Jack the Bodiless

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 are merely proving my point. You are unable to admit that you comprehend any basis for moral values other than "my God did this, so it must be OK".

...Even though you contradict yourself with your non-Biblical views on rape and human sacrifice. No matter how much you want to believe that the Bible is compatible with your views, you simply cannot pretend that your views came FROM the Bible.
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?
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".

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.

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.

Quote:

Ed: My statement about these prior verses' relationship to the later verses stands unrefuted. dx: You may think that, I could not possibly comment.

I will take that as an "unable to refute".

Quote:

Ed: Similar events sometimes happened to different patriarchs at different times, but that happens. I have had it happen to myself and others. If that is what you are referring to as doublets. And there are no contradictions. Oftentimes an author will use a different style when they are dealing with a different subject or perspective. dx: Is it Aaron or Moses?

Is what?

Quote:

dx: Consider reviewing Friedman's works--particularly the new The Bible with Sources Revealed--for an explanation of doublets.

I know what they are and they do not prove anything.

Quote:

Ed: Fraid so, it shows that the problem is probably anti-semitism on Friedman's part. dx: Charging a scholar . . . a celebrated and respected JEWISH scholar . . . with anti-semitism demonstrates the level that this individual must sink to maintain his delusions. Is that it? Does it come to that? That the individual has no sense of decency? No gentleman would make such an ignorant and cowardly baseless charge. Since I only deal with gentleman, I feel no further need to recognize the blatherings of this individual further. Ed: I am just trying to show you how ridiculous long distance psychoanalysis can be, as he tried to do with Jeremiah. But also, many secular jews look down on and ridicule their more religious brethren, while it may not be technically antisemitism it is close, given that it could be argued that a secular jew is not really a jew. And this condescension is what Friedman is doing to Jeremiah. dx: No, he is not. That is not Friedman discussing Jeremiah it is another, apparently, self-hating Jew--Jonathan Levenson. One should at least get the scholars he wishes to libel straight. These charges are ridiculous argumentum ad hominem. If they continue I will recognize that there the person making them cannot debate the issues honestly. --J.D.

No, the charges are true, because the same thing occurs among Gentiles and Jews on this site everyday!

Jack the Bodiless

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?

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?)

Ed

No, it is not the tense, it is the words themselves. Pharoah initiated the whole hardening process as shown in Exodus 7:13(NASB) and several times following that. Then God punishes him by causing that decision to become permanent, ie when God hardens his heart. For more details see my post to Brighid above.

Ed

Thru nature and their own consciences.

Quote:

gl: I do like the "deserves their worship" bit - it's the point of this thread, I guess, in which some are pointing out why they believe he's not worthy of worship. Ed, would you be able to give me a reason why he deserves worship?

Because everything good in your life comes from him including your life itself.

Quote:

Ed: Though of course years of denying Him can push this knowledge into the subconscious so that they can actually convince themselves that they do not believe he exists. gl: Some of "them" probably just read a few history books and came to the conclusion quite rationally.

After they have already pushed their knowledge that he does exist deep into their subconscious.

Ed

Actually in this case Friedman's translation is pretty accurate. God "strengthened" Pharoah's heart. This implies that his heart was already strong against the hebrews. But you left out all the other verses where Pharoah hardens his own heart: Ex. 7:13 NASB, Ex. 8:15, 19, 32; Ex.9:7,34,35; and Ex. 13:15.

Quote:

dx: This is the P source. Here is from the E source: Exod 10:1-2 KJV And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I [am] the LORD. RSV Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your son's son how I have made sport of the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them; that you may know that I am the LORD." Friedman: And YHWH aid to Moses, "Come to Pharoah, because I have made his heart and his servants' heart heavy for the purpose of my setting these signs of mine among them and for the purpose that you will tell in the ears of your son an dyour son's son about how I abused Egypt and about my signs that I set among them, and you will know that I am YHWH." Seems rather clear "who" is hardening "whose" heart and why. This is a mythical opportunity to show power. --J.D.

I never denied that God later hardened his heart, only that Pharoah initiated it. See my post to greyline above and Brighid earlier in this thread.

Ed

Fraid not. Read John 8:3-11.

Ed

[QUOTE]Originally posted by greyline
No, see my post to you above.

Jack the Bodiless

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.

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

Ed

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

Quote:

jtb: 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.

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.

Quote:

Ed: 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. jtb: Wrong answer, already disproved. Read Numbers 31. Or just re-read this thread.

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

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. jtb: No, it clearly is true. Not once have you ever provided an example.

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

Quote:

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. Ed: 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. 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.

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". Ed: 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. jtb: 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.

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. 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.