Bible verse by verse

[_maklelan]

Where is the commandment in Exodus that says to kill your first born and burn the child's body on an alter to YHWH?

Exod 22:29–30:

Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.

That was what the worshipper's of Baal did.

And the early worshippers of YHWH. Like I said, Baal was rejected only because he was competition for YHWH.

YHWH wanted the first born dedicated to Him. That is hardly a sacrifice. His yoke is easy and His burden is light.

No, nowhere does Exodus ever say the firstborn was to be dedicated. That's an invention you perpetuate only because you don't know Hebrew and can't tell whether or not someone's telling you the truth about what it means. "Give it to me" meant sacrifice, not dedication. That's why it says to do the exact same thing to their oxen and sheep. Or maybe they were dedicated to priesthood service?

Later in the Covenant Code we have a different author rationalizing away that commandment and adding that the firstborn were to be redeemed from being sacrificed, but Ezekiel 20 makes direct reference to the commandment to sacrifice the firstborn, claiming YHWH said he intentionally gave Israelites commandments that caused them to sacrifice their firstborn children. Ezekiel knows nothing of any commandment to instead redeem the firstborn. You need to you read your Bible more (and better).

[Guest]

Maklelan:
I am the Frist born in my family. I went to Sunday school very, very, regularly for years. We read and leaned all about the Old Testament, and in my day we only used the King James version of the Bible. And frankly, I never felt threatened or even had a inkling that the Israelites worshipped the one true God by killing their first born. The closest example that I am aware of is when Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice to God, because God was testing Abraham and presenting how God and not man saves. There would have been YOUR perfect opportunity of proof that YOUR God was out for 1st born blood sacrifices. It was most obvious to me, even as a very small boy, that God is a loving God who cares little for burning flesh but seeks after a contrite repentant heart. You are the product of secular humanistic training. And I see very little Christian influence at all in anything you present as "matter-of-fact". The story of Abraham and Isaac goes all the way back to Genesis. The book of Job is most likely the oldest book of the Bible, and Job isn't shown sacrificing his first born. Noah isn't shown sacrificing his first born. You need to stop placing your trust in secular teachers --- who maybe very sincerely comfortable in their "learned opinions" but are in fact not CHRISTIAN --- and are manipulated by an entirely different agenda. They work from a standard that says that all religions are one in the same. They are not. There is but One God and One Savior and One Comforter and they are not a "reflection" of pagan beliefs and man designed folktales. If anything, paganism and Mormonism are very cheap imitations of God's one true religion. And that one true religion isn't under human control, but is under the power of Lord Jesus Christ ---- not a pope, not a priest, not some prophet. And Christ is far and beyond more powerful then all of them placed together. And as a "Christian," if you do not accept that, you cannot possibly know what you are talking about.

[_maklelan]

Maklelan:
I am the Frist born in my family. I went to Sunday school very, very, regularly for years. We read and leaned all about the Old Testament, and in my day we only used the King James version of the Bible. And frankly, I never felt threatened or even had a inkling that the Israelites worshipped the one true God by killing their first born.

Of course not. Why would a Sunday School leave conceptual space for such an interpretation?

The closest example that I am aware of is when Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice to God, because God was testing Abraham and presenting how God and not man saves.

Well, any examples preserved in the Israelite tradition would have been scrubbed clean, although we do have the example of Jephthah's daughter, who was offered as a burnt offering. Of course, the reason that one survived is because some people actually managed to convince themselves that the text referred to something other than what it said. Notice the vow of Jephthah is strikingly similar to that of Abraham and of Mesha in 2 Kgs 3:27. There are many scholars who insist the original tradition of the Aqedah had Abraham following through with the sacrifice. I believe I have already recommended it, but you would do well to read Francesca Stavrakopoulou's King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities.

There would have been YOUR perfect opportunity of proof that YOUR God was out for 1st born blood sacrifices. It was most obvious to me, even as a very small boy, that God is anything but a loving God who cares little for burning flesh but seeks after a contrite repentant heart.

I think you need to rephrase that.

You are the product of secular humanistic training.

I thought I was a product of Mormon indoctrination. Make up your mind.

And I see very little Christian influence at all in anything you present as "matter-of-fact". The story of Abraham and Isaac goes all the way back to Genesis. The book of Job is most likely the oldest book of the Bible,

No, it dates to the Persian period at the earliest.

and Job isn't shown sacrificing his first born. Noah isn't shown sacrificing his first born.

Yeah, also not an incredibly early tradition.

