|
Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament
|
 Quote:Drich wrote: Actually the Jews say it means.... Quote: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.  RE: Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament
January 23, 2014 at 1:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2014 at 1:18 am by Drich.)
(January 22, 2014 at 5:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:(January 22, 2014 at 11:43 am)Drich Wrote: Again, conjecture and speculation, verses the bible/The writter of the Pentateuch actually explaining the passage you and your sources have questioned. 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 versionhttp://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. (January 22, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Drich wrote: ...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.  I won't pretend that I've read all this garbage, nor buy all of Drich's meanderings, or have thought about it all that deeply, but my impression on reading your first post, and which has only been strengthened with additional arguments, is that the references to the offering of the first born of Israel are largely references to symbolic offerings, not literal ones. The inconsistencies inherent in the David and Bathsheba narrative are, to my mind, a separate issue, and in their inconsistent testimony to Yahweh's character, add as much confusion to an already confused question as they do clear it up. A muddy mirror does not yield a clear reflection, so that record likely needs setting aside on this specific question. There are certainly passages which raise some hair raising questions about the Jewish attitude toward human sacrifice, but I see no smoking gun here. ![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg) 
Lemonvariable72
Copenhagen School  Religious Views: Its all bullshit to keep you handing money to the usher. (January 23, 2014 at 1:48 am)rasetsu Wrote: I thought that too, but 1 kings 16:34 changed my mind. 16:34 In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. (January 23, 2014 at 1:54 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:(January 23, 2014 at 1:48 am)rasetsu Wrote: I haven't looked at any thing else besides the exo/num aspect of this arguement. So straight off the cuff let look to context. 29 Ahab son of Omri became king of Israel during the 38th year that Asa was king of Judah. Ahab ruled Israel from the town of Samaria for 22 years. 30 He did what the Lord said was wrong. Ahab was worse than all the kings who were before him. 31 It was not enough for Ahab to commit the same sins that Jeroboam, son of Nebat, had done. Ahab also married Jezebel, daughter of King Ethbaal of Sidon. Then Ahab began to serve and worship Baal. 32 He built a temple and an altar in Samaria for worshiping Baal. 33 He also set up a sacred pole.[b] Ahab did more to make the Lord, the God of Israel, angry than all the other kings who were before him. 34 During Ahab’s time, Hiel from Bethel rebuilt the town of Jericho. When Hiel started work on the city, his oldest son Abiram died. And when Hiel built the gates of the city, his youngest son Segub died. This happened just as the Lord said it would happen when he spoke through Joshua son of Nun.[c] So ahab was involved in Baal worship when he did those things and by doing so it upset God... So tell me again how this equates to the God of the bible demanding human sacrifice?
Lemonvariable72
Copenhagen School Religious Views: Its all bullshit to keep you handing money to the usher. (January 23, 2014 at 2:01 am)Drich Wrote:Well that simple makes god accessory before the fact. That means that he is also eligible for the death penalty under his own laws.(January 23, 2014 at 1:54 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I thought that too, but 1 kings 16:34 changed my mind.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.  (January 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:(January 21, 2014 at 3:14 pm)Godschild Wrote: You've shown no proof, none, that God asked for child sacrifice, so you're points are irresponsible, yes even childish. I've not ignored what the scriptures say, on the contrary I accept all of what they say and nowhere do they say God commanded child sacrifice from the Israelites, period. By the way Issac went peacefully with Abraham to the alter, if you had read the story with open mindedness you would have known why. Instead you sit in the dark with no idea of the goodness of God, that sir is one sorry state to be in. I have a question for you, why would God punish the Israelites for sacrificing children if He commanded such? GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
(January 23, 2014 at 2:08 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:(January 23, 2014 at 2:01 am)Drich Wrote: I haven't looked at any thing else besides the exo/num aspect of this arguement.Well that simple makes god accessory before the fact. That means that he is also eligible for the death penalty under his own laws. So god makes a law that says do not worship other Gods, along with a law that says you shall not murder... So a king decides he will worship and murder people as sacrifices to other gods..yet in your mind this is the same as God being guilty of something before the fact? Can you explain this or are you drunk typing?
@ Pickup_shonuff, Exodus 22:28-31 and Exodus 23:1-3 NASV, 28) "You shall not curse God, nor a ruler of your people. 29) "You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage. The first-born of your sons you shall give to Me. 30) "You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep. It shall be with it's mother seven days; on the eight you shall give it to Me. 31) "And you shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall eat any flesh torn to pieces in the field;you shall throw it to the dogs. 23:1) "You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. 2) "You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; 3) nor shall you be partial to a poor man in disputes.
