|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2012 : 14:23:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Originally posted by Convinced
The Bible states you need to repent of your sins and put your trust and faith in Jesus to be saved. |
Which is contradicted by Jn as well as Mt and Mk. So you reject those gospels? |
Well we could go round and round on that.
"The Bible" does not say that, a person named Paul wrote that. A certifiable loon rejected by the Historical Junior's own brother and various Merry Man. He is also directly contradicted by Junior in Mt. |
Ok a loon wrote it, so what. I was just quoting the bible, not asking you to believe it.
| So . . . why do you follow a Loon? Is it because you cherry pick what you "like" and ignore the rest? |
Your assumptions are many.
| Which "commandments?" There are no "ten commandments"the Decalogue is merely an artificial cherry picking of a three different sets of "rules" that contradict one another. However, the earliest list demands child sacrifice. So, we should presume you practiced or plan to practice the ritual sacrifice of your first born? |
I thought atheists ate babies! Can you show me what verses you are talking about?
| AND if you squeal aqedah [The "binding" of Isaac.--Ed.], know that in the time period of the narratives, YHWH's demand of the sacrifice of the first-born--and it is a burnt offering, trust ye not bowdleriz'd translations!--comes AFTER the aqedah. Further, in the earliest version of it, Isaac does, indeed, get sacrificed. |
Would you please educate me on what you are talking about.
Both can be false but both cannot be true. The bible defines what a Christian is not the Catholic Church.
|
It does not. There is no coherent "christianity" in the NT. Worse, Paul's ravings were not "the Original" version which, to be honest, never really existed either.
--J.D.
|
Ok if you say so. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
 |
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2012 : 14:32:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Originally posted by Convinced
So Jesus said he would come back in 212?
|
There are two passages from Mk where Junior predicts the eschaton within the life-times of the audience in the story.
In Mk 9:1--Copied by Mt in Mt 16:28 and Lk in Lk 9:27--Junior states the eschaton will happen in the lifetime of those "standing here"--his audience in the story:
And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." (NRSV)
Mk 13:30-31--Mt 24:34-35 and Lk 21:32-32 : this is the infamous prediction that the eschaton will happen in the life time of his audience's generation:
"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (NRSV)
The NRSV provides a decent enough translation of these passages. I would quote you the Greek, but this forum does not allow HTML to render it. I will simply state that the Nestle-Aland Greek NT (NT-GNT 26 Rev. Edition) differs from the SBLGNT only in the word order of three words in Mk 9:1a, which does not matter in Greek. There are no textual variants that can justify changing the meaning.
Apologists try to redefine a "generation," but with Mk 9:1 above and the fact that both Mt and Lk accept it, they all expected "it" to happen in their individual lifetimes.
Mk dates post 70 CE--this is not controversial. Lk and Mt use him as a source, so they date later but, to make a long story short, both probably date before about 100ish CE.
Now if we pretend there was a pregnant woman listening to Junior, her child would be 70ish by the time of Mt and Lk. We can rather assume he is dead by 150 CE.
Of course, Junior did not actually say any of that: the sayings are composed in Greek rather than based on an Aramaic source.
--J.D.
|
Mark 13 28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it[d] is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
So why does he say he knows when he will come back, then the next verse say he does not know when he will come back?
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2012 : 14:35:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
So is the tax only for the Church of Sweden? Is there any kind of tax if you belong to a different church?
|
No. Church of Sweden was until just before the turn of the millennium the official state church. As such, it had special privileges. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2012 : 15:15:29 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by ConvincedWell we could go round and round on that. |
I am afraid I doubt your ability to do that.
| Ok a loon wrote it, so what. |
You quoted him as authority.
| I was just quoting the bible, not asking you to believe it. |
Of course you did. Why else would you quote it as authority? Now you know how unauthoritative it is.
| Your assumptions are many. |
You have provided no evidence to question such. On the contrary, you have confirmed them as I have demonstrated.
| I thought atheists ate babies! Can you show me what verses you are talking about? |
I can--and happily will--but you will have to wait a few hours--have a meeting to attend, and it takes a bit to type it.
| Would you please educate me on what you are talking about. |
See above.
I do not merely say.