You need to stop placing your trust in secular teachers

I will place my trust in what makes sense to me, and things that can be shown by evidence make a whole lot more sense than naïve dogmatism that contradicts all evidence.

--- who maybe very sincerely comfortable in their "learned opinions" but are in fact not CHRISTIAN --- and are manipulated by an entirely different agenda. They work from a standard that says that all religions are one in the same. They are not. There is but One God and One Savior and One Comforter and they are not a "reflection" of pagan beliefs and man designed folktales. If anything, paganism and Mormonism are very cheap imitations of God's one true religion. And that one true religion isn't under human control, but is under the power of Lord Jesus Christ ---- not a pope, not a priest, not some prophet. And Christ is far and beyond more powerful then all of them placed together. And as a "Christian," if you do not accept that, you cannot possibly know what you are talking about.

So, basically, I'm wrong because you say so. Brilliant.

[_Roger]

Mak:

Later in the Covenant Code we have a different author rationalizing away that commandment and adding that the firstborn were to be redeemed from being sacrificed...

It looks like this verse supersedes Ex. 22:29

But every first-born male ass you may redeem with a kid or lamb, but if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. Every first-born among your sons you must redeem.

Ex. 13:13

The commentary on that verse in my NEB says: "Human sacrifice, particularly of the firtborn, was practiced in the Ancient Near East but Israel was commanded to substitute an animal."

[_huckelberry]

I find I feel quite divided about this subject. I have long been troubled by a sense that some of the most revolting material in the Old Testament is connected to human sacrifice. The offering of cities as burnt offerings being the most obvious to my mind. That is presented as part of war but war as a context for the offering of human sacrifice.

That would one of several reasons to think that the presence of the issue and questions about human sacrifice are a real part of the Biblical foundation and experience. It would not help understanding the Bible simply to hide from it. On the other hand I have not gotten past the sense that reading the Exodus command at face value appears itself to be an oversimplification. Human sacrifice would hardly be a new idea with this Exodus command. It would have had a start deep in prehistory, how far deep I would not know. My general social sense is that such a command with a long history would also have a long established history of thought about alternatives in any functioning society. Does anybody believe that all first born Isrealites were being sacrificed and this all came to a sudden halt sometime around the time of Ezra? I doubt it. The line making the command must be a fragment. It does not function socially all by itself. My divided observations here leave a lot of historical uncertainty and unknowns as far as I can see.

[_Bazooka]

--- who maybe very sincerely comfortable in their "learned opinions" but are in fact not CHRISTIAN --- and are manipulated by an entirely different agenda. They work from a standard that says that all religions are one in the same. They are not. There is but One God and One Savior and One Comforter and they are not a "reflection" of pagan beliefs and man designed folktales. If anything, paganism and Mormonism are very cheap imitations of God's one true religion. And that one true religion isn't under human control, but is under the power of Lord Jesus Christ ---- not a pope, not a priest, not some prophet. And Christ is far and beyond more powerful then all of them placed together. And as a "Christian," if you do not accept that, you cannot possibly know what you are talking about.

So, basically, I'm wrong because you say so. Brilliant.

I think you have just summarised Little Nippers 124 pages of posts. And his next 124.

[_Roger]

Does anybody believe that all first born Isrealites were being sacrificed and this all came to a sudden halt sometime around the time of Ezra? I doubt it. The line making the command must be a fragment. It does not function socially all by itself.

To me, the important question is not whether child sacrifice was being practiced in ancient Isreal. It most likely was, and in fact the Bible, as it reads now, condemns the practice. The question is whether YHWH would have ever commanded it. Mak seems to think so - or at least thinks early Isrealites reported YHWH as commanding it.

Looks to me like Ex. 13:13 Trump's Ex. 22:29, but I'm sure mak will have something to say about that.

My divided observations here leave a lot of historical uncertainty and unknowns as far as I can see.

Exactly. Even if some scholars, like mak, believe YHWH commanded child sacrifice, it would seem that there is legitimate disagreement among scholars as to whether that is the correct interpretation or not.

[_LittleNipper]

Maklelan:
I am the Frist born in my family. I went to Sunday school very, very, regularly for years. We read and leaned all about the Old Testament, and in my day we only used the King James version of the Bible. And frankly, I never felt threatened or even had a inkling that the Israelites worshipped the one true God by killing their first born.

Of course not. Why would a Sunday School leave conceptual space for such an interpretation?

The closest example that I am aware of is when Abraham took Isaac to sacrifice to God, because God was testing Abraham and presenting how God and not man saves.

