Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament

[Mudhammam]

As this is the nature of the conversation I am having with you I expect no less from you. If your not able to provide the scripture I pointed out that you need, then your efforts will be dismissed as some abstract personal version of Christianity if it does not align itself with some establish for of the christian religion.

Read the OP. Given that animals and cattle weren't circumcised or merely "dedicated" to God (but oh it sounds so much sweeter, doesn't it?), I think "do the same" should be read as well, "do the same." Either they sacrificed their firstborn (the horrifying laws Yahweh himself admits giving in Ezekiel, though you somehow dispute Yahweh's own admission) or they merely "dedicated" their cattle, no slaughter involved. Is that what you're claiming? But that's not so horrifying, as Yahweh himself declared it to be.

the Hebrew scholars did not seem to be aware of the passage in numbers 3 that dismissed their claims. I'm not saying there aren't any 'scholars' who make mistakes on this level, I am saying they are few and far between if you found several who think this way especially when there is scripture just a few chapters away from the scripture in question... Then most likely they are not who they or you say they are.

Numbers 3 is a long way off from Exodus (well, technically speaking, you only jumped a book). Since they weren't the same author, and probably included many revisionists, your point here is no more relevant than pointing to how other Jewish practices have evolved over the centuries. As I pointed out, the Abraham-Isaac myth represented this very evolution, and far more poetically than the money-grubbing tale of Aaron and his sons.

Are you intentionally being obstinate or do you really not get it? God identified the sin sacrifice from the Jews on one day of the year. This day of attonement is still known as the most holy day on the Jews calendar. (Yom kippur) priestEven secular Jews observe this day. On this one day of attonement a sin sacrifice is offered by the high priest for the whole nation. This most holy most sacred sacrifice according to numbers 29 did not include children. Like you or your so called experts have foolishly speculated.
The Day of Atonement

7 “There will be a special meeting on the tenth day of the seventh month. During that day you must not eat any food,[e] and you must not do any work. 8 You will offer burnt offerings. Their smell will please the Lord. You must offer 1 bull, 1 ram, and 7 lambs that are one year old. There must be nothing wrong with them. 9 You must also offer 24 cups of fine flour mixed with olive oil with the bull, 16 cups with the ram, 10 and 8 cups with each of the 7 lambs. 11 You will also offer 1 male goat as a sin offering. This will be in addition to the sin offering for the Day of Atonement. This will also be in addition to the daily sacrifice and its grain offerings and drink offerings.

In this recipe do you see a call for 10 cups of freshly chopped children? What about whole ones? Is children mention any place in the offering of attonement? No? The offering children must not have been how a levitical priest was to make a sin offering.

Here we agree, given the eventual establishment of sin sacrifice exclusively through livestock, one of the few instances where the segregation of Jewish practices from their polytheistic neighbors actually saw a moral improvement in the law.

Your ignorance here compounded by your 'experts' in basic OT law screams that you or your experts are just making crap up based on how you think OT Judaism worked. You guys have no idea what you are talking about and it shows.

Maybe not but given your requirement for blood sacrifice that demands the death of an "innocent," I'm sure as hell interpreting the Scripture much more consistently while your moral relativism has no leg to stand beyond Yahwh's arbitrary desire for the smell of blood in one instance and total outrage at it the next.

We're arguing in circles and I don't think either of us is going to budge. Maybe it would be more productive to figure what exactly is moral about sacrificing innocent human blood as payment for the sinful. If you had some argument here, I actually think it would render my other points moot. But I don't blame you for avoiding this claim of yours.