--J.D.
[Edited to correct the quotation codes to the Textus Receptus.--Ed.] |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 09/27/2012 15:18:16 |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2012 : 15:16:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.[/i] |
"Day" and "hour" are not the same as "year," nor does that saying contradict the other Markan saying as quoted above.
| So why does he say he knows when he will come back, then the next verse say he does not know when he will come back? |
He does not say that at all.
--J.D.
[Edited for the codes . . . the codes. . . .--Ed.] |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 09/27/2012 15:19:48 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2012 : 16:55:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Convinced
The Catholic church is not Christian. They have a works based salvation and assume they control who is saved or not. Jesus decides who is part of His church, not Rome.
|
No true Scotsman fallacy.
This is a pretty common fallacy used by one religious group to discount another. Given that there are so many sects and beliefs among those who identify as Christian, if we were to accept each of the sects pronouncements that all the others aren't Christian as true, because most of the sects use this fallacy to describe the beliefs of others who identify as Christian, there are no Christians. You all cancel each other out with this fallacy.
|
This does not make sense to me. Just becasue people don't agree on a subject the subject cannot be true? Why can't either a faith only salvation or a works salvation be true?
|
I'm sticking with "No True Scotsman." The rest was a play on what it would mean if the fallacy isn't really a fallacy at all. I was kidding. I suppose I should add that I'm agnostic/atheist, and consider all religious salvation a fantasy. But you probably already know that. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2012 : 18:10:25 [Permalink]
|
Right . . .
| His Humble MagNIfIcence: So, we should presume you practiced or plan to practice the ritual sacrifice of your first born? |
Convinced: I thought atheists ate babies! Can you show me what verses you are talking about?
|
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."
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 arise until Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"
Exod 22:28-29 is part of the E material. Exod 13 is controversial. Friedman notes the possibility of the work of D argued by some scholars (Friedman, WWtB) but does not give it much credence and argues for E in both his works cited. 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 which Friedman does not explain. Finally, there is no redemption for the Exod 22:28-29 E material. Lange suggests that the entire Exod 13:2-16 consists of D material, (Lange).
Now, Exod 34:19-20 is assigned to the 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. |
Finsterbusch describes Exod 22:28 as, ". . . probably [the] oldest preserved law referring to first-born, . ." and he discusses the difficulty with the Hebrew, (Finsterbusch). This is not a minor point: what the RSV translates as "fulfillment" and "flowing"--[Forum does not support Hebrew fonts.--Ed.]--meleah and dema#8317; respectively--has been argued to refer to agricultural offerings (Childs, Houtman), which Finsterbusch finds unconvincing since the respective verb [Forum does not support even transliteration.--Ed.] ". . . in the Hebrew Bible is not used in the context of agricultural offerings (grain, oil and wine) for YHWH," and further, Exod 23:19 deals with the "first-fruits of the land," (Finsterbusch). Finsterbusch notes that "without exception in the literature," the noun bekor--[Font not supported.--Ed.]--is understood as referring to a first-born male child, as it is in the RSV. While the word, ". . . in many instances in the Hebrew Bible indicates the male first-born, that is the first child of a woman or a man, if it is a son," it can, ". . . also mean the first-born child," (Finsterbusch, italics in original).
In discussions concerning these passages, I have had apologists analyzing the English translations argue that the v. 28 deals with agricultural offerings so as to suggest v.29 refers to dedicating the first-born male child to the "priesthood." Finsterbusch's further analysis of the Hebrew proves most damning to such apologetics: "the Israelite should act in the same way with his cattle or small livestock. Hence the meaning of offering the 'fullness' mentioned in the general formula becomes clear: the Israelite should give YHWH the first-born (be it male or female) of each female animal," (Finsterbusch). Finsterbusch notes a further apology: that the "it" of v. 29 only refers to the animals rather than the child. Using his translation of Exod 22:28-29:
(28a) You shall not withhold your fullness and your treasure.
(28b) The first-born of your children you shall give to me.
(29a) You shall do the same with your oxen (and) with your livestock.
