Doctor X

I looked through a few translations, KJV, RSV, and even the new one from Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed. In all of there are passages where it is YHWH doing the hardening:

This is the P source. Here is from the E source:

Seems rather clear "who" is hardening "whose" heart and why. This is a mythical opportunity to show power.

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless

Apologetic fiction. This isn't in the Bible.

Ed

If that is the case then why do you continue to debate me? Only the obtuse debate the obtuse and liars.

Quote:

jtb: Note that, despite the Biblical contradictions on this issue, there is NO verse which says that human sacrifice itself is wrong: that is a lie concocted by apologists. Ed: Fraid so, see Deut. 18:10. jtb: Deut. 18:10 does NOT say that human sacrifice is wrong. Ed: Yes it does: 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.

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

Quote:

jtb: In particular, there is NO Biblical verse which says that SACRIFICE OF ADULT CAPTIVES is wrong. Now, this has been pointed out to you SEVERAL times on this thread alone. ...So, do you have a genuine comprehension problem, or are you deliberately lying?

No, in war time God commanded herem, which was the killing of the people in situ. Anytime captives were taken they were only taken as slaves or wives.

Quote:

Ed: Nope, see above and also my posts to Dr X. Actually YOU are the one taking verses out of context. jtb: This is clearly not true.

No, it clearly is true.

Quote:

jtb: What OTHER AUTHORS claim is irrelevant to THIS issue. The Bible SPECIFICALLY states exactly why the Amalekites were killed, and it is NOT the reason you gave. Ed: No, they are relevant because Christians believe the entire Bible is a unified whole, so scripture is interpreted with scripture. There are overarching reasons for some things God does and one of those things that have overarching reasons for happening is death. jtb: You are deliberately and deceitfully refusing to apply this "overarching justification" to other examples such as the Holocaust or serial killers. And you are deliberately and deceitfully seeking to deflect attention from the STATED reason, because you know that the STATED reason is indefensible.

No see above how humans do not have the right to use capital punishment for sin. No the stated reason of destruction to obtain the land promised to the chosen people of the King of the Universe is also justified.

Quote:

jtb: Baloney. Read Numbers 31, in which 32 virgins are ritually sacrificed. Ed: No, when humans were "given to the Lord" they were either made servants in the Temple or for women they became the wives for the priests. See I Samuel 1 about how Samuel was given to the Lord. That is what the phrase meant. jtb: Correction: that is what you prefer to believe the phrase meant. This interpretation is highly implausible, given that the virgins share the same fate as the rest of the stuff: they become a "heave offering".

No, from the example in Samuel we see how the ancient hebrews understood the phrase. Not even all the non-human heave offering was sacrificed, some was used as food for the priests. So the term heave offering can also plainly be understood symbolically.

greyline

Ed, I know you're being kept busy but I was hoping you'd be able to answer this for me:

It seems directly relevant to this thread because God's morality (or rather, alleged lack of) is the very reason why some consider him unworthy.

Thanks.

greyline

I think maybe my post wasn't clear although it may not necessarily change your answer - I was referring specifically to Ex 7:13 and the first five plagues, where Ed is saying Pharoah hardened his own heart. I understand Ed conceeds that the last few times (ie. 9:12 above) it was God who hardened Pharoah's heart.

So I was wondering if Ed might be interpreting those early "his heart was hardened" verses as "his heart hardened", in which case I can see why he could say it was Pharoah's doing, not God's, but only because he misunderstood the tense.

So my question is this - is Ed misunderstanding the tense or are bible translators misunderstanding the tense? (Obviously I'm only really asking for an answer to the second part of the question, which will provide an answer the first part anyway.) Does the original Hebrew specifically say "was hardened" (which implies an external agent) or does it say "hardened" (which could imply either)? Or is it not possible to say on a purely grammatical level?

Jack the Bodiless

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?

What part of "There is NO Biblical verse which claims that HUMAN SACRIFICE IN GENERAL is wrong" do you not understand?

What part of your "Fraid so" is true? Answer: it isn't.
Wrong answer, already disproved. Read Numbers 31.

Or just re-read this thread.
Not once have you ever provided an example.
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.
The phrase "heave offering" was NOT USED in Samuel. So you have no case.

"Food for the priests": sorry to shatter your illusions, Ed, but God doesn't actually come down and take the stuff that the priests pretend to offer him. If food is offered, the priests eat whatever's edible when they've finished: if it's money, the priests spend it.

