Freethought & Rationalism Archive

storytime · 08-29-2009, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

"You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD."

Leviticus 18.21

That says human sacrifice is forbidden. This is one of the mandated laws in the Hebrew bible.

It was forbidden to sacrifice Israel's firstborn to foreign[strange] gods. Molech was not Yahweh. Yahweh demanded sacrifice of the firstborn of Israel to be offered to him alone. Ezekiel makes it clear to the people of Israel that they are to choose which god they prefer offering their children to. They were not allowed to sacrifice to both Yahweh and the idols of man.

semiopen · 08-29-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The terafim appearing in Samuel is pretty decent evidence that the Pentateuch was written after the time of David. This is because David had a terafim in his house.

This is selective and escapist. David was a mere 250 years from Moses and the Pantatuch, and everything David said and did is alligned to the Mosaic five books with a historical thread of writings connecting these two. This includes the desire to build the Temple as per the book of Kings [a command in the Mosaic], the location selected for it [the exact spot of Abraham's covenant], the figure of Samuel the Prophet annointing David in accordance of the Mosaic, and the text in David's psalms - which mentions Moses numerously, and which entire narratives allign with the Pentatuch.

Thus David could not have preceded the five books - indeed this is an impossibility from manifold levels, as the Mosaic contains 'contemporanous' stats of dates, life spans, genealogies, names, cities, kings, wars, diets, cultures and other stats dating back some 3000 years. These are not recallable or inventable retrospectively by David or any other humans - indeed they could not even be made up and still allign mathematically or in any other wise. The issue of his wife performing an action is unrelated and has no impact on the conclusion you have derived. You should reconsider it.

Quote:

According to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Teraphim were made from the heads of slaughtered first born male adult humans, shaved, salted, spiced, with a golden plate placed under the tongue, and magic words engraved upon the plate; it was believed that the Teraphim, mounted on the wall, would talk to people[3]. During the excavation of Jericho by Kathleen Kenyon, evidence of the use of human skulls as cult objects was uncovered, lending credence to the Rabbinical conjecture[15]. It is considered possible that they originated as a fetish[3], possibly initially representative of ancestors[16], but gradually becoming oracular[17].

================

I've gone through this several times for your benefit.

If you're going to reply why not do so intelligently, this would have the advantage of improving your knowledge whether my views are correct or not.

Those items do not allign with any Hebrew history or laws of monotheism, notwithstanding that at one time before this, all the ancesters of the Hebrews were also Polytheistic [Abraham's father]. Kathleen Kenyon has long ago been dislodged as making claims of Jerucho in error. Your claim it is possible that skuls for worship is Hebrew is not credible - they could well be non-hebrew, alligning with the surrounds in this region's peoples.

Your reply doesn't make much sense.

David was almost 1000 years after Jacob. The Terafim also occurs several times in the prophets as you could see by reading the Talmud portions I referenced. I don't understand the term escapist.

The truth is almost every parsha in the Torah has something that will relate it to the Divided monarchies or earlier, This is not selective. The books just seem to be written after 1000 BCE. Why don't you be selective and name something that suggests it was written before.

The spot selected for the temple may be the exact spot of the Akeida. The issue with this is what came first, the temple or the Akeida. This is like saying that the Assyrian god Assur had the same name as one of Noah's grandchildren.

The psalms have their own history and were definitely not written by David. Your reasoning is all circular.

Regarding the alignment with Hebrew and monotheism, this is also circular and backwards reasoning. Since this is written in the Talmud and the holy books, you are saying that the books do not align with Hebrew history and monotheism.

Kathleen Kenyon's conclusions about Jericho have remained scholarly consensus since 1958 despite an intense effort by Christian archeologists to prove that the destruction was later than 16th century BCE. It is interesting that not a single Jewish archeologist disputes here conclustions.

Your statement that her view is no longer the accepted one is typical of the propaganda around this subject. The opposition is based on an unpublished doctoral thesis written 20 years ago. If you discuss this with a knowledgable Christian, they will eventually concede that they are expecting new findings to be published soon and suggest withholding an opinion until then.

semiopen · 08-29-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonJ

Er... no it doesn't. It says that sacrifice by fire to Molech is forbidden. Nothing about throat-slitting or beheading, nothing about Yaweh.

Heck, if we're going to be literalists here, let's be literal literalists.

That refers to idolatory. However, human sacrifice is specifically forbidden for the first time in the Hebrew bible, and animal sacrifice was limited to those allowed for consumption, and only via a temple ritual for specific purposes such as accidental crimes. Also, one cannot transfer this right to another person or sacrifice for someone else.

The is no such commandment in the Pentateuch. Where is human sacrifice forbidden?

semiopen · 08-29-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

You have to read more carefully. This is concerned with sacrifices because the first born clean animals were sacrificed. "That's why I said one way or another."

The text says this, not you. The sacrifice of animals does not equate with the law of human sacrifice - it's first forbiddence emerging in the Hebrew. Also, because the animals sacrificed were clean [consumable], it is not even a sacrifice anymore, but akin to serving turkey on thanxgiving day. The thankksgiving sacrifices are akin to non-Hebrews giving foods and fruits - it is not the kind of sacrifice which occured in south America [Aztecs] for example.

