Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 04-09-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Actually, I've seen Deuteronomy compared to Assyrian suzerainty treaties, and Assyria lasted until around 612 BCE, when Nineveh fell to the Babylonians and Medes.

Treaties which may have been similar in style to those earlier Hittite ones; that style may have been a common way of expressing suzerainty.

Thus, Ed's treaty-style argument falls to the ground.

Actually scholars like George Mendenhall and K.A. Kitchen stated that the covenant type which is found in Deut. cannot be proven to have survived the downfall of the great empires of the late second millenium B.C. When empires again arose, notably Assyria, the structure of the covenant by which they bound their vassals is entirely different. Even in Israel the older form of the covenant was no longer widely known after the united monarchy.
So lp's argument falls to the ground.

Ed · 04-11-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: And are you seriously arguing that the Hebrews wouldn't otherwise have known that a nearby nation consisted largely of sandy desert, or that they wrote on papyrus? Just how ignorant do you think they were?

Now you are contradicting yourself, first you say they are backward and ignorant now you say they were sophisticated world travelers. Which one is it? Anyway I didnt say they didnt know that Egypt didnt have a desert, I am saying that they would not have been WELL acquainted with the desert unless they had actually traveled there. Also they would not have known Egyptian geography so well unless they had actually been there. And all the evidence points to the writer of Deuteronomy being very familar with it.

jtb: Egypt was the country next door. It was also the equivalent of a superpower: culturally and militarily dominant. What you're suggesting is equivalent to saying that no Mexican should know that there are skyscrapers in New York, unless he's been there. Or he shouldn't know that many Americans eat burgers and drink Coke.

You didn't answer my question. But anyway, Mexicans have TVs, the ancient hebrews didn't. In ancient times people rarely traveled more than several miles from where they were born, so it is unlikely that they would have known the details about Egypt unless the writer had actually been there.

Quote:

Ed: By having these women convert and become the wives of the priests they were like living memorials of what happened and an offering to God.

jtb: They would have desecrated the temple and either fled or murdered the priests at the earliest available opportunity. Once again, you demonstrate that you cannot understand the mindset of women whose relatives have been butchered.

How many Jewish women married Nazi death-camp guards?

Fled to where? During their month of mourning, they learned that the hebrew society was far superior to the former societies that they had been raised in and knew that it would be ideal to raise children in such a situation.

Quote:

Ed: Since not everything mentioned in Numbers 31 was sacrificed see verses 50-54 where the gold is mentioned and used as a memorial for the people to remember it plainly did NOT always mean sacrifice (in the sense of destroy or burn up).

jtb: The Bible is clear: the PEOPLE are a part of the SACRIFICE (along with the animals). The MONEY is discussed afterwards: money is not mentioned as part of the "heave offering".

Irrelevant. They were all part of what was "dedicated" to the Lord.

Quote:

jtb: Yet again, you abandon the Bible, because you don't like what it says. But if the Bible is the basis of your morality, it should not be possible for you to dislike what it says, WHATEVER it actually says.

No, I did not abandon the bible, YOU did. See above.

lpetrich · 04-12-2004, 12:40 AM

(Ed's attempted refutation of the Deuteronomy - 1st-mil Neo-Assyrian treaty connection...)

Here's a nice article on that subject; it points out that the long list of curses in Deuteronomy parallel Neo-Assyrian treaties like one where some vassals swear loyalty to Assyrian king Esarhaddon (ruled 681-669 BCE).

Quote:

More important is the presence of a curse which is substantially repeated in Deut 28 :23. The Assyrian curse reads: "May they make your ground (hard) like iron so that none of you may flourish. Just as rain does not fall from a brazen heaven, so may rain and dew not come upon your fields..." In Deut 28:23: "The sky over your heads will become like bronze and the earth under your feet like iron." So similar are these curses that Borger writes:..."The Deuteronomist must have derived this somehow, taking it over as an impressive image from an Assyrian source. Did it perhaps occur in a treaty between the Assyrians and the Judaeans ?"

(Exodus and Egypt being surrounded by sandy desert...)

