Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament

[Godscreated]

You still have not shown through scripture were God commanded child sacrifice. It doesn't appear in the 10 Commandments, nor in the Laws of Moses, it ain't anywhere in scripture. So with out the commandment you have no leg to stand on. Actually I think you've been standing on you head to long.

I LOL'd.

You don't by any chance work at the circus do you?

No, and you still have not shown one verse that God says to sacrifice your children to Me. If you are going to continue this argument without showing some commandments from God I'm going to jump to another thread where people have enough sense to supply facts.

Jephthah's vow was his own, God did not ask for the vow nor did He require the vow to be keep, Jephthah is solely responsible for his action,

Judges 11:29: "Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah."
So basically Godschild, you're saying when the Spirit of the Lord is upon someone, pay no mind to the crazy things they say or do. Here I think we actually completely agree.

The Spirit of God moved Jephthah to gather an army and go defeat the Ammonites, Jephthah made a vow to God about something that was already revealed to him, God would not have sent him to lose this battle. God did not ask for this vow or even encourage it.

even though his daughter through her love for him submitted herself to this vow. God would have given Jephthah victory over the Ammonites regardless, it was His will the victory should take place. So God has no responsibility in this tragedy, actually God is trying to teach a lesson here and the annual custom of Israel's virgins lamenting this tragedy was to remind Israel to think before you say foolish things.

The moments that God decides to intervene are quite peculiar, wouldn't you agree?

No God's timing is always perfect, if we can't understand why He moves into history at a specific time then it's our fault or God has hidden why.

Judges 11:30-31: "And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.""
Here God turns into the timid

No, why do you think He's required to take an action about this?

32: "Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands."
Now God is once again the Almighty Decider.

He has never quit being the Almighty, by not stopping Jephthah from making the vow shows He does allow men to do dumb things.

34-37: "When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels!

I have three of the best translations of scripture and none say, "who should come out," what translation are you using. To me it sounds like you are manipulating the scriptures to meet your needs.

She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter!

Again the three translations I use do not even hint at this, "Oh no,"

You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”"
God, quick, you just intervened to give the Israelites victory! Now tell them to stop before the innocent girl is killed in your name! But no, he can't, because once again he's turned himself into
But hey, at least the Almighty Decider arrives in time to give Israel a nice little lesson out of it, right?

Your childish observations just astound the senses, is this really the best you have. First of all as I explained earlier God moved Jephthah to gather an army to march on and defeat the Ammonites. It was planned not an intervention, you should really pay attention to what you read. God was carrying out what He planned regardless of what Jephthah said in a vow.

Also Jephthah was expecting an animal to come out of the house before any person did, the first floor of the homes of Israelites were actually stables for the animals. For a person to leave the house the animals would have to moved out first, unfortunately this did not happen and Jephthah found himself in a bind, if he had been following God all along this would not have happened.

I see you lack in the history of the Israelites, this is info that comes from sources outside of the Bible, you need to study more archaeology and the like.

Abraham never slaughtered his son, so your accusation has no merit. Abraham assured his son that a sacrifice would be supplied, why because God promised that through his son a nation would be born, no son, no nation. Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness from God, it was never God's intention for Isaac to be sacrificed.

Genesis 22:2: "Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”"
Nope, never his intention.

No it wasn't His intention and, the verse you gave does not imply intention. God was testing the faithfulness of the man He had chosen to be the father of the nation through which He planned to bring His Son into the world. God wanted Abraham to realize how important it was to maintain his faithfulness, God was only going to use a man He could call righteous and Abraham needed to know the importance of this calling.

Abraham was so sure that he would not be sacrificing Isaac that he told his servant they would return from the mountain.

Ah, you're right. I missed this verse the first read through in which Abraham clearly states he would never actually kill his son. You're referring to Genesis 22:10 right? "Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son." If you read your Bible, you'd know that Abraham had no problem killing his son: "Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death" (Hebrews 11:19).

Actually I did not have that verse in mind and will have to give it further consideration, I knew it, yet let it slip by. My first thought would be Abraham was trying to find reason for what God had said to Him, it didn't make sense for God to take away a promise he had put complete faith in. Anyway as I said I'll need to give that further thought.

