tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Dan Barker – Scriptural Misinterpretations and Misapplications, part 7 of 14

Child Sacrifice: Sanctioned and “the right thing to do”?
Please pardon my references to having already written responses to various atheist critiques of the Bible and Christianity but their criticisms are not exactly original but appear to be virtually plagiarized. Prof. Richard Dawkins has commented on the following text and I have responded to it in detail in my essay Planting God More Firmly on His Throne. Thus, once again I must state that Dan Barker makes a statement which Prof. Richard Dawkins has also made in the following statement:

“After Jephthah was victorious in battle, what sacrifice did he burn on the altar, as he had vowed to the Lord?…His virgin daughter.-Another example of family values from the ‘Good Book.’ Jephthah’s nameless daughter is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God, who tacitly accepts and never denounces this horrible practice.
‘And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering…And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child;…And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.’ (Judges 11:30-39)
The bible sanctions child sacrifice here. Notice how everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah’s actions: there is no denunciation of this pointless murder from God, or from anyone in Jephthah’s community, or from the biblical writers. It was the right thing to do.
The ultimate child sacrifice, of course, is the story of Jesus being put to death to appease the wrath of his offended father. Ruth Green, author of The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible, puts it this way: ‘If the concept of a father who plots to have his own son put to death is presented to children as beautiful and worthy of society’s admiration, what types of human behavior can be presented to them as reprehensible?
The biblical god often requested and accepted human sacrifice: ‘And he [God] said [to Abraham], Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.’ (Genesis 22:2) ‘For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.’ (Exodus 22:29) ‘But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah…and the five sons of Michal…and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest…And after that God was intreated for the land.’ (II Samuel 21:8-14) ‘We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ…But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.’ (Hebrews 10:10-12)1

abrahamandisaac-9629514Dan Barker appears quite desperate to make his point and he is forced to engage in circuitous argumentation and conveniently selected token portions of texts. How many of the things that he claims are actually stated in the token verses (some are even partial verses)? Keeping in mind that we are not discussing what we personally believe, think or feel but are questioning Dan Barker’s accuracy. With that in mind, please note the following:

Nowhere does the text state that she “is burned as a sacrifice.”Nowhere does the text state that she “is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God.”Nowhere does the text state that God “tacitly accepts…this horrible practice.”Nowhere does the text state that God “never denounces this horrible practice.”Nowhere does the Bible sanction “child sacrifice.”Nowhere does the text state that “everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah’s actions.”Nowhere does the text state that “there is no denunciation of this.”Nowhere does the text state that “this pointless murder” is “from God.”Nowhere does the text state that “there is no denunciation…from anyone in Jephthah’s community.”Nowhere does the text state that “there is no denunciation_from the biblical writers.”

Nowhere does the text state that “It was the right thing to do.”

Once again, since I have written a detailed account of this text, in its entirety, elsewhere I will provide succinct comments to my claims that the text does not state Dan Barker’s above listed claims.

——Let us combine a few: nowhere does the text state that she “is burned as a sacrifice in order to appease the wrath and flatter the vanity of God.” Nor that “everyone assumed the correctness of Jephthah’s actions.” Nor that “there is no denunciation of this.” Nor that “this pointless murder,” is “from God.” Nor that “It was the right thing to do.”
Plainly and simply, Dan Barker’s statements in this case are fallacious inferences and the text states no such things. We will comment further on some of these claims below.

——Nowhere does the text state that she “is burned as a sacrifice.”
The text seems clear enough right? After all it does state, “Jephthah vowed a vow…and I will offer it up for a burnt offering…And Jephthah…did with her according to his vow which he had vowed.” He does appear to have sacrificed her-even though the minutia of the Torah’s law not once allowed for human/child sacrifice and what kosher high priest would allow such a thing. Note that the “and” in the vow “be the LORD’s, and I will offer it” consists of the Hebrew construct made up of two conjunctions for “either/or.” Therefore, the vow reads as Robert Young has it in his strictly literal translation (Young’s Literal Translation), “it hath been to Jehovah, or I have offered up for it – a burnt-offering.” Clearly, if we do not choose and pick but consider the greater context of the Torah we know that if it was a clean animal he would have offered it as a burnt-offering and if a human then they would be consecrated to the LORD. This would be done by the daughter being sent, with her consent (v. 37 “Let this thing be done for me”), to serve in the sanctuary.

