10 Commandments, still useful?

[-=Vagrant=-]

I was pondering about the Bible one day, and I realized something. The Old Testament states that Moses gave the 10 Commandments to the people. One of these is: thou shall not kill(or murder?).

Now, later the same bloke says they should kill other humanbeings(can't remember who, but they were the Enemy), and as a bonus grab some fresh virgins for loot. Those were the days.
This appears to be a contradiction, or did Moses have immunity in these matters? I dont' know.

Even later, in the New Testament, it appears that God has a plan: He want's to sacrifice Himself/His Son (damn, this is confusing). I think we all know how this happened? They nailed him to the cross, he died and some say made a comeback tour, or is about to do it. Now then, in order for this sacrifice bit to work, some one _must_ break one of the Commandments. To put it in an another way, one must break God's law in order to fulfil God's will.

So, are God's laws really that important? They don't appear to be.

[scribble]

It's my understanding that Christians take the destruction of the Temple as the evidence that the Old Law no longer applies, so long as you have faith in Christ.

So yes, the 10 commandments no longer apply.

However, Jesus himself quoted some parts of the Old Law and as such, Christians like to hang on to those bits. The Ten Commandments are kind of part of that. Never mind that Jesus got them wrong and only named six(*) -- most Christians would too.

(*Or that there were two sets of the commandments that we know about, plus one set that Moses destroyed and God had to rewrite... Or anything else that'll just confuse. Never mind all that.)

[Benguin]

The so-called ten commandments are a bit tricky to pin down in the old testament ....

Moses went up and down the hill three times if I remember rightly, and came down with differing versions. There are 23 different comandments sprinkled about in total, including a specific direction not boil a baby goat in it's mother's milk (I still love that one), but not including any reference to incest, rape etc.

As a moral guide it's a bit iffy at best.

As for killing, it's all over the place, in some extreme forms too.

Deuteronomy 20:16 Moses commands his armies to commit genocide
Joshua 10:14 God tells Joshua to do the same, he confirms this in 11:20.
Samuel 15:3 Gode orders Saul to kill all the Amekelites, specifically saying all the children and infants should be slaughtered.

There's cannabilism all over the place, as well as kidnap and rape and the bible specifically sanctions murdering civilians in a war campaign. Isaiah 13 is particularly juicy as it again talks specifically about slaughtering infants, but this time the women are ravished and not murdered, so that's alright.

[Benguin]

It's my understanding that Christians take the destruction of the Temple as the evidence that the Old Law no longer applies, so long as you have faith in Christ.

So yes, the 10 commandments no longer apply.


That's my understanding too, but I'm not sure they're so clear on it as you do see OT Law referenced by christian churchs all the time. It's a rare church in england that doesn't have the '10' commandments pinned up somewhere in it.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Benguin
Isaiah 13 is particularly juicy as it again talks specifically about slaughtering infants, but this time the women are ravished and not murdered, so that's alright.

Phew! I was worried that the OT was a violent and grotesque piece of literature, but fortunately I was wro....

Never mind.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-

I was pondering about the Bible one day, and I realized something. The Old Testament states that Moses gave the 10 Commandments to the people. One of these is: thou shall not kill(or murder?).

Now, later the same bloke says they should kill other humanbeings(can't remember who, but they were the Enemy), and as a bonus grab some fresh virgins for loot. Those were the days.
This appears to be a contradiction, or did Moses have immunity in these matters? I dont' know.Basically what you're asking here, is war justified? And, as for taking "fresh virgins," one has to understand it was typical for men back in those days to have more than one wife (typical to the whole region I believe), in which case virgins would be prized because they were unspoiled. And better to take them into your tent (as concubine or mistress) than destroy them.

And yes, the ten commandments still apply, if you understand what they mean in essence.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Iacchus
... back in those days to have more than one wife (typical to the whole region I believe), in which case virgins would be prized because they were unspoiled.

And yes, the ten commandments still apply, if you understand what they mean in essence.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

It's OK because moral and ethical values then were different, but a set of rules describing those are somehow still relevant?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Benguin

Isaiah 13 is particularly juicy as it again talks specifically about slaughtering infants, but this time the women are ravished and not murdered, so that's alright. What about when the Pharoah slaughered the firstborn of Israel, and later on Herod followed suit? Sounds to me like the vanity of ancient kings if you ask me. Whereas when engaged in the act of war, it's pretty indiscriminate about who gets slaughtered, right? We also have to understand that this was the age of retribution -- "an eye for an eye" in other words -- and, that it was not out of character to go about slaughtering your enemy's children if, in fact this is what they had done to you.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Benguin

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?

It's OK because moral and ethical values then were different, but a set of rules describing those are somehow still relevant? If you commit an act of murder, and it's unjustified, then you've got a problem. In which case I ask, is war justified? It certainly is if somebody attacked you first or, perhaps stole your livelihood away, right? So, the notion of taking virgins is only secondary if, in fact this is the case.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What about when the Pharoah slaughered the firstborn of Israel, and later on Herod followed suit? Sounds to me like the vanity of ancient kings if you ask me. Whereas when engaged in the act of war, it's pretty indiscriminate about who gets slaughtered, right? We also have to understand that this was the age of retribution -- "an eye for an eye" in other words -- and, that it was not out of character to go about slaughtering your enemy's children if, in fact this is what they had done to you.

I'm not disputing that. You're right.

However, in our modern times we do at least talk about minimising the suffering of a civilian population when they are unfortunate enough to be caught in the afield of military conflict. We might not be much good at it in practice, but the intent exists.

The bible, god, etc doesn't share this view. It actively advocates violent, sadistic repression.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you commit an act of murder, and it's unjustified, then you've got a problem. In which case I ask, is war justified? It certainly is if somebody attacked you first or, perhaps stole your livelihood away, right?

I'm not sure about war being justified ... it's a sad inevitability of the human condition IMHO.

Either way, it is the limits of acceptable conduct I am making comments on, I'm sure you'd agree there is a distinction between the causes of war itself and the conduct towards civilians during such a war?

[Iacchus]

War is ugly no matter how you look at it, whether we claim to do it in the name of our God or otherwise.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-

Even later, in the New Testament, it appears that God has a plan: He want's to sacrifice Himself/His Son (damn, this is confusing). I think we all know how this happened? They nailed him to the cross, he died and some say made a comeback tour, or is about to do it. Now then, in order for this sacrifice bit to work, someone _must_ break one of the Commandments. To put it in an another way, one must break God's law in order to fulfill God's will.
So, are God's laws really that important? They don't appear to be.



There seems to be a need for a little clarification.

The Law had two functions

1. As a prophetic shadow To point forward to Jesus as the Messiah.

Hebrews 10:1
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.


2. To expose mankind's inability to gain righteousness by his own effort and the need for the Ransom Sacrifice.


Romans 5:20
The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,

Hebrews 10:3
But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,


God used the nation of Israel to illustrate these two points via entering into a covenant or agreement between him and the nation.


Hebrews 9
19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[1]


Gentiles were never under the Law Covenant.
So when the Law Requirements were removed they were removed from being applicable to Israel as the nation to which the covenant had legally applied.


The law's removal was not because it had been unimportant.
It was removed simply because it was no longer needed to serve its function

Instead a new agreement or covenant was instituted to take its place: A new Covenant which would be available to both natural Israelites and gentiles.



Jeremiah 31:31
"The time is coming," declares the LORD , "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.


The New Covenant would not require the ceremonial mechanical behavior which the Old covenant had required.

Neither would it be a prophetic shadow of better things nor would it serve a condemnatory purpose.

There would be no longer any legal basis to condemn anyone since Jesus would have paid for their sins with his life as foreshadowed by the animal sacrifices offered under Law.



BTW
Those under law were legally cursed and unfit for eternal life.


Galatians 3:10
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[ 3:10 Deut. 27:26]


To remove that curse from those under Law, the Israelites, Jesus had to die in a manner representing being cursed.


Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[ 3:13 Deut. 21:23]




James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.


Under such a strict arrangement,
the perfection needed to attain eternal life could never be reached

God knew this and merely provided the Mosaic Law to serve as was a prophetic shadow- a means to point out to mankind its need of a redeemer in view of its inability to not sin against the law.

Nothing more.


Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

Hebrews 10:1
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.


In short:

The law was removed because it no longer was needed to function as a shadow of things to come or to point out man's inability to refrain from sinning.


The shadow had become a reality in Jesus.


(NIV)

[Benguin]

I'm aware of the argument, but it seems more than a little interpretive to me.

The old testamant (Moses) was very specific in a long collection laws, together with consequences and punishments.

What came after (in the NT) seem to be vague assertions that not all of that counts any more, the most obvious one being when jesus' disciples were caught out stuffing their faces with unwashed hands. In a bit of theological foot-shuffling jesus suggests that hand-washing isn't really so important any more.

The best one can say is the later books acknowledge the irrelevance of much of Mosaic law in contemporary society, but we do not have a new version (unless someone could pop up Sinai and have another look around for me... ).

The original point being made be the thread-poster was the relevance of the OT to us now. You seem to have said it isn't at all relevant or applicable to modern christians. Why do they bother with it then? What is this current craze in posting the ten commandments in schools and law buildings in the US?

[Ladewig]

And, as for taking "fresh virgins," one has to understand it was typical for men back in those days to have more than one wife (typical to the whole region I believe), in which case virgins would be prized because they were unspoiled. And better to take them into your tent (as concubine or mistress) than destroy them.

??? So, rape is okay for God's choosen people?

The part I don't get is that if God, Himself, went to all the trouble of writing out the moral law with His very own finger, then why did He include stuff about women being equal to property?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you commit an act of murder, and it's unjustified, then you've got a problem. In which case I ask, is war justified? It certainly is if somebody attacked you first or, perhaps stole your livelihood away, right? So, the notion of taking virgins is only secondary if, in fact this is the case.


But were the attacks in the OT justified? What exactly were the Ca'aninites doing to the Hebrews?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker



But were the attacks in the OT justified? What exactly were the Ca'aninites doing to the Hebrews?

Two reasons: It was God's time to fulfil a promise:

Deuteronomy 8:1
Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land that the LORD promised on oath to your forefathers.

They were on a piece of real estate that God decided that they did not deserve to be on due to their immoral excesses such as child sacrifice-bestiality--and rampant incest.


Excerpt:

The Religion of the Canaanites

Why then were the Canaanites singled out for such severe treatment? They were cut off to prevent Israel and the rest of the world from being corrupted (Deut. 20:16-18). When a people starts to burn their children in honor of their gods (Lev. 18:21), practice sodomy, bestiality, and all sorts of loathsome vice (Lev. 18:23, 24, 20:3), the land itself begins to "vomit" them out as the body heaves under the load of internal poisons (Lev. 18:25, 27-30). Thus, "objection to the fate of these nations ... is really an objection to the highest manifestation of the grace of God." Green likens this action on God's part, not to doing evil that good may come (though that does seem often to be God's methodology: the ends justify the means), but doing good in spite of certain evil consequences, just as a surgeon does not refrain from amputating a gangrenous leg even though in so doing he cannot help cutting off much healthy flesh.


http://www.theology.edu/canaan.htm

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Benguin

The original point being made be the thread-poster was the relevance of the OT to us now. You seem to have said it isn't at all relevant or applicable to modern christians. Why do they bother with it then? What is this current craze in posting the ten commandments in schools and law buildings in the US?