(29b#945;) Seven days it (i.e. the firstborn) shall remain with its mother,
(29b#946;)on the eighth day you shall give it to me (Finsterbusch, italics in original). |
Finsterbusch notes that the subject of the "it" in v. 29 is the noun bekor--"firstborn"--"mentioned explicitly only in v. 28b," and ". . . v. 29b[alphaBbeta--Font not supported--Ed.] should be interpreted that the first-born of human and animal are to be given to YHWH on the 8th day," (Finsterbusch).
Numbers 18:14-15, P material (Friedman, WWtB), recapitulates the idea of redemption. This uses the term [Font not supported, "Chrm"--is the best we can do.--Ed.]. The chrm refers to the destruction of people and things to a deity, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction," (Collins):
| Num 18:14-15 Every chrm in Israel shall be yours. The first issue of the womb of all creatures, human and animal, which is offered to YHWH, shall be yours; but the firstborn of human beings you shall redeem, and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem. [NRSV, corrected based on MT and Niditch--Ed.] |
Niditch renders Num 18:15b as ". . . but you will surely redeem ([Font not supported.--Ed.]) the first-born of humans," (Niditch). The NRSV renders chrm as "devoted thing." In keeping with the discussion above, the need for the P writer to specify redemption indicates that the actual practice of sacrifice of the first-born occurred. As Niditch notes, "the fact that he has to emphasize the point is in itself an interesting comment on the wider world-view of his culture," (Niditch).
Now on to the aqedah:
The text of Genesis 22 is complicated. This story is often referred to as the aqedah/akedah or "binding." Note that in the beginning you have "God"--Elohim--then suddenly you wander into YHWH. The RJE--whom scholars feel combined the texts into one--is considered responsible for the "saving" of Isaac. At least, that portion of the story is his work. Gen 22:11-16a represents this combination. Exactly which portions of 11-16a is J, E, and RJE is difficult to prove.
As Friedman describes in Who Wrote the Bible?, citing Spiegel:
| As extraordinary as it may seem, it has been suggested that in the original version of this story Isaac was actually sacrificed, and that the intervening four verses were added subsequently, when the notion of human sacrifice was rejected (perhaps by the person who combined J and E). (Friedman, WWtB) |
Here is how the chapter works out according to Friedman:
E: 22:1-10; 16b-19
]RJE: 22:11-16a
J: 20:20-24
Note the parallels in the E story--Elohim calls to Abraham who responds, "here I am," Abraham calls to Isaac who responds, "here I am." Also note the strange reward--because Abraham gave his only son he is rewarded with more sons. This proves strange if his son still lives. As Spiegel notes, the fact that the verb "returned" from "And Abraham returned to, . . ." is in the singular did not pass unnoticed by theologians and scholars throughout history, (Spiegel). The search for the answer to the obvious question "where was Isaac?" and the explanation as to why he disappears from the subsequent narratives, pestered theologians and scholars for centuries. Niditch finds it "shocking" that the RJE is so neutral to the practice of child sacrifice: "No etiology is found such as 'Hence we do not offer our children in sacrifice . . . ,' no commentary directs this tale in a direction critical of child sacrifice," (Niditch).
While Friedman may consider this interpretation so "extraordinary" he buries it in an endnote in Who Wrote the Bible?, Speigel demonstrates that it was not at all "extraordinary" through generations. He details appeals to the akedah amongst communities committing suicide in the face persecution as if Isaac actually died. Never is there the complaint or qualification that Isaac received a divine reprieve:
| How is it then that from out of the mouths of these votaries and victims, or the relations of the slain, there did not burst forth a painful groan like to that of the saintly mother, bereft of all her sons, as she addressed herself to Father Abraham and, even to the deaf-mute heavens--You built one altar and did not sacrifice your son, but we built altars in the hundreds and thousands and did sacrifice our children on them! Yours was the trial, but ours were the performances! (Speigel) |
Speigel then asks rhetorically:
| Is it possible that those who did the sacrificing and those who where the sacrifices in those calamity-laden times imagined that on Mount Moriah also, at the command of his Creator, the father rose up and took his son Isaac, bound him, slew him, then burnt his victim, and the ashes thereof are still in a heap on top of the alter as stored-up merit and for the atonement of generation after generation to the end of time . . . ? (Speigel) |
Speigel reviews the traditions that Isaac did indeed die and was even burned to ashes as required. In some cases, Isaac is resurrected, in others he is not. (Speigel)
Since there are no extant witnesses to the separate E and J works one cannot prove Isaac's death. However, it is very odd that the RJE suddenly prefers the J story exclusively when it deals with Isaac, discarding any comparable E material, after this story. Also, there is no extant J version of the aqedah. In his The Bible with Sources Revealed, Friedman summarizes the evidence that Gen 22:11-14 comes from the hand of RJE:
1. This is an E text that refers to the deity as Elohim three times, then switches to YHWH in "an angel of YHWH" suddenly.