As far as your immature thoughts, "well it don't count that God relented and provided a lamb," being childish and insisting that part of the story you don't like has no meaning in the story is as Drich says moving the goal post. Abraham took the actions as far as God would allow, he was showing his faith in and to God, regardless of what you want to make of the story. You are so childish and irresponsible that you will twist a story completely to support your barbaric ideas. You see it's not God nor the Christians here that are consumed with child sacrifice, it is you and your deviant mind. If I were you I would be worried about my mental state.

I was serious in what I stated above, God says He hates child sacrifice and Christians would never worship God if child sacrifice was part of His requirements.

David's sin against God as you tell it is far different than what we read in the scriptures, again your deviant mind for child sacrifice has blinded you and as I said, you should be worried.

Again, perhaps if you were familiar with your Bible, you would know that David had Uriah the Hittite killed after he had slept with his wife. Murder and adultery, both capital punishments under the law as I have correctly pointed out.

I knew this story before you even knew there was a Bible, I'm guessing you're that young.
As I said God forgave David his sin against God, He did not relent on Davids own pronounced punishment.

David actually pronounced his own punishment when Nathan told him the story of the poor man and his lamb and how the greed of the rich man harmed the poor man. David said the rich man should be put to death and have to pay four fold for the lamb. God said to David, in this order, your sin has been forgiven and you shall not die, but a punishment of the four fold you will pay.

So the Almighty Decider contradicts his own law, which demanded for David and Bathsheba to be stoned, and furthermore what is David's "four-fold" punishment?

God doesn't contradict His law, He forgave David and in compassion spared his life. David said the rich man should have to pay back fourfold to the poor man, David's payment was his son, don't you remember the story was about David. He deserved to die by God's law but, God forgave him, God had a greater plan for David.

Certainly, the Almighty Decider must recall that he says: "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:26). Or maybe on this particular day he actually felt more like this: "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" (Deuteronomy 5:9). Whatever the case, for the sake of David's child, it is too bad this guy wasn't around instead --->

David's son did not die for David's sin, God forgave David's sin, that's why God did not take David's life. It was David's judgement on the rich man that responsible for the child's death, David's own words. Why do you think David prayed to God for seven days, because David realized he was responsible for his son's death, he knew the fourfold judgement meant the loss of his son.

He told David he would make his son ill and that the son would die, for seven days David begged God to spare the child, in those seven days David discovered the harm he had caused. David was a shepherd not a master and a shepherd does not treat his flock the way David treated Uriah and the rest of the flock (Israel). David's sin was forgiven before God brought the sickness to David's son, there is no way that the death of the son can be considered a sacrifice. David pronounced his own punishment of fourfold in the taking of Uriah's life.

2 Samuel 12:13-15: "Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.” After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill."

'Nuff said.

You're right you've said enough, you should quit and learn the real lessons of this story. Right the son was struck ill after God had forgiven David, therefore no sacrifice. David was punished by God and God used David's own pronounced punishment against him.

In 2 Kings 3 there is no King Moab, you should get your facts straight if you want to make an argument.

Ah, I meant Mesha king of Moab. SO SORRY!

Also the story does not even mention who the son was sacrificed to, again you have your facts screwed up. The king that sacrificed his son did not worship the God of Israel, they worshiped Chemosh. Also Israel, Judah and Edom destroyed most of Moab, only the stone walled city of Kir-hareseth was left, it is where the king sacrificed his son on the wall for all to see, it upset the Israelites enough that they left, they left as victors not as a defeated army. There is no way to interpret this story the way you did except to twist things around to support your blind childish story.

Wow, this must be the first victory for Israel ever recorded in the Bible in which they left without looting the city and slaughtering every man, woman, or child (or kept them as slaves). Instead, the king of Moab, who still somehow has seven hundred swordsman around, sacrifices his son on the wall and the result? "The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land" (2 Kings 3:27).

Sounds like a convincing victory.

