That's lomg been an issue with the Digital Hammurabi team. . . Interesting and well thought out content that it takes them 8 eternities to get to. Meghan Rapinao'a (sp?) work with Bart Ehrmann suffers from the same problem. I don't understand it personally so always skip around to find the thing they should be leading with since it's the bloody title.
@1:13:55 - The crux of the "Hansel and Gretel" story was the abandonment of the children by the parents, because the parents (a breeding couple) were going to die of starvation if they didn't cruelly trick and reject their children!! NOW go back and look at the Abraham and Isaac origin story, which even if it was later modified to hide the original practice of sacrificing the first born male infant OR a viable child, still demonstrates Abraham's WILLINGNESS to commit child sacrifice to gain the favor of the YHWH (war) god.
@@joeyrinard6997 Now go take another look at Jesus' sacrifice. Depending on who is doing the preaching, it is often called a sacrifice, literally a sacrifice.
Yes its a recreation of the sacrifice of the first born a practice that was done by Demon's to satisfy the most high Demon among them it is a shame that the Crishtinos still celebrate an recreate this crime againts Humanity.
It's typically jealous people who hate breastfeeding. Teaching breastfeeding for over four years for the government enlightened to how destructive uneducated bias can be.
@@09I60 true but maybe the point of existence is to strive against the undefeatable. You're point isn't a fact just a nihilistic opinion that assumes if something isn't permanent then it's idiotic
As an atheist living in Malaysia who wants nothing more than living in solidarity with people of different beliefs, the fact that you and Dr. Heath and even Megan can discuss your beliefs with honesty and reflection.
@@TheRunoben I agree that some of his points are false because he relies on “common sense,” but at 38:26 he talks about the inscriptions at Carthage that apparently talk about Molch sacrifices, as if it is a form of sacrifice.
@@TheRunoben The inscriptions are evidence. The Hebrew grammar allows for “le-Molech” to mean “as a molech” sacrifice. What other kind of evidence are you looking for?
Around 1:11:20 Heath talks about how you don't get a 2nd chance to sacrifice your first born. Perhaps folks weren't wondering whether to sacrifice, but when and to whom.
I used to play a game with the Chaplain of my Scottish university. In the annual Commemoration of Benefactors Service (in the University chapel) it was my job, as Clerk of Senate, to read the lesson that came immediately before the sermon and served as an introduction to it. A few days beforehand the Chaplain would send me a piece of paper on which was typed the lesson to be read. It was always taken from one of the newer Bible translations. It the meanings were sufficiently different I liked to substitute the King James wording. This often resulted in the Chaplain, sitting in the raised pulpit in full view of everyone, going into mild hysterics, and giggling fits, while she worked out if she needed to change her sermon on the fly. Of course the congregation had no idea what was going on.
What has the world came too the only reason were here today is because great grandmother breastfeed her children an so did grandmother an so did my mother. what kind of trashy imbeciles believe that breast were design to improve a lady's look or for grown man to suck on them thats just baloney the one an only funtion for breast is so that human females can feed their children anyone who believes something other than that is a complete stupid idiot who's presence in this Earth is completely unnecessary.
How can Dewrell say that Yahweh does not ever order child sacrifice (40:20)? “You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give me the first-born among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:28-29. JPS trans.). Moreover, the condemnation of the practice in the Bible (Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 32:35, Isiah 30-33) is not an objection to the sacrifice itself, but rather to making it to a god other than Yahweh. So he does deal with this later, because he thinks it doesn't refer to the molk sacrifice. Let's say he doesn't make it clearly enough how he thinks that's possible. Its hard to argue with simple assertion.
HConstantine I have seen, but not pursued , analyses that indicate that the story of the Abraham and Isaac is a blending of more than one older version, including one where Isaac was sacrificed
Child sacrifice seems acceptable to the author of Judges, e.g. 11:31 where Jephthah pledges that he will sacrifice whomever comes first to greet him. How could he not suspect that his would be his daughter?
@@scienceexplains302 That is certainly something that is frequently discussed. There is no evidence of such a story (no Ugartitic version or anything), but its a logical inference that this story wold have evolved from a simpler (i.e., more straight-forward) version. Its similar to the case in Classics where the story of Orpheus and Eurydice is thought to have originally ended with Orpheus successfully bringing Eurydice back from the dead. In any case, even the story that we have seems to attest to the ideology of child sacrifice (it's been several days since I watched the video but I believe Dewrell mentions it in passing).
I'm an agnostic atheist now, but for many years after completing my major in biblical studies, with many hours of Greek and Hebrew and a strong interest in NT textual criticism, I held a view much like Dr. Dewrell does: that the Bible is a collection of writings tracing humanity's understanding (and misunderstanding) of God. It didn't need to be "inspired" or historically accurate. I was able to be horrified by their sanctioning of slavery, the treatment of women, etc., and view it all as an evolution towards being better.
Where do you see any evolution in the Bible. The New Testament still endorses slavery, treats women as subordinate property, says Jews are the children of the Devil and promises the destruction and punishment for the majority of humanity any minute now (an event still assuredly wished for and prayed for by millions of Christians). You can talk about the ostensible teachings of Jesus himself, but I don't think the Christian religion has much to do with the teachings of Jesus so much as it just focuses on the worship of Jesus' person, a non-virtuous act which helps no other human.
@@Ken_Scaletta though I am atheist myself it would seem to me she is referencing within the religions themselves from antiquity to today not a progression from Judaism to Christianity being thee progression… But I’m of course inferring as it was not my assertion.
@@LapsedSkeptic She specifically said she was talking about the Bible and saying the Bible traces an evolution but it doesn't. Even on a macro level. there has been no evolution from polytheism to monotheism. Polytheism is still just as prevalent and as thriving as monotheism and some polytheistic paradigms are both more ethical and more logical than monotheism. Polytheism doesn't have to deal with the POE. If there's any evolution in ethical thought, it's in the Stoics.
@@Ken_Scaletta yes, traces the evolution of what people thought then… which as the interview expressed, it did not stay stagnant even within the biblical texts.
Dr Dewrel, please take this as the highest praise. You sound just like Jim Henson to me. It would be a joy to listen to your lectures and I'm an atheist.
When my daughter introduced me to her her first boyfriend (who I did not like), he asked what he should call me. I told him " Mr. Molek." So, being the genius that he was, he called me Mr. Molek for the brief duration of their relationship.
When we think of a country or a culture we think in modern terms with central governments mobile populations communications codified laws and yet could these ancient countries cultures be more heterogeneous, more isolated populations etc. For example languages seemed to be highly variable to the point where communication between neighboring groups was not possible in ancient cultures.
Very interesting subject. Dr. Dewrell was a very good sport, but I'm glad you decided to change the format in other interviews by providing folks with a list of prepared questions and topics.
His doctorate is being a theologian, not only that, but where is the historical or religious evidence to be this sure of what he claims because I don’t even see historians make the claims he makes what specific scriptures? Has he seen to back him up?
I have assumed that YHWH _was_ Moloch, but that Moloch was a type of sacrifice rather than a distinct deity works just as well. It's always been clear to me that YHWH was, at the earliest, demanding of the firstborn. Most of the Pentateuch, to me, seems to be the story of the evolution of YHWH into a god of different character. His development story is the story of the development of his worshipers. I oversimplify, of course, for a YT comment.
@@lancetschirhart7676 Because YHWH is literally all we have of the name. That's how it was written in Hebrew. "Yahweh" may or may not be correct, (most likely not) but it is certainly two extra letters to type.
He's basically saying what most professors say about this subject within certain boundaries. What I've realized is that Israel [especially rabbinical Judaism aka Pharisees] did these practices early on because they evolved from the neighboring people, culture and systems. First of all Jacob was named "Israel" by Moloch, aka "Malak" wrestling with the Angel. Rashi says that entity is Samael, aka Satan, or one of the satans. These names and words have been around for a long time and clear what they originally meant and imply. At some point there was an attempt to change the views, to morph and pretend to be a different religion. But Judaism came from Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Sumerian religion. The bible itself is a compendium of various political and religious groups that all pulled and utilized the common stories, myths, narratives and religious practices of the region and Eurasia in general. But each group and sect modified things to whatever they wished and the way they wanted at the time. The Maccabeean revolt forced out the Melkizedek priesthood in Jerusalem that only used bread and wine [Christian Eucharist] and the Hasmoneans were put in place, they brought in the foreign Pharisee/Farsi sect from Babylon that brought in the psychopathic animal and human sacrifice practices. The original Melkizedek sect did not practice these things. So the narrative of Jesus was to reinstall the Melkizedek religious ways with bread and wine, and do away with the temple sacrifices, and reinstall a legitimate pedigree from Solomon back on the throne. The Melkizedekian High Priest was The King. Even the Jerusalem Talmud does not mention Kodashim [temple sacrifices] in it's 9000+ pages and is different from the Babylonian Talmud. That's because these evolved from 2 different religious systems. Prior to the Hasmoneans and 2nd century BC none of the Jewish holidays or traditions existed. Modern rabbinical Judaism was invented during that time period. This is why in early Christianity people like Marcion were against canonizing many biblical books because they were from Pharisee tradition and not the original "Judaism" of Melkizedek. And also why some Gnostic sects viewed the Old Testament god as evil, because they knew the history, sources and original context.
There was no "judaism" until after the Christ." The first mention of ieuds is in Kings where the Israelites were fighting off these "enemies of God and all mankind."
I think you forget that abraham had a whole culture and a relationship with God before they left for the Palestine area. I don't think there would be a need to assume other peoples religious habits or beliefs. He and his people would have been well established on their own. The trick was more to keep other cultures out rather than adopt new customs. and in terms of religion, abraham was already older and had specific beliefs and a specific relationship to God.
I was taught this "tension" attitude in OT many years ago: the dog(matism) in the manger evangelical refusal to hold differing possibilities in the mind makes the conservatives their own worst enemies.
I have bee convinced for many years that the story of Abraham attempt to sacrifice Issac was intended to end the sacrifice of the first born by Israelites.
But you/we cannot deny of the blood shed in the name of YAHWH, the wars after wars, all the vengeance, no misericordia on his part, just hate, killings, sacrifices on and on and on ‘till today….
This is how we dress for historical reenactment where I live. I adore peasant clothes, they're by far the most practical and comfortable ❤ You did a fabulous job with thus project😊
1:06:45 I have actually wondered for a long time if this is the case. It just seemed to make sense to me as an emotional coping mechanism, as harsh as it seems to us. It also reminds of what I have read from military history. In war experienced soldiers don't immediately attach emotionally for new fresh troops, as mortality among them is of course higher. Also according to Antony Beevor they was seemed to have been some instinctive resentment as they often replaced dead friends. A question just came to mind. Among anti-Semitic conspiracy believers, there is a common myth of Jews even in modern times practicing ritual sacrifice of children. I wonder do these passages in the Bible have any influence in that?
You do not understand why Christ was called the lamb of God. The ultimate sacrafice for sin. You do not understand Yom Kippur and Blood Libel. Even muslims have adopted the belief that Jews and Christian will pay the price for the sins of muslims. You do not understand Baal and Moloch. Why do jews sacrafice innocent animals
Your explanation of mlk makes sense. And child sacrifices to Yahweh is consistent with other things we see. Like Yahweh being called Baal and there being child sacrifices to Baal.