2. Verses 11-15 which contain the angel's instruction to not sacrifice Isaac are ". . . enclosed in a resumptive repetition in which the angel calls out two times."
3. Following the resumptive repetition, comes the E verse, "because you did this thing and didn't withhold your son."
4. The E story concludes with Abraham returning alone.
5. Isaac disappears from the E story.
6. The E story of a revelation at Mt. Horeb in Exod 24 contains a chain of eighteen parallels of language with the aqedah, but not one of them comes from RJE verses 11-15.
7. The multiple midrashic sources stating that Isaac was actually sacrificed (Friedman, BwSR).
One objection to this has been introduction of Jacob, Isaac’s son. This was first brought to my attention by a scholar with great familiarity with this subject who wishes to remain anonymous. I noted that no extant separate and complete E exists, and we have no way of knowing how E introduced Jacob. However, Friedman notes that, “. . . it is in E (in the very next passage that is traced to E) [Gen 25:1—Ed.] that Abraham later has another wife, Keturah, and has more children,” (Friedman, BwSR).
--J. "A RIVER to My People!" D.
References:
Childs BS. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Louisville: Westminster, 1974.
Collins JJ, "The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence," JBL 120 (2003): 3-21.
Finsterbusch F, "The First-Born Between Sacrifice and Redemption in the Hebrew Bible," Human Sacrifice in the Jewish and Christian Tradition, K Finsterbusch, A Lange, KF Diethard Römheld, Eds. Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible?. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997.
Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003.
Houtman, Bundesbuch, 244 [Cited by Finsterbusch]
Lange A, "'They Burn Their Sons and Daughters--That Was No Command of Mine' (Jer 7:31)," Human Sacrifice in the Jewish and Christian Tradition, K Finsterbusch, A Lange, KF Diethard Römheld, Eds. Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Niditch S. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Spiegel S. The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: the Akedah. Goldin J, trans. Woodstock: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 09/27/2012 18:14:03 |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 09:44:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Originally posted by Convinced
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.[/i] |
"Day" and "hour" are not the same as "year," nor does that saying contradict the other Markan saying as quoted above.
| So why does he say he knows when he will come back, then the next verse say he does not know when he will come back? |
He does not say that at all.
--J.D.
[Edited for the codes . . . the codes. . . .--Ed.]
|
How do you discern what the bible says and means? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 12:09:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Right . . .
| His Humble MagNIfIcence: So, we should presume you practiced or plan to practice the ritual sacrifice of your first born? |
Convinced: I thought atheists ate babies! Can you show me what verses you are talking about?
|
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."
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 arise until Exod 13:13b: "'Every first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem.'"
Exod 22:28-29 is part of the E material. Exod 13 is controversial. Friedman notes the possibility of the work of D argued by some scholars (Friedman, WWtB) but does not give it much credence and argues for E in both his works cited. 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 which Friedman does not explain. Finally, there is no redemption for the Exod 22:28-29 E material. Lange suggests that the entire Exod 13:2-16 consists of D material, (Lange).
