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."

Only a remembrance facility? I agree we no longer sacrifice the first born, probably hasn't happened for over 2500 years.

I've given the numbers 31 thing many times. Midianites not Moabites (maybe my mistake, but I think the text switches between ethnic groups), I'm not sure this is important in the context of what we are discussing.

I don't see all the women alive here, and apparently a decent number of girls were heave offerings.

During the Exodus, the number of Israelites is a big problem. There are major logistics issues with that many people going through the desert. The line itself would have been hundreds of milles long. a person at the back of the line would pass a point almost two weeks after a person in the front. Add to this that no trace has been found of any major occupation of the Sinai, not a single cigarette butt.

There is also no evidence that Canaan was invaded from the west. Archeological findings show that a lot of settlement was occuring in the Judean highlands around say 1300 BCE, but the artifacts recovered are indigenous to Cannan.

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.

ph2ter

You misunderstood me. I do not speak for European Christians, because I am actually an atheist.
Child sacrifice is common to almost all ancient cultures and Jews are not special regarding that matter.
If I do not understand those verses, neither does Professor of Jewish Studies Baruch Halpern as you can see in his book (link supplied above)

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

bacht

But you, draw near hither,
sons of the sorceress,
offspring of the adulterer and the harlot.
Of whom are you making sport?
Against whom do you open your mouth wide
and put out your tongue?
Are you not children of transgression,
the offspring of deceit,
you who burn with lust among the oaks,
under every green tree;
who slay your children in the valleys,
under the clefts of the rocks?

Isaiah 57.3-5

IamJoseph

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.



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.

IamJoseph

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.

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?

IamJoseph

Clearly, that text is negating sacrfices as a transgression and not acceptable under the Hebrew law - which is distinguished from the surrounding nation's laws. It is evidence against the proposed premises.

IamJoseph

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

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.

IamJoseph

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.