God commands child sacrifice (not Isaac story)

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

(8:18 pm. PST) edit: This is not about the story of the sacrifice of Isaac!

You almost never hear this but God in the OT actually explicitly commanded child sacrifice and then later changed his mind.

The command from God for child sacrifice. Exodus 22:29-30,

29 "You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. "The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. 30 You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

God later changed his mind. Ezekiel 20:25-26

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.

[Drich]

So a child wasn't sacerficed is that your new assertion?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Bible scholar Robert M. Price discusses it in this episode if I remember it correctly http://www.thehumanbible.net/episode_002/

---

So a child wasn't sacerficed is that your new assertion?

God commanded child sacrifice. Are you denying that? It's right there in the verses I quoted.

It was undoubtedly part of early hebrew practice just like the rest of the cultures of the time.

---

It seems that you never read the verses before replying and assumed I was quoting the story of the sacrifice of Isaac.

[Drich]

Bible scholar Robert M. Price discusses it in this episode if I remember it correctly http://www.thehumanbible.net/episode_002/

---

So a child wasn't sacerficed is that your new assertion?

God commanded child sacrifice. Are you denying that? It's right there in the verses I quoted.

It was undoubtedly part of early hebrew practice just like the rest of the cultures of the time.

Two minor issues with your conclusion:
1) I asked for book chapter and verse that shows where a Child was sacerficed to God, which you are not able to do.

2) Aberham and Isac lived long before their were "Hebrews" let alone a written "Hebrew" Law that would establish a "Hebrew Practice."

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

2) Aberham and Isac lived long before their were "Hebrews" let alone a written "Hebrew" Law that would establish a "Hebrew Practice."

Yep, I was right. You didn't read what I posted! This is a command from God to the Israelites!. It's in Exodus!

[Drich]

...

2) Aberham and Isac lived long before their were "Hebrews" let alone a written "Hebrew" Law that would establish a "Hebrew Practice."

Yep, I was right. You didn't read what I posted! This is a command from God to the Israelites!. It's in Exodus!

I didn't look, because I know the only thing close to human sacerfice is what went down between isac and Aberham

Your quote in exo 22 hinges on the word "Give" to mean Human sacerfice. The word in the Hebrew is: נתן/nathan. It means to dedicate or promise to. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...5414&t=KJV
Actually it can mean a varity of things, however none of which have anything t do with Human sacerfice.

Your second arguement looks like it was constructed from a hasty google search. here is what the text looks like when properly placed in context:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...JV#conc/26

It seems to have a completely different meaning than how you orginally thought.

I would laugh but I see you trying so I'll leave it at that. Just remember the bible was not written in english so to try and take it a just face value may leave you looking foolish.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Yep, I was right. You didn't read what I posted! This is a command from God to the Israelites!. It's in Exodus!

I didn't look, because I know the only thing close to human sacerfice is what went down between isac and Aberham

Your quote in exo 22 hinges on the word "Give" to mean Human sacerfice. The word in the Hebrew is: נתן/nathan. It means to dedicate or promise to. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...5414&t=KJV
Actually it can mean a varity of things, however none of which have anything t do with Human sacerfice.

You're ignoring the context. The very next sentence talks about "giving" animals. It's clearly sacrifice.

Your second arguement looks like it was constructed from a hasty google search. here is what the text looks like when properly placed in context:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm...JV#conc/26

It seems to have a completely different meaning than how you orginally thought.

Nope the context supports my argument. The chapter is talking about the early Israelites and the way God dealt with them. And even in the KJV translation that you quoted (serious Christians shouldn't be using that shoddy translation) it's still plainly talking about child sacrifice. The "fire" was a method of human sacrifice back then.

Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
Eze 20:26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I [am] the LORD.

(I used the RSV which is a far better translation in my OP.) The verse is a reference to the command given in Exodus.

---

I forgot to say...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.

[Drich]

You're ignoring the context. The very next sentence talks about "giving" animals. It's clearly sacrifice.

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?

Nope the context supports my argument. The chapter is talking about the early Israelites and the way God dealt with them. And even in the KJV translation that you quoted (serious Christians shouldn't be using that shoddy translation) it's still plainly talking about child sacrifice. The "fire" was a method of human sacrifice back then.

too tired to argue will have to come back tomorrow on this one.

[Darkstar]

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?

So they sacrificed the milk, eggs, and wool? I'm not sure I understand how else one could 'give' them to god.

[Kayenneh]

I don't get sacrifice. What on earth would a god do with the charred corpse (animal or human)? Wouldn't a sensible god let his followers keep their source of income instead of taking it from them?

You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

Oh, I never realized that god was Australian and liked his barbie that much..