These commands continue on, yet no where does it say anything about sacrificing male children, now does it. Luke 1:59 And it came about that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to call him Zacharias, after his father. 60) And his mother answered and said, "No indeed; but he shall be called John."..... Johns father says later in the verse, 76) "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; For you will go on before the LORD to prepare His way, The above scripture shows a first born son being given to the LORD through the act of circumcision on the eighth day. Luke 2:21-24, 21) And when eight days were completed, so as to circumcise Him, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. 22) And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the LORD 23) (as it is written in the Law of the LORD, "Every first-born male male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"), 24) and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the LORD, "A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." Again another example of a first-born male being circumcised on the eight day in dedication to the LORD. Genesis 17:11-12 ESV, 11) You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12) He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male through out your generations..... Exodus 13:14-15, 14) And when in time to come your sons ask you, 'What does this mean?' you shall say to him, 'By a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15) For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed all the first-born in Egypt, both the first born of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all the males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.' Psalm 106:34-41 34) They did not destroy the peoples as the LORD commanded them, 35) but they mixed with the nations and learned to o as they did. 36) They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37) They sacrificed their sons and daughters to the demons; 38) they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. 39) Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the whore in their deeds. 40) Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people, and He abhorred His heritage; 41) He gave them into the hands of the nations, so that those who hated them ruled over them. Doesn't sound like a God who commanded child sacrifice does it, He punished His people for their acts of murder. I've shown you that circumcision of the first born males was a dedication to God and the first born of certain animals were for sacrifice, I've shown you tat on the eight day the male child is to be circumcised and the firstborn is circumcised in dedication to the LORD. I haven't sen anything from you that says God commanded child sacrifice. GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
 (January 23, 2014 at 1:13 am)Drich Wrote: Imagine a Darth vader meme with him in his tie fighter trying to target Luke in the Death Star trench scene. The caption being: In keeping with the theme of classic movie references, I image that each time the irrational and immoral underpinnings of your Bronze Age religion are clearly spelled out, your reaction is similar to Gollum's in the following scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYpRSs7pzJo Quote: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. Even if this passage is an interpretation of earlier commands regarding the firstborn children and livestock, it still fails to negate the other half dozen or so Scriptures in which child sacrifice is explicitly endorsed or celebrated. You write: Quote:I haven't looked at any thing else besides the exo/num aspect of this arguement. This is understandable. Your case is certainly made much stronger when one focuses solely on those two specific passages. Indeed, you have a valid point if these passages compliment each other--more so, if their author is the same--and undeniably so if they were written, in say, the same week or month or year. Except almost no biblical scholars (read scholars, not *apologists) take the view that Moses was a historical figure who wrote anything at all, such as Exodus and Numbers. If they were written by multiple authors and Numbers developed sometime in the 5th-century B.C., perhaps within a hundred or so years following Exodus, I see no difficulty in the author(s)' inclusion of a dismissal of child sacrifice (maybe making a few bucks off it too, as Aaron and his sons supposedly did). Obviously, the polytheistic roots of Yahwism were constantly under attack by the prophets, and many Hebrews may have considered child sacrifice to be one of the detestable leftovers of Canaanite culture. Unfortunately, this doesn't erase the immoral positions that Yahwism embraces throughout much of its earlier history, as demonstrated by the many examples I give. Furthermore, when Numbers and Exodus are put in the broader context of other Old Testament declarations, the picture is disturbingly dim: Yahweh has no moral objections to the slaughter of children, even babies, if it means faithfulness to a vow or punishment for the "sins of my soul," that is, the parents' failures. Examples of this include: - The celebration of Jephthah's daughter, who was sacrificed over a dull-witted vow. Unfortunately, no one, including the author of the text, seems remotely aware that any actual moral response deserving an annual celebration would have involved Jephthah breaking his vow to Yahweh. Instead, his vow is kept, his daughter is slaughtered, and Israel creates a new holiday. - Celebration of Abraham's faithfulness, even to the point of slaughtering his only child. Again, no mention is made of the fact that Abraham actually planned on killing his child. That Yahweh changed his mind and intervened at the last moment has nothing to do with the moral of this story, which is that Yahweh must be obeyed even when it means child sacrifice. Like Numbers 3, this tale demonstrates a way out from child sacrifice (a ram is provided) but nonetheless compliments the Hebrews' past obedience. - The murder of David and Bathsheba's child, while not a sacrifice in the sense of the others, still portrays the exact same principle. That is, payment for a person's sins can be fulfilled through killing their son or daughter. I'm still waiting to hear your justification for this one. - We haven't talked about 2 Kings 3:26-27 yet, but this passage seems to indicate that King Moab was rewarded with the defeat or retreat of Israel when he sacrificed his son to Yahweh. - Of course, Christian theology was born out of the idea of child sacrifice. God sends his figurative son to die on a cross, like the Passover lamb, in order that humanity's sins might be paid and forgiven. This is as objectionable to any case of child sacrifice in the Old Testament, which makes your denial of the latter but full embrace of the former all the more absurd. Quote:You've shown no proof, none, that God asked for child sacrifice, so you're points are irresponsible, yes even childish. I've not ignored what the scriptures say, on the contrary I accept all of what they say and nowhere do they say God commanded child sacrifice from the Israelites, period. By the way Issac went peacefully with Abraham to the alter, if you had read the story with open mindedness you would have known why. Instead you sit in the dark with no idea of the goodness of God, that sir is one sorry state to be in. See my above response to Drich. And um, when did God punish the Israelites for sacrificing children when it wasn't in relation to worshiping foreign deities? Quote:Thread Review (Newest First) Circumcision on the eighth day was commanded for all Hebrew males while the offering of children and livestock was limited to the "first fruits." No inherent contradiction there unless you interpret "You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep" as meaning they did something totally different (circumcision for boys, death for sheep). I see no reason to interpret it this way, considering the accumulative evidence of Yahweh's acceptance of child sacrifice, though clearly it became read this way by the majority later on. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
