RE: God commands child sacrifice
September 25, 2012 at 1:33 am
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2012 at 1:45 am by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(September 24, 2012 at 9:04 pm)Godschild Wrote: ...
Your the one who must not have listened to Price, he stuttered and stumbled all over himself, and for a person who as two PHDs in biblical studies why did he have a problem with recalling the chapters and verses of scripture for his rant. Yes he is totally wrong and so are you, I clearly defined the meaning of the passages, you avoided remarking to what I wrote because you have nothing to prove what I said was not true.
I'll shall name this the fallacy of not-meeting-Godschild's-incredibly-high-expectations-for-impromptu-speaking.
Nothing you said contradicted my claims. Deal with the Ezekiel passage please. It only makes sense if it's referring to the command in Exodus 22.
Drich Wrote:If by "cherry pick" you mean to look up the word used in the Hebrew and refute your misuse of this word then you are correct. Consider your "cherry, picked"
I dealt with your cherry picking already:
teaearlgreyhot Wrote:...I can't find anything that says that "dedicate or promise to" is the primary meaning of "nathan." You're merely cherry picking possible meanings to give a more favorable reading.
Before you start speculating that the Exodus passage is about dedicating child to the temple service, you have to the deal with the Ezekiel passage which is very explicit about God having commanded child sacrifice:
Quote:25 Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; 26 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 that I am the LORD.
I found this in the Journal of Biblical Literature:
Quote:Interpreters have long looked to two groups of texts for an entree into this mysterious passage: the so-called "law of the first born"in Exod 13:2, 11-16;22:28(29); 34:19-20;5 and the texts describing the practice of child sacrifice in the late monarchical period (the so called "Cult of Molek") particularly 2 Kgs 16:3;21:6;and Jer 7:30-31//19:5//32:35.6 According to the usual reconstruction, Ezekiel's contemporaries were citing some form of the "law of the firstborn" as a divine directive to engage in cultic child sacrifice.
...
But why is it specifically the sacrifice of the firstborn on which Ezekiel focuses his critical eye? Part of the answer is likely that, as was suggested above, it was the "law of the first born" which Ezekiel's contemporaries were citing to justify their acts. By this time, in fact, at least one term found in the "law of the firstborn,"namely, h'byr ("to cause to pass over,"i.e., "to dedicate, transfer ownership"), had become a standard description for the sacrificial act of the cult of Molek (cf. Lev 18:21;Deut 18:10 et passim). (Heider, 1998, p. 722-723) [emphasis mine]
Heider, G. C. (1988). "A further turn on Ezekiel's baroque twist in Ezek 20:25-26." Journal of Biblical Literature 107(8), 721-724. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/32...1076474963
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).