There was NEVER a sacrifice of the first born - in fact this tradition of the nations is being soundly negated in the story of Abraham. You will see in the laws that emerged - human sacrifice was forbidden, and animal sacrifice was limited to accidental sins only; wanton sins [crimes] have specific punishments listed which cannot be negated by any sacrifices.

Yes, it refers to the Medianites: David's great-grand father married a Moabite named Ruth, who is post Median period, so it cannot refer to the Medianites. The slaughter you mention is not related to sacrifice but a war. In this period, some wars did not allow for prisoners, namely when genocide is first declared by the attacking party - here, the medianites, which you did not factor in. It is clear the mediantes were not Canaanites but of another land between Egypt and Canaan, and they saught to destroy the Hebrews - the latter could have but did not take their lands even after conquering them.

No, it is not a problem at all. The figures in the cencus allign with every logic considered: 400 years in Egypt is not far fetched to total 2-3 million; 40 years is not an unrealistic period here; we know that the Israelites were in Canaan exactly as when the text says. The factors listed in the cencus is scientific - the ratio of men and wmen, and the tribe sub-totals, with names of each tribe's genealogy - is very credible. There is no motive to exaggerate these figures - it is still small, and the Israelites are described as a small nation. Your statement it is a big problem is devoid of any evdential stats or reasoning.

There is archeological evidence of the periods before returning to Canaan [The egyptian stelle] and after - a host of relics with inscriptions have been unearthered displaying a continuous presence till 70 CE. This form of evidence is not seen any other place with any other peoples.

Quote:

Note that in your recent posts here you have not supplied a single link. Even if anything you've said has truth in it, nothing you have said would support taking any of this seriously.

Thus far I have responded to your own links and the conclusions you made of them. There is no issue with me providing links: for which factor would you like a link?

Show a link that shows the verses that prohibit human sacrifice to YHWH.

Show a link showing a respectable opinion that the Merneptah Stele shows that there was an exodus.

Frankly, your postings are so weak that they can safely be assumed to be false. Under the circumstances maybe we can just discount anything you say unless there is some source noted.

The Numbers 31 verse originally starts talking about the Midianites (Medianites?).

Quote:

31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

Then here it says.

Quote:

31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

This is actually the Moabites. The bible is notorious for these apparently pointless morphs. I'm capable of making mistakes worse than misidentifying a group of ites. Here, I simply suggested we leave it alone to avoid you being embarrassed by showing your lack of knowledge on the subject, and it is not very important to the point we are discussing.

The Moabite Midianite dynamic is discussed here

Heresy_of_Peor

Quote:

While it is considered uncertain as to why the Priestly source would change Moab to Midian, it is generally agreed amongst critical scholars that the account of the war against Midian, and its spoils, originates from a writer who added these elements to the original version of the Priestly source. The command to vex the Midianites is also considered a part of these additions, and thus the revenge on Midian serves as a vehicle for this writer to include the list of spoils, and its distribution, which has a larger amount of text than the narrative of the war. Thus, this later writer could easily have changed Moab to Midian to facilitate this addition.

Needless to say, most of these ites did not exist until the 10th century BCE.

Ruth was not a convert, so according to todays laws David would not be considered Jewish. This helps demonstrate that Jewish descent was from the father in those days. The talmudic explanation saying that marriage was to a Moabite woman was legal is questionable. My rabbi said that this is because of the term Moavi; hopefully there is more detail in the Talmud though; "Moavi" would commonly mean both males and females.

IamJoseph · 08-29-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The books just seem to be written after 1000 BCE. Why don't you be selective and name something that suggests it was written before.

There is nothing to suggest the books 'seemed to be' written after than it states, and there are 1000's of evidences it was. You have to come up with a historical stat which evidences your claim - you have not put a single indicator to back up your statement, nor has anyone else done that.

IamJoseph · 08-29-2009, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Show a link showing a respectable opinion that the Merneptah Stele shows that there was an exodus.

It says there was a war with Israel, whch gives credibility Israel was alligned with the Hebrew text at the exact time. We know that Canaan was a vasal state of Egypt, and that the Israelites did win that war - after leaving Egypt. There's enough dots there to complete a thread of the texts.

Quote:

Ruth was not a convert, so according to todays laws David would not be considered Jewish.

Ruth was a convert, and shown in the texts. All converts today are processed according to the same laws as Ruth was.

Quote:

This helps demonstrate that Jewish descent was from the father in those days. The talmudic explanation saying that marriage was to a Moabite woman was legal is questionable. My rabbi said that this is because of the term Moavi; hopefully there is more detail in the Talmud though; "Moavi" would commonly mean both males and females.

Ruth's husband to be correctly defended and won this case, based on the texts veracity. That arguement would win a court ruling today.

spamandham · 08-29-2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

It is fascinating that in the heart of the Hebrew Bible lies the sacriface of the firstborns.

As much fun as it would be to discover that two of the world's largest religions are rooted in such a barbaric practice, I seriously doubt it's historical.

