In part 1 we considered that evilbible.com’s author has no premise, no basis, no ethos upon which to condemn anything at all and noted that the first examples under “Why does God want me to burn animals and humans?” was Abraham who “didn’t kill his son,” peppered with arguments from outrage.
Finishing up on the “Why does God want me to burn animals and humans?” section: evilbible.com’s author offers the opinion that the priesthood was basically a scam to exhort food and money from the populace. From an atheist perspective this is understandable and applicable to any clergy regardless of chronology, geography or theology.
Next we read:
Even more peculiar is God’s obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.” Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that “consecrate” means a burning sacrifice. These priests are guilty of theft and kidnapping. Since any sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers. What do we call a scum-bag that threatens to kill your kids unless you pay a ransom? A kidnapper! If these priests were alive today they would be in prison with Abraham.
However, in Leviticus 27:28-29, the Lord allows for no redemptions. “Note also that any one of his possessions which a man vows as doomed to the Lord, whether it is a human being or an animal, or a hereditary field, shall be neither sold nor ransomed; everything that is thus doomed becomes most sacred to the Lord. All human beings that are doomed lose the right to be redeemed; they must be put to death.” I must admit that I am a bit confused by this contradiction, but it might only apply to slaves in your possession. Not that it makes any difference. A human sacrifice is a human sacrifice, and it is just sick. [emphasis in original]
There seems to be a typo at “any sins” which should probably read as “any sin” or, mostly likely, “many sins.”
I can completely understand why to someone whose Bible knowledge consists of pull quotes “God’s obsession with first-born sons” would be “peculiar.” It is the person who possesses at least some working knowledge of the Bible, particularly its most basic greater context, who know the very many references to, and correlations between, the first-born sons and God’s first-born-single, only of its kind, primary, unique-Son.
In a refreshing change of pace evilbible.com’s author considers context yet, fails to differentiate between, or correlate, immediate and greater context. In other words: does “consecrate” mean “a burning sacrifice”? “No” in the immediate sense, “Yes” in the greater sense.
To “consecrate” qadash refers primarily to sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be separate, etc. (Strong # H6942). This is very clear from v. 12 which states,
you shall set apart to the LORD all that open the womb, that is, every first-born that comes from an animal which you have; the males [shall be] the LORD’s.
I am at a loss as to how considering something/someone sanctified, prepared, dedicated, hallowed, holy, separated amounts to “theft and kidnapping” but I did learn from my study of evilbible.com’s page on rape in the Bible that evilbible.com’s author tends to invent preconceived notions and then imagine that they are in texts where they are most certainly not.
Since there was no such thing as human sacrifice according to the Old Testament priesthood there is no chance that the obedient priests “threatens to kill your kids unless you pay a ransom.” Yet, note the further symbolism which is, at least, twofold:
1) The redemption of the first-born was correlated in vss. 14-15 to the first-born which perished in Egypt.
2) We may further infer a correlation of the Messiah Jesus as redeemer.
Note also what was pointed out in part one about the reference to “today”; “If these priests were alive today they would be in prison with Abraham.” This is indicative of the atheist claim that morality evolves and so they cannot condemn what the priests did, even if they were “scum-bag_kidnapper!” but can only express outrage. Get the point? Knowing that they cannot logically condemn any past actions they can only fantasize those actions being contemporary when they could be deemed immoral-yet, how do they know that even as they condemn those actions they are not evolving into moral actions?
Next evilbible.com’s author jumps context from “consecrate” qadash (Strong # H6942) to “devote” charam which refers to to ban, devote, destroy utterly/completely destroy, dedicate for destruction, to prohibit, etc. (Strong # H2763).
Yet, this is not merely about a different word, although that is quite significant, but it is a vast change in context from the consecration of the first-born to a system of “valuation” (estimation of value). The two texts are simply not relatable. In the case of Leviticus 27:28-29 we are dealing specifically with the issue of a person who is “doomed lose the right to be redeemed” (as the NAB oddly puts it) or “person devoted to destruction” (NIV) or “person under the ban, who may become doomed to destruction” (NKJV).
Who are these people? They appear to be people such as those mentioned in Joshua 6:17 who were “under the ban” (NAB) or “accursed” (NKJV) and in Joshua 7:12 with regards to the Ai incident who where “doomed to destruction” and may also refer to those sentenced to capital punishment. In other words, you cannot simply get out of it by having someone flip your bill.
The beauty of this whole issue is that you can forget about what particular words mean and forget differing translations and come to fully understand the meaning by considering the immediate and greater context.
This is tantamount to arguing that some Bibles translate the sixth commandments as forbidding “killing” and some “murder.” It is ultimately irrelevant since the greater context distinguishes between two manners by which to take a life:
1) Legal and moral such as in self-defense or war.
2) Illegal and immoral such as in committing a crime or beating someone to death on purpose.
While 1) is generally referred to as “killing” and 2) as “murder” it is the contexts which defines the words.
Having concluded the “Why does God want me to burn animals and humans?” section our next segment will consider “Bible Passages About Ritual Human Sacrifice.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.