Doctor X

Jabu Khan noted the fact that the first born were not responsible for any crime or sin; hence, their slaughter was Unjustified. Genocide and mass-murder tends be that way.

He also noted the symbol of using the heart as the seat of intellect. Symbols tend not to survive a literalist belief system.

Of course, all of those children sacrificed did not really do anything either . . . save get born.

--J.D.

Ed

No, it just symbolized sacrifice, the child was redeemed as shown in your quote below from Exodus 34. And the Documentary Hypothesis was shown to be fatally flawed years ago.

Quote:

dx: Redemption in Exodus: Exod 34:19-20 Every first issue of the womb is Mine, from all your livestock that drop a male as firstling. . . . . . . And you must redeem every first-born among your sons. Exod 13:1-2 YHWH said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." "Redemption" does not happen until Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"

All these laws were given basically at the same time so your point is meaningless.

Quote:

dx: Back to Levenson: Though Exodus 34 and 13 show faithful YHWHists how they might--indeed, must--evade the sacrifice of their first-born sons, these texts also point up by contrast the absence of any such provision in the corpus of law in which Exod 22:28-29 appears.

See above.

Quote:

dx: The lady doth protest too much, methinks in Jeremiah 19:5-6: They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal--which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind. Assuredly, a time is coming--declares the Lord--when this place shall not longer be called Topeth or Valley of Benihinnom ["Valley of the son of Hinnom" in RSV.--Ed.], but Valley of Slaughter.

Hardly, He is just emphasizing the absurdity of child loving God like Yahweh being associated with child sacrifice. See Deuteronomy 18:10.

Quote:

dx: Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote-edited both. He further speculates it is Baruch son of Neriyah. Anyways he dates the first "part" of D to before Josiah died in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts. Levenson comments:

There is absolutely no evidence for these speculations.

Quote:

dx: The threefold denial of the origin of the practice in YHWH's will . . . suggests that the prophet doth protest too much. . . . If the practitioners of child sacrifice, unlike Jeremiah, thought that YHWH did indeed ordain the rite, then we may have here some indirect evidence that the literal reading of Exod 22:28b . . . was not absurd in ancient Israel, . . . It appears, instead, that Jeremiah's attacks on child sacrifice are aimed not only at the practice itself, but also at the tradition that YHWH desires it.

Again no evidence for these absurdities, see above.

Quote:

dx: It's a fair cop! Ezek 20:25-26: I [YHWH.--Ed.], in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord. The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation: Moreover I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord. in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson cites this in support of the contention: . . . that only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH. . . . But, whereas Jeremiah vociferously denied the origin of the practice in the will of YHWH, Ezekiel affirmed it: YHWH gave Israel "laws that were not good" in order to desolate them, . . . The evil that he once willed is the law that requires sacrifice of the first-born. Combining this with the blunt statement that YHWH did indeed ordain child sacrifice, Ezek 20:25-26 has over the centuries had most exegetes running for cover.

No, it is obvious from the context that this is referring to God allowing Israel to adopt the evil laws of the Canaanites, so He is indirectly responsible for their spiral into evil. But by looking at how far off they were from God's Mosaic laws, they would eventually turn back to His laws. Child sacrifice was not prohibited at a later time in Israel's history, it was condemned under Moses, read Deut. 18:10.

Quote:

dx: Friedman dateth Ezekiel to the Babylonian exile. Do Not Try to Pick Up Chicks in THIS Herem: Collins article mention'd in post above discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read. Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various Somethingorotherakites--such as 1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Apparently he likes bunnies. . . . Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.] The point Collins stresses: The enemy is deemed worthy of being offered to God. [That refers to the argument of Niditch.--Ed.] One hopes that the Canaanites appreciated the honor. Rather than respect for human life, the practice bespeaks a totalistic attitude, which is common in armies and warfare, wherein the individual is completely subordinated to the interests of the group. Niditch is quite right, however, that the ban as sacrifice requires "a God who appreciates human sacrifice," and that those who practiced the ban "would presumably have something in common with those who believed in the efficacy of child sacrifice."

No, the enemies of Israel and God were not ritually sacrificed, they were killed on the spot for their opposition to the representatives of the King of the Universe and their own sins against Him.

Quote:

dx: Right, that should be enough. Quite a moral text that OT. . . . References: Collins JJ, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, JBL 120 (2003): 3-21. Freidman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity Niditch S. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993..

BTW, why do YOU think human sacrifice is wrong?