No they failed many times, this is why they were still having to fight against people they were suppose to have totally defeated. So, you do not believe that the near total destruction of Moab was a convincing victory. Those seven hundred swordsman were not able to break through the battle lines that Edom held, so they retreated to the only city left standing. The story doesn't say who was angry at Israel, could be that Judah and Edom were the ones upset with Israel because of what the king did, they may have left Israel by themselves and so Israel had to retreat. This is not the point you have be trying to make, you're dodging the fact you're wrong about the child sacrifice.

The only absurd thing in this discussion is your twisted belief in child sacrifice. Christ was not a child when He was killed on the cross, unless you consider 30 years of age to be the age of children.

I'm a few years away from 30 and I'm still my mother's child. Is there an age in which a parent can sacrifice his son or daughter that is not considered child sacrifice? If the son or daughter is fifteen? Twenty? Thirty-three? Or if the child willingly submits to the slaughter, believing it is their duty to God, then that makes it okay under Christianity?

I have been told that I can't use that argument by a number of atheist here, yet they will allow you to use it, that's a double standard anyway it want fly in this argument. You have up to this point been talking about small children, so you are twisting the argument until it will so be choked to death. Once again Drich is correct, you are moving the goal posts, desperation has set in. I can tell you this at thirty my parents would not have been able to sacrifice me, I could put each one under an arm and taken them home. However, like I said you are moving the goal post in desperation.

You have no idea what sacrifice Christ made for mankind, it actually began the minute He was born of a human mother

Oh dear, what a poor fellow, having to be born and all.

Christ had existed for eternity before taking on the human form, you do not have the slightest idea what you're spewing, all this is just speaking from your butt.

and went until He died on the cross.

Tell me, why did he have to do that again?

I shouldn't need to tell a Bible expert why Christ had to die on the cross, you got it down right.

God never expected man to sacrifice anyone especially children for the sin of man, why, because not even children were completely pure enough to cancel our sin.

But hey, it does go a long way: "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22). I applaud your efforts but you missed a few loops. Overall, 6/10.

You're right we need to be cleansed by the shed blood of Christ and can only do that by accepting He did just that for us, I have and I owe Him my life and gladly do. Only sin is required to be cleansed by innocent blood, so again you have failed to grasp what the scriptures teach, I find that very sad actually, I can only hope that one day you will allow God to restore your life.

GC

[Mudhammam]

"David's payment was his son, don't you remember the story was about David." - Godschild

Need anymore be said? Once you've admitted this it renders your other defenses irrelevant.

---

"I have and I owe Him my life and gladly do. Only sin is required to be cleansed by innocent blood,"

And so why would it be immoral or against Yahweh's nature to permit or command child sacrifice again? What could be more innocent than a child? A sinless adult? Sins are cleansed by shedding innocent blood, which a person who appreciates life will find in-of-itself immoral, but apprently Christians do not?

[Minimalist]

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

Stop telling jews how to be jews, drippy. You have enough trouble with your own bullshit to worry about the bullshit of someone else.

[Mudhammam]

Does anyone else find it horribly ironic that Drich and GC object to ANY REMOTE POSSIBILITY that child sacrifice was practiced under and in accordance with early Yahwism and yet they find it PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE that "sins" are "cleansed" by "innocent blood"? Talk about pretzel logic.

[Minimalist]

After a few years you will understand all the patterns to their "logic."

It never gets any better.

[Lemonvariable72]

"David's payment was his son, don't you remember the story was about David." - Godschild

Need anymore be said? Once you've admitted this it renders your other defenses irrelevant.

---

"I have and I owe Him my life and gladly do. Only sin is required to be cleansed by innocent blood,"

And so why would it be immoral or against Yahweh's nature to permit or command child sacrifice again? What could be more innocent than a child? A sinless adult? Sins are cleansed by shedding innocent blood, which a person who appreciates life will find in-of-itself immoral, but apprently Christians do not?

The day GC admits he is wrong, is the day I make my residence at the nearest bomb shelter.

