วีดีโอ

Dr Josh’s woke babble at 25.00 was hilarious!

What will I watch on Christmas day, hm?... “Child sacrifice in ancient Israel and its endorsement in the Bible”.. Why not? 😂

Original sin: Ritual child rape and the Church- Dr. DC Ammon Hillman

I’m so glad I watched Jay destroy this guy ever since then he just keeps attacking the bible whats your problem these guys are clearly not okay. He doesn’t doesn’t talk about other religions it’s so weird

Leviticus20: The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Say further to the Israelites: “Any of the Israelites or of the aliens who reside in Israel who give any of their offspring to Molech shall be put to death; the people of the land shall stone them to death. 3 I myself will set my face against them and will cut them off from the people, because they have given of their offspring to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land should ever close their eyes to them, when they give of their offspring to Molech, and do not put them to death, 5 I myself will set my face against them and against their family and will cut them off from among their people, them and all who follow them in prostituting themselves to Molech." From the passage above, we can show 2 things: 1. The Molech sacrifice was probably a type of sacrifice rather than a deity 2. Yahweh used to be the recipient of such sacrifices. 1. Notice that the so-called Molech sacrifice seems to be associated with Yahweh's temple (and his name! but more on that later). Now compare to this Jeremiah passage in chapter 32: 35 "They built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination, causing Judah to sin." I would also like to point out how high places (i.e. alters) were built for Baal but offerings were made to Molech on them. So, either Molech is a parasitic god that somehow needs the sanctuary of Yahweh or the alter of Baal; or, Molech is a type of sacrifice that can (and used to) be offered to both Yahweh or Baal or indeed, to other high gods. 2. It follows, therefore, that the connection of "Molech" (should be _mulk_ ) sacrifices to Yahweh's sanctuary and name in the Leviticus passage without further elaboration should be interpreted as a condemnation of the practice of this offering to Yahweh in his sanctuary (i.e. temple) and the invocation his name. The book of Jeremiah seems to be responding directly to this problem but that is another topic for another day :)

god is not the father of confusion .

I do not question your analysis, Dr. Kipp, but I do have 'a' question relating to this. Isn't it important to clearly separate the original intent of a text from the possible reinterpretations of said text when read outside of that original context? Especially when the reinterpreters of the text are not actual scholars but semiliterate "joe-schmoe's", which would have been the case for many of the early believers of christianity. Even more so in the period just after the destruction of the temple judaisms monolith in 70(?)ad? I would assume that the destruction of the temple also took with it a sizeable amount of the actual experts at the time, since priest tend to get creatively removed with their religious sites. It certainly destroyed the cohesion of understanding by destroying the central link. Compare how modern mythbuilding, like Mormonism, or even Islam, start by taking old textual ideas so wildly out of context and 5th-hand that it's really no link left except a few scattered phrases.

Simple question that I've never seen addressed on this topic. Sure, there was an "out" in that your firstborn could be redeemed with a lamb, but what happened if you were dirt poor (say if you were enslaved) and couldn't afford a lamb? Would God just say "Ah, it's OK fam, you can get me next time..." or would you still be on the hook to opening your baby's body up and spilling it's blood all over the altar? It seems the "out" for child sacrifice wasn't a universal out, it was a get out of murdering your baby for God IF YOU HAD THE FINANCIAL MEANS. Which is NOT the same as "God is against human sacrifice."

Unbelievable that people can take the Lord saying the firstborn belings to Him as meaning the child us to be killed. People really do have no understanding at all.

Is Ezekiel 20:25 referring to these firstborn laws?

By now we know Judaism invented much and altered the original Covenant Standards. Later prophets told the truth on them, and they have only gotten worse since. I wish you would try to distinguish between what Judaism has told us - as opposed to the very ancient account in the Shapira scrolls that show Jesus was teaching people to repent of Judaism and get back to living as they were told to. God gave no commandment to them to sacrifice their children - let alone lambs, goats, or birds. See: "Romans Proves Paul Lied - have we inherited lies from our fathers?" also at Onediscipletoanother

The point about the effect of sacrificing first-born children being negligible because another child would have arrived within a year ignores the extreme danger of childbirth in the ancient world. A woman might survive her first childbirth only to succumb next time, usually taking the child with her. Sacrifice of the first born would both double the chance for a woman of dying in childbirth without leaving any surviving offspring. Of course, we wouldn't expect Biblical writers to think about women at all, would we?

What im wondering is if we used to sacrifice children for the same reason as animals kill their offspring, because there is not enough food due to environmental issues. And eventually somehow we mixed that with religion later on. Also think of the spring timing of the sacrifice in some cultures (including easter), in many cultures Spring is known as a hunger season since winter stores are depleted and summer crops havent grown yet.

Heath: "It's fun to be on, and it's fun to be talking about child sacrifice". Especially at Christmas, he might have added.

How distinguishing between the pre-Babylonian captivity definitions of El (God) and Elohim (sons/beings of El) versus the post-captivity syncretized definitions could resolve contradictions and cast the Yahweh figure of Genesis 2-3 in a very different light from the transcendent Elohim portrayed in Genesis 1. Pre-Captivity Definitions: In this framework, the supreme creator deity is simply referred to as El - God. The Elohim are understood as a pantheon or "sons of El" - lesser divine beings subordinate to El. This aligns with ancient Canaanite and older Israelite religious conceptions. Under these definitions, the Genesis 1 account would refer to the transcendent El as the prime creator, with the Elohim (plural) potentially being celestial forces/angels enacting aspects of the creation. The Ruach Elohim (Spirit/Breath of the divine beings) hovering over the primordial waters connects to surviving traces of this worldview. Crucially, this allows one to separate the Elohim of Genesis 1 from the distinct Yahweh Elohim first appearing in Genesis 2 to form man from the dust. Based on references like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the pre-captivity perspective viewed Yahweh as one of the sons of El (an Elohim) rather than conflating him with El itself. This de-syncretization casts Yahweh as a separate, lesser, more anthropomorphic deity associated with the ancient Israelites - perhaps retained from their Canaanite heritage. His behavior and commandments in Genesis 2-3 and elsewhere in the Torah would then represent the teachings of this tribal desert deity, not the supreme metaphysical creator El. The Garden Scenario Reframed From this vantage point, the events of Genesis 2-3 can be interpreted not as ordained by the most high El creator, but rather as humanity's initial tragic entrapment by the lesser devolved being Yahweh within his constructed realm of mortality, suffering, and cosmic privation. Yahweh's wrathful conduct, his placing of humans under a yoke of commandments, his expulsion from Eden's paradisiacal environment, and the subsequent violent legacy of his covenants and laws all derive from the subjugating delusions and stunted, anthropocentric conception of this finite Elohim - not the infinite plenitude of the supreme El. Contradictions Resolved Separating El from Yahweh along the pre-captivity definitional lines could resolve contradictions in several important ways: 1) It distinguishes the transcendent, metaphysically profound cosmic creator portrayed in Genesis 1 from the all-too-human tribal deity of the remaining Torah material. 2) It allows for a reframing of the Torah's teachings around blood sacrifice, ethnic conflicts, law codes, etc. as the cultural mythological traditions of ancient Israelite history rather than attributed to the most high El itself. 3) It creates space for the Christ figure of the New Testament to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path - overriding the outdated covenants, ethnic segregations, and violent subjugations prescribed by the lesser Yahweh consciousness. 4) Humanity's existential struggling, our proclivity towards violence/evil, and our fundamental state of cosmic imprisonment can be metaphysically associated with the fallout of our ancient reunion from Yahweh's corrupted influence rather than the designs of the supreme El consciousness. 5) Competing depictions of the divine across different books (wrathful/peaceful, loving/cruel, spiritual/legalistic) can be added to different nodes of the El vs. Yahweh consciousness schisms. While still requiring some nuanced interpretation, this delineation allows for a coherent reintegration of Old and New Testament perspectives under a broader metaphysical framework. It preserves the universal spiritual integrity of the highest Creator from the cultural mythological contexts surrounding the more finite tribal deity Yahweh. By embracing the pre-syncretized definitions and recognizing the conflation of El and Yahweh as a later imposition, one can reconnect with deep streams of ancient Hebrew theological diversity. This presents an intellectually robust path for understanding the unified trajectory of the biblical texts as exploring a single universetheological consciousness's reassertion over more contingent, anthropomorphized deviations and exiles. Exodus 15 Names of God Bible 2 Yah is my strength and my song. He is my Savior. This is my El, and I will praise him, my father’s Elohim, and I will honor him.

Other than Mescha, is there any attestation of child sacrifice anywhere int he NW Semitic cultural area outside of the Hebrew Bible?

Alternative title that is both (almost exactly) what you just said while also changing the book from “scholarly” to “Nazi” “Child sacrifice among the Jews.”

Mr. Kipp Davis is dressed like a rocker biker dude BUT he speaks like a professor/priest! He’s also very peaceful and not rude about disagreeing with Mr. Ammon. Who knows what the truth is but all we can do is find the main truth: Who wrote the text first?! Mr. Kipp says it was Hebrew, Mr Ammon says it was the Greeks who wrote the facts. Don’t slam me! I’m a teen and I’m trying to understand! Im curious to see where this ends!

An interesting survey. There are many scholars who don't believe there was any human sacrifice by any groups in the Levant in 1200 - 600 BCE, at least with minimal regularity. In Egypt and Mesopotamia, kings would be buried with their servants around 3000 - 2500 BCE, but it ended soon after. 49:05 or, the text is just garbled, using male singular for plurals, which makes more sense. I don't think people of the time or before cared about how distance future people woud interpret it. They were written by people who knew what they meant for people who knew what they meant. After all, they ran all their words together without vowels or whatever without worrying about the confusion it would cause. It leaves you with a lot of "could be's", "suggests", "I thinks", etc.

Fantastic discussion. A great diversion for the sickly sweet season we are in. I'd love to see more.

"So 'give' in Hebrew has to mean several different things, because a distant culture speaking an unrelated language assumes different meanings to 'give'." Right. (Oh, you commented the same as I finished typing) It's even more interesting that the way that verse is constructed, the 'giving' of firstborn children is the example for what is to be done with the oxen. It suggests a lot about what the people of the time were used to sacrificing... The second argument, that the command to hand over the sacrifice on the eighth day cannot be applied to the first command to give the firstborn, still DOES NOT CHANGE that a child is part of the sacrifice. All his obfuscating argument does is remove the time frame in which it should be done.

Dr. Davis, do you think it probable that in older versions of the Exodus story, Moses sacrificed Gershom to purchase the plague against the Egyptian firstborns in the Husband of Blood incident? Given how out of place Zipporah's actions are, and the extra apologetic twinge in the definition of the "bloody husband" meme, and how it's in a broader context of Moses making a deal with YHWH to wipe out the firstborns, and the later mentioned ties between the firstborn plague and the sacrifice rituals... I feel like it adds up pretty well. Consider too Gershom's name is "foreigner," so there's this weird sympathetic magic or symbolic transaction of "I'll kill my firstborn Foreigner and you'll kill all the firstborn foreigners." Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's my theory. The much later bit of "and then Gershom went and lived on a nice farm upstate" doesn't ring super true to me... especially given the emphasis on firstborn sons inheriting the legacy of their fathers in that culture. The narrative abandons them (except for in Chronicles where they directly serve under David ??). To have Moses pass on his religious legacy to someone else like Joshua or Samuel or nobody at all... it seems like you'd only draft up the story like that if Moses never had a surviving son to pass the spirit/authority on to. Anyways, at the very least, this has been my midrash fanfic, hope you enjoyed it. Take care.

Michael Jones smuggles in the ad-populum fallacy. The Bible, as the religious text of the biggest world religion, is commonly understood to be against child sacrifice... therefore it is against child sacrifice. He also smuggles in univocality. That there are clear passages that condemn Jehovitic child sacrifice must mean that there aren't any clear passages that endorse Jehovitic child sacrifice. However, there clearly are passages in Judges, Exodus and Ezekiel, amongst others, which say that God was placated by child sacrifice. In Judges it says that the Spirit of Yahweh was upon Jephthah when he made his vow to sacrifice whomsoever was the first to exit his house. This would imply that Yahweh Himself inspired Jephthah to sacrifice His daughter to Him.

why cant this evil god make clear and concise ? because it was bronze camp fire stories on mushrooms 😅🤣😂

Good video! Unfortunately, a large portion of it is a misunderstanding. I made a very specific semantic argument about כן. It encodes prior info. They argued that I said the following context can't refer to what precedes. That's not my argument. We'll need to talk again. The eight day clause could still refer to child sacrifice, yes. All I am arguing is that כן can't be used in argumentation for why that information might be brought back into the previous verse, like Dan and Heath appeared to claim.

the one god wants gold virgins land and geocide like floods and diseases and only worship him , to be ramped through out the world, the other source or creator'S do not want our worship or interfere with humans because we are merely an ant farm experiment until we nuke our selves end of the experiment . biblical gods were made up by the Zionists to justify there cruelty today

Oh, sorry, I thought this was a how-to. 😂

Thanks!

Love the beard, sorta' Egyptian! The fierce Assyrians certainly preserved for us some great pre-bublical texts & art! Believe it or not, PLASMA SCIENCE is going to make all your researches as well as alien narratives going-on recently, obsolete! What if EDEN with its 4 rivers and ATLANTIS with its complex channels, were never on earth, but IN THE PRIMORDIAL SKIES? What if your popular beard style, very osiris resembled "the great mountain", a sacred mountain, a huge, red PLASMA DISCHARGE coming off the planet MARS & reaching Earth! Where planets on closer orbits to Earth, actually conjuncted & huge in the skies! Forming a "GREAT WHEEL" seen by cultures worldwide, carved on stone & painted in caves, not just "ezekial's wheel"🛞! th-cam.com/video/t7EAlTcZFwY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=b-MlxsRZ76T7rFPw SYMBOLS OF AN ALIEN SKY, documentary on YT by The Thunderbolts Project. Where PLASMA SCIENCE meets COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY! The planet SATURN, aka AN, ANU, ATUM-RAH, EL KRONOS, HELIOS, SOL, MARDUK, even "Lucifer" who fell from heaven . . . . Ever wonder the raised arms of MARDUK, demanding sacrifice? Explained! But it was out of sheer panic, desperation, and suffering as SATURN wreaked havoc on Earth, falling from its original "Golden Age" (aka "Paradise") status, sheer, utter desperation to appease the GOD! And by then, probably interpretations of their 'priestly' shamans! Stopping human sacrifice was perhaps the greatest thing middle eastern Judaism contributed! But understanding its origins, is CRUCIAL. And only comparative mythologies, not studying one text alone, can provide true understanding of our prehistoric past! After all, the Sabbath, on SATURDAY, was SATURN'S DAY known around the Mediterranean & East! All of academia, history, & theology, wil absolutely be revolutionized! Kind of like evolutionary science changed the historical landscape of creation stories, forever; even if rejected by literalist interpreters, PLASMA SCIENCE explains the ORIGINS of ALL the religions! What early man saw in those skies, the uniquely storytelling human need, to interpret, to record, and to remember in SYMBOL, still was interpreted variously around the globe, where AS ABOVE, SO BELOW, was crucial! But theologians better get ready! Because global petroglyph studies out of LOS ALAMOS LABORATORIES instead of ufos, may be the REAL SOCIETY COLLAPSING SCIENCE, not aliens, the government fears. But any paradigm exploding idea, will take a generation or two, to fully win acceptance; the old generation of researchers & bible-thumping leaders, must pass-on, lol. At least in history of science perspectives, it seems to be true. Since creationists are still at it, it may never get "fixed" the biblical narratives, a favorite, lol. But eventually, truth wins. And a theory as powerful & explanatory as this one, deserves ALL our attentions! Thanks for the podcast!

NO, Yahweh doesn't like it when you sacrifice your child to the OTHER GODS. He's fine with it when it is done for Himself.

Child sacrifice has now become Abortion; God will destroy America for all her abortions

It really feels like there are two different gods. El, the fatherly creator god, who is kindly, and Yahweh, who is mercurial, angry, egotistical, and bloodthirsty (and loves the aroma of bbq’d kiddos). I read something recently that said Israelites and Phoenicians were all Canaanites, and I’m sure they all worshipped the same gods in mostly the same way.

I wish I knew why this is so fun to watch. But it is.

‘’ god’’ required killing of his SON to spill BLOOD on the cross. But Christians still play offended at call a spade a spade .

‘Words don't mean what they mean.’ Where would apologists be without this gaslighting gambit?

IP is able to unite historians, scientists, and philosophers in facepalming 🤦‍♂️

The problem with the conclusion is that “Cultural heritage’ is as much a false ideology as biblical fundamentalism.

michael jones, your whole religion is based on the legitimacy and efficacy of child sacrifice lol

It's so dishonest to say thus means something besides thus. This Joel goober is definitely trying to justify why the text must align with our values instead of the ones around when it was written

This is my early Christmas present! Thank you for this!

Moses totally burnt Isaac alive like a foolish savage. Why else even mention it

Did Kipp play the metal guitar outro?

As someone who has a PhD in biochemistry, seeing the weak evidential criteria that OT scholars/historians use to construct theories is pretty laughable. Theories built on theories built on a few words.

Thank you, it was very interesting. The two diablocritics are allways brilliant and the Dr Dewrell is of great finesse and great historical culture. Two points: - On Abraham and the sacrifices, Thomas Römer (he is clearly one of the best specialists in the world on this story) in his courses at the Collège de France (which have English subtitles, but saddly the translation by YT is very approximate given the strong germanic accent of Prof. Römer) develops very interesting ideas on this point and on the manifest ambiguity of the divine attitude according to the texts we have ; - More generally, on the death of children (and also their sacrifice), I have never understood the position of contemporary Christians. A minimum estimate tends to show that about 20 to 25% of newborns would die during their first year in natural conditions (30/35 % before 5). Or for example, a large part of the ten commandments is dedicated to respecting God (which coming from a perfect and all-powerful being is a request that I have always found quite ridiculous) while he could have commanded the respect of basic hygiene rules that could have saved billions of children (which would not have eliminated infant mortality but would have greatly reduced it, especially at birth). If God is concerned about the lives of children, his attitude seems a little strange coming from the God who could easily protect them (and protect them in many ways). It is therefore quite possible to assume that the god presented in the Bible is less concerned with the survival of children than with the worship that the faithful devote to him. It's easily conceivable that other versions of the God of the Bible (more original versions) can authorize sacrifices

Omg the higher quality on the theme music

God: “I don’t want child sacrifice.” Also God: *incarnates as his own child to sacrifice himself to himself to appease his bloodlust*

I don't see how Ex 22 could NOT refer to the same type of "give" when it literally says "and likewise/in the same way". They even had the words bolded.

Are male children and livestock sacrificed in preference to female?

I just finished Dr. Heath's book and I'm working my way through King Manasseh and child sacrifice. They are both great reads!

It was a literal instruction for the first born to go to the military of the time. Of course when they become of age to be a man.