@@areuaware6842 IEUE is an anagram for Immanuel Christ Iesous. He has other names and titles in other languages. The YHWH is ha hovah, and not the god of Israel. It is a spell invoking a devil. The earliest extant materials of the "new" testament far precede those of the "old." I suspect that the "old" is a corruption of Christian materials. One of the primary reasons is because the Biblical lands were not in that region, where references to yhwh exist. After Christ, rabbis were near there trying to create a new religion for themselves. Christianity also traveled to that area with the Galileans / Gauls. Afterwards, many translation errors and marginal notes entered texts which returned to the West. Probably that other material returned with it. Another reason is that there was no "hebrew" Bible. The Galilean Goidelic is Hibreau. From it was formed the Koine Greek. "Immanuel Christ Iesous" was fluent in Latin, Galilean Goidelic, and Greek.
I noticed that “god” prefers the second born. It’s because they are sacrificing the first born? This would make sense. The bible was changed to cover for this practice. All of our stories whether historically accurate or not, have a message. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
A reading of the Torah specifies sacrificing ALL firstborn to El. A redaction adds a provision for substations for humans and asses. Also note that circumcision is a substitution for the death of the male child with a token blood and flesh sacrifice.
Sacrifice doesn't always mean killing, it also means setting aside for a particular purpose, like setting in s temple or being a prophet. However, considering the whole, pervasive allegory of god as father, people as his children, and considering jesus said he called his disciples 'friends', not servants or followers, this sacrifice as one act makes sense. Some people think this was a picture of what God would do in the future......his son would be sacrificed....... and expressed this idea of sharing feeling with a friend. Indeed abraham was called a friend if god. So this subject of interpretation makes sense only if you restrict the meaning to old testament times. It's also true that the bible is full of examples of stories which are tied to the new testament events.
People complain about everything imaginable… usually whatever seems like an easy target. I love the positive response of making a whole episode on the topic of breastfeeding so we all have the chance to think about it a lot more.
I mean at the same time people weren’t comfortable with seeing that and it’s a public place. I’d say they should be private areas for them to be able to do it personally the women I grew up with wouldn’t be comfortable doing that themselves in public.
@@TheRunoben YOU are the one who needs to get yourself sorted out. Breast feeding is normal. Doing it in public is normal. Americans seem to think that breasts are for sex. They are not. They are for feeding babies. Get over it.
@@stephaniewilson3955 when did I say breasts are for sex? I’m saying it’s nudity or just something I don’t want to see I find it weird just like I find seeing a shirtless guy weird a lot of people just don’t want to see that it’s not about sex. They just don’t want to see that
I knew morons would flock as soon as I saw her feed the boy. I did not SEE her feed her son, I heard him get fussy and saw her adjust herself and place his head against her. Getting crazy about breast feeding is dumb, we got some real suffering in this world, none of us should take too much time on those who invent their own suffering
very well said, I couln't agree more. And Megan making a video on breastfeeding in the ancient world shows what a classy person and a good academic she is. Such an elegant response.
As someone who was breastfed myself _and_ saw six younger siblings being breastfed, nothing hidden, I can’t empathize at all with people who feel weird about it, _but_ I also try to understand that other people’s shock sensitivity may be completely different from mine. Whatever the case, everyone should still think twice before writing shit comments to/about others, no matter how they might feel.
Looking at the young age girls are still forced into marriage in some cultures today, I think that first borns were very likely to die, because the mothers’ bodies weren’t developed enough to carry a child to full term. Too many of the mothers probably died because of this as well. Since wives were considered property, this may not have been seen as a big problem; they were replaceable. Maybe the death of a boy child would have caused a man grief, but seeing how easily girls are sold off into marriage or slavery even today in some cultures, their death probably not so much.
I worked with s nurse from Ethiopia once and asked about this. There they had to do 400 births to graduate. In the US, teen pregnancy was discourage citing preterm birth, low birth weight babies, complications for the mother, so I asked her if they had problems with teen pregnancy. She said it was common to marry at about 15 or 16, and there were no problems with teen pregnancies. She said the problems started when the mother got to be about 40. And it doesn't make sense that nature would have women reaching sexual maturity young, and that be a liability. Most of her patients were farmers and herders, so fresh food and exercise were part of everyday life. Normally, speaking in the natural sense, even if a young girl got pregnant, if she was in fact physically immature, she likely wouldnt conceive or if so, miscarry. But usually by 15 it's actually quite healthy. But you have to remember, many psychological factors actually affect the biological body. At one point in time, dying at 30 to 40 of wear and tear, disease and accident was high. So if it people couldnt start reproducing at an early age, the species was finished. And of course, it's only been recently that mothers and grandmothers weren't around to advise and help with baby care. I believe that's one factor in today's infant health problems as well as maternal health problems. As to ' forced' marriages, you have to realize setting your kids up with a marriage and extended family was doing them a favor . Absolutely every bit like today when parents plan to send their kids to college. And marriage was seen more as a partnership than being about romantic love. People were and are, very well satisfied to have a partner who diligently did their part and had decent manners. Today, even in India, marriages are arranged at the appropriate age and time, usually after either high school or college. However, it's not forced. They are expected to go along with a suitable match if they dont find some sort of fault. And if one doesn't like the other for some reason, they arent forced into it. And, sometimes if kids fall in love, it's an easy set up for the families. So what I'm saying is people who live with those customs and in certain lifestyles dont look at it like you do from the western perspective. And part of the western perspective is thinking their customs are the only ones that lead to happiness. Of course, the west has long lost that debate! There wasnt near as much death involved as you might think, and its logical because for reproduction to result in death, especially that of the mother, is counterproductive to survival of the species. And it's also logical that losing the mother who has survived to reproductive age, is also counterproductive to survival of the species. Its easier to make another baby than a full grown woman. Survival of the newborn had mostly to do with an attentive mother, experienced or not, and a healthy diet for the mother. the more support the mother gets, the better the survival of the infant, and that simply means the mother is in a protected environment, has enough rest to be attentive, and has a wholesome diet of fresh foods. After that, the help and advise of a mother and grandmother is key. And that means access to those people. Can't replace time. And incidentally, infant boys are more fragile than girls. They have a slightly higher infant mortality rate, and statistically there is a fraction higher incidence of Male births too. At least there always has been historically. Considering falling sperm counts and other hormonal influences in today's food and water, I don't know.
Wished I could get myself some 'chandise! One day .... It's wonderful to see your channel grow. @dr Josh, you definitely get the best! I love to hear people speak I would otherwise never hear that are truly knowledgeable. @Megan, mother of 4 speaking here. I used to breastfeed my children everywhere. It kept me mobile and involved, and it is the most natural thing to do. I got my share of shitty comments, but also support that sometimes came from where I didn't expect it. Oliver gets the best start in life you can give him. And all I see is a natural interaction between a child and his mommy while we get to enjoy anything you share with us through the channel. If Oliver is fine with sharing you with us, then why shouldn't we be fine with sharing you with him?
Thank you, Joan ☺️ I think I’ve been very lucky with breastfeeding - I’ve received no in-person comments that aren’t positive, it’s really just been a few people online who are weird about it. I really, truly appreciate your words of support ❤️ I think it’s bizarre that this is still considered inappropriate, and I hope that maybe by doing this publicly I make it easier for others to do the same.
Does Exodus 13:11-16 make the clarifying distinction that you “redeem” your first born sons by sacrificing something else in their place and give the firstborn animals to the Lord, aka sacrifice them?
@@abaker4692 ”You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.“ Leviticus 18:15 What does that have to do with sacrifices?
So didn't Ahaz marry Jezabel, princess of Sidon, which was a phoecian colony? David's agreement with Tyre seems to have run its course so Ahaz was looking for a better trading partner
Man I really hate that people think they have a right to bitch about doing something as natural as feeding your child. The puritan attitude around the human body is general is stupid considering we all have one and shouldn't be shocked when we see someone else's. But breastfeeding? If it bothers you - which it really shouldn't - then don't look. simple as that. Or you could just be an adult and let a mother feed her child without making her feel like she's some kind of freak of nature. I hope you can ignore these idiots Megan and know that most of us aren't offended or bothered by it. I personally applaud the women that embrace their motherhood while still sharing their intelligence and passions with the world.
Thank you so much, words of support like this really mean a lot. It usually bothers me a little, but then I remember that we live in 2019 and people can just get over themselves 😁
Forgive me. I haven’t finished, but do you think there is any connection of child “sacrifice” to the frequent deaths of neo-natal babies? Most ancient culture didn’t name or count (in the Old Testament) babies in the first couple weeks of life. Might the idea that god took him/her back as a sacrifice have arisen? To prevent, I must sacrifice something in his/her place to prevent god for taking. hence, this connection worked its way into religious belief.
Apparently child sacrifice was acceptable in at least part of Jewish culture around 50-70 CE when people started writing about god sacrificing his child to himself
@@biotorex8999 Yet with your comments, you show very little signs of intelligence. If you were, you would know the scriptures were written by scholars and theologians. Dirty goat herders (racist) wouldn't have access to ink and paper
I saw a TH-cam video about archeology find in an old temple to the south of modern Israel by the sea or near the sea where a temple record was kept in an old form of old Jewish writing telling about the king of that city sacrificing his son from the city walls and turning back another army from Jeruselum because that was powerful form magic to gain YHWH's favor. I think it was a female professor from Princeton who gave the "lecture." Unfortunately, I don't remember the Professor or anything else about the site. without any ability to site a source this may not be very reliable information.
Based on what I know, this makes a lot of sense. I think he is right about Molech a type of sacrifice and that some Isralites sacrificed their children to YHWH. The texts are repleat with admonitions against following (practicing rites and acts of worship) foreign gods. I think he Dr. Dewrell is right.
So,...repeated evidence of Israelites sacrificing either their 1st born sons, or in Jephtah's case his only begotten - just to have God's only begotten son to be sacrificed. Doesn't seem as if YHWH is entirely opposed
Wish I had been watching this four years ago. I want to know what method was used to sacrifice the children. Was it done like an animal sacrifice on a stone altar with four horns on the corner? Was the blood sprinkled on the four horns? Was burning the fat involved?
The children had to pass between two fires (Sanhedrin 64b:9) or jump over a fire burning in a pit (Sanhedrin 64b:10). Some children managed to survive, some didn't.
Maybe our religion was never supposed to be based on some comprehensive text but a recognition that the text was simply other people wrestling with some of the same matters that we wrestle with and finding some of the benefits and avoiding the detriments hopefully.... Misuse of The Bible seems to often be a destructive behavoir for a person's faith in a variety of ways...including a path to deconversion. Evangelicalism is the classic example.