Well, any examples preserved in the Israelite tradition would have been scrubbed clean, although we do have the example of Jephthah's daughter, who was offered as a burnt offering. Of course, the reason that one survived is because some people actually managed to convince themselves that the text referred to something other than what it said. Notice the vow of Jephthah is strikingly similar to that of Abraham and of Mesha in 2 Kgs 3:27. There are many scholars who insist the original tradition of the Aqedah had Abraham following through with the sacrifice. I believe I have already recommended it, but you would do well to read Francesca Stavrakopoulou's King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities.

There would have been YOUR perfect opportunity of proof that YOUR God was out for 1st born blood sacrifices. It was most obvious to me, even as a very small boy, that God is an all loving God who cares little for burning flesh but seeks after a contrite repentant heart.

You are the product of secular humanistic training.

I thought I was a product of Mormon indoctrination. Make up your mind.

And I see very little Christian influence at all in anything you present as "matter-of-fact". The story of Abraham and Isaac goes all the way back to Genesis. The book of Job is most likely the oldest book of the Bible,

No, it dates to the Persian period at the earliest.

and Job isn't shown sacrificing his first born. Noah isn't shown sacrificing his first born.

Yeah, also not an incredibly early tradition.

You need to stop placing your trust in secular teachers

I will place my trust in what makes sense to me, and things that can be shown by evidence make a whole lot more sense than naïve dogmatism that contradicts all evidence.

--- who maybe very sincerely comfortable in their "learned opinions" but are in fact not CHRISTIAN --- and are manipulated by an entirely different agenda. They work from a standard that says that all religions are one in the same. They are not. There is but One God and One Savior and One Comforter and they are not a "reflection" of pagan beliefs and man designed folktales. If anything, paganism and Mormonism are very cheap imitations of God's one true religion. And that one true religion isn't under human control, but is under the power of Lord Jesus Christ ---- not a pope, not a priest, not some prophet. And Christ is far and beyond more powerful then all of them placed together. And as a "Christian," if you do not accept that, you cannot possibly know what you are talking about.

So, basically, I'm wrong because you say so. Brilliant.

You are the product of Mormonism, in that your view of the Bible has been jaded. You view God and religion and life on earth, as in a constant process of evolution. You must either demonstrate that the Bible contain errors or reject Mormonism (because it is full of errors). I see you as vainly trying to excuse Mormonism in your own way.

[_maklelan]

Mak:

Later in the Covenant Code we have a different author rationalizing away that commandment and adding that the firstborn were to be redeemed from being sacrificed...

It looks like this verse supersedes Ex. 22:29

But every first-born male ass you may redeem with a kid or lamb, but if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. Every first-born among your sons you must redeem.

Ex. 13:13

The commentary on that verse in my NEB says: "Human sacrifice, particularly of the firtborn, was practiced in the Ancient Near East but Israel was commanded to substitute an animal."

Also a later addition. Compare that verse to Exod 34:20. The text is not chronological.

[_maklelan]

I find I feel quite divided about this subject. I have long been troubled by a sense that some of the most revolting material in the Old Testament is connected to human sacrifice. The offering of cities as burnt offerings being the most obvious to my mind. That is presented as part of war but war as a context for the offering of human sacrifice.

That would one of several reasons to think that the presence of the issue and questions about human sacrifice are a real part of the Biblical foundation and experience. It would not help understanding the Bible simply to hide from it. On the other hand I have not gotten past the sense that reading the Exodus command at face value appears itself to be an oversimplification. Human sacrifice would hardly be a new idea with this Exodus command. It would have had a start deep in prehistory, how far deep I would not know. My general social sense is that such a command with a long history would also have a long established history of thought about alternatives in any functioning society. Does anybody believe that all first born Isrealites were being sacrificed and this all came to a sudden halt sometime around the time of Ezra? I doubt it.

Just because it is recorded in Exodus as a commandment does not mean it was unilaterally enforced or accepted. That some Israelites sacrificed their children is asserted by the biblical text itself, and Ezekiel even insists YHWH forced them to do it.

The line making the command must be a fragment.

Not with the beginning of v. 30, which started with "thus also will you do with your oxen . . ." Unless "thus also" refers to redemption or something else, it means you're also supposed to sacrifice the firstborn of your cattle and flocks, which is exactly what is recorded elsewhere.

It does not function socially all by itself. My divided observations here leave a lot of historical uncertainty and unknowns as far as I can see.

It does function socially. Certainly not with the contemporary religious filter you're overlaying your conceptualization of ancient Israel, but the fact is that it fits perfectly with what we know about early Israel. Again, those books I recommended earlier are excellent academic discussions of the topic.