Now, Exod 34:19-20 is assigned to the 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. |
Finsterbusch describes Exod 22:28 as, ". . . probably [the] oldest preserved law referring to first-born, . ." and he discusses the difficulty with the Hebrew, (Finsterbusch). This is not a minor point: what the RSV translates as "fulfillment" and "flowing"--[Forum does not support Hebrew fonts.--Ed.]--meleah and dema#8317; respectively--has been argued to refer to agricultural offerings (Childs, Houtman), which Finsterbusch finds unconvincing since the respective verb [Forum does not support even transliteration.--Ed.] ". . . in the Hebrew Bible is not used in the context of agricultural offerings (grain, oil and wine) for YHWH," and further, Exod 23:19 deals with the "first-fruits of the land," (Finsterbusch). Finsterbusch notes that "without exception in the literature," the noun bekor--[Font not supported.--Ed.]--is understood as referring to a first-born male child, as it is in the RSV. While the word, ". . . in many instances in the Hebrew Bible indicates the male first-born, that is the first child of a woman or a man, if it is a son," it can, ". . . also mean the first-born child," (Finsterbusch, italics in original).
In discussions concerning these passages, I have had apologists analyzing the English translations argue that the v. 28 deals with agricultural offerings so as to suggest v.29 refers to dedicating the first-born male child to the "priesthood." Finsterbusch's further analysis of the Hebrew proves most damning to such apologetics: "the Israelite should act in the same way with his cattle or small livestock. Hence the meaning of offering the 'fullness' mentioned in the general formula becomes clear: the Israelite should give YHWH the first-born (be it male or female) of each female animal," (Finsterbusch). Finsterbusch notes a further apology: that the "it" of v. 29 only refers to the animals rather than the child. Using his translation of Exod 22:28-29:
(28a) You shall not withhold your fullness and your treasure.
(28b) The first-born of your children you shall give to me.
(29a) You shall do the same with your oxen (and) with your livestock.
(29b#945;) Seven days it (i.e. the firstborn) shall remain with its mother,
(29b#946;)on the eighth day you shall give it to me (Finsterbusch, italics in original). |
Finsterbusch notes that the subject of the "it" in v. 29 is the noun bekor--"firstborn"--"mentioned explicitly only in v. 28b," and ". . . v. 29b[alphaBbeta--Font not supported--Ed.] should be interpreted that the first-born of human and animal are to be given to YHWH on the 8th day," (Finsterbusch).
Numbers 18:14-15, P material (Friedman, WWtB), recapitulates the idea of redemption. This uses the term [Font not supported, "Chrm"--is the best we can do.--Ed.]. The chrm refers to the destruction of people and things to a deity, ". . . or ban, the practice whereby the defeated enemy was devoted to destruction," (Collins):
| Num 18:14-15 Every chrm in Israel shall be yours. The first issue of the womb of all creatures, human and animal, which is offered to YHWH, shall be yours; but the firstborn of human beings you shall redeem, and the firstborn of unclean animals you shall redeem. [NRSV, corrected based on MT and Niditch--Ed.] |
Niditch renders Num 18:15b as ". . . but you will surely redeem ([Font not supported.--Ed.]) the first-born of humans," (Niditch). The NRSV renders chrm as "devoted thing." In keeping with the discussion above, the need for the P writer to specify redemption indicates that the actual practice of sacrifice of the first-born occurred. As Niditch notes, "the fact that he has to emphasize the point is in itself an interesting comment on the wider world-view of his culture," (Niditch).
Now on to the aqedah:
The text of Genesis 22 is complicated. This story is often referred to as the aqedah/akedah or "binding." Note that in the beginning you have "God"--Elohim--then suddenly you wander into YHWH. The RJE--whom scholars feel combined the texts into one--is considered responsible for the "saving" of Isaac. At least, that portion of the story is his work. Gen 22:11-16a represents this combination. Exactly which portions of 11-16a is J, E, and RJE is difficult to prove.
As Friedman describes in Who Wrote the Bible?, citing Spiegel:
| As extraordinary as it may seem, it has been suggested that in the original version of this story Isaac was actually sacrificed, and that the intervening four verses were added subsequently, when the notion of human sacrifice was rejected (perhaps by the person who combined J and E). (Friedman, WWtB) |
Here is how the chapter works out according to Friedman:
E: 22:1-10; 16b-19
]RJE: 22:11-16a
J: 20:20-24
Note the parallels in the E story--Elohim calls to Abraham who responds, "here I am," Abraham calls to Isaac who responds, "here I am." Also note the strange reward--because Abraham gave his only son he is rewarded with more sons. This proves strange if his son still lives. As Spiegel notes, the fact that the verb "returned" from "And Abraham returned to, . . ." is in the singular did not pass unnoticed by theologians and scholars throughout history, (Spiegel). The search for the answer to the obvious question "where was Isaac?" and the explanation as to why he disappears from the subsequent narratives, pestered theologians and scholars for centuries. Niditch finds it "shocking" that the RJE is so neutral to the practice of child sacrifice: "No etiology is found such as 'Hence we do not offer our children in sacrifice . . . ,' no commentary directs this tale in a direction critical of child sacrifice," (Niditch).