Quote:

In ancient times people rarely traveled more than several miles from where they were born, so it is unlikely that they would have known the details about Egypt unless the writer had actually been there.

Details which have remained the same for centuries after the alleged Exodus.

(captured women that men had taken as wives...)

Quote:

During their month of mourning, they learned that the hebrew society was far superior to the former societies that they had been raised in and knew that it would be ideal to raise children in such a situation.

WinAce enjoys collecting comments like that.

It's like Osama bin Laden declaring that the World Trade Center survivors will recognize the moral superiority of Islam on account of what they had gone through.

Ed · 04-13-2004, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: I did, and he makes the same mistake of basing most of his argument on the fatally flawed Documentary Hypothesis. He uses it as an excuse to take verses out of context. See above for some of the problems with it.

jtb: You are speaking Eddian again.

Translations follow:

"fatally flawed": I don't like it.
"take verses out of context": take verses in context.
"See above": imagine there's another post somewhere in which I present a cogent argument.
"problems with it": I don't like it.

Ed, it's no good pretending there are "problems" with the DH when you don't present any! You expect us to just take your word for it?

Besides the evidence about the age of the covenants, I also mentioned earlier how the scholar Umberto Cassuto demolished the Divine Name theory which is basically the cornerstone to the whole Documentary Hypothesis. This was also done by scholar John Raven and others.

Quote:

jtb: So far, all you've done is to suggest that the Hebrews "shouldn't have known" that Egypt was in a desert, and that they "shouldn't have known" about suzerainty treaties that had been used in the past and were still being used at the time (as usual, I suggest you read the thread: why do you keep forgetting to do that?)

See above where I refute lp's attempted refutation of the treaty theory.

lpetrich · 04-14-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Besides the evidence about the age of the covenants, I also mentioned earlier how the scholar Umberto Cassuto demolished the Divine Name theory which is basically the cornerstone to the whole Documentary Hypothesis. This was also done by scholar John Raven and others.

And what is this "Divine Name" theory?

And if Ed thinks that that's all there is to the Documentary Hypothesis, he is dead wrong.

Quote:

See above where I refute lp's attempted refutation of the treaty theory.

A hollow and selective "refutation".

Jack the Bodiless · 04-16-2004, 01:43 AM

Ed:

Quote:

Biblical-literalist Christians need to convince themselves that atrocities such as baby-killing are NOT evil. They worship an evil deity masquerading as a good one. I think it's hardly surprising that, in at least some cases, their morals get screwed.

You have yet to demonstrate that evil exists. If evolution is true then these things are just natural selection and not evil, in fact they could be argued as good since they may help humans evolve to a higher level.

Genocide isn't natural selection. Where is the evidence that the slain were genetically ill-adapted to their environment?

...But you're changing the subject. You know that the Bible is evil: that's why you'd rather talk about something else.

Quote:

See my post to Jack where I comment about these verses.

You're doing it again!

Those verses refer to rape, and you know it. Hence the attempted misdirection.

Quote:

jtb: Egypt was the country next door. It was also the equivalent of a superpower: culturally and militarily dominant. What you're suggesting is equivalent to saying that no Mexican should know that there are skyscrapers in New York, unless he's been there. Or he shouldn't know that many Americans eat burgers and drink Coke.

You didn't answer my question. But anyway, Mexicans have TVs, the ancient hebrews didn't. In ancient times people rarely traveled more than several miles from where they were born, so it is unlikely that they would have known the details about Egypt unless the writer had actually been there.

In ancient times, MOST people didn't travel much. But SOME people did: merchants. They would have known these basic facts about Egypt.

Quote:

jtb: They would have desecrated the temple and either fled or murdered the priests at the earliest available opportunity. Once again, you demonstrate that you cannot understand the mindset of women whose relatives have been butchered.

How many Jewish women married Nazi death-camp guards?

Fled to where? During their month of mourning, they learned that the hebrew society was far superior to the former societies that they had been raised in and knew that it would be ideal to raise children in such a situation.

Fled to the neighboring countries. Evidence that the Hebrew society was "far superior"?