So the Moses myth, the golden calf, when he has the Levites kill all the golden calf builders, thus elevating Cohen and Levite to priestly class responsible for sacrifice, replacing the supposed previous tradition of the first born son of all tribes being "Priests', some form of cryptic allusion to the sacrifice of the 1st born being replaced by Priests sacrificing animals? Or was it just used as a myth to install the Levite/Cohen cases after Babylon when they switched to a lunar calendar, and perhaps brought back more Babylonian ideas? I always saw the building of the golden calf, representing the past and the age of Taurus, which they were moving out of at the time, in terms of astronomy. The Bull was previously the sacred symbol of the age, the Indo-Europeans, Egyptians, both held the cow sacred during that period. That was followed by Ares, and of course, lamb/goats became the symbol of sacrifice in that age. With the Egyptians holding the lamb /goat as sacred. And then Moses having the Israelites slaughter all their lambs, using the blood to mark their doors. This always seemed like allegory of moving from the Age of Taurus to the Age of Ares. And we clearly see this in the sacrificial traditions in many places changing from Ox to lamb. Or in the Hindu case, continuing to perpetuate the traditions of the Age of Taurus, holding the cow sacred after the age was over. I suspect this is the time that those proto-Hintu practices changed from being astrotheological to more traditional religion. Anyway, that entire part of the Exodus, seems to me astrotheology of a sort. And the symbolism in sacrifice, with the blood sacrifice of the builders of the golden calf, a blood sacrifice which installed the Levitical caste, replacing the previous priestly tradition of the first born sons of each "tribe". The 12 tribes of course, obviously representing the 12 Zodiac. Which we can see in Ezekiel, when he describes the tabernacle. The 4 fixed Zodiac are closest to the tabernacle, which i assume symbolizes earth and the world of matter. Judah the lion or Leo, Reuben symbolized by both a human and water, which are both signs of Aquarius, Dan the Eagle or Scorpio and Ephraim, one of the 2 subtribes of Joseph who was often associated with wheat, grapes and agriculture, and his son Ephraim symbolized the Ox or Taurus, the domesticated farm animal or perhaps the domesticated elements of the farming civilizations. And the other son of Joseph, while not representing a fixed zodiac, is usually also represented by wheat or growth, representing the crop side of agriculture and probably the two brothers representing the planting of the crops perhaps the Ox representing pulling a plow in the spring and the Manasseh representing threshing the full wheat at the harvest. So we can see there is astrotheology already woven in to the tribal mythology. Levi is interesting. His symbols are associated with all tribes or the menorah. And since they had Joseph break into two, representing agriculture or Virgo and planting/farming and Taurus, likely means Levi doesn't represent ONE of the Zodiacs, but either the entire procession or perhaps the 7 celestial bodies as the Menorah has 7 branches. The Cohen, who are of Levi but not Levites as we know them in caste, their breastplate contains symbols from all the other tribes on it. Some suggest Joseph only represents Taurus and Levi represents Pisces, but I'm not so sure. Unless in the Moses story, Levites represent the future and the Age of Pisces to come, which would eventually become "Jesus" in early Christianity, which obviously stems from Judaism. But that is a possibility.
The power of religion can't be overstated. To sacrifice children to false gods shows the frailty of human conscience and critical thinking. Much like the Jehovah's Witnesses do today watching children die for their god by denying blood transfusions.
The debate seems to revolve around whether or not human child sacrifices were performed for YHWH, and if he might have actually demanded them. It seems so, as Mosaic law required the first born to be redeemed by a blood sacrifice... Implying that the life of the first born was...Owed. If the first born was not owed, then why must they redeem them? Believers will argue against any clue as to the evil nature of their god. The leap to accept that god demands human child sacrifices is an impossible barrier to cross for those raised in the word. But, among all christians, there is no debate as to whether or not god sacrificed his own son. The mental disconnect is astounding. And they say this is "Good". That Jesus died as a human... child... sacrifice. And they say he went willingly, as if it was Jesus' idea all along. They ignore the reality of the story: “Let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39). “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done”. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" But, unfortunately it was not possible for this cup to be taken away. Because "anything is possible through christ who strengthens me", except that he escape his pre-ordained human child sacrifice unto his father to appease his anger at the world he himself created inherently sinful. Jesus, as it is written, said "pick up your cross and follow me". And just where did he take it? Oh, its not literal. They say. Oh yeah? How did his disciples die? Its a Cult.
Hey guys, great discussion! I have read, enjoyed, puzzled over, been disgusted by...etc. the KJV since I was a sophomore in college. I'm a senior now (as in drawing soc. sec.) My take on the Abraham/Issac story. I never get much traction from my Christian, or other Bible believer, friends. So (here it is): God tells Abe to kill his son, tells him he (Abe) loves his son, tells him where and when to do it. Abraham says nothing. Abe "might" be thinking..." I guess I'd better do what he says, I've noticed he gets angry when folks are disobedient. I can always have more sons." I'm guessing that it is assumed that what was being tested was Abraham's willingness to obey without question, and to make the penultimate sacrifice. He seemingly passed that test by agreeing to carry it out and going through the preliminaries, ( seems only Issac voiced a word of concern?) How is it then that being obedient to a loving god would require being willing to do the most monstrous thing a person can do?
@@scienceexplains302 Good question. Why would a father who loves his son not make some objection? However what you ask seems to open the possibility that Abe might have thought some other invisible being might be directing him. I think that those who wrote this story need us to assume that Abraham knew it was Yahweh. I hold out the possibility that Abraham knew not to "talk back", and obeyed without question.
Russell Millar Yes, in that passage the reader is to assume Abraham knew it was Yahweh. How, it doesn’t say. And since he knew it was Yahweh, why was Abe not surprised that Yahweh would request a child sacrifice? (In other verses, such as Exodus 3:4-6, when Yahweh saw Moses, Elohim identifies himself as the “god (elohe) of your fathers”.) In Genesis 35:2, elohe is translated as “gods” Edit- it is Ha Elohim, “the gods” in Genesis 22:1 who tell Abraham to slaughter Isaac as a burnt offering.
Look up Mauro Biglino and his analysis of the old testament and it'll make more sense. The old testament "God" isn't based on monotheism. That's why Yhwh is jealous of the other gods. BTW, every name such as "most high", "Yhwh", "Elohim", "El", are actually referring to different entities and not the same God. If you read the Bible that way, it will make much more sense because they have different personalities and traits.
The Israelite religion evolved over time from more primitive religions and child sacrifice was obviously a primitive practice that was part of their cultic practice for quite a while. And, anyway, Isaac was sacrificed and the later redactors put in the ram in the bushes story.
@@abaker4692 sorry I guess the phrasing is clumsy. Most scholars reading the sources agree that Isaac was actually sacrificed and later redactors removed the sacrifice and inserted the story of the ram in the bushes-vs 11 through 15. then the story takes up after the insertion of 11 through 15 and says "since you did not withhold your son, your only one...In verse 19 Abraham returns without Isaac.
Okay cool. That was an interesting experience. I did a search for child sacrifice in ancient Israel having only just heard of it. The rabbit trial I went down before coming here was an strange brew of conspiracy theories and religious extremism. Apparently (according to some of these people) Moloch worship is still being practiced at the Bohemian grove and abortion is modern day child sacrifice. Yeah,... So when I found this I was relieved. So, I'll rip this since it's so long and listen at work but thanks for being here and talking about these things.
Think about this: he is talking about human nature. In Christianity, today we have 1000 or more denominations because each of these groups (denominatons) disagree with the Mother Church (Catholism) and each other. Likewise, the religious practices of of the elite, doesn't necessarily reflect the religious practices of the rest of society, or different groups within said society. And like the ancient Israelites, Christianity also has practices that are not commanded by their god; Christmas and Easter are the first two that come to mind. Although "god" didn't tell them these days are "holy", nor did he command them to do any of the things associated with these holidays, they "santify" these days, and call their their observance and rituals "religious practice".
Dr Dewrell, are you sure they didn’t make laws against things that people didn’t do? Some people are trying to do it these days as part of straw man vitriol against their political enemies.
I don't know if that's true. I know the GOP are trying to pass ID voter laws in the south but I think that's reasonable. What's unreasonable is the requirements to get an ID for homeless people and the very old. The states need to help these guys get IDs.
Before being conquered by the Assyrians, what percentage of the Israelites (not the Jews) worshipped the El god? What percentage of them worshipped the Yahweh god?
Concerning the question at 1:37:30: It's better to ask such a question than to just assume everything someone claims on TH-cam is true. Answering this question with a simple "No" is totally appropriate, but maybe it's also wise to give some background: - There is an antisemitic stereotype known as blood libel that goes back to the Middle Ages, but there is no evidence that anything like this was ever true. Nevertheless, Catholic folklore based on this lie has survived right into 20th century Austria. Anti-semites keep pushing the boundaries in this respect, and then misrepresent the necessary push-back as censorship. - There is of course the question of child sacrifice in very old forms (or rather precursors) of Judaism. Similar things happened in other cultures at the time. E.g. an excavation near Lake Constance in Germany suggests that a Celtic child sacrifice happened there. What is singular about Judaism is that its traditions date so far back that such long obsolete practices are still remembered today in some form. The rest of the world just forgot about them. - In an extension of the previous point, some Jewish sects today have a purely symbolic ritual in which a few coins are offered to God instead of the firstborn child. Obviously this is just another occasion for a celebration, and parents would rather skip it completely than commit infanticide instead. Christianity provides similar opportunities for haters of other faiths to make bizarre accusations. The best known is probably the claim of ritual cannibalism every Sunday. No doubt there are also people who claim Christians drown their babies.
I don't understand how people can still venerate the Bible or the god(s) in it, when its obviously their moral, knowledge, and perception of the world were the same or worse than other cultures, from other religions. If you say that you gain insight and wisdom from the bible, sure. But you can gain the same, or similar insight or wisdom from other myths, modern fiction, non-fiction ethics, etc.
Circumcision was done on the 8th day, Hannah gave Samuel to God. These are both sacrificees. Is it possible that the word sacrifice is misunderstood here?
Presumably which ever Gods are around are quite capable of creating their own meals (or whatever)? Isn't it more likely animal sacrifice was suggested by Priests so they'd get free food?@@abaker4692
Baal Hadad was the main diety of the Canaanites. When Abraham offers Issac to Yaweh and God tells him it's not required, I think illustrated the significant difference between the Israelites and the Canaanites. Am I the only one who sees this? Also, Baal Hadad was represented by the bull, and the golden calf story is also significant in showing the difference between Canaanites and Israelites.
Critical scholars would say that is a editorial revision meant to combat the practice of child sacrifice, not an historical repudiation. Of course, critical scholars routinely apply selective hermeneutics when it suits their theories, so I personally don't take this approach seriously.
My question is, that if we look at what the scriptures say in Ezekiel, did Yahweh command firstborn child sacrifice? Regardless of if people did it or not.
Ezekiel 16:16 “You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, where you carried on your prostitution. Such things SHOULD NOT HAPPEN, nor SHOULD THEY EVER OCCUR.” Ezekiel 16:20-21 “And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children snd sacrificed them to the idols.”