The only reasonable reason for keeping the Top Ten Laws publicly displayed seems to be it's symbolic value, nothing more.

[Radrook]

Neither our our legal system nor our society in general shares such a view If indeed the Ten Commanmdments are as worthless as some seem to think, then why is it that adultery is still a legal basis for divorce, murder is stilll punishable, theft is still against the law, children are still expected to show respect to parents, truthful testimony is still expected in court, and people who are covetous are looked upon with suspicion?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Radrook
Neither our legal system nor our society in general shares such a view. If indeed the Ten Commanmdments are as worthless as some seem to think, then why is it that adultery is still a legal basis for divorce, murder is still punishable, theft is still against the law, children are still expected to show respect to parents, truthful testimony is still expected in court, and people who are covetous are looked upon with suspicion?

Because there are other reasons for that than "Bearded bloke gave us these rules from a mountain thousands of years ago"?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-


Because there are other reasons for that than "Bearded bloke gave us these rules from a mountain thousands of years ago"?

Our Western World Judicial systems cannot be separated historically from our Western Heritage which includes the Judeo Christian traditions. Without those traditions our sense of right and wrong would be very different.

BTW
There were practical social reasons why God gave the Israelites those commandments.

[Doctor X]

FYI:

"Canaanite" and "Irsaeli" religions were pretty much the same. These are artificial constructs created long after the fact.

The Conquest never happened. It was a "mythic past" to argue for the times of the composition of the texts.

10 Commandments:

Are artificial. They are not "ten" and there are different versions depending on the author "school."

The "terrrible" matters--such as killing "their" children--are sort of a "Ramboesque" fantasy--"once, we really, really kicked ass!"

--J.D.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Radrook
Neither our our legal system nor our society in general shares such a view If indeed the Ten Commanmdments are as worthless as some seem to think, then why is it that adultery is still a legal basis for divorce,
Because it is breaking a contract. In this case a marriage contract.

murder is still punishable,
Surely, you are not suggesting that murder is wrong solely because it appeared on a stone tablet that Moses brought down the mountain. Hundreds of societies that have never heard of the Ten Commandments have outlawed murder. The U.S. having statutes against murder is not evidence of our respect for the Decalogue.

theft is still against the law,
see last response

children are still expected to show respect to parents,
Not in the eyes of the law. If the Ten Commandments really were useful, then why not use all of the Mosaic Law. Leviticus 20:1 "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death."

truthful testimony is still expected in court,
Again, not unique to cultures exposed to the Ten Comandments.

and people who are covetous are looked upon with suspicion?

By whom!? Donald Trump is not looked upon with suspicion in this country. Covetousness is a way of life in America as is evidenced by lotteries, buying on credit, and a host of other activites and beliefs.

[Doctor X]

Well I think it clear that current federal laws on copywrite are based on not boiling kids in their milk. . . .

--J.D.

[evildave]

A nice article about the subject...

http://web.morons.org/feature/useless-commandments.jsp
In summary, we came up with only 3 out of 10 commandments that have any strong correlation to our society's laws: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Well, gee, Moses, aren't you just Mr. *********** Original with those three. I bet you and God sat on that hill for hours over tea coming up with those pearls of wisdom.

An even better article....
Which Ten Commandments
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

Has side-by-side comparison of KJV, Catholic, Hebrew versions. The Christian versions drop pesky details like having a different god (such as Jesus) before GOD, aka "the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." The Catholic version drops a lot of idolatry admonitions, while the Protestants put them back in, and then ignore them wherever convenient.

[Benguin]

children are still expected to show respect to parents,

No evidence Jesus did, quite the opposite.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

But were the attacks in the OT justified? What exactly were the Ca'aninites doing to the Hebrews? That, I would agree is not too clear. However, one can only think this was the original land the Hebrews had occupied (whether it specifically says this in the Bible or not I don't know?) before their departure into Egypt. But then again would this be justifiable if you had vacated your property for several hundred years, only to come back and find it occupied by someone else? There may have been extenuating circumstances. It's possible they were bitter enemies in the first place, and weren't abouts to allow the Israelites to resettle.

[Doctor X]

Oh what the hell:

I have learned to keep copies of researched answers to topics that arise on a number of sites--such as the Decalogue, the Documentary Hypothesis, whether or not Exodus or the Conquest happened, et cetera. I have updated some details.

This was originally compiled whilst I watch'd the New England Patriots defeat some guys from a southern state in the Super Bowl. . . .

The Decalogue

Well, it required a sacrifice of a small child--Staff did not post that warning against Girl Scouts sellers for no reason--upon the battlements, but the Patriots prevailed which allows me to cracketh my Friedman to address those Pesky Roughly 10 Commandments.

First, a brief summary of who the writers were according to Friedman's summary of the Documentary Hypothesis. His second source provides a nice summary of the arguments for multi-authorship in a 31-page introduction, whilst providing the texts of the Pentateuch divided into the authors. This makes seeing how the Redactor blended the J and P versions of the Flood Myth much easier, for example.

J: is the "Jahwist" author, known for his use of YHWH for the name of the deity. He never uses Elohim, though individuals in the J stories may. He comes from Judah. Friedman demonstrates the connection between J and Judah which I will not summarize for space. Hey, if you have not read the book yet, consider it a Christmas, Hanukah, or Annual Celebration of the Eternal Cycle of Life, Death, and Rebirth project.

E: is the "Eloist" author, known for his use of Elohim for the name of the deity. As noted on another thread, this is actually plural, and while the traditions may preserve a fully polytheistic conceptions, by context, the name refers to at least a deity more important than the others. Just to cause confusion, E will switch to YHWH after he appears to Moses and identifies himself as such. Friedman identifies him as a Shiloh Levite priest, possibly descended from the Mosaic line, named Bob [Stop that.--Ed.]. Right, again, he devotes about a chapter to the evidence for this.

D: is the Deutronomistic author, who, according to Friedman, writes a lot of the OT--Deuteronomy-Joshua-Judges-1 & 2 Samuel-1 & 2 Kings. He has similar attitudes as E--hates Aaronid priesthood: "In his introduction and conclusion to the book of Deuteronomy, he mentioned Aaron only twice: once to say that he died, and once to say that God was mad enough to destroy him in the matter of the golden calf." Long . . . long . . . long story short, Friedman suggests he is Jeremiah or, more likely, Jeremiah's scribe Baruch.

D generally uses JE, but does quote P to reverse P. For example, the book of Jeremiah contains quotes from P. It ". . . reverses the language of the P creation story, denies that God emphasized matters of sacrifices in the day that Israel left Egypt. Jeremiah knew the Priestly laws and stories. He did not like them, but he knew them."

P: is the "Priestly" author. He uses JE and follows the stories. Indeed, he uses Elohim like E, though, according to Friedman, his style is so identifiable, he was easy to separate from E. Also, the "Elohim" stories have "doublets"--repeated material--which suggests two authors. Friedman identifies him as an Aaronid priest, or one serving their interests. P promotes Aaron and diminishes Moses:

P was written as an alternative to JE. The JE stories regularly said: "And Yahweh said unto Moses. . . ." But the author of P often made it: "And Yahweh said unto Moses and unto Aaron. . . ."

Again, Friedman goes into detail. Here is a fun one for you Creation Fans:

. . . in the twin stories of the flood . . . the J version said that Noah took seven pairs of all the clean (i.e., fit for sacrifice) animals and one pair of the unclean animals on the ark. but P just said that it was two of every kind of animal. Why? Beacause, in J, at the end of the story Noah offers a sacrifice. He therefore needs more than two of each of the clean animals of his sacrifice would wipe out a species. In P's perspective, however, two sheep and two cows are enough because there will be no portrayals of sacrifices until the consecration of Aaron.

Now, let us define who wrote what:

E Writer: Ex 15:25b-26

There he [YHWH--Ed.] made for them a statute and an ordinance and there he proved them, saying, "if you will diligently hearken to the voice of YHWH your god, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give heed to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon you which I put upon the Egyptians; for I am YHWH, your healer."

okay . . . not much there. According to Friedman, the long E section of rules, Ex 21:1-27; 22:1-30; 23:1-33, is considered based on an earlier "Covenant Code" source. As noted below, E will have Moses do the "smash the tables" thing. Moses finds out about Aaron and his Golden Calf:

Ex 32:15-16 And Moses turned, and went down from the mountain with the two tables of the testimony in his hands, table that were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of god, and the writing was the writing of god, graven upon the tables.

J Writer: Ex 34:14-28

The YHWHistic Decalogue is actually part of a section of commandments. YHWH starts giving commandments right at the beginning of the chapter. Ex 34:1b has the Redactor explaining the problem that the J story does not have Moses smash the tablets.

YHWH said to Moses, "Cut two tables of stone like the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which you broke.

Friedman suggests that the E writer wished to raise doubts about Judah's central religious shrine--it could not have had the original tablets:

The Temple in Judah housed the ark that was supposed to contain the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. According to the E story of the golden calf, Moses smashes the tablets. That means that according to the E source the ark down south in the Temple in Jerusalem either contains unauthentic tables or not tablets at all.

The author of E, in fashioning the golden calf story, attacked both the Israelite and the Judean religious establishments. Both had excluded his group.

Nothing sets the "10 Commandments" apart in the J text. The J text that is similar to the Decalogue of the other writers is:

"(for you shall worship no other god, for YHWH is a jealous god), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they play the harlot after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and one invites you, you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters play the harlot after their gods and make your sons play the harlot after their gods. You shall make for yourself no molten gods. The feast of unleaven bread you shall keep. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month Abib; for in the month Abib you came out from Egypt. All that opens the womb is mine, all your male cattle, the firstlings of cow and sheep. The firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the first-born of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before me empty. Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; in plowing time and in harvest you shall rest. And you shall observe the feast of weeks, the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. Three times in the year shall all your males appear before YHWH god, the god of Israel. For I will cast out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any many desire your land, when you go up to appear before YHWH your god three times in the year. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning. The first of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of YHWH your god. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

And YHWH said to Moses, "Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And he was there with YHWH forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon tables the words of the covenant, the words. [The RSV admits to using "ten commandments" for the Hebrew "words."--Ed.]

and is considerably longer than ten! Good thing Former-Chief Justice Moore did not choose this version. Fans wilt note that this version contains the J version of my favorite commandment--child sacrifice! In this version, J allows "redeeming" the first-born whereas in the E commandment--considered part of the "Covenant Code"--no such redemption is allowed [Ex 22:29b--Ed.].

Where are our favorite commandments? No sabbath rule, no, "thou shalt nots"--kill/murder, covet, bear false witness--though be careful about boiling kids in their mother's milk.

P Writer: Ex 20:11-17

Similarly, these are not called the "10 Commandments," and the commandments are rather longer than ten. P, a big Aaron fan since the writer is considered part of the Aaronid priesthood, adds Aaron to the story.