Quote:

Ed: Since not everything mentioned in Numbers 31 was sacrificed see verses 50-54 where the gold is mentioned and used as a memorial for the people to remember it plainly did NOT always mean sacrifice (in the sense of destroy or burn up).

jtb: The Bible is clear: the PEOPLE are a part of the SACRIFICE (along with the animals). The MONEY is discussed afterwards: money is not mentioned as part of the "heave offering".

Irrelevant. They were all part of what was "dedicated" to the Lord.

Irrelevant. The PEOPLE are a part of the SACRIFICE, the HEAVE OFFERING.

Quote:

jtb: Yet again, you abandon the Bible, because you don't like what it says. But if the Bible is the basis of your morality, it should not be possible for you to dislike what it says, WHATEVER it actually says.

No, I did not abandon the bible, YOU did. See above.

You are hallucinating again, there is no "above" where I abandoned the Bible.

But you are again avoiding my point. IS the Bible the basis of your morality, or is it NOT?

You accept genocide because it's in the Bible. But you won't accept human sacrifice. WHY NOT?

Human sacrifice is entirely consistent with the nature of the Old Testament God, who demands blood sacrifices and genocide. If your argument is that it isn't consistent with the NEW teachings of JESUS: then the same can be said of the blood sacrifices and the genocide.

You are being inconsistent.

Ed · 04-18-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:
Ed: No, because only God has the right to enforce capital punishment for sin, humans do not except for the short period during the acquistion by the hebrew theocracy of the promised land.

jtb: Apologetic fiction. This isn't in the Bible.

Ed: Fraid not. Read John 8:3-11.

jtb: I have. It's the incident with the adulteress: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".

...Which says nothing at all about humans having the right to enforce capital punishment for sin during the acquistion by the hebrew theocracy of the promised land.

No, but it is when Christ ended the practice. God had already allowed during the hebrew theocracy. The overarching punishment for sin is death, see Romans 5:12. And all humans have sinned and deserve death Gen. 8:21.

Quote:

jtb: Jesus was merely pointing out that they were no better than she was. The rest is apologetic fiction, just as I said.

That was his primary purpose but there was also the above which of course ties into the first part.

Ed · 04-18-2004, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Deu 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
Deu 18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

jtb:These verses say that CHILD SACRIFICE BY FIRE is wrong.

There is NO Biblical verse which claims that HUMAN SACRIFICE IN GENERAL is wrong.

Ed: Fraid so, given that fire is the only way the ancient hebrews performed sacrifices.

jtb: What part of the Biblical phrase "his son or his daughter" do you not understand?

What part of my own phrase "CHILD SACRIFICE" do you not understand?

Ed: A son or daughter can be either a child or an adult, so both are ruled out.

jtb: ...So now you're saying that the Midianite captives couldn't have been human sacrifices because they were the sons and daughters of the Israelites.

Where is the Biblical evidence that the children of the Israelites left to become the Midianites, and when did this supposedly happen? Do you mean this in a metaphorical sense, with the Midianites being "children of Noah" like everyone else?

The phrase "There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter..." obviously applies to the son or daughter of that one person, not the descendant of a distant shared ancestor: it's HIS son, or HIS daughter. So you're saying that the Midianites were attacked and massacred by their actual parents, the Israelites!

...Evidence????

just how far will you go to preserve your fantasy? Just how much are you prepared to invent?

I thought you were trying to say that the verse only applied to banning CHILD sacrifice, my point was that since the verse says sons or daughters the ban applies to both children AND adults.

Quote:

Ed: While there is no explicit verse stating that "human sacrifice in general is wrong", it is plainly implied by the above verse and Deut. 12:31 where even what the pagans are doing to their sons and daughters are condemned. Plus the sixth commandment, "You shall not murder." Also there is no laws dealing with humans in the sacrificial laws or stating that humans are clean animals that can be sacrificed.

jtb: Irrelevant, because that verse refers to sons and daughters.

...What exactly is your comprehension problem, Ed? ARE you admitting that the human sacrifice of people who are NOT "sons and daughters" is perfectly OK?