While Friedman may consider this interpretation so "extraordinary" he buries it in an endnote in Who Wrote the Bible?, Speigel demonstrates that it was not at all "extraordinary" through generations. He details appeals to the akedah amongst communities committing suicide in the face persecution as if Isaac actually died. Never is there the complaint or qualification that Isaac received a divine reprieve:
| How is it then that from out of the mouths of these votaries and victims, or the relations of the slain, there did not burst forth a painful groan like to that of the saintly mother, bereft of all her sons, as she addressed herself to Father Abraham and, even to the deaf-mute heavens--You built one altar and did not sacrifice your son, but we built altars in the hundreds and thousands and did sacrifice our children on them! Yours was the trial, but ours were the performances! (Speigel) |
Speigel then asks rhetorically:
| Is it possible that those who did the sacrificing and those who where the sacrifices in those calamity-laden times imagined that on Mount Moriah also, at the command of his Creator, the father rose up and took his son Isaac, bound him, slew him, then burnt his victim, and the ashes thereof are still in a heap on top of the alter as stored-up merit and for the atonement of generation after generation to the end of time . . . ? (Speigel) |
Speigel reviews the traditions that Isaac did indeed die and was even burned to ashes as required. In some cases, Isaac is resurrected, in others he is not. (Speigel)
Since there are no extant witnesses to the separate E and J works one cannot prove Isaac's death. However, it is very odd that the RJE suddenly prefers the J story exclusively when it deals with Isaac, discarding any comparable E material, after this story. Also, there is no extant J version of the aqedah. In his The Bible with Sources Revealed, Friedman summarizes the evidence that Gen 22:11-14 comes from the hand of RJE:
1. This is an E text that refers to the deity as Elohim three times, then switches to YHWH in "an angel of YHWH" suddenly.
2. Verses 11-15 which contain the angel's instruction to not sacrifice Isaac are ". . . enclosed in a resumptive repetition in which the angel calls out two times."
3. Following the resumptive repetition, comes the E verse, "because you did this thing and didn't withhold your son."
4. The E story concludes with Abraham returning alone.
5. Isaac disappears from the E story.
6. The E story of a revelation at Mt. Horeb in Exod 24 contains a chain of eighteen parallels of language with the aqedah, but not one of them comes from RJE verses 11-15.
7. The multiple midrashic sources stating that Isaac was actually sacrificed (Friedman, BwSR).
One objection to this has been introduction of Jacob, Isaac’s son. This was first brought to my attention by a scholar with great familiarity with this subject who wishes to remain anonymous. I noted that no extant separate and complete E exists, and we have no way of knowing how E introduced Jacob. However, Friedman notes that, “. . . it is in E (in the very next passage that is traced to E) [Gen 25:1—Ed.] that Abraham later has another wife, Keturah, and has more children,” (Friedman, BwSR).
--J. "A RIVER to My People!" D.
References:
Childs BS. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Louisville: Westminster, 1974.
Collins JJ, "The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence," JBL 120 (2003): 3-21.
Finsterbusch F, "The First-Born Between Sacrifice and Redemption in the Hebrew Bible," Human Sacrifice in the Jewish and Christian Tradition, K Finsterbusch, A Lange, KF Diethard Römheld, Eds. Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible?. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997.
Friedman RE. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003.
Houtman, Bundesbuch, 244 [Cited by Finsterbusch]
Lange A, "'They Burn Their Sons and Daughters--That Was No Command of Mine' (Jer 7:31)," Human Sacrifice in the Jewish and Christian Tradition, K Finsterbusch, A Lange, KF Diethard Römheld, Eds. Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Levenson JD. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Niditch S. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Spiegel S. The Last Trial: On the Legends and Lore of the Command to Abraham to Offer Isaac as a Sacrifice: the Akedah. Goldin J, trans. Woodstock: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1993.
|
Thanks for the response, it was educational. The verses you quoted cannot mean to sacrifice children to the god of the bible. Dt 12:31 and 18:9-12 forbid it.
