweh had commanded the Israelites to participate in the sacrifice of their firstborn (Ezek. 20:25–26), but qualifies this law as a form of punishment. Micah 6:6-7 is an interesting citation.

"Exodus 22:29–30 comprises an unqualified demand to make the firstborn sacrifice to Yahweh; the option to redeem the firstborn is not offered here as in later and Priestly texts." Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p.913.

So we have plenty of indication that human sacrifice — at least in times of crisis — was practiced among the Hebrews and among the Canaanites with whom the Hebrews lived, and that the practice continued into Judah's late pre-exilic period, as well as among the neighboring peoples.

And an aside – if God did not demand such a sacrifice in a verbal command, he was still pleased enough to accept it. The odour of burning meat is the same, regardless of what kind of firstborn: "pleasing."

‡ Deut 2:34 At that time we captured all his towns, and we doomed* every town—men, women, and children—leaving no survivor. * i.e. placed under herem, which meant the annihilation of the population. Cf..Num. 21.2; Josh. 6.24.

ban (Heb. ḥerem), dedication of persons or materials to God. References to the total destruction of towns or persons and their possessions, generally by fire, in consequence of such a dedication are concentrated in the ‘conquest’ era. The ban is connected (though not synonymous) with the taking of booty after battle and warriors’ compensation. Items collected under the ban are reserved for the priestly cadre (Lev. 27:21-22; Num. 18:14; Ezek. 44:29), although it is uncertain that the goods ‘donated’ to the Lord in these texts were necessarily obtained in battle. Of cities taken in conquest, Jericho alone is placed off limits for Israelite occupation (Josh. 6). Also under the ban were Ai (Josh. 8), Makkedah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir (Josh. 10), and Hazor (Josh. 11). Early practice was regulated, presumably by oracle (Num. 21:1-3; cf. contradictory claims within Josh. 11:12-13). -- Achtemeier, P. J., Harper's Bible Dictionary (1st ed.), p. 91.

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2008, 04:34 PM

I have read multitudes of such erronous articles, I have already on this very page, pointed out some of the misconceptions and errors of interpretation that are contained within this one. As per Exodus 22:29-30 refuted in POST #140 above, Just repeating and posting this stuff is never going to make it true.
I do grant however, the parts about;
"ban (Heb. ḥerem), dedication of persons or materials to God. References to the total destruction of towns or persons and their possessions, generally by fire,"
Something I have been laboring to get across here, "total destruction" does not imply a "sacrifice" to YHWH, and the English Bible usages of the word "sacrifice" does not always imply "burnt offering".

Archer · 02-13-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

No argument that in the past there has been no lack of commentators, Jewish, Christian ,and atheist, who did so interpret the passage in that argumentum ad-populum fashion.
These, just as the majority in this thread, made their pronouncements with little or no allowance for any ambiguity.
Now, the wind is changing directions, Their children are realizing that the "old" interpretation is only damaging to the faith, and of no advantage at all.
That long held dogmatic position is being assailed, questioned, challenged, and being revealed as deficient, and is being renounced by an increasing number of Biblical scholars of all stripes.

So now you propose, "Or is it possible that the passage is ambiguous" ?
Like so many of those pathetic Fundies on here, whom when they see one of their long cherished dogmas being shredded and coming unravelled under the onslaught of examination and reason, seek for a shred that they can salvage, whining can't we just settle for a compromise?
Don't you get it yet? The opponents of your position are already holding the winning hand, wrangling a compromise or a concession out of me here in this thread is not going to change the fact.
The forces against that old and untenable position are right now gathering strength by the hour, and the hour is now near where they (believers in the most, with everything to gain, and very little to lose, in revising their opinion of Jephthah) will begin to draw together, united in promoting a "new understanding" of those passages.
You either learn of those details that mitigate against your cherished interpretation, or your adversaries having learned them will use them to reveal that deficiency of your knowledge, or that evasion that you will be forced into.

There are ten thousand far better and solider arguments, ones without ANY "ambiguity", that are still available to refute the claims and validity of the Bible.
So, no, I say No. There is no room for compromise here. What may have served as "a reasonable interpretation or conclusion" in the past will no longer cut it.
The opposition itself is no longer buying that line, not from within, and most certainly will not from without.

If you want to do the right thing, make the wise choice, and do what is best for Atheism, for Free-Thought, and to help prevent others from being sucked in by religions lies, you will back carefully away from any further posturing over these "ambiguous" passages.

If you are uncomfortable about changing your interpretation, then at least have the decency to your fellow Atheists, to keep it out of the public view.

AWESOME POST! We need more like you,THANKS SHESHBAZZAR!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2008, 06:34 AM	#144
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Sheshbazzar, you don't seem to be able to make up your mind whether or not Jepthath was inclined to break the law, or abide by the law. There are two laws here: the law banning sacrifice of firstborn infants, and the law which states that humans "devoted to God" must be killed (Leviticus 27:29 "No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death"). Apparently, the laws conflict here. What is your basis for assuming that Jephthath could freely ignore Leviticus 27:29 (which, incidentally, confirms the reality of human sacrifice in some form), while being unable to similarly ignore the prohibition on infant sacrifices?

02-13-2008, 04:34 PM	#149
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	I have read multitudes of such erronous articles, I have already on this very page, pointed out some of the misconceptions and errors of interpretation that are contained within this one. As per Exodus 22:29-30 refuted in POST #140 above, Just repeating and posting this stuff is never going to make it true. I do grant however, the parts about; "ban (Heb. ḥerem), dedication of persons or materials to God. References to the total destruction of towns or persons and their possessions, generally by fire," Something I have been laboring to get across here, "total destruction" does not imply a "sacrifice" to YHWH, and the English Bible usages of the word "sacrifice" does not always imply "burnt offering".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.