If it was ok to sacrifice pagan humans then he never would have condemned the actions of the pagans in Deut. 12:31.

Quote:

jtb:Why are you so hopelessly confused?

BTW, as "murder" is defined as UNLAWFUL killing, it doesn't help your case at all. It is quite obvious from the Bible that the massacre of prisoners is lawful.

No, the ancient hebrews considered herem part of war killing, which was not forbidden by the sixth commandment. But the sixth commandment prohibited premeditated killing not connected with war and capital punishment. Therefore, any premeditated sacrificial killing would have been considered murder.

Quote:

Ed: No the herem does not have any of the characteristics of hebrew sacrifices.

jtb: It was a specific type of Hebrew sacrifice.

No, it was part of the killing and conquering of war and has nothing in common with any of the other hebrew sacrifices.

Quote:

Ed: Both of you ignore the passages in the torah where there is redemption for the human first born.

jtb: We have not "ignored" those passages, we have explained them. The practise was abandoned, and the Bible was altered.

You have yet to demonstate both of those assertions.

Quote:

jtb: That, also, is not the STATED reason for the massacre of the Amalekites.

The STATED reason is "vengeance" for a 400-year-old incident not perpetrated by any of those on whom this "vengeance" fell.

We were not talking about the Amalekites, we were talking about the Canaanites and the herem. I have dealt with the Amalekites elsewhere.

What part of "The Bible SPECIFICALLY states exactly why the Amalekites were killed, and it is NOT the reason you gave" did you not understand?

This stems from your refusal to accept that the massacre of rival tribes was "genocide". Not from any discussion of human sacrifice. Please TRY to keep up.

And you have not "dealt with" the Amalekites elsewhere. You denied the Bible THEN, too.

Yes I did and I am not going to rehash it.

Quote:

Ed: One thing I forgot to mention is that Moses specifically said they are to be kept alive in verse 18. So if they killed them then they would have broken Moses explicit command, also as stated above they would have broken the Sixth Commandment.

jtb: Nonsense. Moses was telling them to KILL the women and children, EXCEPT for the virgins, who were to be kept alive for a specific purpose (as booty). And God got a share of that booty. So you're making stuff up, as usual.

Yes, and how God got his share was by giving them to the priests for wives.
And if they were going to be killed anyway, why would they need to be virgins?

Quote:

Ed: And eating and spending are not equivalent to destroying by burning so it is obvious that heave offering can be understood symbolically. See below where money is called a heave offering and plainly not destroyed or burnt:

Num 18:26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, [even] a tenth [part] of the tithe.

jtb: It's talking about tithes, not money. A tithe was one-tenth of everything.

Thats right everything INCLUDING money is called a heave offering, so the heave offering of money is used NOT destroyed just as the virgins were used as wives NOT destroyed or killed. So my statement stands unrefuted.

Quote:

jtb: See Deuteronomy 18, in which the Levites eat the food given to God as a sacrifice: "they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire". So, unless you're suggesting that the priests ATE the virgins....

No, see above about the heave offering.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-19-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

...Evidence????

just how far will you go to preserve your fantasy? Just how much are you prepared to invent?

I thought you were trying to say that the verse only applied to banning CHILD sacrifice, my point was that since the verse says sons or daughters the ban applies to both children AND adults.

Ed, I'm finding it very hard to believe that EVEN YOU can be THIS obtuse.

There is NO VERSE which bans the sacrifice of people who are NOT the sons or daughters of the Hebrews.

You KNOW that Deuteronomy 12:31 does NOT apply to the sacrifice of non-Hebrew captives. It is OBVIOUS that it does not apply. We have ESTABLISHED that it does not apply.

Quote:

If it was ok to sacrifice pagan humans then he never would have condemned the actions of the pagans in Deut. 12:31.

That verse does NOT say that it's wrong to sacrifice pagans.

It says that the PAGANS are wrong to sacrifice their SONS AND DAUGHTERS.

Quote:

jtb:Why are you so hopelessly confused?

