Bible verse by verse

[_maklelan]

The repetitions are a style of writing for the sake of emphasis.

That's not true at all. Emphatic repetitions occur most commonly on the atomistic level, or with words or phrases repeated in succession. In Ugaritic you can have repetition for emphasis on the macro-narrative level, but then the repetitions are a part of narrative and not law codes, and they are verbatim. That kind of repetition does not happen in Biblical Hebrew or in law codes. You're just making something up because it protects your dogmatism and because you don't know any better.

This is how Moses wrote.

No it isn't.

Critical scholars are just that "critical," but that doesn't make them correct nor unbiased.

"Critical" refers to being objective, but in this case you are demonstrably wrong and demonstrably naïve.

[_huckelberry]

My contemporary religious filter, what is that suppose to be? I did not say, think, or suggest that human sacrifice would not function socially, it has in many societies.

The historical uncertainties and unknowns to which you refer seem to me to be reflections of your own understanding and conceptualization of ancient Israel and its history, which appears to be informed at least in part by your theological worldview. Do you think that would be inaccurate?

Well there is a risk that how one understands human events will have some sort of influence on ones
theological worldview.

Getting some control of the reverse I think would require becoming aware of just how a specific theological view might be distorting how one reads specific evidence. That sounds like an ongoing process of specifics. Talking or thinking about it would require being conscious and specific about what belief is interfering with what history. I do not think immunity to the problem would be available by other means. Unless of course they have a pill to take care of it.

I doubt that my sense that there are historical uncertainties in the religious and political history of Israel in the time 1300 to 300 bc is just a result of my religious world view.

[_maklelan]

Well there is a risk that how one understands human events will have some sort of influence on ones
theological worldview.

Getting some control of the reverse I think would require becoming aware of just how a specific theological view might be distorting how one reads specific evidence. That sounds like an ongoing process of specifics. Talking or thinking about it would require being conscious and specific about what belief is interfering with what history. I do not think immunity to the problem would be available by other means. Unless of course they have a pill to take care of it.

I doubt that my sense that there are historical uncertainties in the religious and political history of Israel in the time 1300 to 300 bc is just a result of my religious world view.

That's perfectly accurate, but we can be reasonably certain that Ezekiel was not reading a version of Exodus that resolved the problem of Exod 22:29, among other things. An oblique appeal to uncertainty does little to assuage the problem, it just serves to protect theological sensitivities in our own mind.

[_Roger]

I think it presents a problem for inerrancy, but not for Christianity as a whole. I don't think it undermines the Christian faith to acknowledge that many of the texts in the Bible are products exclusively of human effort.

It seems to me that it's worse than that.

No Christian that I know would be comfortable with the idea that YHWH commanded child sacrifice. The notion that he did strikes at the heart of orthodox Christianity.

I don't know anyone who argues for textual inerrancy except possibly in the original versions, none of which are extant. What is important, in my opinion, is theological consistency. The concept of God changing his mind is problematic from an orthodox point of view, though perhaps not inconceivable. But for God to change his mind about child sacrifice is highly problematic. That leaves us with:

1. The writer of the original version of Exodus that you theorize, or a least a portion of Exodus, was not only not under inspiration but was in fact writing blasphemy in that he has God command what God otherwise says is an abominable practice. In which case, Exodus should never have been included in the canon.

2. YHWH is a false god who does not exist.

3. The original version of Exodus is pretty much what we see in our Bibles today and Ex. 13:13 Trump's Ex. 22:29.

I don't see another valid alternative.

That verse isn't preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the Septuagint version does agree. The addition would have taken place much, much earlier than any extant variants, though.

Then it seems to me there is no solid evidence that Exodus 13:13 is a later addition.

[_huckelberry]

uncertainty?
I would like to know how in the world the change to believing God does not want human sacrifice was accomplished. tt is just plain and simple an interesting question. Can we we just picture Cyrus saying you can go back but you have to stop the baby killing nonsense. Every body was so glad and thankful that Cyrus is then pictured as acting for God. I suppose that is all fabrication.

It is also a question not only historically interesting but is a question which touches the heart of how we understand inspiration to work and how we understand God to lead. The question is valuable whether or not I am trying to maintain some particular theological view.

[_LittleNipper]

The repetitions are a style of writing for the sake of emphasis.

That's not true at all. Emphatic repetitions occur most commonly on the atomistic level, or with words or phrases repeated in succession. In Ugaritic you can have repetition for emphasis on the macro-narrative level, but then the repetitions are a part of narrative and not law codes, and they are verbatim. That kind of repetition does not happen in Biblical Hebrew or in law codes. You're just making something up because it protects your dogmatism and because you don't know any better.

This is how Moses wrote.

No it isn't.

Critical scholars are just that "critical," but that doesn't make them correct nor unbiased.

"Critical" refers to being objective, but in this case you are demonstrably wrong and demonstrably naïve.