Doctor X

Ed:

No. See the references. The "redemption" is not only a later passage, it is quite a few verses from the second demand. As I am sure you noted, there is no redemption in the earlier Exod 22:28-29.

Note again the Ezekiel passage where YHWH admits to demanding child sacrifice. Furthermore, the Documentary Hypothesis is the standard. If you can overturn it, I can refer you to some peer-reviewed journals that would be happy to receive your paper.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

No, they are repeats from different authors. One preserves an earlier tradition. Note, again, the Ezekiel quote.

D is the latest of the texts and is a rewrite. However, Ezekiel and the Exodus quotes along with the requirement of the herem demonstrate that this is an improper apology.

Ipse dixit and, unfortunately, wrong. Levenson and Friedman are both noted and tenured professors in OT studies. They quote the proper references. You, however, have offered nothing but a declaration.

Quod erat demonstrandum times two.

Quod erat demonstrandum times three.

Making declarations based on nothing does not argument make.

No, it is obvious from the grammer that YHWH, and not "evil laws of the Canaanites" required this:

However, I find it interesting that in the apology you concede YHWH's responsibility for Unjustified Suffering

Quod erat demonstrandum times three.

As above, it was required under Exod 22:28-29

Evidence cited above indicates otherwise.

Which explains why the god of Mesha can kill the Israelites? Again, ipse dixit and ignoring the texts does not make an argument. YHWH himself demands the herem and punishes those who fail to carry it out. You may declare all you want, but you cannot change the texts.

Why do you ask?

--J.D.

Ed

So you don't like modern science, modern universities, the existence of the USA, modern hospitals and etc? All of these things were founded by biblical Christians.

Ed

Fraid so, see Deut. 18:10. Also see my post to Dr. X above.

Quote:

jtb: Human sacrifice to OTHER GODS is wrong, but the Caananite habit of sacrificing the firstborn child (if it's done to YHWH) is a contradiction. Sacrificing captives to YHWH is a good thing to do: no contradiction there (incidentally, this is probably why human flesh is not listed as "unclean": it wouldn't be suitable for sacrifice if it was unclean).

No, human flesh is not unclean because humans are made in image of God.

Quote:

jtb: Once again, you have demonstrated that you do not know the Bible.

No, YOU have.

Ed

Fraid not, read Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 51:5, Romans 3:11 and I could go on and on.

Rymmie1981

Since your entire arguement thus far has rested on the moral qualities of God and his higher morality in the OT than the NT. Let me ask what the writer of Hebrews meant when he wrote these verses.


The Hebrews 8:7 verse was thrown in to buttress the arguments that the original law of Moses was less than perfect. The Hebrews 10 verses are the argument against the Hebrews being held to a higher standard. What the verses say is that, under the first covenant(law of Moses), a person would be punished by their family and fellow Hebrews. Under the second covenant(law of the Spirit), a person gets their punishment directly from God himself.

So, the question is, How were the OT Hebrews held to a higher standard than NT Christians? Also, I will feel free to post a large number of other verses from other NT books that say that Christians are held to a higher standard than Hebrews, if you really want me to do so.

Ed

Fraid not, the majority of biblical scholars both Christian and non christian disagree with Collins and your other buddies at least for early Israel. Later they disobeyed God and did do human sacrifice.

Quote:

Ed: Read Jeremiah 19:5-6 among several others that condemn it. dx: Late text. I quoted and explained it in the post above. Since you apparently neglected this, I shall redirect your attention to it: They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal--which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind. Assuredly, a time is coming--declares the Lord--when this place shall not longer be called Topeth or Valley of Benihinnom ["Valley of the son of Hinnom" in RSV.--Ed.], but Valley of Slaughter. dx: Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote-edited both. He further speculates it is Baruch son of Neriyah. Anyways he dates the first "part" of D to before Josiah died in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts. Levenson comments:

There is no evidence that such a thing as the D material exists. Read "The World of the OT" by the great archaeologist and biblical scholar C. H. Gordon where he shows the major flaws in the documentary hypothesis.

Quote:

dx: The threefold denial of the origin of the practice in YHWH's will . . . suggests that the prophet doth protest too much. . . . If the practitioners of child sacrifice, unlike Jeremiah, thought that YHWH did indeed ordain the rite, then we may have here some indirect evidence that the literal reading of Exod 22:28b . . . was not absurd in ancient Israel, . . . It appears, instead, that Jeremiah's attacks on child sacrifice are aimed not only at the practice itself, but also at the tradition that YHWH desires it.

Psychology from a distance of 2500 years is suspect.

