Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Timetospend · 02-05-2008, 03:07 PM

I must admit that this topic area has always intrigue me. Why would otherwise intelligent people feel compelled to read human sacrifice into the OT when it is so evidentally missing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman
Tell me can you find anywhere in the Laws of Moses or the NT laws which shows that God accepts human sacrifices? Indeed human sacrfices which was once practiced by all nations owe its end to Judasim. Japheth may have been a man of faith but he was in error, just as all are sooner or later.

.

Quote:

Genesis 22:1-19 - Elohim commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The entire text is attributed to E with the exception of verses 11-15 where "YHWH" (previously Elohim) intervenes. Abraham is praised for "not witholding his son" and receives the promise of the covanent who's decendednts shall "as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore." Curiously Isaac is not mentioned comming down the mountian and never again appears in text attributed to E. The impression is in E Isaac was in fact sacrificed but the text was re-worked in the time of the Deuteronomist who forbid child sacrifice.

In what we have in the OT in Gen. 22, no one appears to have died. Personally, I do not know what is in "E" or even that it ever existed as I have never seen a non-redacted text of it.

Quote:

Exodus 11:1-8 - 10th plague and the killing of the 1st born of Egypt. This story, as is most of the plagues, is E.

There were no humans sacrificing humans in this episode.

Quote:

Exodus 13:2-3 - "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal. Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because YHWH brought you out of it with a mighty hand." Again the text is E. This is one of several reasons given for the celebration of Passover. Verses 13:3-10 are connected to other verses in chapter 12 and 13 that are all extraneous to the story and appear to be latter insertions that substitute the Passover celebration reason of sacrifice of the first born with "because they ate unleavened bread".

Exodus 22:28 - "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons." This is within what is known as the "Covenant Code", which is considered to be the oldest law codes in the Torah and is embedded in E. Many of the laws listed by it are reproduced later by D in Deuteronomy and P in Leviticus.

Num 3:11-13
11 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 12 I hereby accept the Levites from among the Israelites as substitutes for all the firstborn that open the womb among the Israelites. The Levites shall be mine, 13 for all the firstborn are mine; when I killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both human and animal; they shall be mine. I am the LORD.
NRSV

Again, by the OT's testimony, there was no human sacrifice.

Quote:

While there is no doubt that later laws forbid child sacrifice and condemed its practice by other peoples, indications from the earliest parts of the Torah are that it had once been an Israelite practice as well. This is no surprise since archeology tells us that Israelite culture arose out of a Canaanite background.

Again where is the evidence? Certainly not above.

You might argue that some prisoners were sacrificed by the Israelite army, but this can also be interpreted as punishment.

Thanks,

Amaleq13 · 02-05-2008, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

Why would otherwise intelligent people feel compelled to read human sacrifice into the OT when it is so evidentally missing?

It certainly isn't missing from the story that is the focus of this thread and God's behavior in that story encouraged a human sacrifice at the very least.

Quote:

In what we have in the OT in Gen. 22, no one appears to have died.

Nope, just God ordering a human sacrifice and Abraham behaving as though this was an entirely acceptable order. He certainly didn't ask why God would require something God had forbidden.

The real question is: Why would otherwise intelligent people feel compelled to deny references to human sacrifice being acceptable to God in the Bible?

Darklighter · 02-05-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timetospend

I must admit that this topic area has always intrigue me. Why would otherwise intelligent people feel compelled to read human sacrifice into the OT when it is so evidentally missing?

Again where is the evidence? Certainly not above.

You might argue that some prisoners were sacrificed by the Israelite army, but this can also be interpreted as punishment.

Thanks,

It depends on how strictly/loosely one applies the term 'sacrifice'. For example, if you take the strictly ritualistic definition, the examples are confined to Abraham, Jepthah, and thats about it. However consider the "loose" definition (from Encarta):

to allow somebody or something to be hurt, killed, or destroyed for your own advantage

One can extending that definition to all the atrocities carried out by the Israelites in God's name, and by his commandment. But thats all semantics. I've made the case here in the past that God's supposed revulsion to child sacrifice and his ordering the slaughter of countless children are 2 moraly incompatiable stances. And THATS the real issue. It's like saying "I'm against killing a child, but I'm OK with killing children," or, "Killing children is bad only if it's done in a ritualistic fashon." The fact that "God's" actions are unthinkable by todays standards shows that the God of the OT was likely a primitive fabrication.

Oh, and you really should read up on the historical origins of the Israelites. It'll blow your mind. The historical and the biblical origins don't sync... at all.

juergen · 02-05-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

And I get the feeling those condemning God for OT leaders actions are kinda trying to say God should be behind people stick in hand to whack them one if they do things against his wishes. next you'll be saying God should have stopped cain murdering his brother?

Would you try to stop a murder if it happened in front of you? Or would you let people live out their free will? What if someone attacked your niece/kid?

Sheshbazzar · 02-05-2008, 05:06 PM

How many who have posted in this thread, have performed a careful analysis of the contents of the 27th chapter of Leviticus which deals with the treatment of performing vows, and with things dedicated, and with things devoted to Yahweh?
Doing so you might be surprised at what you find out. (Key words here, is " a careful analysis" not just a superficial reading) If that is all you are up to, don't bother with commenting on the contents.

DBT · 02-05-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa
And just to point out we believe the Bible is INSPIRED of God but still written by men in their words.

Therefore God's inspired word cannot be trusted? How are we meant to understand the true meaning of the Word if it has been corrupted by human failings? Does the Jephthah story actually mean something entirely different to what we see before us?

awedFrog · 02-06-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

Oh, and you really should read up on the historical origins of the Israelites. It'll blow your mind. The historical and the biblical origins don't sync... at all.

Can you point me in a general direction? I'm very intrigued now.

reniaa · 02-06-2008, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

And I get the feeling those condemning God for OT leaders actions are kinda trying to say God should be behind people stick in hand to whack them one if they do things against his wishes. next you'll be saying God should have stopped cain murdering his brother?

Would you try to stop a murder if it happened in front of you? Or would you let people live out their free will? What if someone attacked your niece/kid?

strawman argument cain was not God's niece or nephew.

reniaa · 02-06-2008, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DBT

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa
And just to point out we believe the Bible is INSPIRED of God but still written by men in their words.

Therefore God's inspired word cannot be trusted? How are we meant to understand the true meaning of the Word if it has been corrupted by human failings? Does the Jephthah story actually mean something entirely different to what we see before us?

Now you are doing to my words what others do to the bible to prove unrelated points and that is taking them out of context...I was talking on the writers use of the word heart in relation to God's emotions it was not in relation to japhthah at all.

I accept there may have been some sacrifice although we have no details, we do know in the time of judges/kings despite their faithfulness to God the israelites where heavily influenced by the rituals and practised by the nations around them.

Sheshbazzar · 02-06-2008, 12:42 AM

What appears to be "the Jephthah story" is just not the "whole story".
What is so briefly related needs to be compared with, and be evaluated in the light of other information that is provided in previous books.
But just consider, even if the common interpretation is correct, and Jephthah did intend to carry out burning his daughter on an altar, being an Israelite he would have been taught in The Law, and his detailed knowledge of Israel's history employed in his arguments indicates that he would be well aware of The Law of Moses, and its requirements.
If he intended to offer up his daughter as a "burnt offering", he would have needed to deliver her over to the Levites that they might perform the duties of the altar as it was appointed to them. (Things had changed since the time of Abraham and Issac) They of course, holding the position of being the final authorities on the interpretation and on the application of The Law, could (and would) forestall such a flagarant abuse against The Commandments.

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

02-05-2008, 05:06 PM	#55
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	How many who have posted in this thread, have performed a careful analysis of the contents of the 27th chapter of Leviticus which deals with the treatment of performing vows, and with things dedicated, and with things devoted to Yahweh? Doing so you might be surprised at what you find out. (Key words here, is " a careful analysis" not just a superficial reading) If that is all you are up to, don't bother with commenting on the contents.

02-06-2008, 12:42 AM	#60
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	What appears to be "the Jephthah story" is just not the "whole story". What is so briefly related needs to be compared with, and be evaluated in the light of other information that is provided in previous books. But just consider, even if the common interpretation is correct, and Jephthah did intend to carry out burning his daughter on an altar, being an Israelite he would have been taught in The Law, and his detailed knowledge of Israel's history employed in his arguments indicates that he would be well aware of The Law of Moses, and its requirements. If he intended to offer up his daughter as a "burnt offering", he would have needed to deliver her over to the Levites that they might perform the duties of the altar as it was appointed to them. (Things had changed since the time of Abraham and Issac) They of course, holding the position of being the final authorities on the interpretation and on the application of The Law, could (and would) forestall such a flagarant abuse against The Commandments.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.