![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/08\/AztecSacrifice.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIn this blog, I\u2019ve responded to many Christian arguments . . . Christians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that at the end, rest assured that he either hasn\u2019t replied, or didn\u2019t inform me that he did. Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Bob\u2019s hyper-absurd, clueless view on this topic is expressed in his post, \u201cGod Loves the Smell of Burning Flesh: Human Sacrifice in the Bible\u201d<\/a> (7-29-14):<\/p>\n The Abraham and Isaac story in Genesis 22 is often given to show God\u2019s rejection of human sacrifice and, as it is in the Bible today, that may well have been the purpose. But, like a cheerful fairy tale that comes from a darker original, the Isaac story may not initially have had its happy ending.<\/span><\/p>\n He reiterated his position with his usual mockery of God, on 8-18-14<\/a>:<\/p>\n God . . . likes the occasional\u00a0human sacrifice, which puts him in conflict with Commandment #6 prohibiting murder. Can\u2019t this guy follow his own rules?<\/span><\/p>\n Whenever an atheist disagrees with any Bible passage (and\/or doctrine), there is always the \u201ctextual change!\u201d canard: ready and available to be utilized at the drop of a hat. So good ol\u2019 Bob (always eminently fair to the Bible and Christianity, and scrupulously objective and scholarly at all times) does so. This story was supposedly changed. One of three very stupid, extraordinarily weak arguments he gives for concluding this is that Genesis 22:19 at the end of the story states:\u00a0\u201c\u2019Then Abraham returned to his servants.\u2019<\/span>\u00a0Alone.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n For Bob, because Isaac wasn\u2019t mentioned<\/em> in this passage, it proves that he wasn\u2019t there at all<\/em>, and was therefore, sacrificed. The folks who went and changed the passage to make it a nice fairy tale ending apparently missed<\/em> this obvious fact of \u201clogic\u201d: thus leaving clues for clever biblical exegetes [cough] like Bob to have an \u201ca-ha!!\u201d moment and unravel the conspiracy, lo, these three thousand plus years later.<\/p>\n To show the laughable silliness of such an argument, compare it to a biblical scene involving David and Saul, in 1 Samuel chapter 26. Saul had been trying to kill young David. David (accompanied by Abi\u2019shai: 26:6-9) had a chance to kill him, and didn\u2019t (26:5-12), because he was the king and \u201cthe Lord\u2019s anointed\u201d (26:9, 23). Saul, of course, was surrounded by \u201cthree thousand men\u201d (26:2), and it is said that \u201cthe army was encamped around him\u201d (26:5), that he was \u201csleeping within the encampment\u201d (26:7), and that he was with \u201cthe army\u201d (26:14) when David talked to him from the mountaintop (26:13-17). The story then concludes with: \u201cSo David went his way, and Saul returned to his place\u201d (26:25).<\/p>\n According to Bob\u2019s \u201clogic\u201d, both\u00a0Abi\u2019shai and Saul\u2019s 3000-man army must both have disappeared in the time between verse 25 and 26, because after all,\u00a0 26:25 only mentions David and Saul<\/em> and no one else! Somehow Saul dispatched all those men so he could return alone. Can anyone defy<\/em> such compelling logic? This is what passes for \u201catheist exegesis.\u201d It\u2019s only the 46,209,173rd time I have observed such shoddy pseudo-\u201creasoning\u201d and \u201cBible interpretation\u201d from atheists, who claim to be so much better at it than us poor, miserable, dumb Christians. Maybe on the\u00a046,209,174th<\/em> attempt, they will actually get something right.<\/p>\n Just in case anyone was unclear that the Old Testament comes from a post-Bronze Age Mesopotamian culture, it tells us 37 times that God loves the pleasing aroma of burning flesh.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes: of animals<\/em>: sacrificed according to Mosaic Law (and if not, He is not<\/em> pleased by it: Jer 6:20). Why mention that<\/em> in a sub-section supposedly about human<\/em> sacrifice? Perhaps it\u2019s because for a atheist like Bob, a rare animal species should be protected, while we slaughter human children in the womb (which he thinks is quite acceptable<\/a>) by the hundreds of millions. This would appear to place animals on a higher level of value than human beings; therefore, he objects to any animal sacrifice in the Bible (and I assume he must also be a vegetarian<\/em>, in all consistency). This is not mere speculation. Bob makes it clear<\/a>:<\/p>\n Your life is more valuable than the life of a slug or a rat, but would it be more valuable than the last breeding pair of bald eagles? What\u2019s more valuable\u2014the life of a random stranger you will never meet or your beloved pet?<\/span><\/p>\n Bob stumbles upon and notes the true biblical teaching on child sacrifice (even an unplugged clock is right twice a day!):<\/p>\n Deuteronomy 18:10, \u201cLet no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible acknowledges that sacrificing humans is powerful mojo, because that\u2019s how the Moabite god Chemosh beat Israel\u2019s god Yahweh (2 Kings 3:27). The combined forces of Israel, Judah, and Edom were about to defeat Moab when the Moabite king sacrificed his son to Chemosh. The result: \u201cThere was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland.\u201d (More<\/span>\u00a0here<\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n Nice try. There is nothing whatsoever in the text about some supposed defeat of God (Yahweh)by a false Moabite god. That\u2019s simply Bob\u2019s cynical eisegesis. Nor is it proof that God turned against Israel \/ Judah simply because the word \u201cwrath\u201d (RSV) is present (KJV: \u201cindignation\u201d). Bob assumes that too. The Hebrew is qetseph<\/em>, which is usually used of God\u2019s wrath, but not always<\/em>, and not necessarily<\/em>. For example, Esther 1:18 (RSV): \u201cThis very day the ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen\u2019s behavior will be telling it to all the king\u2019s princes, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty\u201d (cf. Ecclesiastes 5:17). It can also be plausibly interpreted as the wrath of the king of Moab against Israel. The Bible refers (RSV) to \u201ca king\u2019s wrath\u201d<\/a> twice (Proverbs 16:14; 19:12).<\/p>\n The translation of 2 Kings 3:27 that Bob uses is the NET Bible<\/a>: a relatively obscure translation. It\u2019s very unusual (perhaps even singular) in that it inserts \u201cdivine\u201d into the passage, making it definitively a case of God\u2019s wrath against Israel. But I can\u2019t find any other translation<\/em> that does this. No one need merely take my word on this. They can consult the online pages with multiple translations of the passage (one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>) just as I did.<\/p>\n God\u2019s prohibition of child sacrifice as an outrageous abomination is very clear. I found 18 passages concerning this in my paper, The Bible\u2019s Teaching on Abortion<\/a>. Jesus compared the ancient sacrifice of children to hell itself (particularly, child sacrifice to\u00a0Ba\u2019al\u00a0<\/a>or\u00a0Molech<\/a>). But Bob is quite capable of blowing that off, as of no relevance:<\/p>\n Though the Bible talks a good story as it rejects human sacrifice, it\u2019s a sock puppet, and you can make the Bible say just about whatever you want. <\/span><\/p>\n Oh, I agree with that<\/em>! It won\u2019t make any sense, and is devoid of logic and reason (e.g., Bob\u2019s analysis here and as seen throughout my many critiques of his anti-Christian bilge<\/a>), but folks can and often do\u00a0try<\/em> to make the Bible say stuff that it doesn\u2019t teach.<\/p>\n If you think God can\u2019t say precisely the opposite of what he commanded before, then you underestimate an omnipotent god! Take a look:<\/span><\/p>\n Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal. (Exodus 13:2)<\/span><\/p>\n But nothing that a person owns and devotes to the Lord\u2014whether a human being or an animal or family land\u2014may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death. (Leviticus 27:28\u20139)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As for Exodus 13:2, \u201cconsecration\u201d is a different concept from sacrifice. The animals could be sacrificed, but not human beings. It simply means \u201cset aside\u201d or \u201cdedicate\u201d a person or thing for the Lord\u2019s use, as can be seen in th<\/span>e many biblical usages of it<\/a>. What Bob thinks he has proven here is anyone\u2019s guess. A<\/span> \u201cperson devoted to destruction\u201d is a murderer, and they received the death penalty under Mosaic Law. I don\u2019t see anything here that \u201cproves\u201d that God condoned child sacrifice. Does anyone else<\/em>?