[Drich]

Look at the outline you presented in the op. None of it had anything to do with what your on about now. That my friend is shifting the goal posts. If you started another topic it would be different. It's like 2/3s of the way into this discussion you realized you were wrong. Then. Tried to build an arguement from the pieces that you thought you could defend.

I still stand by everything I said in the OP. I know you THINK you refuted it, and that's why I switched verses, but actually I just figured it more productive to lay out the entire picture presented in the Bible rather watch you untangle your panties over the Exodus/Numbers comparison. Given that you lack justification for Yahweh's other actions I've mentioned, I figured it might help you realize that my first examples weren't all that shocking or radical.

Then why is the title of the thread "child sacrifice in the OT?" To me it would seem child sacrifice was used for shock value/paint a deeper contrast between your self righteousness and what You thought via all the smart/ignorant people that said child sacrifice was commanded by God. Then when you saw the bible does not support such a thing now your back peddling but forgot the name of your title.

---

I didn't say you were a Jedi, (I was only gone a little while and you've got delusions of gandure) I said you as a movie goer, sat down to watch revenge of the sith and you knew vader was going to kill a bunch of little kids does that makes guilty of whatever your accusing God of?

Are saying that god watches the events of earth with no power to influence just as a a movie bgoer can't change the events of the movie

This world was handed over to us for good or bad. We handed it over to satan. The only time God steps in without our ask is if satan is trying to put us on a different path other than of sin and salvation God has planned.

[Mudhammam]

Then why is the title of the thread "child sacrifice in the OT?" To me it would seem child sacrifice was used for shock value/paint a deeper contrast between your self righteousness and what You thought via all the smart/ignorant people that said child sacrifice was commanded by God. Then when you saw the bible does not support such a thing now your back peddling but forgot the name of your title.

Perhaps in the cosmic soap opera when the Creator of the universe looked down on you, Drich, and realized how vitally important and special you are, he decided he would impart to you the principle distinction between the morality expressed in child sacrifice and that expressed in the sentiment that "sins" are "cleansed" by "innocent blood." Unfortunately, some of us more "ignorant" folk don't see it.

[Drich]

Then why is the title of the thread "child sacrifice in the OT?" To me it would seem child sacrifice was used for shock value/paint a deeper contrast between your self righteousness and what You thought via all the smart/ignorant people that said child sacrifice was commanded by God. Then when you saw the bible does not support such a thing now your back peddling but forgot the name of your title.

Perhaps in the cosmic soap opera when the Creator of the universe looked down on you, Drich, and realized how vitally important and special you are, he decided he would impart to you the principle distinction between the morality expressed in child sacrifice and that expressed in the sentiment that "sins" are "cleansed" by "innocent blood." Unfortunately, some of us more "ignorant" folk don't see it.

It's not a hard distinction to make. In that the only innocent blood that was needed was from his only Son. God made the standard then He provided us with the elements needed to find forgiveness.

[Mudhammam]

Perhaps in the cosmic soap opera when the Creator of the universe looked down on you, Drich, and realized how vitally important and special you are, he decided he would impart to you the principle distinction between the morality expressed in child sacrifice and that expressed in the sentiment that "sins" are "cleansed" by "innocent blood." Unfortunately, some of us more "ignorant" folk don't see it.

It's not a hard distinction to make. In that the only innocent blood that was needed was from his only Son. God made the standard then He provided us with the elements needed to find forgiveness.

Okay. Totally missed the point. But despite responding with appeal to an incoherent conception of a singular nature that consists of three distinct and separate identities, you still have no rationalization for the general concept that "innocent blood" "cleanses" "sin," which was taken quite literally by biblical authors, or for the idea that killing livestock due to their "moral innocence" could somehow balance out bad behavior. Again, I ask, what's more innocent than a child? If one has a really "big" sin to account for, what could possibly be better than offering one's own child as a "four-fold payment"? GC has already demonstrated that this is the logic Yahweh operates on in his admission that David "paid" for his sins by the death of his newborn, Jesus "paid" for our sins by shedding his human blood, and yet--oh no, child sacrifice is far too abhorrent to even consider the possibility that Yahweh could accept such a thing! Please, come back with a bit of sense, will ya?