From what I can tell, the bulk of the OT was written as a political ploy - a way for Judah to claim it had inherited the authority previously bestowed on Israel. As part of this ploy, we see a recurring them of 'the second shall be first', and 'the second born receives the blessing'. These stories about sacrificing the first born are simply part of that theme, and are not historical.

IamJoseph · 08-30-2009, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

It is fascinating that in the heart of the Hebrew Bible lies the sacriface of the firstborns.

As much fun as it would be to discover that two of the world's largest religions are rooted in such a barbaric practice, I seriously doubt it's historical.

From what I can tell, the bulk of the OT was written as a political ploy - a way for Judah to claim it had inherited the authority previously bestowed on Israel. As part of this ploy, we see a recurring them of 'the second shall be first', and 'the second born receives the blessing'. These stories about sacrificing the first born are simply part of that theme, and are not historical.

This has been a recurring theme: Isaac was younger than Ishmael, Jacob younger than hs twin Esau, Joseph the younger brother, Moses was younger than Aaron, David was the youngest of his brothers and so was Solomon.

But there is no sinister motive here, judging from the generic thread. With the case of Jacob, had his mother not switched the two - there would be no Judaism today [Esau flaunted his blessing], and by subsequence no Christianity or Islam. Only a mother has the right to perform such a deed involving her twin sons, and this was later affirmed as the right decision by her husband Isaac and her son Esau.

All pivotal actions were made by women, beginning with Eve and Sarah. That a woman can see further than a man of God's will is given by this astonishing command to the father of all prophets:

'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT" [Genesis]

semiopen · 08-30-2009, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Show a link showing a respectable opinion that the Merneptah Stele shows that there was an exodus.

It says there was a war with Israel, whch gives credibility Israel was alligned with the Hebrew text at the exact time. We know that Canaan was a vasal state of Egypt, and that the Israelites did win that war - after leaving Egypt. There's enough dots there to complete a thread of the texts.

Ruth was a convert, and shown in the texts. All converts today are processed according to the same laws as Ruth was.

Quote:

This helps demonstrate that Jewish descent was from the father in those days. The talmudic explanation saying that marriage was to a Moabite woman was legal is questionable. My rabbi said that this is because of the term Moavi; hopefully there is more detail in the Talmud though; "Moavi" would commonly mean both males and females.

Ruth's husband to be correctly defended and won this case, based on the texts veracity. That arguement would win a court ruling today.

You didn't show a link about the Merneptah Stele.

Show a link to the the text that shows that Ruth was a convert.

Your final comment is unintelligible.

semiopen · 08-30-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

The books just seem to be written after 1000 BCE. Why don't you be selective and name something that suggests it was written before.

There is nothing to suggest the books 'seemed to be' written after than it states, and there are 1000's of evidences it was. You have to come up with a historical stat which evidences your claim - you have not put a single indicator to back up your statement, nor has anyone else done that.

You hve not given an example of something that you consider to be earlier than 1000 BCE.

Show an example from the Pentateuch that suiggests it was written by Moses.

What do you mean by a historical stat?

Do you mean something like Hebrew did not exist until the 11 century BCE.

Hebrew_language

Quote:

In its widest sense, Classical Hebrew means the spoken language of ancient Israel flourishing between the 10th century BCE and the turn of the 4th century CE.[3] It comprises several evolving and overlapping dialects. The phases of Classical Hebrew are often named after important literary works associated with them.

Archaic Biblical Hebrew from the 10th to the 6th century BCE, corresponding to the Monarchic Period until the Babylonian Exile and represented by certain texts in the Hebrew Bible (Tanach), notably the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) and the Song of Deborah (Judges 5). Also called Old Hebrew or Paleo-Hebrew. It was written in a form of the Canaanite script.

Do you mean the Hebrew dialect of the Pentateuch(from the above source)

Quote:

The core of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) is written in Classical Hebrew, and much of its present form is specifically the dialect of Biblical Hebrew that scholars believe flourished around the 6th century BCE, around the time of the Babylonian exile.

Or perhaps that the city of Gerar did not exist at the time of Abraham and Isaac.

Gerar

Quote:

Gerar - meaning "lodging-place" - was a Philistine town and district in what is today south central Israel. Archaeological evidence points to the town having come into existence with the arrival of the Philistines at around 1200 BCE and having been little more than a village until 800-700 BCE.

Here are an amusing couple of segments you wrote previously

Quote:

David was a mere 250 years from Moses and the Pantatuch (sic)

Quote:

Kathleen Kenyon has long ago been dislodged as making claims of Jerucho (sic) in error.

Kenyon pissed off the Christians by saying the Jericho destruction was 1550 BCE, way too early for Joshua. They are trying to reestablish 1400 BCE. Why is this date important? Because there should be 480 years between the exodus and the building of the first temple. You give 250 years, demonstrating keen insight into biblical issues.

BTW, Kenyon was quite depressed by her conclusion, she expected to confirm the 1400 BCE date.

Quote:

Thus far I have responded to your own links and the conclusions you made of them. There is no issue with me providing links: for which factor would you like a link?

Unbelievable.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.