——Let us now combine a couple: nowhere does the text state that God “tacitly accepts and never denounces this horrible practice” and nowhere does the Bible sanction “child sacrifice.”Quite the opposite, the Bible states:

“When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:29-30).
“And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 18:21).

The Bible states that God commands that He not be worshipped by child sacrifice as was the common practice of many nations, “pass through the fire to Molech” meant to literally burn your very own children to death as worship of the false god Molech.

——Let us again combine a couple: nowhere does the text state that “there is no denunciation…from anyone in Jephthah’s community” nor “from the biblical writers.”For reasons known only to himself, Dan Barker did not bother quoting one verse further than what he cited i.e., Judges 11:40. Actually, Dan Barker ended his quote at the first half of verse 39 or 39a. Verses 39b-40 state,

“And she knew no man. And it is a custom in Israel, that the daughters of Israel went yearly to tell again of the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.”

Dan Barker claimed that “there is no denunciation…from anyone in Jephthah’s community” but this is not because there is not any denunciation but because Dan Barker chose to overlook verses 39b-40. There are two ways to consider this text, both of which refute Dan Barker’s faulty inferences.If we take the view that she was sacrificed: he is wrong in stating that “there is no denunciation…from anyone in Jephthah’s community” because Jephthah’s actions gave rise to an annual event the point of which was to consider his actions the cause of mourning. By extension, Dan Barker is also wrong in claiming that “there is no denunciation…from the biblical writers” since it is the Biblical writers who ensured that this event would be remembered to the point that over three millennia later we are still remembering Jephath’s daughter and his actions.

The other option comes from our consideration of Young’s Literal Translation which renders verse 40 as reading thusly, “And it was an ordinance in Israel that the daughters of Israel went from year to year to the daughter of Jephthah, that they might comfort her for four days in a year.” The daughters of Israel meet with her on an annual basis in order to comfort her in her childless state which is why this event comes across as such a lamentable-to a Jewish woman, having no children was quite lamentable.

But we are not done yet. Dan Barker quotes what is surely an unbiased scholarly text: The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible, or as they say in common parlance, “Not!” The comment quoted demonstrates that Ruth Green is another in the long list of unscholarly pseudo-elucidators.

Regarding the point about Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac (see Planting God More Firmly on His Throne) Dan Barker quoted Genesis 22:2 but he may want to mention verse 12 where Abraham is stopped by a messenger from God. It is simply tragic that people such as Dan Barker utilize Genesis 22 in order to make the exact opposite point that the text is making. A god asking his adherents to sacrifice their very own children was a normal part of the worship systems de jour. Amongst other things, the God of the Bible makes this request of Abraham in order to make it clear, as it has been clear to Jews, Christians and even Muslims, that the God of the Bible (and the Biblical influence on the Qur’an) not only does not accept but, as we saw above, denounces and condemns child sacrifice.

Dan Barker’s referenced Exodus 22:29 yet, this text states nothing about child sacrifice but speaks volumes about his modus operandi. He makes a claim, then quotes half of a verse or even a whole verse, and then tells you that he has just justified his claim. The statement: “the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me” clearly refers to sanctification such as the greater context of the book of Exodus states in 13:2, where God states “Sanctify all the first-born to Me.” Moreover, Exodus 34:19b-20a make this even clearer, “_the firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb…All the first-born of your sons you shall redeem.” Dan Barker appears to be so desperate to prove his fallacious point that he reads “the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me” and turns it, un-biblically, un-historically and unreasonably, into “child sacrifice.”

Regarding 2nd Samuel 21:8-14 nowhere are children mentioned (sons and daughters are not necessarily children). The topic of the chapter is that Saul and his “bloody house” had killed certain Gibeonites. The issue is a complex interaction of ancient customs and treaties amongst nations and individuals. It was the Gibeonites who hanged them even though David may be said to have been complicit in honoring a pact of sorts.

Lastly, we see the utter cynicism and pessimism of Dan Barker’s atheism in his citation of Hebrews 10. Is it any wonder that the Bible states, “For the Jews ask for a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness” (1st Corinthians 1:22-23). Even here Dan Barker is wrong since he was referencing alleged “child scarifies” but Jesus died at the age of 33.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.


Posted

in

by

Tags: