Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 06-12-2003, 12:44 PM

Sure, that's how it's interpreted NOW.

...But think about it. What is this process? Statistically, a heck of a lot of boys will be "firstborn sons": every boy without an elder brother. Even allowing for infant mortality: maybe half the male population? What do these guys have in common with firstborn goats and so forth?

It's obviously something that can be done to humans, goats, carrots and wine with equal ease, and apparently reserves them (and only them) for God's use. The rest of the population is NOT "dedicated to God"?

Maybe they replaced the sacrifice with a ritual blessing, but kept up the tradition of only applying it to the firstborn, eventually forgetting why.

06-12-2003, 01:30 PM

So you cannot show where it says sacrifice?

Max

keyser_soze · 06-12-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YHWHtruth
So you cannot show where it says sacrifice?

Max

Have you shown where it should be read other than literally?

Jack the Bodiless · 06-12-2003, 02:14 PM

Apparently the Jews still have a custom of giving a coin instead of the firstborn son.

...Which implies that, previously, the firstborn son would have been lost to the parents (i.e. sacrificed).

CX · 06-12-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The theory that the transition to strict monotheism was due to Zoroastrian influence makes a lot of sense.

I'm not sure that is germane to the question at hand. Although Zoroaster elevated Ahura-Mazda to the rank of supreme deity, I don't think he denied the existence of the pantheon of other lesser gods (among whom as the famed Mitra whence the Roman Cult of Mithras). It seems pretty clear from the text of the bible and what we know of cross cultural anthropology during the periods in question that most peoples, the Israelites included, believed in the existence of multiple divine agents.

JoyJuice · 06-12-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CX
I'm not sure that is germane to the question at hand. Although Zoroaster elevated Ahura-Mazda to the rank of supreme deity, I don't think he denied the existence of the pantheon of other lesser gods (among whom as the famed Mitra whence the Roman Cult of Mithras). It seems pretty clear from the text of the bible and what we know of cross cultural anthropology during the periods in question that most peoples, the Israelites included, believed in the existence of multiple divine agents.

Cx, or anyone, from what you understand, is "El" from the bible and the Canannite "El" one in the same?

Thanks

06-12-2003, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alkech
Cx, or anyone, from what you understand, is "El" from the bible and the Canannite "El" one in the same?

Thanks

Hi Alkech,

Due to time, I don`t have a straight answer to your question although, If I recall I think the answer maybe in one or several of these links, sorry if it`s not - But, you might find what is presented an interesting read whilst waiting for replies.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/d...-faq.html#Baal

http://phoenicia.org/pagan.html#anchor90487

http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/PART1/PT1_1B2.HTM

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/baalmyth.html

http://phoenicia.org/ugarbibl.html

http://plim.org/1Allah.html

And life goes on!
Wayin

Jayhawker Soule · 06-12-2003, 04:40 PM

An interesting link to the Canaanite pantheon is, I believe, found in Deut. 32:8 where, while the later MT speaks of "of the sons of Israel", the LXX and 4QDeut(j) speaks of "the sons of God".

Also:

Quote:

DEUTERONOMY 32:8 When the Most High made allotment of the world unto the nations which proceeded from the sons of Noach, in the separation of the writings and languages of the children of men at the time of the division, He cast the lot among the seventy angels, the princes of the nations with whom is the revelation to oversee the city, even at that time He established the limits of the nations according to the sum of the number of the seventy souls of Israel who went down into Mizraim [Egypt].

- Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, translated by J.W. Etheridge

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

06-12-2003, 12:44 PM	#11
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Sure, that's how it's interpreted NOW. ...But think about it. What is this process? Statistically, a heck of a lot of boys will be "firstborn sons": every boy without an elder brother. Even allowing for infant mortality: maybe half the male population? What do these guys have in common with firstborn goats and so forth? It's obviously something that can be done to humans, goats, carrots and wine with equal ease, and apparently reserves them (and only them) for God's use. The rest of the population is NOT "dedicated to God"? Maybe they replaced the sacrifice with a ritual blessing, but kept up the tradition of only applying it to the firstborn, eventually forgetting why.

06-12-2003, 01:30 PM	#12
YHWHtruth Guest Posts: n/a	So you cannot show where it says sacrifice? Max

06-12-2003, 02:14 PM	#14
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Apparently the Jews still have a custom of giving a coin instead of the firstborn son. ...Which implies that, previously, the firstborn son would have been lost to the parents (i.e. sacrificed).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.