Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament

[Drich]

Again, conjecture and speculation, verses the bible/The writter of the Pentateuch actually explaining the passage you and your sources have questioned.

The fact the bible explains what was meant in your orginal question means all of the other extra biblical sources you can quote that do not reference numbers 3 can be dismissed as being illinformed. No matter who or what agency made the assertion your quoting.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and no follow through. If your sources did not have the follow through to reasearch and find the Passage in numbers 3, to the question posed from exo 22 (which I doubt, they'd even come across, it far more likly your just twisting their words to align yourself with what they have to say.) Then everything they said that supports Child sacrifice based on what was said in exo 22 is flat out wrong... Because again in numbers 3 We have Moses (The writter of Exo 22) explaining what God's intentions were with the 'offerings of first fruits' that included the first born..

In short they were to be temple preists before the levites were given that charge in numbers 3.

Your appeal to people smarter than you will not help you here. Because the statement of child sacrifice you made was proven wrong by an internal biblical break down of the 'offering of first fruits.' By moses himself just a few chapters after the command was given.

Whether you can admit it or not your arguement based in Exo 22 ends in numbers 3.

A couple problems with your response: First, the claim that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch is at best highly controversial; at worse, source criticism supports alternative theories, such as the Documentary Hypothesis. Indeed, Moses may be called the most efficient autobiographical writer of all time, considering he even records the details of his own death and burial in Deuteronomy (Oh yeah, that was the *exception* and is easily explained by a later author, such as Joshua... *wink wink*). I see no reason to grant your presupposition. Secondly, Numbers 3 states, "The Lord also said to Moses, "Take the Levites in place of all the firstborn of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites in place of their livestock. The Levites are to be mine. I am the Lord. To redeem the 273 firstborn Israelites who exceed the number of the Levites, collect five shekels[c] for each one, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. Give the money for the redemption of the additional Israelites to Aaron and his sons" (v.45-48). So the firstborn Levites (and their livestock) served as a sacrificial substitution for all of the Israelites, who would otherwise all be required to "wholly" give up their firstborn to the Lord. Nothing in this contradicts rabbi Moshe Greenberg's confession that child sacrifice was endorsed and even commanded by Yahweh.

Additionally, I appreciate the fact that you ignored my reference to David and Bathsheba. If I remember correctly, the Torah explicitly demands capital punishment for murder and sexual adultery and furthermore states that children should not be held accountable for their father's sins. Strange how Yahweh completely contradicts this in David's situation and in fact kills his child for the moral failures of the parents. Maybe Yahweh's a moral relativist?

Here are some additional passages in the Old Testament that command, endorse, or reward child sacrifice:
Judges 11:29-40
2 Samuel 21:4-9
1 Kings 16:34
2 Kings 3:26-27

Imagine a Darth vader meme with him in his tie fighter trying to target Luke in the Death Star trench scene. The caption being:

"The intellectual dishonesty is strong with this one."

Why? Because the Levites were not sacrificed. They were made to serve God as priests. Numbers 3 outlines the orginal purpose of the offering of the first fruits. (Service to God not to be sacrificed.)numbers 3 starts outlines the orginal command, the orginal purpose of the offering and the replacement of the offering with the whole tribe of Levi to serve God, rather than the first born of every tribe.

You seem confused maybe you should try reading the easy to read version
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=ERV

If that doesn't work maybe stop with the commentary and just read what the bible says.

Which is why we need to come to an understanding with this chapter before you attempt the proper exegesis of the other passages you listed.

---

Drich wrote:
The word is:
נָתַן:nathan
I means to dedicate, give over, pledge..

Actually the Jews say it means....

Means "he gave" in Hebrew.

http://www.behindthename.com/name/nathan

I gotta go with the Jews on this one rather than some dumb-assed jesus freak. It was, after all, their name.

...and I'm going to have to return your two cents.

'Nathan' in the context of the passage is a word meaning to give over, dedicate or pledge. In It's context it was not used as a name. If the context supported your assertion that it was a name than 'he gives' is an acceptable understanding of that name as it coinsides with the Hebrew definition of that word.