No, you are just repeating what some know-it-all told you in college...
You may see for a Biblical point of view: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG ... ateuch.htm

[_maklelan]

It seems to me that it's worse than that.

No Christian that I know would be comfortable with the idea that YHWH commanded child sacrifice. The notion that he did strikes at the heart of orthodox Christianity.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Exodus 22 is not YHWH's commandment, but a commandment introduced by humans engaging contemporary cultural mores. As a Christian, I have no problem with that, but I'm not bound to an inerrant view of scripture.

I don't know anyone who argues for textual inerrancy except possibly in the original versions, none of which are extant.

But we can know that even the autographa were not inerrant. Acts 15:16-17, for instance, demonstrably quote a mistranslation of Amos 9:11-12, and the relevance of the quotation is tied directly to that mistranslation. In other words, the very first original composition had to have contained the mistranslation, which makes the statement that it is the "words of the prophets" demonstrably false. Inerrancy is a demonstrably false proposition, even if one appeals to the autographa.

What is important, in my opinion, is theological consistency. The concept of God changing his mind is problematic from an orthodox point of view, though perhaps not inconceivable. But for God to change his mind about child sacrifice is highly problematic. That leaves us with:

1. The writer of the original version of Exodus that you theorize, or a least a portion of Exodus, was not only not under inspiration but was in fact writing blasphemy in that he has God command what God otherwise says is an abominable practice. In which case, Exodus should never have been included in the canon.

This is really the only plausible scenario, although the judgment that it shouldn't have been included in the canon is separate.

2. YHWH is a false god who does not exist.

3. The original version of Exodus is pretty much what we see in our Bibles today and Ex. 13:13 Trump's Ex. 22:29.

I don't see another valid alternative.

Then it seems to me there is no solid evidence that Exodus 13:13 is a later addition.

There is solid evidence that the Covenant Code is a separate and earlier composition, and that's what I meant by Exodus 13 as a later addition.

[_maklelan]

No, you are just repeating what some know-it-all told you in college...

I am doing absolutely no such thing, and I asked you to stop making assumptions about my motivations and background.

You may see for a Biblical point of view: http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG ... ateuch.htm

A terribly naïve misrepresentation of the history and nature of the source criticism of the Pentateuch. I had a friend who did a master's degree with me a few years ago who had done an MDiv previously. He was pretty well educated, but when it came to source criticism, he was always a bit unsure. By the end of the program he pointed out to us that he had been trained to debunk the Documentary Hypothesis in his MDiv, but discovered during our program that the theory had absolutely nothing to do with what he had been taught about it, and that the theory is actually solidly based on a great deal of empirical evidence. He's since changed his mind completely. It's funny how the people who bark the loudest about how it's false are the people who know the least about it, as well as how people who actually learn what it is and what it's based on tend to change their minds and come to accept it. I recommend you check out God's Word in Human Words for a discussion from an Evangelical about how fundamentalism misrepresents the scholarship and the evidence in an effort to protect the uneducated from being convinced by it. Or you could just keep belligerently barking at me about how you're right and I'm wrong, even though I'm the only one with any actual education about the topic.

[_maklelan]

uncertainty?
I would like to know how in the world the change to believing God does not want human sacrifice was accomplished. tt is just plain and simple an interesting question. Can we we just picture Cyrus saying you can go back but you have to stop the baby killing nonsense. Every body was so glad and thankful that Cyrus is then pictured as acting for God. I suppose that is all fabrication.

It is also a question not only historically interesting but is a question which touches the heart of how we understand inspiration to work and how we understand God to lead. The question is valuable whether or not I am trying to maintain some particular theological view.

Well, if the surrounding cultures are any indication, the strain on the birth rate was just too much for the society to bear. The friction between the palace and temple also could have catalyzed the abandonment of the practice. This would have taken place around the beginning of the first millennium BCE, not during the Persian period.

[_huckelberry]

uncertainty?
I would like to know how in the world the change to believing God does not want human sacrifice was accomplished. tt is just plain and simple an interesting question. Can we we just picture Cyrus saying you can go back but you have to stop the baby killing nonsense. Every body was so glad and thankful that Cyrus is then pictured as acting for God. I suppose that is all fabrication.

It is also a question not only historically interesting but is a question which touches the heart of how we understand inspiration to work and how we understand God to lead. The question is valuable whether or not I am trying to maintain some particular theological view.

Well, if the surrounding cultures are any indication, the strain on the birth rate was just too much for the society to bear. The friction between the palace and temple also could have catalyzed the abandonment of the practice. This would have taken place around the beginning of the first millennium BCE, not during the Persian period.
....... and to Roger:
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Exodus 22 is not YHWH's commandment, but a commandment introduced by humans engaging contemporary cultural mores. As a Christian, I have no problem with that, but I'm not bound to an inerrant view of scripture.

Maklelan, In these comments you are projecting an image well within my usual understanding of the situation. There are a few more legal statement in the Torah which I have no other way to relate to but by thinking that people brought their own understanding of law as building blocks in many cases.