And god spoke all these words, saying, "I am YHWH your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before/besides me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I YHWH your god am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not take the name of YHWH your god in vain; for YHWH will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Remember the sabbath day to sanctify it. Six days you shall labor and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath day to YHWH your god; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; because in six days YHWH made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day. Therefore YHWH blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which YHWH your god gives you. You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."

again, quite a bit of writing with little correspondence to the J version. Apparently, YHWH dictates different versions. I "corrected" the RSV version to Friedman's translation, because he notes that P quotes his own creation story. D, as seen below, prefers to cite the D reason for keeping commandments--he got you out of slavery. Friedman notes that a Dead Sea Scroll text combines both reasons [All Souls Deuteronomy Scroll--Ed.].

D Writer: Deut 5:6-17

[Perpetually dying Moses summons "all Israel" to re-state the commandments.--Ed.] "'I am YHWH your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of boundage. You shall have no other gods before/besides me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I YHWH your god am a jealous god, visiting the the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not take the name of YHWH your god in vain: for YHWH will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as YHWH your god commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath day to YHWH your god; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and YHWH your god brought you out from there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore YHWH your god commanded you to observe the sabbath day. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you, in the land which YHWH your god gives you. You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. Neither shall you steal. Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor. Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife; you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

Again, no mention of this "ten commandments." Notice the different reasons for keeping the sabbath in the D and P versions. We can see D quoting P material while dropping the P creation reference.

The reason for the differences, then, are different authors with different agendas.

--J.D.

Reference:

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1080647130/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9499964-0449663). 2nd Ed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997.

Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060530693/qid=1087891656/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6640207-4271068?v=glance&s=books). San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003.

[Z]

And with this, I predict Radrook will either attempt to discredit this author through some obscure foot-shuffling, attempt to ignore the whole by his 'believe it if you want to' ploy, or drop out entirely.

I'll be honestly surprised if he comes up with a good counter-argument, and if he does come up with an intelligent, well-researched rebuttal, I will place a Bible quote of his choosing into my Sig line.

BTW do you happen to have the multi-author stuff researched for the Gospels? I was trying to piece it out for myself and lost track - forgot how many authors the Gospels were supposed to have.

Thanks!

[Doctor X]

zaayrdragon:

Thank you!

Never fear, Radrook has been ignoring me for some time. He gave up when he could not answer one of my objections way, way back. As you note, demonstrating that he has no interest in debate or interest in scholarship and the subject he proports to know is "mean."

He certainly has not been able to deal with what I posted on Child Sacrifice on other threads!

Now, for the NT as an introduction, I would recommend Mack's basic Who Wrote the New Testament?. You will find it combined with the Who Wrote the Bible? above.

--J.D.

[Z]

Thanks, Doc X! I'll dig that one out soon!

At any rate, I think I'd be much more impressed with those who debate pro-Bible if they'd actually research their own text a bit... but anyone who does invariably loses faith in their Bible! I wonder why...

[Doctor X]

A lot do lose it as a basis for faith. Not all lose faith.

I have told this story probably too many times but . . . I had a mentor whose introductory course on the Bible started with like 30-40 students ranging from Orthodox Jews to Southern Baptist with gold-leafed Bibles.

Within a week he was down to about fifteen of us.

I think the statement, "Well of course there's no tradition of monotheism in the Old Testament!" wiped out ten students right there.

Anyways, over a coffee I asked him if he has had a teary-eyed coed who just had 15 odd years of faith demolished come up to him. He responded that, unfortunately, it was too common of an event. I asked him what does he tell the sobbing student, and he responded:

"I ask them do they have faith because of scripture or in spite of it."

In otherwords, if you need a text to tell you not to hurt people, you have a problem. I have related this story many times [Too many.--Ed.] I have only had two posters ever state that they may consider "evil stuff" like murder, rape, and country-western music fine if scripture were overturned!

You are correct, though, that if one starts studying the texts and the scholarship, they are faced with problems. However, they also gain some wonderfully interesting stuff. I find the story of the "10 Commandments" far more interesting given the competing version that just thinking there were "10 Things" that some guy wanted everyone to follow.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Benguin


No evidence Jesus did, quite the opposite.

No evidence that parents expect respect from thier children?
OK If you say so.


Jesus an example of disrespecting parents?

It can be looked at in that way.

But from my standpoint, since Jesus was totally aware of the commandments, I am 100% sure that is not what he was doing.

[Doctor X]

Fortunately, we have more objective and reliable standards for certainty.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Because it is breaking a contract. In this case a marriage contract.


God knew that it is a contract.


Surely, you are not suggesting that murder is wrong solely because it appeared on a stone tablet that Moses brought down the mountain.

No am not suggesting it--you are suggesting that I am suggesting it.


Hundreds of societies that have never heard of the Ten Commandments have outlawed murder. The U.S. having statutes against murder is not evidence of our respect for the Decalogue.


Now you have the United States depicted as a nation that despises the Ten Commandments. I think you are projecting.


Man being in God's image was given a moral capacity to perceive evil. It is not at all surprising that murder be perceived that way even before the Ten commandments were issued. In fact, the murder of Abel is condemned as evil soon after creation of man, and long before the Ten commandments came along.

Genesis 4:

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [4] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

(NIV)

Furthermore, that murder is perceived as evil by most humans does not invalidate the wisdom of having the prohibition included in the Ten Commandments. Actually, it reinforces the wisdom of including it because it is universally recognized that murder is a very grievous evil.



Not in the eyes of the law. If the Ten Commandments really were useful, then why not use all of the Mosaic Law. Leviticus 20:1 "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death."

The law had two functions as I explained above.
Obviously you chose not to read it or else read it and did not understand. Or maybe understood but simply don't accept.


By whom!? Donald Trump is not looked upon with suspicion in this country. Covetousness is a way of life in America as is evidenced by lotteries, buying on credit, and a host of other activites and beliefs. [/B]

You are conveniently ignoring what such an emotion can lead to.

A covetous person is one whose covetousness can lead him to try to do you in order to get what is yours. It is an emotion that led Cain to murder his brother. Hitler coveted the lands of other nations--millions died due to it. Japan coveted the natural resources of its neighbors and atrocities were committed to attain those coveted riches. Theft is committed based on covetousness. Saddam launched an attack on Kuwait based on coveting their oil fields.

I personally was almost killed and had my head split wide open by a covetous friend.

It is an emotion best avoided.

God knew to what it could lead.
That is why God gave a commandment against it.


BTW
Anyone associating with such a person and not caring what he is up to is either masochistic or else a fool.



Merriam Webster's Dictionary
Main Entry: cov·et
Pronunciation: 'k&-v&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English coveiten, from Old French coveitier, from coveitié desire, modification of Latin cupiditat-, cupiditas, from cupidus desirous, from cupere to desire
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to wish for enviously
2 : to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
intransitive senses
: to feel inordinate desire for what belongs to another

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Radrook


No evidence that parents expect respect from thier children?
OK If you say so.



Did I say that? Christians, when challenged about old testament absurdity say they look to the new testament for guidance. Are you acknowledging that parental respect is a secular concept now? Oh, well then I agree with you.


Jesus an example of disrespecting parents?

It can be looked at in that way.

But from my standpoint, since Jesus was totally aware of the commandments, I am 100% sure that is not what he was doing.

I'm aware of the commandments, most people are. They may or may not have their behaviour dictated by them. The Mosaic commandments are not the only places to talk about honouring/ respecting parents. I think you'll find the concept is not exclusive to judeo-christian cultures. Most parents are quite hot on the subject, whatever the prevalent belief system.

Jesus mentioned the third commandment a few times (or at least the gospels did). There is no single place where he honours his parents, in fact he is never recorded as having even spoken to his father.

Luke 14:26 is about the only place he makes an explicit observation on relationship to one's kin ... I'll let you look it up.

At the age of 12 he chastises his mother for wanting to know where he's been when for 3 days without phoning home, and at least twice refers to her as "woman".

Strikes me as a petulant brat, but that's just my opinion.

[Ladewig]

Raddok
Neither our our legal system nor our society in general shares such a view If indeed the Ten Commanmdments are as worthless as some seem to think, then why is it that adultery is still a legal basis for divorce, murder is stilll punishable, theft is still against the law, children are still expected to show respect to parents, truthful testimony is still expected in court, and people who are covetous are looked upon with suspicion?

Ladewig
Hundreds of societies that have never heard of the Ten Commandments have outlawed murder. The U.S. having statutes against murder is not evidence of our respect for the Decalogue.

Radook
Now you have the United States depicted as a nation that despises the Ten Commandments. I think you are projecting.

Wow. I was not intending to claim that the U.S. is a nation that despises the T.C. I was trying to refute your original claim that having laws against murder in the U.S. is not evidence of the worth or usefulness of the T.C. Even countries that have at times outlawed religion have always had laws against murder. Therefore, the U.S. having laws against murder is not necessarily tied to respect for the T.C. anymore than a law against obeying traffic signals is the result of worth of the T.C. Some U.S. laws are similar to some of the Ten Commandments. That in itself is not evidence that the T.C.s on a whole are useful.

Radook
You are conveniently ignoring what such an emotion can lead to.

A covetous person is one whose covetousness can lead him to try to do you in order to get what is yours. It is an emotion that led Cain to murder his brother. Hitler coveted the lands of other nations--millions died due to it. Japan coveted the natural resources of its neighbors and atrocities were committed to attain those coveted riches. Theft is committed based on covetousness. Saddam launched an attack on Kuwait based on coveting their oil fields.

I personally was almost killed and had my head split wide open by a covetous friend.

It is an emotion best avoided.

God knew to what it could lead.
That is why God gave a commandment against it.

If we are going to play that game, then let's talk about religious zeal. Here is an emotion that can lead to people enslaving or even killing other people. I think the idea that "we are God's chosen and you are not" has led to a heck of a lot more strife in the world than "I wish I had my neighbor's car." But, anyway, the point I was trying to make is covetness, or God's view of covetness, has nothing at all to do with "[the U.S.] legal system nor society in general."


Perhaps the T.C. are not worthless, but citing the U.S. legal system is not a valid way of showing their worth. As I said before, any numbered system of moral law that includes respect for parents and excludes laws against slavery and rape while at the same time putting women in the same classification as property is not the most worthy of moral codes. Furthermore, if the Writer of the moral code and the people following it both believe that it is appropriate to kill the children of their enemies after battle, then it is time to seek a different moral code.

[Ladewig]

Radook
Man being in God's image was given a moral capacity to perceive evil. It is not at all surprising that murder be perceived that way even before the Ten commandments were issued. In fact, the murder of Abel is condemned as evil soon after creation of man, and long before the Ten commandments came along.

Genesis 4:

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [4] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth


Before we call God the most qualified authority on deciding proper moral behavor, let's back up a few lines and see what lead to this murder. Cain and Abel bring forth gifts to God the loving Father who replies, "fruits and vegetables, feh. Burnt animal flesh, score! Now there's a real gift. Abel, I have respect for you. See you kids later. Behave, now." Mr. Infinite Wisdom couldn't see what this was going to lead to?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Before we call God the most qualified authority on deciding proper moral behavor, let's back up a few lines and see what lead to this murder. Cain and Abel bring forth gifts to God the loving Father who replies, "fruits and vegetables, feh. Burnt animal flesh, score! Now there's a real gift. Abel, I have respect for you. See you kids later. Behave, now." Mr. Infinite Wisdom couldn't see what this was going to lead to?

