God commands child sacrifice (not Isaac story)

[Godscreated]

...
First things first, Robert Price is a stuttering incoherent idiot who cares nothing for the truth, all he looks for is recognition to bolster his ego.

Second you would believe anything anyone would tell you about scripture as long as it is negative, you are incapable of searching scripture to find anything, good or bad. You use the arguments of others to make claims against God, you are not an original thinker, a copycat at best.

...

Since you contributed nothing new in your scriptural arguments, and completely missed the point of me quoting chapter 13, and likely didn't even listen to the links I provided I will focus on your criticisms Price and myself.

Price has two PHDs in biblical studies. This doesn't make him right but he's certainly not the "stuttering incoherent idiot" you say he is. Maybe you should stop projecting yourself onto others.

Secondly, these are not arguments original to Price. This is a view represented by many critical Bible scholars. (Which, again, doesn't mean it's correct.)

Your point against me is completely ad hominem

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.

[Drich]

Following in the steps of Drich, you seem to be just cherry picking what "give" means.

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"

---

Ah, no.
Not all animals "Given to God" were put to death. Otherwise where did the preists get their milk, eggs, wool and the like from?

Please provide evidence for that assertion.

Chapter 13 of Exodus provides further evidence that sacrifice, not dedication was in mind. This chapter, even though presented previous to chapter 22, was written later. It is an elaboration of 22. Also notice that animals are now sacrificed in substitution of children (which isn't mentioned in the older law in chapter 22).

Redeem in this passage means to "buy back" by sacrificing a lamb in place.

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." 3 And Moses said to the people, "Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage, for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place; no leavened bread shall be eaten. 4 This day you are to go forth, in the month of Abib. 5 And when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, which he swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall keep this service in this month. 6 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD. 7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days; no leavened bread shall be seen with you, and no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory. 8 And you shall tell your son on that day, 'It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.' 9 And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt. 10 You shall therefore keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year. 11 "And when the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as he swore to you and your fathers, and shall give it to you, 12 you shall set apart to the LORD all that first opens the womb. All the firstlings of your cattle that are males shall be the LORD's. 13 Every firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem. 14 And when in time to come your son asks you, 'What does this mean?' you shall say to him, 'By strength of hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 15 For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and the first-born of cattle. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all the males that first open the womb; but all the first-born of my sons I redeem.' 16 It shall be as a mark on your hand or frontlets between your eyes; for by a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt." 17 When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, "Lest the people repent when they see war, and return to Egypt."

Robert M. Price discusses human sacrifice at 35:20 here: http://llnw.libsyn.com/p/3/5/8/358b9e26e...904dc87e9f

He also replies to the objection about it being "dedication" here at 16:55: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/22093846?lang=en_US#

Appearently i am no longer allowed to cut and paste answers. I was told to just provide links. This is a long page but your answer can be found here. (It describes all manner of offerings the Jews made, not just the burnt offerings you seem to only be familiar with.)

http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/levitsac.html

[Darkstar]

Did you all miss the memo? See post #53

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

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.

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:

...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:

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:

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

[Undeceived]

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:

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.

Perhaps your translation is confusing you.

NKJV: "Therefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their ritual gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire, that I might make them desolate and that they might know that I am the Lord."
NIV: "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord."

God is letting sin runs its course so the people learn their lesson. He has not commanded child sacrifice; he condemns it. I found more verses:

Leviticus 18:21: "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch."

2 Chr. 28:3: "He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."

2 Chronicles 33:6: "He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger."

Jer. 7:31: "They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind."

Jeremiah 19:5-6: "They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter."

Part of studying the Bible honestly is using a myriad of verses to help decide the meaning of a harder-to-understand verse. A verse in doubt is a verse far outnumbered. In this case, we can confidently say God does not approve of child murder.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

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:

Perhaps your translation is confusing you.
NKJV: "Therefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their ritual gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire, that I might make them desolate and that they might know that I am the Lord."
NIV: "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord."
God is letting sin runs its course so the people learn their lesson. He has not commanded child sacrifice; he condemns it.

Even in those two inferior translations you posted, it says God gave them "statutes" and that God commanded them to sacrifice children. It's pretty plain. I don't know why you quoted those two translations because it doesn't read any different than the RSV.

I found more verses:
Leviticus 18:21: "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch."
2 Chr. 28:3: "He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."
2 Chronicles 33:6: "He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger."
Jer. 7:31: "They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind."
Jeremiah 19:5-6: "They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter."
Part of studying the Bible honestly is using a myriad of verses to help decide the meaning of a harder-to-understand verse. A verse in doubt is a verse far outnumbered. In this case, we can confidently say God does not approve of murder.

These verses prove nothing except the inconsistency of God. At one point in time (see Ezekiel 20), he commanded child sacrifice. At another, he changed his mind and thought it was icky.

---

Part of studying the Bible honestly is using a myriad of verses to help decide the meaning of a harder-to-understand verse. A verse in doubt is a verse far outnumbered.

This is an invalid way of studying the Bible as it assumes that the whole bible is inerrant and can be harmonized together to form one true coherent message.

[Undeceived]

it says God gave them "statutes" and that God commanded them to sacrifice children. It's pretty plain.

20:18 talks about not walking in the "statutes of your fathers," to which the "statutes that were not good" is referring to.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

it says God gave them "statutes" and that God commanded them to sacrifice children. It's pretty plain.

20:18 talks about not walking in the "statutes of your fathers," to which the "statutes that were not good" is referring to.

*bzzzzztttttt* Wrong! Do you not see the pronoun "I" in 25 and 26? Who do you think "I" is?

[Faith No More]

Appearently i am no longer allowed to cut and paste answers.

Oh, for fuck's sake, stop it. Just as everyone else has to follow the same rule, you are not allowed to copy and paste an entire article. We only allow a short blurb plus a link when using articles as reference. It's to avoid copyright issues.

[Drich]

do you really need me to take apart your arguement line by line, or can you come to an understanding based on the other arguement that is going on here?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14912-page-7.html
Post #62