Quote:

dx: Thus, the texts reflect/refer to a time when child sacrifice was a requirement as demonstrated in Exod 34:19-20. You also ignored this passage: Ezek 20:25-26: I [YHWH.--Ed.], in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord. The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation: Moreover I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know I am the Lord. in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson cites this in support of the contention: . . . that only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH. . . . But, whereas Jeremiah vociferously denied the origin of the practice in the will of YHWH, Ezekiel affirmed it: YHWH gave Israel "laws that were not good" in order to desolate them, . . . The evil that he once willed is the law that requires sacrifice of the first-born. Combining this with the blunt statement that YHWH did indeed ordain child sacrifice, Ezek 20:25-26 has over the centuries had most exegetes running for cover. Quod erat demonastandum.

Nope, see my earlier post to you above.

Quote:

Ed: And the fact that the bible has conferred a degree of certitude about what it teaches has contributed most of what is best about western civilization. dx: Such as child sacrifice.

No, modern science, universities, hospitals, and etc.

Quote:

dx: Such as--another thing you must have missed--the herem: Collins article mention'd in post above discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read. Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various Somethingorotherakites--such as 1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm ) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Apparently he likes bunnies. . . . Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.] The point Collins stresses: The enemy is deemed worthy of being offered to God. [That refers to the argument of Niditch.--Ed.] One hopes that the Canaanites appreciated the honor. Rather than respect for human life, the practice bespeaks a totalistic attitude, which is common in armies and warfare, wherein the individual is completely subordinated to the interests of the group. Niditch is quite right, however, that the ban as sacrifice requires "a God who appreciates human sacrifice," and that those who practiced the ban "would presumably have something in common with those who believed in the efficacy of child sacrifice."

No, herem is not equivalent to ritualistic child sacrifice. Herem is the meteing out of justice on rebels against God.

Quote:

dx: Quod erat demonstrandum time two. . . . --J.D.

Nope. :banghead:

Doctor X

Some time these things are just too easy. . . .

Ipse dixit, argumentum ad hominem and incorrect. The "majority" agree with Collins--one of the reason he was elected president of the Society of Biblical Literature. The references quoted stand unchallenged. Ramming fingers in ears and screaming "no, it did not happen" is not an argument.

Quote from Ezekiel above contradicts this claim.

Quod erat demonstrandum times three. . . .

I have read CH Gordon and, unfortunately, he does not overturn the Documentary Hypothesis at all. He supports the polytheism of early Hebrew religion, actually, in his apologet The Bible and the Ancient Near East.

Again, making wild claims of "proof" without actually offering any actual evidence fails in a debate.

If you wish to "will away" the Documentary Hypothesis, you need to offer evidence. Start with Friedman.

The threefold denial of the origin of the practice in YHWH's will . . . suggests that the prophet doth protest too much. . . . If the practitioners of child sacrifice, unlike Jeremiah, thought that YHWH did indeed ordain the rite, then we may have here some indirect evidence that the literal reading of Exod 22:28b . . . was not absurd in ancient Israel, . . . It appears, instead, that Jeremiah's attacks on child sacrifice are aimed not only at the practice itself, but also at the tradition that YHWH desires it.

Non sequitur which does not address the problem with Jeremiah.

Ignored the passages, and this continues to ignore them.

Ipse dixit and incorrect. By definition and text, "the ban is not revenge, but a ritual."

Quod erat demonstrandum times four. . . .

Should the individual avail himself to an honest and responsible reading of the posts, texts, and scholarship he may get further than he does with his reliance on self-inflicted cranial trauma.

--J.D.

Reference:

Lüdemann G. The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.

Will note, en passant, that Prof. Lüdemann is Professor of New Testament and Director of the Institute of Early Christian Studies at the University of Göttingen.

Jack the Bodiless

Ed:
Deut. 18:10 does NOT say that human sacrifice is wrong.

Here is what I said IMMEDIATELY AFTER the section you quoted: "Human sacrifice to OTHER GODS is wrong, but the Caananite habit of sacrificing the firstborn child (if it's done to YHWH) is a contradiction. Sacrificing captives to YHWH is a good thing to do: no contradiction there...

Therefore I will repeat my claim: 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.

They concoct it by doing what YOU have done: taking verses out of context, pretending that verses which condemn certain types of human sacrifice actually condemn ALL human sacrifice, and ignoring all verses which endorse human sacrifice.
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.
Baloney. Read Numbers 31, in which 32 virgins are ritually sacrificed.