I posted that scripture in response to the idea that before the Ten Commandments nothing was said against murder. I did not post it to set off another argument about the scripture itself. Why? Because it is irrerelevant to the thread and goes off on a tangent. That's what causes these threads to become a hodge podge of ideas having nothing to do with the original subject.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Wow. I was not intending to claim that the U.S. is a nation that despises the T.C. I was trying to refute your original claim that having laws against murder in the U.S. is not evidence of the worth or usefulness of the T.C. Even countries that have at times outlawed religion have always had laws against murder. Therefore, the U.S. having laws against murder is not necessarily tied to respect for the T.C. anymore than a law against obeying traffic signals is the result of worth of the T.C. Some U.S. laws are similar to some of the Ten Commandments. That in itself is not evidence that the T.C.s on a whole are useful.



If we are going to play that game, then let's talk about religious zeal. Here is an emotion that can lead to people enslaving or even killing other people. I think the idea that "we are God's chosen and you are not" has led to a heck of a lot more strife in the world than "I wish I had my neighbor's car." But, anyway, the point I was trying to make is covetness, or God's view of covetness, has nothing at all to do with "[the U.S.] legal system nor society in general."


Perhaps the T.C. are not worthless, but citing the U.S. legal system is not a valid way of showing their worth. As I said before, any numbered system of moral law that includes respect for parents and excludes laws against slavery and rape while at the same time putting women in the same classification as property is not the most worthy of moral codes. Furthermore, if the Writer of the moral code and the people following it both believe that it is appropriate to kill the children of their enemies after battle, then it is time to seek a different moral code.

Well, I guess that you don't agree with me.
OK.
Suite yourself.

[Ladewig]

Radrook, i just realized that I misspelled your name on the previous posts. I apologize. I have seen my name misspelled on replies on this board and it bothered me. Again, I apologize.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Radrook, i just realized that I misspelled your name on the previous posts. I apologize. I have seen my name misspelled on replies on this board and it bothered me. Again, I apologize.



I hadn't noticed but thanks for the decency of explaining it so I do not foolishly reach an erroneous hasty conclusion . : )

[Z]

I see you're back to your usual answer... "Well, ya don't agree with me. Fine."

I wonder... have you ever once, even once, in your life admitted when someone has proven you wrong, or are all 'facts' merely subjects of potential interpretation with you?

Just curious...

[Ipecac]

Let's keep score, shall we?

God: I have created two perfect beings. Huzzah!

Score: God 2, Screwups 0

Adam & Eve: We ate of the tree.

God: D'oh! Oh, well, being omniscient, I knew that was going to happen. Yeah, that's the ticket. So, anyway, be fruitful and multiply!

Score: God 0, Screwups 2

Adam & Eve: We've had two boys. The population of the entire planet is doubled!

God: Huzzah! That certainly boosts my success rate!

Score: God 2, Screwups 2

Cain: Uh, you remember Abel? He's on the roof. (old joke).

God: Oy vey.

Final score: God 1, Screwups 3


So, God creates the first four people, and 3 of them, 75%, screw up in a major way. What a fabulous success story.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by scribble
(*Or that there were two sets of the commandments that we know about, plus one set that Moses destroyed and God had to rewrite... Or anything else that'll just confuse. Never mind all that.)

Hmm, did that happen before or after Moses dropped the tablet with the 11th through 15th commandments on it?

[Z]

Ipecac, that is CLASSIC! And it only gets better, the deeper into the Book you go!!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Agammamon


Hmm, did that happen before or after Moses dropped the tablet with the 11th through 15th commandments on it?

Did not drop--hurled.

[Doctor X]

Except in one of the versions he does not break-hurl-bend-fold-spindle-or mutilate the tablets.

--J.D.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Radrook


Our Western World Judicial systems cannot be separated historically from our Western Heritage which includes the Judeo Christian traditions. Without those traditions our sense of right and wrong would be very different.
What, rules like don't lie or steal would never have occurred to us without those trips up the mountain. Puhleeze.

The 10Cs added nothing to the world's jurisprudence, even at the time of their writing, much less now.

Assume, Radroook, that Moses never came back down. How would our "sense of right and wrong" be "very different" (My emphasis, your word).

[Ladewig]

So, God creates the first four people, and 3 of them, 75%, screw up in a major way. What a fabulous success story.

And by the time the flood comes along, the percentage of screw-ups is 99.999. Everybody except Noah's family. But after stepping out of the ark, the percentage of screw-ups is back to zero. Then Noah gets drunk, oops, the score is climbing again.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
BTW do you happen to have the multi-author stuff researched for the Gospels? I was trying to piece it out for myself and lost track - forgot how many authors the Gospels were supposed to have.

Thanks!
"Who Wrote the Gospels" by Randel Helms. Excellent read.

[Ladewig]

Radrook
Jesus an example of disrespecting parents?

It can be looked at in that way.

But from my standpoint, since Jesus was totally aware of the commandments, I am 100% sure that is not what he was doing.

Matthew's account: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" sounds like disrespect to me (even if He is quoting Psalms). In fact, it sounds like blasphemous disrespect to me.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by RSSchlueter
Assume, Radroook, that Moses never came back down. How would our "sense of right and wrong" be "very different" (My emphasis, your word).


Certain societies not exposed to the Mosaic Law have developed quite differently than they would have if they had been exposed.

For example, in certain Islands of the South Pacific, Societies developed wherein headhunting--murder via decapitation -- was deemed necessary in order for one to be attain the social status of being considered an honored male member of society.

Other societies have been encountered wherein lying became viewed as a very important virtue. In fact, when such tribes have been exposed to the story of Jesus being handed over by Judas Iscariot they wound up admiring Judas Iscariot for his being deceptively cunning.



The Inuit or Alaskan Eskimos found it somehow advantageous to routinely share their wives with guests as a gesture of hospitality. Under the Mosaic law that is adultery. They also found infanticide permissible, as well as abandoning of the old in the cold to be dispatched by bears so as not to carry the added burden of sustaining them.

This is something again prohibited by the Mosaic law under the murder and honoring of parents prohibition.

When Israel entered Canaan, it encountered tribes whose members were dishonoring their parents by committing incest. This incest involved mother son, daughter father sexual copulation something that if left in that area would have perhaps have spread to other areas and made human society much morally different from it is today.


Obviously not being exposed to the Mosaic Law did affect these people morally.

[Z]

On this, Rad has a point. Exposure to the Moses myth has left us with an unusual enforcement of certain laws and has shaped our society. Of course, we are equally shaped by the Code of Hammurabi... and strangely left largely untouched by the teachings of Jesus.

After all, the Golden Rule is presented as much more important than the Ten Commandments, at least for Christians... yet we don't base our laws on that at all.

I'm vastly ignorant in this field, Rad... how is our selective exclusion of the Golden Rule explained, anyway?

[Doctor X]

Compare it to the societies who were exposed.

"Gun, germs, and steel."

--J.D.

[Ladewig]

For example, in certain Islands of the South Pacific, [snip] The Inuit or Alaskan Eskimos

Yes there are examples of cultures where people commit the acts you describe, however they are rather few and far between. Furthermore, there are also numerous examples in history of societies that based their law on Mosaic rules and have committed genocide.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Yes there are examples of cultures where people commit the acts you describe, however they are rather few and far between. Furthermore, there are also numerous examples in history of societies that based their law on Mosaic rules and have committed genocide.

I know.
Israel, the people who originally recieved the commandments offered tgheir own children to be burned alive at one time.

[Doctor X]

Well . . . child sacrifice was part of one of the set of commandments from which the "10" were taken.

--J.D.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

After all, the Golden Rule is presented as much more important than the Ten Commandments, at least for Christians... yet we don't base our laws on that at all.That's because the law enforcement folks would be out of business, that is if people could learn to behave. ;) However, if peope would at least follow the Golden Rule, perhaps it would keep them from having to deal with the law enforcement folks so much?

[Radrook]

Jeremiah 7:31, “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.


And Jeremiah 19:5, “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I commanded them not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.


2 Timothy 3:16, 17: Every scripture was breathed out by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be competent, furnished for every good work.


So God himself via inspired writing is clear that such a requirement NEVER was given to Israel.

So why the accusation that it was?

Simple, those who strive to say otherwise are those who go to extrabiblical sources for their ammunition. Since such sources are susceptible to demonic influences it stands to reason that the original Edenic lie that God is a cruel and unjust God will be repeated via all available nonbiblical sources.

The Apostle Paul foretold the propagation of such demon-inspired doctrines:

1 Timothy 4:1: The Spirit says explicitly that in later times some will apostatize from the faith, entertaining errant spirits and devils’ doctrines.

[Benguin]

Genesis 22:2?


Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

I accept that might have been an isolated incident, especially as he seems to have moved on to wanting various bovines roasted for him exodus, leviticus etc ...

Which is what I assume was being referred to in Exodus 34:15

Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.

But then, what is it he means by redeem?

The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

I suppose it could be send him to train as a priest, or send him to the service of the church.

Here is the problem with asking others to ignore extra-biblical sources, whilst proposing your own intrepretations. They themselves are extra-biblical.

I'm not sure I see what Doc X is referring to about child sacrifice in the ten commandments, I don't quite see it. Ultimately you've said you disagree and sight quotes that state YWHW's opposition to sacrificing offspring, Doc X will (I'm sure, and I hope!) support his case.

Both are extra-biblical, and the original source is ambiguous because it suggests godd is both for and against the practice at different times.

And, frankly, Timothy is playing a no true scotsman card.

[Doctor X]

Apparently ignored this the first few times around. No matter, the classics merit repetition:

Child Sacrifice:

While traditionally more of a Christmas subject [Stop that.--Ed.] here is some more information on the subject of child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. Redemption in Exodus:

Different authors were responsible for different portions of the Pentateuch. I will use the Documentary Hypothesis as presented in Friedman.

Exod 34:19-20 Every first issue of the womb is Mine, from all your livestock that drop a male as firstling. . . . . . . And you must redeem every first-born among your sons.

Exod 13:1-2 YHWH said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine." [From RSV--Ed.]

"Redemption" does not happen until Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"

Exod 22:28-29 is part of the Elohist or E material. Exod 13 is controversial. Friedman notes the possibility of the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian or D material. Frankly, given the "distance" between redemption and the requirement, I think it possible that Exod 13:13b is an addition. However, assigning both Exod 22:28-29 and Exod 13 to E creates a "doublet" or a repetition of material. So, yes Spin, I can disagree with Friedman. . . . Someone hand Toto some smelling salts. . . .

Now, Exod 34:19-20 is assigned to the Yahwist/Jahwist or J material. Back to Levenson:

Though Exodus 34 and 13 show faithful YHWHists how they might--indeed, must--evade the sacrifice of their first-born sons, these texts also point up by contrast the absence of any such provision in the corpus of law in which Exod 22:28-29 appears.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks in Jeremiah 19:5-6:

They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal--which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind. Assuredly, a time is coming--declares the Lord--when this place shall not longer be called Topeth or Valley of Benihinnom ["Valley of the son of Hinnom" in RSV.--Ed.], but Valley of Slaughter.

Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote-edited both. He further speculates it is Baruch son of Neriyah. Anyways he dates the first "part" of D to before Josiah died in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts. Levenson comments:

The threefold denial of the origin of the practice in YHWH's will . . . suggests that the prophet doth protest too much. . . . If the practitioners of child sacrifice, unlike Jeremiah, thought that YHWH did indeed ordain the rite, then we may have here some indirect evidence that the literal reading of Exod 22:28b . . . was not absurd in ancient Israel, . . . It appears, instead, that Jeremiah's attacks on child sacrifice are aimed not only at the practice itself, but also at the tradition that YHWH desires it.

It's a fair cop! Ezek 20:25-26:

I [YHWH.--Ed.], in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord.

The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation:

Moreover I gave them statues that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; 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 I am the Lord.

in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson cites this in support of the contention:

. . . that only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH. . . .

But, whereas Jeremiah vociferously denied the origin of the practice in the will of YHWH, Ezekiel affirmed it: YHWH gave Israel "laws that were not good" in order to desolate them, . . . The evil that he once willed is the law that requires sacrifice of the first-born.

Combining this with the blunt statement that YHWH did indeed ordain child sacrifice, Ezek 20:25-26 has over the centuries had most exegetes running for cover.

Friedman dateth Ezekiel to the Babylonian exile. Smith cites this to indicate, "that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh." Schmidt agrees that this, ". . . indicates that YHWH gave Israel over to such a abomination, that is, if one is justified in assuming that the sacrifice of the firstborn was intimately related to, if not the same as . . . Molek sacrifice."

Isaiah 30:33

For the oven (topteh) has long been prepared, yea for the king (lammelek) it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breadth of YHWH, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it (Day).

Smith considers this the best evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel. Schmidt agrees that it ". . . clearly implicates YHWH in the child sacrifices performed at the Tophet. . . . If no such connection were intended in the use of this cult language to describe Assyria's total destruction, then one would have expected some disclaimer to that effect." Day notes that the, ". . . importance of this passage lies in the fact that it is set in a context speaking of the total destruction of the Assyrians. . . . . . . and is inconsistent with the view that merely dedication was involved."

Do Not Try to Pick Up Chicks in THIS Herem:

Collins article mention'd in post above discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists, indicating het. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read. Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various Somethingorotherakites--such as 1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Apparently he likes bunnies. . . . Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.]

The point Collins stresses:

The enemy is deemed worthy of being offered to God. [That refers to the argument of Niditch.--Ed.] One hopes that the Canaanites appreciated the honor. Rather than respect for human life, the practice bespeaks a totalistic attitude, which is common in armies and warfare, wherein the individual is completely subordinated to the interests of the group. Niditch is quite right, however, that the ban as sacrifice requires "a God who appreciates human sacrifice," and that those who practiced the ban "would presumably have something in common with those who believed in the efficacy of child sacrifice."

For those who might consider that those "devoted" to YHWH were given light cleaning duties in the Tabernacle, consider Lev 27:29 "No one devoted who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death."

Quod erat demonstrandum

--J.D.

References:

Albright WF. "The Moabite Stone," Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691035032/qid=1089187395/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8055445-3759946?v=glance&s=books), JB Pritchard, Ed., 3rd. Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Collins JJ, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, JBL 120 (2003): 3-21.

Day J. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1080647130/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9499964-0449663)

Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300065116/qid=1080646921/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Lüdemann G. The Unholy in Holy scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664257399/qid=1080647208/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books)

Niditch S. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195076389/qid=1080647354/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books). New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Schmidt BB. "The Aniconic Tradition," The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802841619/qid=1087214495/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0920779-1461501?v=glance&s=books). Edelman DV, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Smith M. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080283972X/qid=1086774305/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3411020-6434368?v=glance&s=books). 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002.

[Doctor X]

I'm not sure I see what Doc X is referring to about child sacrifice in the ten commandments, I don't quite see it. Ultimately you've said you disagree and sight quotes that state YWHW's opposition to sacrificing offspring, Doc X will (I'm sure, and I hope!) support his case.

See above.

The passages are part of the rules from which the "10 Commandments"--not even called that--are cherry pick'd.

Regarding the whole "God said to Abraham kill me a son. . . ." incident, it is notable that the portions involving the taking of Isaac to sacrifice are E whilst the "hey, just kidding" are J. Isaac disappears from the E text. This leads some scholars to speculate that Isaac actually gets sacrificed in E. Of course, it could be that the JE Redactor, when combining the versions, simply prefered the J versions of Isaac. I am not convinced by that, but until someone digs up the E source . . . probably under Q . . . it is speculation.

--J. "Over by Highway 61!" D.

[Radrook]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Benguin
Genesis 22:2?

Here is the problem with asking others to ignore extra-biblical sources, whilst proposing your own intrepretations. They themselves are extra-biblical. [quote]



Extrabiblical means not of the Bible.
How are the scriptures from the Bible that I cited and which state clearly that no such human sacrifice command was given Israel extra-biblical?

If my understanding of the scriptures that state that God did not command Israel to sacrifice their children in that way is wrong, how is it wrong?

Or do you merely want to express suspicion that it is wrong so as to remain uncommitted?

BTW
The reference to the Issac Abraham incident is irrelevant since it was merely a test of faith never intended to be carried out.

The other reference which has or will soon be posted is a misunderstanding of text. It is also a wrenching of text from context and an isolation of it which goes contrary to how other books are respectfully examined and evaluated for meaning.

As to the Scostsman reference, understanding that statement requires certain is cultural familirarity which I lack. Of course it does stioll come accross as antibiblical and as casting susdpicion on Timothy's motives. Since I have no reason to have such suspicions and you have provided none for my evaluation I remain unconvinced.

[Doctor X]

If he simply read the biblical texts. . . .

How are the scriptures from the Bible that I cited and which state clearly that no such human sacrifice command was given. . . .

If my understanding of the scriptures that state that God did not command Israel to sacrifice their children in that way is wrong, how is it wrong?

Exod 13:1-2 YHWH said to Moses, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine."

Ezek 20:25-26 I [YHWH.--Ed.], in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts--that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am YHWH.

Isaiah 30:27-33 For the oven (topteh) has long been prepared, yea for the king (lammelek) it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breadth of YHWH, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it (Day).

Last I looked, these were biblical texts. . . .

Quod erat demonstrandum

--J.D.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Radrook
Extrabiblical means not of the Bible.

How are the scriptures from the Bible that I cited and which state clearly that no such human sacrifice command was given Israel extra-biblical?


Oh understood and accepted, it's the interpretation required to resolve the contradictions that would be extra-biblical

Originally posted by Radrook
If my understanding of the scriptures that state that God did not command Israel to sacrifice their children in that way is wrong, how is it wrong?


Not at all wrong as your interpretation. The problem is that so much in the book is open to interpretation and it's difficult to nail down unambiguously the meaning without referring to extra-biblical sources or 'taking a punt' on what you think was going on.


Or do you merely want to express suspicion that it is wrong so as to remain uncommitted?


Not wrong, just your POV.


The reference to the Issac Abraham incident is irrelevant since it was merely a test of faith never intended to be carried out.


Fair point, but it still doesn't strike me as the actions of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. Hardly a moral way to communicate. Although that isn't relevant and going off topic!


The other reference which has or will soon be posted is a misunderstanding of text. It is also a wrenching of text from context and an isolation of it which goes contrary to how other books are respectfully examined and evaluated for meaning. [/B]

Are you clairvoyant? :D

I expressed reservations about the true meaning of redeem, as I would think it meant sacrifice that is what it would have said. I know Doc X is not one to fling about unsupported assertions so I was keen for clarification.

Are you saying the later references in the bible to what was meant by that commandment were also based on misunderstandings and then recorded in the Bible?

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Radrook

As to the Scostsman reference, understanding that statement requires certain is cultural familirarity which I lack. Of course it does stioll come accross as antibiblical and as casting susdpicion on Timothy's motives. Since I have no reason to have such suspicions and you have provided none for my evaluation I remain unconvinced.


Sorry, it's not a cultural thing ... it's just an identification of a logical fallacy for which I do not know the pretentious latin to impress you with.

Goes something like this;
Hamish: No scotsman would ever put sugar on his porridge, only salt.
Donald: But I'm scottish and I like sugar on my porridge
Hamish: Alright, no true scotsman likes sugar on his porridge.

In other words if we were to identify a group of christian believers and you were to tell me all christians believe in, say, the virgin birth ... one then puts his hand up and says he is christian, but doesn't hold with that particular piece of the story ... you respond no true ... etc ...

Not trying to ascribe belief or behaviour to you, just personalising the example!

What I meant by it, is Timothy asserting that people who disagree with his interpretation of the bible are apostatising with a forked tongue. It does seem to be an easy catch all for any disagreement ... and I'm not questioning Timothy's motives, it's just without providing specifics about what is and is not contemptable in his view the statement isn't that useful.

[Doctor X]

. . . it's just an identification of a logical fallacy for which I do not know the pretentious latin (sic) to impress you with.

Latin.

Argumentum ad non verus Caledoni

:D

--J.D.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Radrook
Since such sources are susceptible to demonic influences it stands to reason that the original Edenic lie that God is a cruel and unjust God will be repeated via all available nonbiblical sources.


Uh, as we've shown, I think the bible pretty clearly makes this case itself, without resort to extrabiblical sources.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Doctor X


Latin.

Argumentum ad non verus Caledoni

:D

--J.D.

Once again, my encounter with you leaves me educated. I thank you.

Possibly.

Would have been better if you'd inserted the latin for haggis in it.

[Doctor X]

The Latin for haggis might break the profanity rules. . . .

--J.D.

[Z]

Rad, I never knew you were such a comedian! This had me laughing for an hour...

Simple, those who strive to say otherwise are those who go to extrabiblical sources for their ammunition. Since such sources are susceptible to demonic influences it stands to reason that the original Edenic lie that God is a cruel and unjust God will be repeated via all available nonbiblical sources.

It's hilarious!

The usual nonsense - "Anything that says our Book is false is cause by Da Devil!"

History, archeology, anthropology, logic, concurrent texts... all planted by Da Devil to shed doubt on a book that really needs no help in that respect...

Which Devil, btw? The 'Fallen Angel'? The Adversary? Lucifer? Satan? Ba'alzebub? Mephistophiles? George Bush Jr? Old Nick? Nicholas Scratch? Astorath? KRYX? The Antichrist?

... Ah, my ribs hurt from laughing so much. Thanks, Rad... you made my day.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Radrook
The reference to the Issac Abraham incident is irrelevant since it was merely a test of faith never intended to be carried out.


So your god is a trickster god? Surely an all-knowing god knows what Abraham will do. So this god is toying with Abe for His own amusement?

[Benguin]

Radrook, I am genuinely interested in your point of view on this ...

The Ezekiel 20 and Isaiah 30 reference Doc X quotes do suggest that at least the belief existed that the Moses commandment meant kill your firstborn. I hadn't made the connection there until the good doctor pointed it out.

Do you contend it is mis-translation or that the people of the time mis-understood, or do you concede that Moses (and/or god) had commanded at the time that all first-born be sacrificed?

[Z]

See, now when I read that, I see a reference to sacrificing the first of your flocks, and a need to dedicate first born sons to God... I don't exactly see, without a bit of a stretch, where it's advising you to murder your firstborn sons, specifically... but, then, I may be confused.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
See, now when I read that, I see a reference to sacrificing the first of your flocks, and a need to dedicate first born sons to God... I don't exactly see, without a bit of a stretch, where it's advising you to murder your firstborn sons, specifically... but, then, I may be confused.

Well yes, that's were I was.

It's the later references

Ezequiel 20
25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts-the sacrifice of every firstborn [1] -that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD .'

NIV

I hadn't connected it ... but it does seem to state god stated 'kill your first-born' and then changed his mind when set against Exodus 34

"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

[Doctor X]

Gang:

The tragedy of those with a narrow viewpoint such as Radrook is they fail to appreciate the wonderful arguments between the texts.

The E story suggests that Isaac was sacrificed, but this is only a suggestion.

The E version of the commandment--which for some reason I did not include in actual quote:

Exod 22:28-29 "You shall not delay your fulfillment and your flowing.
"You shall give me the firstborn of your sons.
"You shall do this to your ox and to your sheep: Seven days it will be with its mother. On the eighth day you shall give it to me."

there is no "redemption" or substitution.

At some point, then, child sacrifice became something not part of the YHWH cult. What you have then is an artificial internal argument--since no one intended to have their writings combined with others!

You have the E document which advocates it--perhaps even establishing it in the Isaac story.

You have the J and P and even D trying to change it by allowing redemption.

Jeremiah protests too much--"Hey guys, it really was not me who wanted to fry your children!"

Ezekiel admits it then tries to explain it.

Those who try to cast devotion as sort of joining a "YHWH Scouts" rather than getting the torch are contradicted by the P Leviticus:

Lev 27:29 "Anyone who will be devoted from humans shall not be redeemed. He shall be put to death."

The point of the Isaiah passage is that in order for it to make sense, there would have had to been sacrifice.

The King of Moab's defeat of the Israelitesby the power of his god--presummably Chemosh--attests to the believed effectiveness of child sacrifice. The irony of the Jepthah's daughter is that it indicates that YHWH accepted and even expected human sacrifice. Review again the material on the hrm in which whole mythic people are sacrificed to YHWH.

Why?

If the "history" of the Conquest is mythic why would the writers "make up" human sacrifice. Two reason: first, human sacrifice was one--perhaps still--a part of the YHWH cult. Second, the writers wanted a past in which THEY had the opportunity to sacrifice enemies to YHWH.

At some point, sacrifice was suppressed, removed, cast aside, who knows? Archaeologically, they have not found a tophet. They have found a Cartheginian site that had child sacrifice well on into Roman times--1st century CE! Contrary to the belief that human sacrifice was something primitive people did, the amounts increased and sacrifice of animals--probable substitution decreased.

The "answer" to this is "we do not believe in that." However, to do that, a Radrook has to admit his Bible contains horrible matter. Thus far, he has two approaches:

1. He denies the material is there.
2. He tries to excuse it.

Unfortunately, the actual passages cannot be dismissed in that facile manner. Hence, he has fled thissubject yet again.

--J.D.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Unfortunately, the actual passages cannot be dismissed in that facile manner. Hence, he has fled thissubject yet again.

--J.D.

Sorry, I'm a bit new to R&P, is this expected behaviour?

[Doctor X]

Yes and no. . . .

10% who are difficult seem so much more than they really are. I have noticed that Radrook, specifically, startsignoring arguments he cannot answer. This is his usual behavior basedon his history.

More who feel like he does are willing to "duke it out." Granted, I do not think they succeed, but they make the section seem like "believers cannot debate." They are like atheists who assume that believer = idiot. There are few of them, but the extremity of the posts make them more noticeable.

For the most part, believers believe what they want despitewhatthe texts say--recognizing they were written by men, and atheistsare happy to discuss the subject without trying to force their views down the throats of others.

--J.D.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Benguin


Sorry, I'm a bit new to R&P, is this expected behaviour?

Nice Satanic Post!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Benguin
Radrook, I am genuinely interested in your point of view on this ...

The Ezekiel 20 and Isaiah 30 reference Doc X quotes do suggest that at least the belief existed that the Moses commandment meant kill your firstborn. I hadn't made the connection there until the good doctor pointed it out.

Do you contend it is mis-translation or that the people of the time mis-understood, or do you concede that Moses (and/or god) had commanded at the time that all first-born be sacrificed?


Under the Mosaic Law child sacrifice was punishable by death!


Leviticus 20:2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [ 20:2 Or [ sacrifices ] ; also in verses 3 and ] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him.

It was considered a blasphemy against God himself.

Leviticus 18:21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [ 18:21 Or [ to be passed through ] [ the fire ] ] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD . NIV



Child sacrifice was one of th practices why God saw the Caananites as morally defiiled, as unfit to live next to his people. He describes them as a sickess to the land and the land must vomit them out:


Lev 20:
22 " 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.

23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.

24 But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

Leviticus 18:25
Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

He also repeatedly warns Israel that if they imitate them then they too will be removed from the land.


Leviticus 18:28
And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Leviticus 20:22
" 'Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.

So there is no way that such scriptures you mention could mean that God was telling them to imitate the child-sacrificing Caanabites.

The nation did deviate from the law. But
God repeatedly sent prophets to condemned Israel whenever the nation did worship that manner.

An attempt to make the the scriptures you mention go completely coontrary to what all the other scriptures say and to twist or mangle what they say in order to produce seeming contradiction is merely that-- an attempt-nothing more.

Jeremiah 7:31,
“And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

Jeremiah 19:5,
“They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I commanded them not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by triadboy


So your god is a trickster god? Surely an all-knowing god knows what Abraham will do. So this god is toying with Abe for His own amusement?
There's something even more important to notice about the incident: supposedly, it was a "test". Besides the pervesity of asking someone to kill their child as some sort of "test", there's the fact that God considered agreeing to as "passing". So the clear message is that one should kill one's children if God asks. Any objection elsewhere in the Bible to killing one's children therefore cannot be based on an objection to the killing itself, but rather on the premise that God did not ask for it. Those other cultures that praticed human sacrifice were not evil, according to the Bible's logic, just mistaken. Human sacrifice is not wrong; human sacrifice without God asking for it is wrong.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

There's something even more important to notice about the incident: supposedly, it was a "test". Besides the pervesity of asking someone to kill their child as some sort of "test", there's the fact that God considered agreeing to as "passing". So the clear message is that one should kill one's children if God asks. Any objection elsewhere in the Bible to killing one's children therefore cannot be based on an objection to the killing itself, but rather on the premise that God did not ask for it. Those other cultures that praticed human sacrifice were not evil, according to the Bible's logic, just mistaken. Human sacrifice is not wrong; human sacrifice without God asking for it is wrong.


The preponderance of scripture points in the opposite direction.
Why you choose to feign respect for this scripture and methodically and cunningly IGNORE all others is glaringly clear.

IF you give equal footing to all the others your argument comes under the danger of tumbling down like the proverbial deck of cards.

[Radrook]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Art Vandelay
[B]
There's something even more important to notice about the incident: supposedly, it was a "test". Besides the pervesity of asking someone to kill their child as some sort of "test", there's the fact that God considered agreeing to as "passing". So the clear message is that one should kill one's children if God asks. Any objection elsewhere in the Bible to killing one's children therefore cannot be based on an objection to the killing itself, but rather on the premise that God did not ask for it. Those other c

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Radrook
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Art Vandelay
[B]
There's something even more important to notice about the incident: supposedly, it was a "test". Besides the pervesity of asking someone to kill their child as some sort of "test", there's the fact that God considered agreeing to as "passing". So the clear message is that one should kill one's children if God asks. Any objection elsewhere in the Bible to killing one's children therefore cannot be based on an objection to the killing itself, but rather on the premise that God did not ask for it. Those other c

The test was much more than just a test.
It was prophetic drama symbolizing how God would be willing to give his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.


About God wanting us to kill our children in order to please him because he provided us wih a prophetic drama in relation top our salvation, well--such a conclusion can only be arrived at via very grea almostt superhuman and sinister type o mental effort at extracting meaning that is not there.

Perhaps a dash of wishlf thinking buttressed by some powerful inner need might can get one over the hurdle. But without that psychological turbo boost--it is really impossible to arrive at that conclusion based on this prophetic drama of Christ's future sacrifice in behalf of mankind.


BTW
I am struggling to post an answer due to technical difficulty messages. . This limits my response ability. I am sure no one else is having this trouble since posts are appearing very frequently.

[Radrook]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Radrook
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Art Vandelay
[B]
There's something even more important to notice about the incident: supposedly, it was a "test". Besides the pervesity of asking someone to kill their child as some sort of "test", there's the fact that God considered agreeing to as "passing". So the clear message is that one should kill one's children if God asks. Any objection elsewhere in the Bible to killing one's children therefore cannot be based on an objection to the killing itself, but rather on the premise tha

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Radrook
Extrabiblical means not of the Bible.

How are the scriptures from the Bible that I cited and which state clearly that no such human sacrifice command was given Israel extra-biblical?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oh understood and accepted, it's the interpretation required to resolve the contradictions that would be extra-biblical

That's the problem right there.
The verses aren't written in Yiddish are they?
Plain English as far as I can see.
Yet you seem impervious to their obvious meaning.
Or at least appear to want to appear impervious.
Nice try but no cigar!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ladewig


Matthew's account: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" sounds like disrespect to me (even if He is quoting Psalms). In fact, it sounds like blasphemous disrespect to me.

He was dramatizing man's abandoned sinful conditiuon.
At the moment he was carrying all our sins and was technically in that abandoned state that Adam put us in.

[Doctor X]

The boy just cannot handle the scholarship or the texts.

He can cherry pick bold all he wants, but the "thrice over denial" of Jeremiah, the affirmation of Ezekiel, the demand of E, the acknowledgement of J and P--incidentally, Leviticus is from that later P material which he would know if he gained the courage to crack a book that does not require crayons for full enjoyment.

Why does he not address THE TEXTS quoted to him.

He cannnot.

Coward

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Benguin


There's cannabilism all over the place, as well as kidnap and rape and the bible specifically sanctions murdering civilians in a war campaign. Isaiah 13 is particularly juicy as it again talks specifically about slaughtering infants, but this time the women are ravished and not murdered, so that's alright.

That's why all the cannibalism is going on in countries where the Bible is read and rape and killing infants and incinerating Dresdens and uuuuuuuuum hiroshimamamamas. A yaya!



elicebmi

[Z]

OK, Rad is now a moron:

Originally posted by Doctor X (since Radrook ignorantly has him on ignor)
Apparently ignored this the first few times around. No matter, the classics merit repetition:

Child Sacrifice:

While traditionally more of a Christmas subject [Stop that.--Ed.] here is some more information on the subject of child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. Redemption in Exodus:

Different authors were responsible for different portions of the Pentateuch. I will use the Documentary Hypothesis as presented in Friedman.





"Redemption" does not happen until Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"

Exod 22:28-29 is part of the Elohist or E material. Exod 13 is controversial. Friedman notes the possibility of the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian or D material. Frankly, given the "distance" between redemption and the requirement, I think it possible that Exod 13:13b is an addition. However, assigning both Exod 22:28-29 and Exod 13 to E creates a "doublet" or a repetition of material. So, yes Spin, I can disagree with Friedman. . . . Someone hand Toto some smelling salts. . . .