Jack the Bodiless

...There is also the gruesome fate of Jephtah's daughter.

The Bible doesn't say WHO actually killed her. But it DOES say that the priesthood had an absolute monopoly on performing sacrifices: God cursed a king with leprosy for the crime of performing his own sacrifices.

The priests would have placed Jephtah's daughter on the altar, slit her throat, and burned her body. To them, this was routine.

It is actually rather bizarre to suppose that they would have had any problem with this. YHWH was a god who demanded blood sacrifices, and also the total slaughter of captives (in many cases). These were experienced butchers, of animals and of people. And they worshipped a deity who supposedly liked that sort of thing.

blt to go

I have been watching this thread, sometimes following it, sometimes not, and have been constantly amazed that Jephthah's daughter has never been mentioned.

(If I missed it, I apologize to whomever, and I am certain I will learn about it in the next five posts )

JUD 11:30 Jephthah vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand,
JUD 11:31 then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh`s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
JUD 11:32 So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Yahweh delivered them into his hand.
JUD 11:33 He struck them from Aroer until you come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and to Abelcheramim, with a very great slaughter. So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
JUD 11:34 Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house; and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter.
JUD 11:35 It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can`t go back.
JUD 11:36 She said to him, My father, you have opened your mouth to Yahweh; do to me according to that which has proceeded out of your mouth, because Yahweh has taken vengeance for you on your enemies, even on the children of Ammon.
JUD 11:37 She said to her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may depart and go down on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions.
JUD 11:38 He said, Go. He sent her away for two months: and she departed, she and her companions, and mourned her virginity on the mountains.
JUD 11:39 It happened at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel,
JUD 11:40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

Ed -- sorry. While I agree that Mosaic Law did not demand the Jews to offer their first born as a burnt sacrifice, this is a CLEAR example of human sacrifice.

I believe it is impossible to read this through, and NOT say that she was sacrificed. Note that in vs. 31 he says "burnt offering."
There have been arguments that she was not killed, but frankly, His statements, reaction, her reaction all would indicate that she died. By fire.

Dr. x, jtb and others--here is the problem of this story for you. Note that this is treated as an an anomaly.

If it was common, or even allowed, for child sacrifice, what would one more be? Especially in "thanks" for winning a battle. This would not be recorded as an unusual event. Further, note that this turns into an annual ritual of remembering Jephthah's daughter.

Why? Annual events (I obviously hesitiate to use the word "Holiday") do not arise out of trivial or common events.

Jack the Bodiless

This sacrifice dates from long after the practise of child sacrifice had ended: it's from Judges, not Exodus. Furthermore, it's a sacrifice of an adult (or not a newborn baby, at least) who isn't a hated enemy, not a captive taken in battle. This makes it a noteworthy anomaly.

Doctor X

blt to go:

However, the demands for the sacrifice of the first-born is in the "Mosaic Law." See above.

I did not mention this passage just for length. As scholars such as Levenson have observed, it is not just that she is sacrificed, but that the god would ACCEPT the sacrifice.

It is a story. It is a bit like Agamemon and Iphegenia. Jepthtah makes a bold promise and the consequences prove more than he expected. Compare to the sacrifice of Mesha's son--and heir--to his god to destroy the Israelites.

The problem is that the OT is not history. There are texts that reflect history--try even to remake it--but the events, such as this, are legendary. The big question for scholars is how extensive was human sacrifice? Also how "recent" was it? The E writer repeats the demand for sacrifice of the first born; however, he does not portray sacrifices save for Isaac--who, it can be argued actually does "get it" because he completely disappears from E's narrative!

Are the writers advocating or merely preserving a rule?

The addition of a "redemption" later in the P text, Jeremiah's "protesting too much," and finally the Ezekiel passage indicate that it was a practice that became supressed or at least condemned. Jeremiah tries to make something "the other guys" did. Ezekiel tries to explain--not unlike a NT apologist!--that that was an "old law" YHWH devised to scare people! The fact that Ezekiel has YHWH admit he required the "passage through fire" indicates the practice once existed.

Who knows? Part of the internal debate of the texts is the move from worship of gods--including YHWH--outside of a central area--"high places." Hence the prohibitions of worship, sacrifice in any place other than the central area or by the Aaronid derived priests. Did centralization result in repression of the practice? Or, like that attacks on "high places" and Asherah, was it something that happened until the time of the text writing?

I do not know.

--J.D.