You guys mentioned the “Dead Sea scrolls” After the nag hammadi which would be the oldest accounts of the “gnostic gospel” and Christianity pre council of Nesea or pre Flavian dynasty takeover of the religion And the gnostic myth of creation and the nature of reality being echoed in many ancient cultures pre bronce age collapse and most likely pre younger drays The Sufi, The Nahual’s, shamans; maracame, native Americans, aboriginal, Vedic, etc etc Gnostic understanding of the interpretation of reality appears to be to me the middle eastern version of the consensus reality shared by mystics across the globe The idea of the physical realm being the vail that blinds us from the true nature of reality and binds our attention to it Even modern theoretical physics that goes in to the ontological now is only mirroring indra’s net or Maya or even shadows in a cave 😂 I grew up Catholic First book I ever read was the Bible from cover to cover Was an altar boy Left the church at 12 Started studying every related subject across any field that I would find ( I know I’m not even close to done yet ) Dove in to meditative and static practices Had several “religious experiences” as an atheist Now look at religions as sources of research But must always apply forensic statement analysis as well as actual archeological, latest historical and comparative studies related findings to all of them as most are nothing but propaganda and social engineering wrap around the same old stories that are always being recycled Work like yours helps a lot ❤️🙏🏻 Thank you for your work and sharing your expertise and knowledge 🙏🏻
Jephthath did not actually offer his daughter to God as a burnt offering but gave her to the tabernacle to serve God as a perpetual virgin. Judges 11:39-40
Judges 11: 30-31 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering. Judges 11:39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. So yeah, she became a burnt offering
@@neuroshima Sorry but you do not understand Biblical Law. Burning anyone alive was forbidden in Hebrew practice. Burning someone alive was definitely a pagan practice among the Canaanite cultures. Please study Hebrew & Biblical traditions to better understand the narrative here. Without it, you are reading literally with no cultural or Hebraic understanding to grasp the background. Remember, the Bible is an Eastern culture book written within Hebraic mindset, culture & linguistics. Must go beyond “Americanized Christianity”. So many people stumble over texts like these. Must study Jeff Benner: www.ancient-hebrew.org/jeffbenner/ Stephen Jones: godskingdom.org/studies/books/the-judges/book-1-chapter-13-jephthah
@@mercimimentor88 you look at the text through ideological glasses, if the law forbade something, it does not mean that it could not be transgressed. and of course he didn't burn her alive, he probably slit her throat first.
@@neuroshima It would be wise of you to do more research. I do not fancy idealism when reading the Bible. I actually do tons of research. Scripture interprets Scripture. You need to read the whole chapter and the verses before and after. Click on Jone’s link in previous reply: “Jephthah did not actually offer her up to God as a burnt offering but gave her to the tabernacle to serve God as a perpetual virgin. He gave her two months to return to her friends (in Tob) to mourn the fact that she would never be married, that is, to “weep because of my virginity.” Note that she did not weep for her life but for her virginity. Verses 39, 40 conclude, saying, 39 And it came about at the end of two months that she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel, 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year. Nothing is said about her becoming a literal burnt offering.”
@@neuroshima Also, they would not have slit her throat. They did that with animal sacrifices. If they were to kill a human, they would have “stoned” her first. Understand the cultural context you are reading into. This is a setting of 3,400 years ago in the Middle East - Hebraic culture.
Were anti child sacrifice laws given only in areas where it was actually practiced or do we find groups of people who never practiced child sacrifices but also had rules against it? Does giving a law against something indicate it was practiced or are some laws given simply as common sense rules? You would think there would’ve had to have been an influence of the practice from either the in-group or a nearby out-group in order to create such a law.
The good Dr. referenced first born sacrifice in Exodus on the 8th day is it possible the circumcision replaced the practice of first borne sacrifice. Or could the passage in question been referencing the circumcision only
The human body has 2 blood clotting elements. One of them is called Vitamin K. Vitamin K is not formed in the body up until the 5th to the 7th day. The 2nd clotting factor, which is essential, is called Prothrombin. It surprisingly enough develops to 30% of normal by the 3rd day of life and after that…peaks at 110% on the 8th day, just before leveling off at 100% of normal. “If vitamin K is not present when a baby boy is circumcised, the baby will bleed to death. The reason why Yahweh established, Day Eight for circumcision is that vitamin K peaks in a newborn at 8 days of age. The 8th day is the optimum day for circumcision because of the highest presence of the clotting factor vitamin K. Today when baby boys are circumcised within a couple of days of birth, they are administered vitamin K to help with blood clotting.
No, circumcision represented a covenant with God . The meaning of circumcision is clearly in tje scriptures. Circumcision was the removal of 'extra' flesh. Flesh represented the material world, the animal nature, and the practice of religion resulted in the removal of a materialistic and worldly or animal nature . It clearly states that's what circumcision means, you covenant eith God to pursue the quest of spiritual development and the conquering of the physical, animal existence.
@@commonmanhomestead that IS the deepper meaning. Imagining circumcision had something to do with child sacrifice is just that, imagination.no evidence exists that its actually tied to sacrificing the individual for any reason. Its purpose however is explained, as I stated above. Question is, why would we strive so to come up with alternate explanations based on totally imaginary presumptions? Their definition of sacrifice also is incomplete. The purpose of sacrifice may elude these guys, but that's because they havent read and put the whole book together. Genesis: son results in death. Sacrifice: visualization of the consequence of sin, which is death. It's teaching. It shows the seriousness of sin. You see that the consequence and payment gor sin is death, you see the loss, you see the gore, and the point is, death is just as real for you if you sin as it was for this killed animal. It's also to show ultimate altruism by a complete devotion in other senses.
It could be part of the explanation of the sacrifice of the first born, that it is men making the decisions and so the attachment of a mother to her week old infant counts for little. Fathers, grandfather's aren't having a lot to do with the infant.
I am afraid there may be some super defensive reactions to this kind of discussion. So thought perhaps you could have a discussion on infanticide because as I understand could be wrong that the bible has had a long history of being opposed to it earlier than other cultures in that time frame. I am fairly sure the Greeks and Romans practiced this yuk! Just a thought.
Apparently Yaweh accepted child sacrifice. Jepthahs daughter. Also Abraham did not seem to think the instruction to sacrifice Isaac unusual. Abraham is as much a fairy story.
Blessed mother of 7 here. And no, we had no money but today 4 of them have good jobs and are good citizens, 1 in uni and last 2 in secondary. Were we a perfect family? Far from it. But we made it, didn't we? And yes I breastfed all of them and got really bad comments against it but then the UK brought a new law : £500 fine against anyone who bother me again.
But the text doesn't say that. Which is to say, the building IS the Wine and Cheese Cask. We cannot know the place BEFORE that. That is a scenic route to demonstrate little.😮
Also wasn’t Abraham stopped and he wasn’t joyful about it. Where is the evidence about him being joyful? Are there other religious texts that prove him right? Have they been verified by historians to even be real? Have archaeologists or linguists that specialize in ancient Hebrew agreed with these texts?
Trying to put myself in the position people living 3000 years ago…. It was a barter based society…. You exchanged one thing of value for something else of value. It kinda makes sense that …. If you want some service from god… he would expect “something” in exchange. And, it makes sense that god would want something of value befitting his position…. Ie an offering of dried flowers would not be appropriate for god. And, typically what you would ask of god would be a more substantial service…. You would not ask god for nice weather tomorrow. And…. It is already clear that the Jews of Jesus time offered “meaningful” sacrifices….ie a perfect lamb. So it does not seem inconceivable that t(ere we’re people for whom a “meaningful” sacrifice could be a first born child
It can’t be both? We’re extraordinarily grateful to all of our guests for taking the time to talk to us. They don’t get paid, and it doesn’t enhance their career at all.
Discussion actually starts around 36:00. Host volume ok, guest too low, so careful if you turn your headphones vol up.
Thanks for this I was beginning to wonder if I was going to learn anything about child sacrifice in ancient israel.
So much babbling
That's lomg been an issue with the Digital Hammurabi team. . . Interesting and well thought out content that it takes them 8 eternities to get to. Meghan Rapinao'a (sp?) work with Bart Ehrmann suffers from the same problem. I don't understand it personally so always skip around to find the thing they should be leading with since it's the bloody title.
@1:13:55 - The crux of the "Hansel and Gretel" story was the abandonment of the children by the parents, because the parents (a breeding couple) were going to die of starvation if they didn't cruelly trick and reject their children!! NOW go back and look at the Abraham and Isaac origin story, which even if it was later modified to hide the original practice of sacrificing the first born male infant OR a viable child, still demonstrates Abraham's WILLINGNESS to commit child sacrifice to gain the favor of the YHWH (war) god.
Right on!!!
What happened that it was no longer needed or worked in bible something I think stopped all of that 🤔
@@joeyrinard6997 Now go take another look at Jesus' sacrifice. Depending on who is doing the preaching, it is often called a sacrifice, literally a sacrifice.
Yes its a recreation of the sacrifice of the first born a practice that was done by Demon's to satisfy the most high Demon among them it is a shame that the Crishtinos still celebrate an recreate this crime againts Humanity.
He’s called a war god oh my God that’s what they love is war what’s wrong with them? They’re sick. They are sick. Sick sick horrible people.
It is a sign of sickness to criticize a woman for feeding her child.
It's typically jealous people who hate breastfeeding. Teaching breastfeeding for over four years for the government enlightened to how destructive uneducated bias can be.
I think the formula companies are greedy b*st*rds. They done some pretty unethical things in third world countries.
@@BrandonWilliams-wf6hg yes indeed, even the WHO had to step in to stop them!
@@09I60if you're parents had followed your advice you wouldn't have been able to make that comment
@@09I60 true but maybe the point of existence is to strive against the undefeatable. You're point isn't a fact just a nihilistic opinion that assumes if something isn't permanent then it's idiotic
As an atheist living in Malaysia who wants nothing more than living in solidarity with people of different beliefs, the fact that you and Dr. Heath and even Megan can discuss your beliefs with honesty and reflection.
Well, that’s the thing he failed to show a lot of religious evidence to what he claims
This was very interesting and brought up a number of points well worth looking into further.
Skip to 28:00 for the actual information.
“... or what they want people to believe”. Finally someone with an audience is willing and able to state that accurately.
What? At the same time he can’t back himself up he neither showed religious nor historical claims of what he says or part of what he claimed in a book
@@TheRunoben I agree that some of his points are false because he relies on “common sense,” but at 38:26 he talks about the inscriptions at Carthage that apparently talk about Molch sacrifices, as if it is a form of sacrifice.
@@scienceexplains302 do you have any evidence? Does he have any evidence of the religious texts?
@@TheRunoben The inscriptions are evidence. The Hebrew grammar allows for “le-Molech” to mean “as a molech” sacrifice.
What other kind of evidence are you looking for?
@@scienceexplains302 his, what inscriptions are these? What are his sources
Around 1:11:20 Heath talks about how you don't get a 2nd chance to sacrifice your first born. Perhaps folks weren't wondering whether to sacrifice, but when and to whom.
I used to play a game with the Chaplain of my Scottish university. In the annual Commemoration of Benefactors Service (in the University chapel) it was my job, as Clerk of Senate, to read the lesson that came immediately before the sermon and served as an introduction to it. A few days beforehand the Chaplain would send me a piece of paper on which was typed the lesson to be read. It was always taken from one of the newer Bible translations. It the meanings were sufficiently different I liked to substitute the King James wording. This often resulted in the Chaplain, sitting in the raised pulpit in full view of everyone, going into mild hysterics, and giggling fits, while she worked out if she needed to change her sermon on the fly. Of course the congregation had no idea what was going on.
Found this by chance 4 years after the original streaming. Great scholarship!
👏🙂
Very interesting and amazing video.
Thank you Dr Heath, Dr Joshua and Megan for educating us.
thank you very much for all of the access to not only the information in this episode but also the additional resources listed.
I can't imagine ever getting to the point in my life where I criticize a woman for breastfeeding her child.
"I'm a shit heel moralist, and I am offended by nature!" 😂
What has the world came too the only reason were here today is because great grandmother breastfeed her children an so did grandmother an so did my mother. what kind of trashy imbeciles believe that breast were design to improve a lady's look or for grown man to suck on them thats just baloney the one an only funtion for breast is so that human females can feed their children anyone who believes something other than that is a complete stupid idiot who's presence in this Earth is completely unnecessary.
How can Dewrell say that Yahweh does not ever order child sacrifice (40:20)?
“You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give me the first-born among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks: seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:28-29. JPS trans.).
Moreover, the condemnation of the practice in the Bible (Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 32:35, Isiah 30-33) is not an objection to the sacrifice itself, but rather to making it to a god other than Yahweh.
So he does deal with this later, because he thinks it doesn't refer to the molk sacrifice. Let's say he doesn't make it clearly enough how he thinks that's possible. Its hard to argue with simple assertion.
HConstantine I have seen, but not pursued , analyses that indicate that the story of the Abraham and Isaac is a blending of more than one older version, including one where Isaac was sacrificed
Child sacrifice seems acceptable to the author of Judges, e.g. 11:31 where Jephthah pledges that he will sacrifice whomever comes first to greet him. How could he not suspect that his would be his daughter?
@@scienceexplains302 That is certainly something that is frequently discussed. There is no evidence of such a story (no Ugartitic version or anything), but its a logical inference that this story wold have evolved from a simpler (i.e., more straight-forward) version. Its similar to the case in Classics where the story of Orpheus and Eurydice is thought to have originally ended with Orpheus successfully bringing Eurydice back from the dead. In any case, even the story that we have seems to attest to the ideology of child sacrifice (it's been several days since I watched the video but I believe Dewrell mentions it in passing).
The sacrifice of Issac would contravene the Yahwehist demand for sacrifice of the firstborn.
Consecrate means to give to God's service. They weren't giving it to be sacrificed to death.
I'm an agnostic atheist now, but for many years after completing my major in biblical studies, with many hours of Greek and Hebrew and a strong interest in NT textual criticism, I held a view much like Dr. Dewrell does: that the Bible is a collection of writings tracing humanity's understanding (and misunderstanding) of God. It didn't need to be "inspired" or historically accurate. I was able to be horrified by their sanctioning of slavery, the treatment of women, etc., and view it all as an evolution towards being better.
Where do you see any evolution in the Bible. The New Testament still endorses slavery, treats women as subordinate property, says Jews are the children of the Devil and promises the destruction and punishment for the majority of humanity any minute now (an event still assuredly wished for and prayed for by millions of Christians). You can talk about the ostensible teachings of Jesus himself, but I don't think the Christian religion has much to do with the teachings of Jesus so much as it just focuses on the worship of Jesus' person, a non-virtuous act which helps no other human.
@@Ken_Scaletta though I am atheist myself it would seem to me she is referencing within the religions themselves from antiquity to today not a progression from Judaism to Christianity being thee progression…
But I’m of course inferring as it was not my assertion.
@@LapsedSkeptic She specifically said she was talking about the Bible and saying the Bible traces an evolution but it doesn't. Even on a macro level. there has been no evolution from polytheism to monotheism. Polytheism is still just as prevalent and as thriving as monotheism and some polytheistic paradigms are both more ethical and more logical than monotheism. Polytheism doesn't have to deal with the POE.
If there's any evolution in ethical thought, it's in the Stoics.
@@Ken_Scaletta yes, traces the evolution of what people thought then… which as the interview expressed, it did not stay stagnant even within the biblical texts.
@@Ken_Scaletta why would Poly to Mono need to be the progression? It can be simply on specific topics, some of which were discussed in this video…
Dr Dewrel, please take this as the highest praise. You sound just like Jim Henson to me. It would be a joy to listen to your lectures and I'm an atheist.
When my daughter introduced me to her her first boyfriend (who I did not like), he asked what he should call me. I told him " Mr. Molek."
So, being the genius that he was, he called me Mr. Molek for the brief duration of their relationship.
Clueless
When we think of a country or a culture we think in modern terms with central governments mobile populations communications codified laws and yet could these ancient countries cultures be more heterogeneous, more isolated populations etc. For example languages seemed to be highly variable to the point where communication between neighboring groups was not possible in ancient cultures.
Very interesting subject. Dr. Dewrell was a very good sport, but I'm glad you decided to change the format in other interviews by providing folks with a list of prepared questions and topics.
His doctorate is being a theologian, not only that, but where is the historical or religious evidence to be this sure of what he claims because I don’t even see historians make the claims he makes what specific scriptures? Has he seen to back him up?
I've probably had this buried in a tab for at least a year, but it's a really good discussion and I'm glad I found it again. ^^
Here is some interesting insight into how secular scholarship strays from/ignores archaeological evidence.
th-cam.com/video/STXLgRjDQWA/w-d-xo.html
I just discovered your channel and am browsing through your videos. This is great stuff! I am grateful to have found this channel.
I have assumed that YHWH _was_ Moloch, but that Moloch was a type of sacrifice rather than a distinct deity works just as well. It's always been clear to me that YHWH was, at the earliest, demanding of the firstborn. Most of the Pentateuch, to me, seems to be the story of the evolution of YHWH into a god of different character. His development story is the story of the development of his worshipers. I oversimplify, of course, for a YT comment.
Why do you type "YHWH" instead of Yahweh? Is it like how Muslims won't draw Muhammad?
@@lancetschirhart7676 Because YHWH is literally all we have of the name. That's how it was written in Hebrew. "Yahweh" may or may not be correct, (most likely not) but it is certainly two extra letters to type.
@@DynaCatlovesme lol
@@DynaCatlovesme Well stated @DynaCatlovesme, the Israelites stopped using His name. This was
about 500 BC. It could have been
Yohweh or Yihwuh. 😃😃😃
He's basically saying what most professors say about this subject within certain boundaries. What I've realized is that Israel [especially rabbinical Judaism aka Pharisees] did these practices early on because they evolved from the neighboring people, culture and systems. First of all Jacob was named "Israel" by Moloch, aka "Malak" wrestling with the Angel. Rashi says that entity is Samael, aka Satan, or one of the satans. These names and words have been around for a long time and clear what they originally meant and imply. At some point there was an attempt to change the views, to morph and pretend to be a different religion. But Judaism came from Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Sumerian religion. The bible itself is a compendium of various political and religious groups that all pulled and utilized the common stories, myths, narratives and religious practices of the region and Eurasia in general. But each group and sect modified things to whatever they wished and the way they wanted at the time.
The Maccabeean revolt forced out the Melkizedek priesthood in Jerusalem that only used bread and wine [Christian Eucharist] and the Hasmoneans were put in place, they brought in the foreign Pharisee/Farsi sect from Babylon that brought in the psychopathic animal and human sacrifice practices. The original Melkizedek sect did not practice these things. So the narrative of Jesus was to reinstall the Melkizedek religious ways with bread and wine, and do away with the temple sacrifices, and reinstall a legitimate pedigree from Solomon back on the throne. The Melkizedekian High Priest was The King. Even the Jerusalem Talmud does not mention Kodashim [temple sacrifices] in it's 9000+ pages and is different from the Babylonian Talmud. That's because these evolved from 2 different religious systems. Prior to the Hasmoneans and 2nd century BC none of the Jewish holidays or traditions existed. Modern rabbinical Judaism was invented during that time period. This is why in early Christianity people like Marcion were against canonizing many biblical books because they were from Pharisee tradition and not the original "Judaism" of Melkizedek. And also why some Gnostic sects viewed the Old Testament god as evil, because they knew the history, sources and original context.
There was no "judaism" until after the Christ." The first mention of ieuds is in Kings where the Israelites were fighting off these "enemies of God and all mankind."
I think you forget that abraham had a whole culture and a relationship with God before they left for the Palestine area. I don't think there would be a need to assume other peoples religious habits or beliefs. He and his people would have been well established on their own. The trick was more to keep other cultures out rather than adopt new customs. and in terms of religion, abraham was already older and had specific beliefs and a specific relationship to God.
I was taught this "tension" attitude in OT many years ago: the dog(matism) in the manger evangelical refusal to hold differing possibilities in the mind makes the conservatives their own worst enemies.
Concerning the breastfeeding thing from the start, the only problematic thing was subjecting such a small child to sitchen.
I have bee convinced for many years that the story of Abraham attempt to sacrifice Issac was intended to end the sacrifice of the first born by Israelites.
Interesting idea!
And the pretense that it was a foreign (=bad in their eyes) custom with the same intent.
But you/we cannot deny of the blood shed in the name of YAHWH, the wars after wars, all the vengeance, no misericordia on his part, just hate, killings, sacrifices on and on and on ‘till today….
I totally agree. I have concluded that human sacrifice among Israelites ended with the story of Abraham and Issac but it took many years.
Agreed. He was ending the tradition, setting Abraham apart.
This is how we dress for historical reenactment where I live. I adore peasant clothes, they're by far the most practical and comfortable ❤ You did a fabulous job with thus project😊
1:06:45 I have actually wondered for a long time if this is the case. It just seemed to make sense to me as an emotional coping mechanism, as harsh as it seems to us.
It also reminds of what I have read from military history. In war experienced soldiers don't immediately attach emotionally for new fresh troops, as mortality among them is of course higher. Also according to Antony Beevor they was seemed to have been some instinctive resentment as they often replaced dead friends.
A question just came to mind. Among anti-Semitic conspiracy believers, there is a common myth of Jews even in modern times practicing ritual sacrifice of children. I wonder do these passages in the Bible have any influence in that?
CASE BEYBE INTELIGENTE QUE TIROU ESTA AREA EM .# TUDO ISSO FOI FEITO POR UM BEYBE NÃO E FANTASTICO ISSO #
Look up child martyrs. Look at how they died.
You do not understand why Christ was called the lamb of God. The ultimate sacrafice for sin. You do not understand Yom Kippur and Blood Libel. Even muslims have adopted the belief that Jews and Christian will pay the price for the sins of muslims. You do not understand Baal and Moloch. Why do jews sacrafice innocent animals
A wonderful interview. Thanks
Your explanation of mlk makes sense. And child sacrifices to Yahweh is consistent with other things we see. Like Yahweh being called Baal and there being child sacrifices to Baal.
YHWH is the Wicked One.
@@areuaware6842
IEUE is an anagram for Immanuel Christ Iesous. He has other names and titles in other languages.
The YHWH is ha hovah, and not the god of Israel. It is a spell invoking a devil.
The earliest extant materials of the "new" testament far precede those of the "old." I suspect that the "old" is a corruption of Christian materials. One of the primary reasons is because the Biblical lands were not in that region, where references to yhwh exist. After Christ, rabbis were near there trying to create a new religion for themselves.
Christianity also traveled to that area with the Galileans / Gauls. Afterwards, many translation errors and marginal notes entered texts which returned to the West. Probably that other material returned with it.
Another reason is that there was no "hebrew" Bible. The Galilean Goidelic is Hibreau. From it was formed the Koine Greek. "Immanuel Christ Iesous" was fluent in Latin, Galilean Goidelic, and Greek.
@@lenormand4967 , The god of Abraham is poison regardless.
I noticed that “god” prefers the second born. It’s because they are sacrificing the first born? This would make sense. The bible was changed to cover for this practice. All of our stories whether historically accurate or not, have a message. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
Pls, don’t be absurd!… a mother loves both children… NO MATTER WHAT a god pretends to be right!!
No, it's because the first is the last. We are to humble ourselves in spirit.
I dont see where theres any evidence of God preferring the second born.
A reading of the Torah specifies sacrificing ALL firstborn to El. A redaction adds a provision for substations for humans and asses.
Also note that circumcision is a substitution for the death of the male child with a token blood and flesh sacrifice.
Sacrifice doesn't always mean killing, it also means setting aside for a particular purpose, like setting in s temple or being a prophet.
However, considering the whole, pervasive allegory of god as father, people as his children, and considering jesus said he called his disciples 'friends', not servants or followers, this sacrifice as one act makes sense. Some people think this was a picture of what God would do in the future......his son would be sacrificed....... and expressed this idea of sharing feeling with a friend. Indeed abraham was called a friend if god. So this subject of interpretation makes sense only if you restrict the meaning to old testament times. It's also true that the bible is full of examples of stories which are tied to the new testament events.
Great interview, btw, Dr. Josh!
I thought it was great to see Megan casually breast-feeding. Yanks get so uptight about this natural process.
Not all of us; just the more puritanical elements in our culture.
People complain about everything imaginable… usually whatever seems like an easy target. I love the positive response of making a whole episode on the topic of breastfeeding so we all have the chance to think about it a lot more.
I mean at the same time people weren’t comfortable with seeing that and it’s a public place. I’d say they should be private areas for them to be able to do it personally the women I grew up with wouldn’t be comfortable doing that themselves in public.
@@TheRunoben YOU are the one who needs to get yourself sorted out. Breast feeding is normal. Doing it in public is normal. Americans seem to think that breasts are for sex. They are not. They are for feeding babies. Get over it.
@@stephaniewilson3955 when did I say breasts are for sex? I’m saying it’s nudity or just something I don’t want to see I find it weird just like I find seeing a shirtless guy weird a lot of people just don’t want to see that it’s not about sex. They just don’t want to see that
dr dewrell is great, great video
I knew morons would flock as soon as I saw her feed the boy. I did not SEE her feed her son, I heard him get fussy and saw her adjust herself and place his head against her. Getting crazy about breast feeding is dumb, we got some real suffering in this world, none of us should take too much time on those who invent their own suffering
very well said, I couln't agree more. And Megan making a video on breastfeeding in the ancient world shows what a classy person and a good academic she is. Such an elegant response.
As someone who was breastfed myself _and_ saw six younger siblings being breastfed, nothing hidden, I can’t empathize at all with people who feel weird about it, _but_ I also try to understand that other people’s shock sensitivity may be completely different from mine. Whatever the case, everyone should still think twice before writing shit comments to/about others, no matter how they might feel.
Looking at the young age girls are still forced into marriage in some cultures today, I think that first borns were very likely to die, because the mothers’ bodies weren’t developed enough to carry a child to full term. Too many of the mothers probably died because of this as well. Since wives were considered property, this may not have been seen as a big problem; they were replaceable. Maybe the death of a boy child would have caused a man grief, but seeing how easily girls are sold off into marriage or slavery even today in some cultures, their death probably not so much.
I worked with s nurse from Ethiopia once and asked about this. There they had to do 400 births to graduate. In the US, teen pregnancy was discourage citing preterm birth, low birth weight babies, complications for the mother, so I asked her if they had problems with teen pregnancy. She said it was common to marry at about 15 or 16, and there were no problems with teen pregnancies. She said the problems started when the mother got to be about 40. And it doesn't make sense that nature would have women reaching sexual maturity young, and that be a liability. Most of her patients were farmers and herders, so fresh food and exercise were part of everyday life. Normally, speaking in the natural sense, even if a young girl got pregnant, if she was in fact physically immature, she likely wouldnt conceive or if so, miscarry. But usually by 15 it's actually quite healthy. But you have to remember, many psychological factors actually affect the biological body. At one point in time, dying at 30 to 40 of wear and tear, disease and accident was high. So if it people couldnt start reproducing at an early age, the species was finished. And of course, it's only been recently that mothers and grandmothers weren't around to advise and help with baby care. I believe that's one factor in today's infant health problems as well as maternal health problems.
As to ' forced' marriages, you have to realize setting your kids up with a marriage and extended family was doing them a favor . Absolutely every bit like today when parents plan to send their kids to college. And marriage was seen more as a partnership than being about romantic love. People were and are, very well satisfied to have a partner who diligently did their part and had decent manners. Today, even in India, marriages are arranged at the appropriate age and time, usually after either high school or college. However, it's not forced. They are expected to go along with a suitable match if they dont find some sort of fault. And if one doesn't like the other for some reason, they arent forced into it. And, sometimes if kids fall in love, it's an easy set up for the families. So what I'm saying is people who live with those customs and in certain lifestyles dont look at it like you do from the western perspective. And part of the western perspective is thinking their customs are the only ones that lead to happiness. Of course, the west has long lost that debate!
There wasnt near as much death involved as you might think, and its logical because for reproduction to result in death, especially that of the mother, is counterproductive to survival of the species. And it's also logical that losing the mother who has survived to reproductive age, is also counterproductive to survival of the species. Its easier to make another baby than a full grown woman.
Survival of the newborn had mostly to do with an attentive mother, experienced or not, and a healthy diet for the mother. the more support the mother gets, the better the survival of the infant, and that simply means the mother is in a protected environment, has enough rest to be attentive, and has a wholesome diet of fresh foods. After that, the help and advise of a mother and grandmother is key. And that means access to those people. Can't replace time. And incidentally, infant boys are more fragile than girls. They have a slightly higher infant mortality rate, and statistically there is a fraction higher incidence of Male births too. At least there always has been historically. Considering falling sperm counts and other hormonal influences in today's food and water, I don't know.
I LOVE the question:
“ How Do You Know That?!!
We need to even ask that to ourselves!!
Wished I could get myself some 'chandise! One day .... It's wonderful to see your channel grow.
@dr Josh, you definitely get the best! I love to hear people speak I would otherwise never hear that are truly knowledgeable.
@Megan, mother of 4 speaking here. I used to breastfeed my children everywhere. It kept me mobile and involved, and it is the most natural thing to do.
I got my share of shitty comments, but also support that sometimes came from where I didn't expect it.
Oliver gets the best start in life you can give him. And all I see is a natural interaction between a child and his mommy while we get to enjoy anything you share with us through the channel. If Oliver is fine with sharing you with us, then why shouldn't we be fine with sharing you with him?
Thank you, Joan ☺️ I think I’ve been very lucky with breastfeeding - I’ve received no in-person comments that aren’t positive, it’s really just been a few people online who are weird about it. I really, truly appreciate your words of support ❤️ I think it’s bizarre that this is still considered inappropriate, and I hope that maybe by doing this publicly I make it easier for others to do the same.
I find it appalling that some people were offended by a child being fed... Sad that is still an issue for some people in this day and age.
Is it possible to get a citation for the article on Leviticus 18 Josh briefly referred to. The audio doesn't make the author's name clear. Thanks.
Molek was clearly a nice farm upstate where all the liliths and satyrs partied with the cool babies.
Great Video
Does Exodus 13:11-16 make the clarifying distinction that you “redeem” your first born sons by sacrificing something else in their place and give the firstborn animals to the Lord, aka sacrifice them?
Read Leviticus 18:15.
@@abaker4692 ”You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness.“
Leviticus 18:15
What does that have to do with sacrifices?
So didn't Ahaz marry Jezabel, princess of Sidon, which was a phoecian colony? David's agreement with Tyre seems to have run its course so Ahaz was looking for a better trading partner
I wish you guys had been part of the Bronze Age collaboration that happened on TH-cam
This was interesting. So much so that I watched twice. Dr Dewrell has some interesting perspectives which make a great deal of sense.
Man I really hate that people think they have a right to bitch about doing something as natural as feeding your child. The puritan attitude around the human body is general is stupid considering we all have one and shouldn't be shocked when we see someone else's.
But breastfeeding? If it bothers you - which it really shouldn't - then don't look. simple as that. Or you could just be an adult and let a mother feed her child without making her feel like she's some kind of freak of nature.
I hope you can ignore these idiots Megan and know that most of us aren't offended or bothered by it. I personally applaud the women that embrace their motherhood while still sharing their intelligence and passions with the world.
Thank you so much, words of support like this really mean a lot. It usually bothers me a little, but then I remember that we live in 2019 and people can just get over themselves 😁
MOTHERHOOD FICA EM HOLEWOOD #
Forgive me. I haven’t finished, but do you think there is any connection of child “sacrifice” to the frequent deaths of neo-natal babies? Most ancient culture didn’t name or count (in the Old Testament) babies in the first couple weeks of life. Might the idea that god took him/her back as a sacrifice have arisen? To prevent, I must sacrifice something in his/her place to prevent god for taking. hence, this connection worked its way into religious belief.
Apparently child sacrifice was acceptable in at least part of Jewish culture around 50-70 CE when people started writing about god sacrificing his child to himself
It would have been interesting to hear him ponder the child sacrifice of old and how it relates to the jesus story.
Cute meme
@@biotorex8999 Please demonstrate how you're smarter than a dirty goat herder
@@paradisecityX0 Because I have more knowledge than the Fable authors about anything such as the Big Bang, evolution etc.
@@biotorex8999 Yet with your comments, you show very little signs of intelligence. If you were, you would know the scriptures were written by scholars and theologians. Dirty goat herders (racist) wouldn't have access to ink and paper
Actual topic starts at 35:45 ;-)
I saw a TH-cam video about archeology find in an old temple to the south of modern Israel by the sea or near the sea where a temple record was kept in an old form of old Jewish writing telling about the king of that city sacrificing his son from the city walls and turning back another army from Jeruselum because that was powerful form magic to gain YHWH's favor. I think it was a female professor from Princeton who gave the "lecture." Unfortunately, I don't remember the Professor or anything else about the site. without any ability to site a source this may not be very reliable information.
Based on what I know, this makes a lot of sense. I think he is right about Molech a type of sacrifice and that some Isralites sacrificed their children to YHWH. The texts are repleat with admonitions against following (practicing rites and acts of worship) foreign gods. I think he Dr. Dewrell is right.
Is there some part of the Pentateuch and Judges that doesn't sound like a folktale? And do folktales not bear on a culture's ideological identity?
Yeah, there are historical accounts in deutoronomy, as it was written by priests
So,...repeated evidence of Israelites sacrificing either their 1st born sons, or in Jephtah's case his only begotten - just to have God's only begotten son to be sacrificed.
Doesn't seem as if YHWH is entirely opposed
Wish I had been watching this four years ago. I want to know what method was used to sacrifice the children. Was it done like an animal sacrifice on a stone altar with four horns on the corner? Was the blood sprinkled on the four horns? Was burning the fat involved?
The children had to pass between two fires (Sanhedrin 64b:9) or jump over a fire burning in a pit (Sanhedrin 64b:10). Some children managed to survive, some didn't.
The cannanites sacrificed by burning on an alter. But I'm not at all convinced of his theory. He left too much out, overlooked alot.
I guess this proves the conflict in the bible.
What is the name of the author he mentions at 54:05? Francesca???
Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou - th-cam.com/video/A-nM3-QE2V4/w-d-xo.html
Good work gentlemen. How can I get your dissertation?
"How do you maintain your religion despite all the discrepancies?"
"I pick and choose what I want to believe."
Maybe our religion was never supposed to be based on some comprehensive text but a recognition that the text was simply other people wrestling with some of the same matters that we wrestle with and finding some of the benefits and avoiding the detriments hopefully....
Misuse of The Bible seems to often be a destructive behavoir for a person's faith in a variety of ways...including a path to deconversion. Evangelicalism is the classic example.
Thats all we can really do and all we should really do
what all believers do..
@@greglogan7706 you would think a God would stop the misuse of its word.. another reason not to believe
@@0397rb
Maybe what has been proclaimed as his word is not his word....so he simply ignores...🤔🤔
So the Moses myth, the golden calf, when he has the Levites kill all the golden calf builders, thus elevating Cohen and Levite to priestly class responsible for sacrifice, replacing the supposed previous tradition of the first born son of all tribes being "Priests', some form of cryptic allusion to the sacrifice of the 1st born being replaced by Priests sacrificing animals? Or was it just used as a myth to install the Levite/Cohen cases after Babylon when they switched to a lunar calendar, and perhaps brought back more Babylonian ideas?
I always saw the building of the golden calf, representing the past and the age of Taurus, which they were moving out of at the time, in terms of astronomy. The Bull was previously the sacred symbol of the age, the Indo-Europeans, Egyptians, both held the cow sacred during that period. That was followed by Ares, and of course, lamb/goats became the symbol of sacrifice in that age. With the Egyptians holding the lamb /goat as sacred. And then Moses having the Israelites slaughter all their lambs, using the blood to mark their doors. This always seemed like allegory of moving from the Age of Taurus to the Age of Ares. And we clearly see this in the sacrificial traditions in many places changing from Ox to lamb. Or in the Hindu case, continuing to perpetuate the traditions of the Age of Taurus, holding the cow sacred after the age was over. I suspect this is the time that those proto-Hintu practices changed from being astrotheological to more traditional religion.
Anyway, that entire part of the Exodus, seems to me astrotheology of a sort. And the symbolism in sacrifice, with the blood sacrifice of the builders of the golden calf, a blood sacrifice which installed the Levitical caste, replacing the previous priestly tradition of the first born sons of each "tribe". The 12 tribes of course, obviously representing the 12 Zodiac. Which we can see in Ezekiel, when he describes the tabernacle. The 4 fixed Zodiac are closest to the tabernacle, which i assume symbolizes earth and the world of matter. Judah the lion or Leo, Reuben symbolized by both a human and water, which are both signs of Aquarius, Dan the Eagle or Scorpio and Ephraim, one of the 2 subtribes of Joseph who was often associated with wheat, grapes and agriculture, and his son Ephraim symbolized the Ox or Taurus, the domesticated farm animal or perhaps the domesticated elements of the farming civilizations. And the other son of Joseph, while not representing a fixed zodiac, is usually also represented by wheat or growth, representing the crop side of agriculture and probably the two brothers representing the planting of the crops perhaps the Ox representing pulling a plow in the spring and the Manasseh representing threshing the full wheat at the harvest. So we can see there is astrotheology already woven in to the tribal mythology.
Levi is interesting. His symbols are associated with all tribes or the menorah. And since they had Joseph break into two, representing agriculture or Virgo and planting/farming and Taurus, likely means Levi doesn't represent ONE of the Zodiacs, but either the entire procession or perhaps the 7 celestial bodies as the Menorah has 7 branches. The Cohen, who are of Levi but not Levites as we know them in caste, their breastplate contains symbols from all the other tribes on it. Some suggest Joseph only represents Taurus and Levi represents Pisces, but I'm not so sure. Unless in the Moses story, Levites represent the future and the Age of Pisces to come, which would eventually become "Jesus" in early Christianity, which obviously stems from Judaism. But that is a possibility.
The Mazzeroth tells the story of human redemption through Jesus Christ.
The power of religion can't be overstated. To sacrifice children to false gods shows the frailty of human conscience and critical thinking. Much like the Jehovah's Witnesses do today watching children die for their god by denying blood transfusions.
The debate seems to revolve around whether or not human child sacrifices were performed for YHWH,
and if he might have actually demanded them.
It seems so, as Mosaic law required the first born to be redeemed by a blood sacrifice... Implying that the life of the first born was...Owed. If the first born was not owed, then why must they redeem them?
Believers will argue against any clue as to the evil nature of their god. The leap to accept that god demands human child sacrifices is an impossible barrier to cross for those raised in the word.
But, among all christians, there is no debate as to whether or not god sacrificed his own son.
The mental disconnect is astounding.
And they say this is "Good". That Jesus died as a human... child... sacrifice.
And they say he went willingly, as if it was Jesus' idea all along. They ignore the reality of the story:
“Let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39). “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done”. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
But, unfortunately it was not possible for this cup to be taken away. Because "anything is possible through christ who strengthens me", except that he escape his pre-ordained human child sacrifice unto his father to appease his anger at the world he himself created inherently sinful.
Jesus, as it is written, said "pick up your cross and follow me".
And just where did he take it?
Oh, its not literal. They say. Oh yeah? How did his disciples die?
Its a Cult.
Jesus was the final sacrifice. To negate all the others.
Hey guys, great discussion! I have read, enjoyed, puzzled over, been disgusted by...etc. the KJV since I was a sophomore in college. I'm a senior now (as in drawing soc. sec.) My take on the Abraham/Issac story. I never get much traction from my Christian, or other Bible believer, friends. So (here it is): God tells Abe to kill his son, tells him he (Abe) loves his son, tells him where and when to do it. Abraham says nothing. Abe "might" be thinking..." I guess I'd better do what he says, I've noticed he gets angry when folks are disobedient. I can always have more sons." I'm guessing that it is assumed that what was being tested was Abraham's willingness to obey without question, and to make the penultimate sacrifice. He seemingly passed that test by agreeing to carry it out and going through the preliminaries, ( seems only Issac voiced a word of concern?) How is it then that being obedient to a loving god would require being willing to do the most monstrous thing a person can do?
Russell Millar And why does Abraham not say, “prove you are Yahweh, because my god would not ask me to kill my son.”?
@@scienceexplains302 Good question. Why would a father who loves his son not make some objection? However what you ask seems to open the possibility that Abe might have thought some other invisible being might be directing him. I think that those who wrote this story need us to assume that Abraham knew it was Yahweh. I hold out the possibility that Abraham knew not to "talk back", and obeyed without question.
Russell Millar Yes, in that passage the reader is to assume Abraham knew it was Yahweh. How, it doesn’t say. And since he knew it was Yahweh, why was Abe not surprised that Yahweh would request a child sacrifice?
(In other verses, such as Exodus 3:4-6, when Yahweh saw Moses, Elohim identifies himself as the “god (elohe) of your fathers”.)
In Genesis 35:2, elohe is translated as “gods”
Edit- it is Ha Elohim, “the gods” in Genesis 22:1 who tell Abraham to slaughter Isaac as a burnt offering.
Look up Mauro Biglino and his analysis of the old testament and it'll make more sense. The old testament "God" isn't based on monotheism. That's why Yhwh is jealous of the other gods. BTW, every name such as "most high", "Yhwh", "Elohim", "El", are actually referring to different entities and not the same God. If you read the Bible that way, it will make much more sense because they have different personalities and traits.
The Israelite religion evolved over time from more primitive religions and child sacrifice was obviously a primitive practice that was part of their cultic practice for quite a while. And, anyway, Isaac was sacrificed and the later redactors put in the ram in the bushes story.
Isaac wasn't sacrificed. Weird thing to write here.
@@abaker4692 sorry I guess the phrasing is clumsy. Most scholars reading the sources agree that Isaac was actually sacrificed and later redactors removed the sacrifice and inserted the story of the ram in the bushes-vs 11 through 15. then the story takes up after the insertion of 11 through 15 and says "since you did not withhold your son, your only one...In verse 19 Abraham returns without Isaac.
"...is obviously a part of their cultic practice for quite a while" fixed it for you
Okay cool. That was an interesting experience. I did a search for child sacrifice in ancient Israel having only just heard of it. The rabbit trial I went down before coming here was an strange brew of conspiracy theories and religious extremism. Apparently (according to some of these people) Moloch worship is still being practiced at the Bohemian grove and abortion is modern day child sacrifice. Yeah,... So when I found this I was relieved. So, I'll rip this since it's so long and listen at work but thanks for being here and talking about these things.
Think about this: he is talking about human nature. In Christianity, today we have 1000 or more denominations because each of these groups (denominatons) disagree with the Mother Church (Catholism) and each other. Likewise, the religious practices of of the elite, doesn't necessarily reflect the religious practices of the rest of society, or different groups within said society. And like the ancient Israelites, Christianity also has practices that are not commanded by their god; Christmas and Easter are the first two that come to mind. Although "god" didn't tell them these days are "holy", nor did he command them to do any of the things associated with these holidays, they "santify" these days, and call their their observance and rituals "religious practice".
Dr Dewrell, are you sure they didn’t make laws against things that people didn’t do? Some people are trying to do it these days as part of straw man vitriol against their political enemies.
I don't know if that's true. I know the GOP are trying to pass ID voter laws in the south but I think that's reasonable. What's unreasonable is the requirements to get an ID for homeless people and the very old. The states need to help these guys get IDs.
@@carmelmulroy6459I was thinking of GOP laws against doing certain things related to human fetuses, such as selling fetuses
Before being conquered by the Assyrians, what percentage of the Israelites (not the Jews) worshipped the El god?
What percentage of them worshipped the Yahweh god?
Concerning the question at 1:37:30: It's better to ask such a question than to just assume everything someone claims on TH-cam is true. Answering this question with a simple "No" is totally appropriate, but maybe it's also wise to give some background:
- There is an antisemitic stereotype known as blood libel that goes back to the Middle Ages, but there is no evidence that anything like this was ever true. Nevertheless, Catholic folklore based on this lie has survived right into 20th century Austria. Anti-semites keep pushing the boundaries in this respect, and then misrepresent the necessary push-back as censorship.
- There is of course the question of child sacrifice in very old forms (or rather precursors) of Judaism. Similar things happened in other cultures at the time. E.g. an excavation near Lake Constance in Germany suggests that a Celtic child sacrifice happened there. What is singular about Judaism is that its traditions date so far back that such long obsolete practices are still remembered today in some form. The rest of the world just forgot about them.
- In an extension of the previous point, some Jewish sects today have a purely symbolic ritual in which a few coins are offered to God instead of the firstborn child. Obviously this is just another occasion for a celebration, and parents would rather skip it completely than commit infanticide instead.
Christianity provides similar opportunities for haters of other faiths to make bizarre accusations. The best known is probably the claim of ritual cannibalism every Sunday. No doubt there are also people who claim Christians drown their babies.
We have the same folk tale in our Assyrian tradition that had nothing to do with bible
It seems we all share the same roots and none is superior to another ❤️
I don't understand how people can still venerate the Bible or the god(s) in it, when its obviously their moral, knowledge, and perception of the world were the same or worse than other cultures, from other religions.
If you say that you gain insight and wisdom from the bible, sure. But you can gain the same, or similar insight or wisdom from other myths, modern fiction, non-fiction ethics, etc.
My God is merciful and just.
I love Francesca Stavrakopoulo!
Circumcision was done on the 8th day, Hannah gave Samuel to God. These are both sacrificees. Is it possible that the word sacrifice is misunderstood here?
What was the God supposed to want the sacrifices for?...did He just eat them or did they go to become his servants in the Spirit World or something?
God did not want human sacrifices. Animals were to replace them. He took Abraham out of that wicked culture.
Presumably which ever Gods are around are quite capable of creating their own meals (or whatever)? Isn't it more likely animal sacrifice was suggested by Priests so they'd get free food?@@abaker4692
Baal Hadad was the main diety of the Canaanites. When Abraham offers Issac to Yaweh and God tells him it's not required, I think illustrated the significant difference between the Israelites and the Canaanites. Am I the only one who sees this? Also, Baal Hadad was represented by the bull, and the golden calf story is also significant in showing the difference between Canaanites and Israelites.
Critical scholars would say that is a editorial revision meant to combat the practice of child sacrifice, not an historical repudiation. Of course, critical scholars routinely apply selective hermeneutics when it suits their theories, so I personally don't take this approach seriously.
Great discussion. Thank you!
My question is, that if we look at what the scriptures say in Ezekiel, did Yahweh command firstborn child sacrifice?
Regardless of if people did it or not.
Ezekiel 16:16 “You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, where you carried on your prostitution. Such things SHOULD NOT HAPPEN, nor SHOULD THEY EVER OCCUR.”
Ezekiel 16:20-21 “And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered my children snd sacrificed them to the idols.”
You guys mentioned the “Dead Sea scrolls”
After the nag hammadi which would be the oldest accounts of the “gnostic gospel” and Christianity pre council of Nesea or pre Flavian dynasty takeover of the religion
And the gnostic myth of creation and the nature of reality being echoed in many ancient cultures pre bronce age collapse and most likely pre younger drays
The Sufi, The Nahual’s, shamans; maracame, native Americans, aboriginal, Vedic, etc etc
Gnostic understanding of the interpretation of reality appears to be to me the middle eastern version of the consensus reality shared by mystics across the globe
The idea of the physical realm being the vail that blinds us from the true nature of reality and binds our attention to it
Even modern theoretical physics that goes in to the ontological now is only mirroring indra’s net or Maya or even shadows in a cave 😂
I grew up Catholic
First book I ever read was the Bible from cover to cover
Was an altar boy
Left the church at 12
Started studying every related subject across any field that I would find ( I know I’m not even close to done yet )
Dove in to meditative and static practices
Had several “religious experiences” as an atheist
Now look at religions as sources of research
But must always apply forensic statement analysis as well as actual archeological, latest historical and comparative studies related findings to all of them as most are nothing but propaganda and social engineering wrap around the same old stories that are always being recycled
Work like yours helps a lot ❤️🙏🏻
Thank you for your work and sharing your expertise and knowledge 🙏🏻
What kind of religion / God wants you to sacrifice your children?
A LOT of old religions, it was the most precious thing you could give the god/gods.
A ton of religions. That's why we love Jesus. We don't do that nonsense.
Jephthath did not actually offer his daughter to God as a burnt offering but gave her to the tabernacle to serve God as a perpetual virgin.
Judges 11:39-40
Judges 11: 30-31 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.
Judges 11:39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed.
So yeah, she became a burnt offering
@@neuroshima Sorry but you do not understand Biblical Law. Burning anyone alive was forbidden in Hebrew practice. Burning someone alive was definitely a pagan practice among the Canaanite cultures.
Please study Hebrew & Biblical traditions to better understand the narrative here. Without it, you are reading literally with no cultural or Hebraic understanding to grasp the background.
Remember, the Bible is an Eastern culture book written within Hebraic mindset, culture & linguistics.
Must go beyond “Americanized Christianity”. So many people stumble over texts like these.
Must study Jeff Benner:
www.ancient-hebrew.org/jeffbenner/
Stephen Jones:
godskingdom.org/studies/books/the-judges/book-1-chapter-13-jephthah
@@mercimimentor88 you look at the text through ideological glasses, if the law forbade something, it does not mean that it could not be transgressed.
and of course he didn't burn her alive, he probably slit her throat first.
@@neuroshima It would be wise of you to do more research. I do not fancy idealism when reading the Bible. I actually do tons of research. Scripture interprets Scripture. You need to read the whole chapter and the verses before and after. Click on Jone’s link in previous reply:
“Jephthah did not actually offer her up to God as a burnt offering but gave her to the tabernacle to serve God as a perpetual virgin. He gave her two months to return to her friends (in Tob) to mourn the fact that she would never be married, that is, to “weep because of my virginity.” Note that she did not weep for her life but for her virginity. Verses 39, 40 conclude, saying,
39 And it came about at the end of two months that she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel, 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.
Nothing is said about her becoming a literal burnt offering.”
@@neuroshima Also, they would not have slit her throat. They did that with animal sacrifices. If they were to kill a human, they would have “stoned” her first. Understand the cultural context you are reading into. This is a setting of 3,400 years ago in the Middle East - Hebraic culture.
Were anti child sacrifice laws given only in areas where it was actually practiced or do we find groups of people who never practiced child sacrifices but also had rules against it? Does giving a law against something indicate it was practiced or are some laws given simply as common sense rules? You would think there would’ve had to have been an influence of the practice from either the in-group or a nearby out-group in order to create such a law.
The good Dr. referenced first born sacrifice in Exodus on the 8th day is it possible the circumcision replaced the practice of first borne sacrifice. Or could the passage in question been referencing the circumcision only
The human body has 2 blood clotting elements. One of them is called Vitamin K. Vitamin K is not formed in the body up until the 5th to the 7th day. The 2nd clotting factor, which is essential, is called Prothrombin. It surprisingly enough develops to 30% of normal by the 3rd day of life and after that…peaks at 110% on the 8th day, just before leveling off at 100% of normal.
“If vitamin K is not present when a baby boy is circumcised, the baby will bleed to death. The reason why Yahweh established, Day Eight for circumcision is that vitamin K peaks in a newborn at 8 days of age. The 8th day is the optimum day for circumcision because of the highest presence of the clotting factor vitamin K. Today when baby boys are circumcised within a couple of days of birth, they are administered vitamin K to help with blood clotting.
@abaker4692 thank you that was a very informative response
No, circumcision represented a covenant with God . The meaning of circumcision is clearly in tje scriptures. Circumcision was the removal of 'extra' flesh. Flesh represented the material world, the animal nature, and the practice of religion resulted in the removal of a materialistic and worldly or animal nature . It clearly states that's what circumcision means, you covenant eith God to pursue the quest of spiritual development and the conquering of the physical, animal existence.
@deborahdean8867 yep I understand all of that. I was looking into deeper meanings good day
@@commonmanhomestead that IS the deepper meaning. Imagining circumcision had something to do with child sacrifice is just that, imagination.no evidence exists that its actually tied to sacrificing the individual for any reason. Its purpose however is explained, as I stated above. Question is, why would we strive so to come up with alternate explanations based on totally imaginary presumptions?
Their definition of sacrifice also is incomplete. The purpose of sacrifice may elude these guys, but that's because they havent read and put the whole book together. Genesis: son results in death. Sacrifice: visualization of the consequence of sin, which is death. It's teaching. It shows the seriousness of sin. You see that the consequence and payment gor sin is death, you see the loss, you see the gore, and the point is, death is just as real for you if you sin as it was for this killed animal. It's also to show ultimate altruism by a complete devotion in other senses.
Digital Hammurabi is covering for child sacrifices as usual, JK loved the show
*Molech content* starts at 36:11
How can i take a class on how to speak akkidin launge ?
It could be part of the explanation of the sacrifice of the first born, that it is men making the decisions and so the attachment of a mother to her week old infant counts for little. Fathers, grandfather's aren't having a lot to do with the infant.
YIKES! 236 pages for $50. This book will have to wait until I recover from Christmas.
It's currently on sale for $29.70, if that helps?
@@DigitalHammurabi hmmm. Amazon says $49.50 for me and no digital copies.
Jephthah's sacrifice sounds like Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia.
I am afraid there may be some super defensive reactions to this kind of discussion. So thought perhaps you could have a discussion on infanticide because as I understand could be wrong that the bible has had a long history of being opposed to it earlier than other cultures in that time frame. I am fairly sure the Greeks and Romans practiced this yuk! Just a thought.
It still goes on today
I’m not finding the Otto Eissfeld book.
Apparently Yaweh accepted child sacrifice. Jepthahs daughter. Also Abraham did not seem to think the instruction to sacrifice Isaac unusual. Abraham is as much a fairy story.
Wrong. He didn't have him sacrifice Izaac. He gave him a ram instead.
@@abaker4692 I said the instruction to kill Isaac was not unusual.
Blessed mother of 7 here. And no, we had no money but today 4 of them have good jobs and are good citizens, 1 in uni and last 2 in secondary. Were we a perfect family? Far from it. But we made it, didn't we? And yes I breastfed all of them and got really bad comments against it but then the UK brought a new law : £500 fine against anyone who bother me again.
But the text doesn't say that. Which is to say, the building IS the Wine and Cheese Cask. We cannot know the place BEFORE that. That is a scenic route to demonstrate little.😮
Video starts 29 minutes in
Also wasn’t Abraham stopped and he wasn’t joyful about it. Where is the evidence about him being joyful? Are there other religious texts that prove him right? Have they been verified by historians to even be real? Have archaeologists or linguists that specialize in ancient Hebrew agreed with these texts?
Trying to put myself in the position people living 3000 years ago…. It was a barter based society…. You exchanged one thing of value for something else of value. It kinda makes sense that …. If you want some service from god… he would expect “something” in exchange. And, it makes sense that god would want something of value befitting his position…. Ie an offering of dried flowers would not be appropriate for god. And, typically what you would ask of god would be a more substantial service…. You would not ask god for nice weather tomorrow. And…. It is already clear that the Jews of Jesus time offered “meaningful” sacrifices….ie a perfect lamb. So it does not seem inconceivable that t(ere we’re people for whom a “meaningful” sacrifice could be a first born child
Is this for general audience information on ancient Israel or the guest's glorification and boosting session???!!!
It can’t be both? We’re extraordinarily grateful to all of our guests for taking the time to talk to us. They don’t get paid, and it doesn’t enhance their career at all.