Now, Exod 34:19-20 is assigned to the Yahwist/Jahwist or J material. Back to Levenson:



The lady doth protest too much, methinks in Jeremiah 19:5-6:



Levenson gives the date for Jeremiah between late 7th and early 6th centuries BCE. Friedman argues strongly for the connection between the D material and Jeremiah and that the same author wrote-edited both. He further speculates it is Baruch son of Neriyah. Anyways he dates the first "part" of D to before Josiah died in 609 BCE and the second after the Babylonian destruction and exile in 587 BCE. The relevance of that is the lateness of the texts. Levenson comments:



It's a fair cop! Ezek 20:25-26:



The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation:



in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson cites this in support of the contention:



Friedman dateth Ezekiel to the Babylonian exile. Smith cites this to indicate, "that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh." Schmidt agrees that this, ". . . indicates that YHWH gave Israel over to such a abomination, that is, if one is justified in assuming that the sacrifice of the firstborn was intimately related to, if not the same as . . . Molek sacrifice."

Isaiah 30:33



Smith considers this the best evidence for the early practice of child sacrifice in Israel. Schmidt agrees that it ". . . clearly implicates YHWH in the child sacrifices performed at the Tophet. . . . If no such connection were intended in the use of this cult language to describe Assyria's total destruction, then one would have expected some disclaimer to that effect." Day notes that the, ". . . importance of this passage lies in the fact that it is set in a context speaking of the total destruction of the Assyrians. . . . . . . and is inconsistent with the view that merely dedication was involved."

Do Not Try to Pick Up Chicks in THIS Herem:

Collins article mention'd in post above discusses the herem, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction." There is a "." underneath the "h" for ye purists, indicating het. This section alone makes Collins' article worth a read. Basically, he notes that the various YHWH-ordered smiting of various Somethingorotherakites--such as 1 Sam 15:3: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy (hrm) all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Apparently he likes bunnies. . . . Anyways, the herem is not an odd practice. The Moabite Stone erected by the 9th century BCE King Mesha has him squishing "Nebo from Israel" and offering "seven thousand men, boys, women, girls, and maid-servant" to Ashtar-Chemosh. [Text of Moabite Stone is from the ANET.--Ed.]

The point Collins stresses:



For those who might consider that those "devoted" to YHWH were given light cleaning duties in the Tabernacle, consider Lev 27:29 "No one devoted who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death."

Quod erat demonstrandum

--J.D.

References:

Albright WF. "The Moabite Stone," Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691035032/qid=1089187395/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8055445-3759946?v=glance&s=books), JB Pritchard, Ed., 3rd. Ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Collins JJ, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, JBL 120 (2003): 3-21.

Day J. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060630353/qid=1080647130/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-9499964-0449663)

Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300065116/qid=1080646921/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Lüdemann G. The Unholy in Holy scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0664257399/qid=1080647208/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books)

Niditch S. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195076389/qid=1080647354/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-9499964-0449663?v=glance&s=books). New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Schmidt BB. "The Aniconic Tradition," The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802841619/qid=1087214495/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0920779-1461501?v=glance&s=books). Edelman DV, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Smith M. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080283972X/qid=1086774305/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3411020-6434368?v=glance&s=books). 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002.

IF you bother to read through that, you'll see how the Bible does in parts suggest that child sacrifice is acceptable and expected. No, the entire bible doesn't claim this; but this is another field in which your ignorance shines through: belief in the TOTALITY of the Bible. You think contradictory passages are easily reconciled, or explained away; well, they're not. They're just contradictory. Just like the Noah problem (Was it two of every clean beast, or seven?), the problem with Genesis (Was man created before, or after, animals?) and every other contradiction scattered about the bible.

IF you give equal footing to all the others your argument comes under the danger of tumbling down like the proverbial deck of cards.

But we're not giving equal footing to ANY of it... In fact, it's YOU who insists that the whole Bible is consistent and correct. We're happy to agree that parts of the bible contradict other parts. We just want to show you the very passages Christians HAVE used in the past to excuse the practice of child sacrifice - which archaeology shows was a common practice for some tribes of Israel and even early Christians in remote areas, i.e. areas in which the Pagan Romans were unable to enforce laws preventing Jews and Christians from sacrificing their own kids. (After all, that was a Roman right - they had to have stock for the Coliseum, eh?)

Perhaps a dash of wishlf thinking buttressed by some powerful inner need might can get one over the hurdle. But without that psychological turbo boost--it is really impossible to arrive at that conclusion based on this prophetic drama of Christ's future sacrifice in behalf of mankind.

Prophetic drama, eh? So this story isn't literal, but symbolic; a tale told to help fortell the Redemption, eh?

And the Redemption itself? Evidence points to this being wishful thinking buttressed by some powerful inner need - specifically, the need of the Church to compete with Zoroastrianism (sp?). According to the earliest Gospel text, Yeshua ben Yosef was a Jewish Itinerate teacher whose message was radical enough to warrant notice. He gathered a group of disciples, numbering about 50 (not 12, as the Bible states), faced some persecution from the Romans, and either married Mary Magdalene and lived in peace to the end of his days, or died in a Roman prison - I can't seem to pin down which is the accurate history.

Years (even decades) later, the additional parts of the tale were added, first to apply the Jewish prophecy about a Saviour who would lead the Jews to military victory over their enemies, then later carefully airbrushed into a new 'prophecy' with a borrowed story about ressurection and salvation, allowing Christianity to gain a firm foothold and overcome its enemies.

Of course, even though this is all based on reams of evidence, both archaeological and historic, even based on sacred texts rejected by the Roman Catholic Church, this is all the work of Satan, right?

The verses aren't written in Yiddish are they? Plain English as far as I can see. Yet you seem impervious to their obvious meaning. Or at least appear to want to appear impervious.

MORE COMEDY!

Rad, you kill me!

The verses weren't written 'in plain English', you MORON. They were written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew... probably other tongues as well, then TRANSLATED (through a long and painful process) into English.... oh, I don't know, how many times? And each translation says something different.

Therefore, you display a stunning ignorance in this.

So, tell me, what is the OBVIOUS MEANING of the original texts, in their original language, smart guy? I'm betting you don't really have a clue.

That's why all the cannibalism is going on in countries where the Bible is read and rape and killing infants and incinerating Dresdens and uuuuuuuuum hiroshimamamamas. A yaya!

There you go using Dresden and Hiroshima - both incidencts started by so-called Christians. Cannibalism is rare, even among non-Christians now, so that's an empty argument. Rape? Rape is highest, if I'm not mistaken, in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic nations than anywhere else in the world, idiot. Killing infants? Well, abortion counts, but at least in that, the Christians are making a strong stand (and I support them there - abortion is just plain wrong).

Anyway, you seem confused, ignorant, and unable to argue clearly. I suggest taking Gingko Biloba and watching two hours of the Discovery Channel during Easter week.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Yes and no. . . .

10% who are difficult seem so much more than they really are. I have noticed that Radrook, specifically, startsignoring arguments he cannot answer. This is his usual behavior basedon his history.

More who feel like he does are willing to "duke it out." Granted, I do not think they succeed, but they make the section seem like "believers cannot debate." They are like atheists who assume that believer = idiot. There are few of them, but the extremity of the posts make them more noticeable.

For the most part, believers believe what they want despitewhatthe texts say--recognizing they were written by men, and atheistsare happy to discuss the subject without trying to force their views down the throats of others.

--J.D.

Funny that you should be so interested in me.
Especially when I am not in the least interested in you.
But what the hey.
As they say.
Let the games begin!

[Radrook]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctor X
Yes and no. . . .

10% who are difficult seem so much more than they really are. I have noticed that [b]Radrook, specifically, startsignoring arguments he cannot answer. This is his usual behavior basedon his history.

More who feel like he does are willing to "duke it out." Granted, I do not think they succeed, but they make the section seem like "believers cannot debate." They are like atheists who assume that believer = idiot. There are few of them, but the extremity of the posts make them more

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Yes and no. . . .

10% who are difficult seem so much more than they really are. I have noticed that Radrook, specifically, startsignoring arguments he cannot answer. This is his usual behavior basedon his history.

More who feel like he does are willing to "duke it out." Granted, I do not think they succeed, but they make the section seem like "believers cannot debate." They are like atheists who assume that believer = idiot. There are few of them, but the extremity of the posts make them more noticeable.

For the most part, believers believe what they want despitewhatthe texts say--recognizing they were written by men, and atheistsare happy to discuss the subject without trying to force their views down the throats of others.

--J.D.

The truth of the matter is that this site is an infestation that only God can fumigate via direct action and is best left in his Holy hands.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Yes and no. . . .

10% who are difficult seem so much more than they really are. I have noticed that Radrook, specifically, startsignoring arguments he cannot answer. This is his usual behavior basedon his history.

More who feel like he does are willing to "duke it out." Granted, I do not think they succeed, but they make the section seem like "believers cannot debate." They are like atheists who assume that believer = idiot. There are few of them, but the extremity of the posts make them more noticeable.

For the most part, believers believe what they want despitewhatthe texts say--recognizing they were written by men, and atheistsare happy to discuss the subject without trying to force their views down the throats of others.

--J.D.

The truth of the matter is that this site is an infestation that only God can fumigate via direct action and is best left in his Holy hands since anything short of that is a waste.

[Z]

Cop-out. Loser. Fool.

Truth is, we've spotted the jester, in spite of his hiding his belled cap.

So, let's get back to some good debating. I need more laughter, O Clown Prince of Judea!

[Doctor X]

zaayrdragon:

So he thinks the texts were written in English. . . .

Notice the Coward flees from the textual evidence and scholarship.

He is reduced to scurrying occassionally from his hole and blurting out a snipe . . . wait, this is clever . . . sdrawkcab epins!

Inform me should he develop a spine.

--J.D.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Benguin
Radrook, I am genuinely interested in your point of view on this ...

The Ezekiel 20 and Isaiah 30 reference Doc X quotes do suggest that at least the belief existed that the Moses commandment meant kill your firstborn. I hadn't made the connection there until the good doctor pointed it out.

Do you contend it is mis-translation or that the people of the time mis-understood, or do you concede that Moses (and/or god) had commanded at the time that all first-born be sacrificed?

I specifically went and read those two chapters you mention and found nothing to justify the idea that God commanded child sacrifices in direct, contradiction of what he had previously stated to Israel at the outset concerning that practice.


If the Bible is approached with the intention of making it mean something, then the person with that intention will make it appear to mean what he purposefully set out to make it mean.

Such persons can be easily identified by two very common characteristics--


1. the taking of scripture completely out of context

2. the systematic stubborn refusal to permit other relevant scriptures to shed necessary light on the targeted text.


When other texts are presented, they are ignored and proclaimed as irrelevant regardless of their direct reference to the subject matter.

You see, admission that other texts are relevant would make it impossible to give any targeted scripture a chosen spin.

So in order to avoid that deadly hindrance, ignoring and
adopting a fragmentary approach in order to give
an illusion of support is essential.

[Radrook]

Yes and no. . . .
Radrook, specifically, startsignoring arguments he cannot answer. This is his usual behavior basedon his history.

1. Discontinued arguments are arguments that the person is unabler to answer.

2. Radrook discontinued an argument.

3. That argument an argument he is unable to answer.



The person making the above accusation confuses unwillingness with inability.

1. Discontinuation of arguments is based on the person's history.

2. Radrook discontinued this argument.

3. That discontinuation is based on his history.




Now he proceeds to assume that all behavior is traceable to a person's history and has nothing to do with any present annoying stimulus which might convince the person that discussion with irrationals is a waste.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Cop-out. Loser. Fool.

Truth is, we've spotted the jester, in spite of his hiding his belled cap.

So, let's get back to some good debating. I need more laughter, O Clown Prince of Judea!

I suggest you tone it down a little.
Well, unless you don't really value your posting privileges.
After all, you are blatantly breaking the forum regulations here and that can lead to rather unpleasant consequences snce the administrator of this place just recently made it crystal clear that such infringements will not go unnoticed.

IMHO : )

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Yes and no. . . .

10% who are difficult seem so much more than they really are. I have noticed that Radrook, specifically, startsignoring arguments he cannot answer. This is his usual behavior basedon his history.

More who feel like he does are willing to "duke it out." Granted, I do not think they succeed, but they make the section seem like "believers cannot debate." They are like atheists who assume that believer = idiot. There are few of them, but the extremity of the posts make them more noticeable.

For the most part, believers believe what they want despitewhatthe texts say--recognizing they were written by men, and atheistsare happy to discuss the subject without trying to force their views down the throats of others.

--J.D.


My my my.
How skilled we are at namecalling aren't we?

Well, anyway:

You mean this scripture?


Exodus 22


29 "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. [7]
"You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

That was just meant to be a ritualistic presentation of property to God as a gesture of respect for his ownership and universal sovereignty.


What the "good" doc conveniently decides to hide from our view and the view of his unsuspecting victims is that the whole procedure DEMANDED a redemption of the human firstborn.

A symbolical buying back from God of both firstborn unclean animals and human firstborn meant that they would not be actually sacrificed.



In Jesus' day the ritualistic redemption of the firstborn was done via the giving of five shekels.

It was a symbolic act acknowledging that God owned all creation.
Nothing more.



Excerpt:


Who Owns Everthing?
'Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep...' (22:29-30). 'Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord' (23:19).


For the ancients the 'firstborn' son was the promise of the future as to family, the firstborn animal and firstfruits of crops, grapes and olives were the promise of future prosperity.

These were all to be offered to God. The firstborn of clean animals was to be sacrificed, the firstborn of unclean animals (say, a donkey) was to be redeemed or killed and the firstborn of humans was to be redeemed with silver.


But why were they offered to God? It was a confession that everything belonged to God, he was the creator and giver. Eve confessed 'With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man' (En 4:1; Deuteronomy 28:1-6; Leviticus 25:23).

It was a token of gratitude for what the Lord had done and promised to do. It was a signal for celebration when, having confessed and expressed thankfulness, they gave themselves over to joy (Deuteronomy 26:1-11).


http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/experienced/exodus/nineteen/whoownseverything.htm

Which again illustrates what have repeatedly pointed out.

That those who mislead you are hen-pecking and rooster- strutting and generally mangling everything biblical tthey come across in order to make it SEEM as IF it is so when in fact it isn't.

They also are quite adept at namecalling!
Which is totally irrelevant to their assertions about God or the Bible and still doesn't prevent their pathetic arguments from topling like the proverbial house of cards.

[Z]

Ah, so then you DO accept evidence from extra-biblical sources? Since there's no mention of 5-sheckel redemption in the Bible...

Therefore, your earlier statement was either a lie, or your use of an extra-biblical source is a hypocracy. Therefore, you are either a liar or a hypocrite.



Cop-out. Loser. Fool. Truth is, we've spotted the jester, in spite of his hiding his belled cap. So, let's get back to some good debating. I need more laughter, O Clown Prince of Judea!

Let's see - you DO cop-out of argument. You HAVE lost numerous arguments (though doubtless you fail to see it this way). Your system of logic and argumentation mark you as a fool.

Frankly, I have a feeling, if I somehow offended the Admins, I'd know it by now. After all, both sides have been equally guilty of name-calling - You DID call someone Satan, after all, which I would think would be a greater crime than calling someone a jester; you've inferred that all ATHEISTS are MURDERERS, or at the very least, that two major ATROCITIES were caused by ATHEISTS. That's name-calling, too.

You want to reconsider your empty threats, Pot? 'Cuz the Kettle ain't scared.

Now, do you use extra-biblical sources, or don't you? Which is it? If you can use EVEN ONE extra-biblical source for knowledge, then so can we; it's a two-way street, ya moron.

[Radrook]

zaayrdragon
Critical Thinker

Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Chaos, USA
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cop-out. Loser. Fool. Truth is, we've spotted the jester, in spite of his hiding his belled cap. So, let's get back to some good debating. I need more laughter, O Clown Prince of Judea!


My my my!
You sure are angry aren't you.
I must have said something to tick you off.
Wonder what it was?
Oh well.





;)

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Doctor X
zaayrdragon:

So he thinks the texts were written in English. . . .

Notice the Coward flees from the textual evidence and scholarship.

He is reduced to scurrying occassionally from his hole and blurting out a snipe . . . wait, this is clever . . . sdrawkcab epins!

Inform me should he develop a spine.

--J.D.

Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek?

BTW


;)

[Doctor X]

Zaayrdragon:

The OT texts of the Pentateuch were not written in Aramaic, nor were the NT texts.

"BTW"

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Exactly "when" the tradition of redmption came into play is unknown, though it persists as a tradition, incidentally. Levenson, hardly an atheist , discusses it in his work.

Leviticus reflects the later [b]P or "Priestly" source. I tend to agree with Friedman's dating since I have not seen a decent rebuttal of his summary for an earlier date for P. Neverthless, it is later than J or E. Scholars tended to consider P "post-exilic."

P requires centralization and control by the Levites--hence him going all wet over Aaron. Indeed, one of the easiest exercises is identifying the P source in Genesis and Exodus in English; it is that obvious.

So . . . by either Friedman's earlier date or at least by post-exilic times, you have a movement to end child sacrifice. How "popular" it was is anyone's guess--lack of evidence. For example, we know it was "popular" in Carthage because of the "Catheginian Topheth which ran for centuries.

J seems to push toward ending it. E--particularly if he let Isaac "get it"--seemed to allow it--his demand has no redemption.

This is why recognizing the different authors of the texts is important. It explains the repetitions, the contradictions, indeed the polemic. Moses is rather a fool in P with Aaron running about as the "real" guy. Not so the other authors!

The Mesha story and, particularly the Jepthah story, are very suggestive. First, Mesha is a real king--see the Moabite stone reference. Did the episode described actually happen? Probably not; however, it demonstrates that by the time of the later Deuteronomistic history, sacrifices were seen as effective--heck, the Moabite god kicks YHWH's butt because of it!

Worse with Jepthah . . . whereas the Hellenistic deities punish Tantalus for his sacrifice of his son, YHWH has no problem with Jepthah's sacrifice of his child.

The story is a "uh oh" King Midas type of "careful what your wish for." Sometimes the price proves more horrible than the reward. It is also a slap of sorts. Jepthah sees no problem with sacrificing some stranger . . . until it is his daughter.

The other part is that he goes through with it and YHWH does not punish him!

Furthermore, at some point sacrifice becomes theologically problematic--much like YHWH ordering David to conduct a census so he can punish Israel for conducting the census!! The Chronicler adds Satan to the story to somewhat clean the hands of YHWH.

Thus the denials in Jeremiah and the explanation in Ezekiel. Ezekiel is arguing that the sacrifices are no longer necessary--scared enough parent, apparently!

In defense of "extrabiblical" material, one of the most important is archaeology.

--J.D.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Radrook
I specifically went and read those two chapters you mention and found nothing to justify the idea that God commanded child sacrifices in direct, contradiction of what he had previously stated to Israel at the outset concerning that practice.

It probably didn't help that I quoted completely the wrong chapter numbers in my last message though. Doh!
The passages had already been quoted previously, I should've taken more care. Sorry.

Redeem your firstborn:
Exodus 34 and mentioned in Numbers 18
I meant sacrifice, but not anymore;
Ezekiel 20


If the Bible is approached with the intention of making it mean something, then the person with that intention will make it appear to mean what he purposefully set out to make it mean.


I cannot believe that something you expect people to use as a moral guide could or should be so ambiguous, you are tending back toward the argument you ran from before; that we must all seek your interpretation of what is in the book.


Such persons can be easily identified by two very common characteristics--


ad hom, and laughably poor.


When other texts are presented, they are ignored and proclaimed as irrelevant regardless of their direct reference to the subject matter.

You mean contradictions within the bible or extra-biblical sources?

You see, admission that other texts are relevant would make it impossible to give any targeted scripture a chosen spin.

We both can spin it any we choose, such is the ambiguity of what is presented.

So in order to avoid that deadly hindrance, ignoring and
adopting a fragmentary approach in order to give
an illusion of support is essential.

It's pleasing you actually went and read the bits quoted, but as I screwed up and misdirected you it was wasted effort. Sorry again.

CONTEXT: Moses relating commandments apparently given him by YWHW ... this is on the second attempt to chisel them out of stone;
Exodus 34
"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

As we said, I didn't think redeem actually meant sacrifice. But this suggests, either it did, or it was mis-understood to mean that.

CONTEXT: The LORD telling israeli elders off for their people not following his teachings properly;

Ezekiel 20
25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; 26 I let them become defiled through their gifts-the sacrifice of every firstborn [1] -that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD .'


It does explain that in doing this YWHW did not suggest it was good behaviour, more that he was trying to teach them a lesson. However, that does not change what has been admitted to.

That number [1] is an annotation from the NIV referring the reader to an alternative translation "making every firstborn pass through the fire "

So is this mistranslation? is it based on some later misunderstanding of the commandment given? The ezekiel statment is unambiguous in meaning and first-person ... does it relate to something other than the Mosaic laws?

Please explain this without resorting to Tu Quoque fallacies ... Feel free to question my interpretation or point out what I've missed, but if you do I'd be grateful if you could back it up with some sort of evidence.

[Doctor X]

Benguin:

The "pass through fire" is more "literal" translation according to scholars. This is the process of sacrifice which seems rather horrible to theologians. It has been traditionally bawlderized on the one hand. On the other, there is the concern that "modern" readers would not understand what "pass through fire" means.

"Redemption" is, in a sense, a substitution. As indicated in the other thread, this is a later tradition which, in a way, persists to this day.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Benguin:

The "pass through fire" is more "literal" translation according to scholars. This is the process of sacrifice which seems rather horrible to theologians. It has been traditionally bawlderized on the one hand. On the other, there is the concern that "modern" readers would not understand what "pass through fire" means.

"Redemption" is, in a sense, a substitution. As indicated in the other thread, this is a later tradition which, in a way, persists to this day.

--J.D.

[Art Vandelay]

Radrook, you have been deliberately offensive in you replies. You make up absurd strawmen so that you can accuse your opponents of illectual dishonesty based on things they never said. You exhibit a total lack of respect for opposing points of view, implicitly attributing the fact that they have differing views to a deliberate refusal to see the truth, as well as slinging other insults at them. Discussion with you, it seems, it pointless. You are a truly terrible representative of Christian apologia. If you truly cared about convincing people of the validity of the Christian religion, you would not spend so much time showing just how awful its members can be. "By their fruit you shall know them."