"You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods." Dt 12:31 NIV
"When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you." - Dt 18:9-20 NIV
Also, 2 Kings 16:3, Psalm 106:38 and Jeremiah 19:4-5.
"For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind." Je 19:4-5 NIV
One last thought, human sacrifices would not be acceptable because they are imperfect with sin.
I have a feeling you will disagree. |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 12:51:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
How do you discern what the bible says and means?
|
By . . . READING . . . it? 
The language is pretty specific in the passages quotes. Granted, I cannot quote you the Greek for the forum does not support the fonts.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 13:04:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Thanks for the response, it was educational. |
You do not have to "mass quote" an entire response. Simply quote the portions to which you respond.
| The verses you quoted cannot mean to sacrifice children to the god of the bible. |
Of course they do, and which "god of the bible?" The one who grants YHWH Israel in Deuteronomy?
| Dt 12:31 and 18:9-12 forbid it. |
Different authorship from an entirely different time period. Further, though I did not get into it, while the practice not only existed, it was required, it did pass out of favor. This I thought was clear in the later versions reflected in the J and D passages which add in "redemption."
Funny you should mention Jeremiah. . . .
Jer 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 and edited both. Day notes that the phrase "which I have not commanded"--'(a)s(h)er lo' siwwiti--is found in Deut 17:3 where, ". . . reference is made to one who 'has gone and served other gods and worshipped them or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven,which I have not commanded.'" (Day, YHWH). Friedman further speculates D is Baruch son of Neriyah. He dates the first "part" of D to before the death of Josiah 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; Jeremiah does not condemn an "ancient" practice. 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," (Levenson).
In his review of Lange's chapter, Tatlock notes that this Deuteronomistic redaction of Jeremiah:
". . . attempted to discourage the rebuilding of the temple in the late sixth century by arguing, in part, that what was once thought to be appropriately practiced (child sacrifice to Yahweh) was in fact performed unto Baal. Hence the molk-sacrifices of Jerusalem were once Yahwistic but were later attributed to Baal in an attempt to dissuade their continuation and to counter the perspective that Israel's salvation rests upon the temple cult of Zion. I agree wholeheartedly with the basic deduction that immolating children lammolek was an acceptable form of preexilic Yahwistic worship that was subsequently denounced as iniquitous and distorted in the guise of Baal veneration as well as Molek (not molk-sacrifice) worship," (Tatlock, Lange).
I will note that there has been controversy over whether or not mlk refers to a sacrificial term, a god worshiped in ancient Israel, or both. The debate on this, which requires analysis of the use of mlk in the Phoenician, Punic, and biblical texts, is not relevant to this essay specifically. While the term lmlk may be understood as “to mlk” as in a sacrifice “to Molek” the god, or “as mlk” as in a sacrifice “as a molk sacrifice,” (Reynolds, Day, M), Molek is attested as a deity in Lev 20:5 (Day, M, Tatlock), as a Canaanite deity in Ugaritic charms (Day, M), and as an Akkadian Malik, equated to the underworld god Nergal: “This fits Old Testament Molech perfectly, since there are reasons for believing that he was an underworld deity. Thus Isa. 57.9 reads: ‘You journeyed to Molech with oil and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off, and sent down even to Sheol,’” (Day, M). What proves relevant is the use of mlk in the biblical texts such as Jer 19:5-6 is probably as Tatlock contends, “. . . a propagandistic device meant to mask the original rite of human sacrifice to Yahweh at the locale [Jerusalem Tophet--Ed.]. Such an interpretation is founded upon Yahweh’s association with the Tophet in Isa 30:33, which most likely refers to Yahweh as the melek (king), the title that was later distorted to form the word molek, . . .” (Tatlock).
But consider:
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. |
The RSV and other translations preserve perhaps a better translation with correction:
| Moreover I gave them statutes 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 YHWH. |
in that they preserve the reference to immolation--"passing through fire." Levenson argues for the addition of “in turn,” since 'gam [Cannot render the Hebrew--Ed.] here intensifies [Cannot render the Hebrew--Ed.] and is not adverbial. Correctly translated, the verse can readily be seen as the condign response to the situation described in v 21,” (Levenson). Day notes comparisons of the phrase translated as "passing through fire"--h'byr--with other OT passages demonstrates equivalence with "sacrifice" and ". . . confirms that h'byr applied to human beings was something terrifying. . . . . . . A more appropriate translation of h'byr b's(h) would be 'he offered up in the fire' rather than 'he passed . . . through the fire'." (Day, YHWH). This is the same wording used in 2 Kings 21:6 regarding the behavior of the king Manasseh: “And he made his son to pass through the fire, . . .” Smith cites this along with other passages to note that “. . . in Moab, Judah, and Phoenicia, child sacrifice was a form of mlk sacrifice, . . (Smith, EHG). Levenson cites the Ezekiel passage 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," (Levenson). |
Friedman dates Ezekiel to the Babylonian exile (Friedman, WWtB). Smith cites this text to indicate, "that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh." (Smith, EHG). 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," (Schmidt).
| One last thought, human sacrifices would not be acceptable because they are imperfect with sin. |
Then why does YHWH demand it? Why does he demand it in massive quantities? Remember that chrm I mentioned above? Further, you should not retroject modern conceptions such as "sin" upon ancient religions and texts. Works not.
I have a feeling you will disagree.
|
The evidence is simply against you.
--J.D.
References
Day J. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Day J. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaanp. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 265. London: Sheffield Academic Press, Ltd., 2000.
Reynolds B, "Molek: Dead or Alive?" Human Sacrifice in the Jewish and Christian Tradition, K Finsterbusch, A Lange, KF Diethard Römheld, Eds. Leiden, Brill, 2007.
Schmidt BB. "The Aniconic Tradition," The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edelman DV, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.
Smith M. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Smith M. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002.
Tatlock JR, “Review of Human Sacrifice in the Jewish and Christian Tradition,” RBL 3 (2008). |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 14:07:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Originally posted by Convinced
How do you discern what the bible says and means?
|
By . . . READING . . . it?
The language is pretty specific in the passages quotes. Granted, I cannot quote you the Greek for the forum does not support the fonts.
--J.D.
|
Yes, but you don't believe men were inspired by god to write the bible, I do, so we will never come to a common conclusion. I believe scripture interprets scripture. Do you think we can come to a common conclusion? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 14:17:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Yes, but you don't believe men were inspired by god |
Which god?
| . . . to write the bible, . . . |
Best not to assume what I believe or do not believe. Nevertheless, there is no tradition of "theopneustos" or "inspiration" in the HB nor NT. It is appended by a very late forgery--Timothy. Further, one would hope that an "inspired by god" text would not:
1. Consistently describe the Earth as flat
2. Claim plants existed prior to the Sun, Moon, and stars
3. Claim Junior was born on two different dates ten years apart.
4. Get the geography of the Levant utterly wrong.
5. Et cetera
6. Profit.
| I do, so we will never come to a common conclusion. |
Only through willful ignorance on your part. What you believe is irrelevant to what is.
| I believe scripture interprets scripture. |
And I believe I am paid six figures to be Nicole Kidman's Snuggle-Bunny--save for weekends every other month where I sneak away to [CENSORED--Ed.] Katie Holmes. Nicole is still a bit steamed about that. She thinks I am [CENSORED--Ed.] bowl of porridge with Mila Kunis. More fool her! Mila has not begged me enough yet.
Do you think we can come to a common conclusion?
|
Does not matter. What matters is what is and what was. You make claims that are erroneous, and I correct them for the General Commonweal. It is "my job."
--J. "I am Very Good . . . with Pain!" D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 15:01:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Best not to assume what I believe or do not believe.
|
|
So do you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of some god? or do you believe it was written by people uninspired from any deity? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2012 : 15:04:21 [Permalink]
|
I do not believe anything.
Best to know or not know.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
German Catholic 8% mandatory tithe