BTW, as "murder" is defined as UNLAWFUL killing, it doesn't help your case at all. It is quite obvious from the Bible that the massacre of prisoners is lawful.

No, the ancient hebrews considered herem part of war killing, which was not forbidden by the sixth commandment. But the sixth commandment prohibited premeditated killing not connected with war and capital punishment. Therefore, any premeditated sacrificial killing would have been considered murder.

The sixth commandment DOES NOT prohibit premeditated killing. This is obvious, because Moses commands the Hebrews to KILL most of their captives, AFTER the battle.

If you want to argue that the murder of captives is OK because it's "connected with war": then so is the human sacrifice of captives. This was done by MANY ancient peoples, to give thanks to the gods for victory in battle.

Quote:

Ed: No the herem does not have any of the characteristics of hebrew sacrifices.

jtb: It was a specific type of Hebrew sacrifice.

No, it was part of the killing and conquering of war and has nothing in common with any of the other hebrew sacrifices.

It was a war-sacrifice.

Quote:

Ed: Both of you ignore the passages in the torah where there is redemption for the human first born.

jtb: We have not "ignored" those passages, we have explained them. The practise was abandoned, and the Bible was altered.

You have yet to demonstate both of those assertions.

Leviticus 27:28-29 specifically states that NO HUMANS are to be offered redemption: "they shall SURELY be put to death".

Quote:

And you have not "dealt with" the Amalekites elsewhere. You denied the Bible THEN, too.

Yes I did and I am not going to rehash it.

Yes, you did indeed deny the Bible.

Quote:

jtb: Nonsense. Moses was telling them to KILL the women and children, EXCEPT for the virgins, who were to be kept alive for a specific purpose (as booty). And God got a share of that booty. So you're making stuff up, as usual.

Yes, and how God got his share was by giving them to the priests for wives.
And if they were going to be killed anyway, why would they need to be virgins?

Because you're not supposed to sacrifice stuff you don't want! God gets a share of the BOOTY. Non-virgin female captives weren't considered "booty": they had no value to the Hebrews.

Quote:

Thats right everything INCLUDING money is called a heave offering, so the heave offering of money is used NOT destroyed just as the virgins were used as wives NOT destroyed or killed. So my statement stands unrefuted.

...WHAT "heave offering of money"?

There is NO "heave offering of money" in Numbers 31.

And there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that "the virgins were used as wives NOT destroyed or killed". You KNOW that you're making that up, so why do you state it as if it was a fact?

Who appointed you as a prophet, Ed?

You can't even pretend that it's UNLIKELY that the virgins were sacrificed, given what we know about the Hebrew fondness for blood sacrifice and genocide. The Bible specifically says they were part of the sacrifice, and there is NO reason to believe otherwise.

Ed · 04-19-2004, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed:No, in ancient times the person who made the vow, carries out the vow. And there is no mention of any priests being involved. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that the sacrifice of humans on hebrew altars was routine. Jepthah just made a stupid and evil vow and erroneously believed that he had to carry it out. But it was plainly forbidden by the sixth commandment and Deut. 18:10 among others.

jtb: The priests HAD to be involved, because it was FORBIDDEN for non-priests to perform religious rituals after the priesthood had been set up: see 2 Chronicles 26:16-21.

A man that makes such an unorthodox vow is unlikely to be concerned about such orthodox trivia as bringing a priest all the way from Jerusalem or taking his daughter there. Also he obviously was biblically illiterate so he may not have even known about such a requirement.

Quote:

jtb: ...And nobody is claiming that the Hebrews performed daily human sacrifices like the Aztecs did. What sort of "archaeological evidence" would exist, if only a small fraction of the sacrifices were human?

It seems that is what you and Dr. X are claiming.

Quote:

jtb: I have already pointed out that it's ridiculous to assume that the sixth commandment prevents the killing of humans. The Bible plainly says otherwise. Deuteronomy 18:10 is also irrelevant, because it's quite obvious that Jephtah's daughter WAS sacrificed.

See my post above about the ancient hebrew undestanding of the sixth commandment.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.