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Undaunted, Bob moves to his final charge:<\/span><\/p>\n As if bragging to his drinking buddies, God laughs about it afterwards. To teach the stiff-necked Israelites who\u2019s boss, God said,<\/span><\/p>\n So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts\u2014the sacrifice of every firstborn\u2014that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah (Ezekiel 20:25\u20136).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . sacrificing children to gods? Looks like there was a lot of that going around, and not just among the bad guys.<\/span><\/p>\n This is a particular sort of \u201cjudgmental, sarcastic divine\u201d language that I dealt with in my earlier installment, \u201cSeidensticker Folly #3: Falsehoods About God & Free Will.\u201d<\/a> The sense here is similar to that of the following passage, four chapters earlier:<\/p>\n Ezekiel 16:19-22<\/strong> (RSV) Also my bread which I gave you \u2014 I fed you with fine flour and oil and honey \u2014 you set before them for a pleasing odor, says the Lord GOD.\u00a0[20] And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter\u00a0[21] that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?\u00a0[22] And in all your abominations and your harlotries you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, weltering in your blood.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019m sure the following commentary will very likely be above Bob\u2019s comprehension and his skeptical bigoted anti-theist-dominated cognitive powers, but I offer it anyway, primarily for the sake of Christians: to better understand this passage, this sort of somewhat complex Hebrew \/ biblical genre and thinking, and to be able to counter absurd claims about it, such as what Bob offers:<\/p>\n 26. I polluted them\u2014not directly; \u201cbut I judicially gave them up to pollute themselves.\u201d A just retribution for their \u201cpolluting My sabbaths\u201d (Eze 20:24). This Eze 20:26 is explanatory of Eze 20:25. Their own sin I made their punishment.<\/p>\n caused to pass through the fire\u2014Fairbairn translates, \u201cIn their presenting (literally, \u2018the causing to pass over\u2019) all their first-born,\u201d namely, to the Lord; referring to the command (Ex 13:12, Margin, where the very same expression is used). The lustration of children by passing through the fire was a later abomination (Eze 20:31). The evil here spoken of was the admixture of heathenish practices with Jehovah\u2019s worship, which made Him regard all as \u201cpolluted.\u201d Here, \u201cto the Lord\u201d is omitted purposely, to imply, \u201cThey kept up the outward service indeed, but I did not own it as done unto Me, since it was mingled with such pollutions.\u201d But English Version is supported by the similar phraseology in Eze 20:31, see on [1052]Eze 20:31. They made all their children pass through the fire; but he names the first-born, in aggravation of their guilt; that is, \u201cI had willed that the first-born should be redeemed as being Mine, but they imposed on themselves the cruel rites of offering them to Molech\u201d (De 18:10).<\/p>\n might know \u2026 the Lord\u2014that they may be compelled to know Me as a powerful Judge, since they were unwilling to know Me as a gracious Father.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Polluted them;\u00a0<\/span>either I permitted them to pollute themselves, or discovered that they had polluted themselves, or treated them with loathing and abhorrence, as polluted persons.<\/p>\n In their own gifts;\u00a0<\/span>either in their gifts which they pretended to bring to me, or rather in their sacrifices they offered to whom, or at least in what manner, they, not I, had chosen; or, which is most likely, gifts are here their first-born, which are more than other children accounted gifts.<\/p>\n Through the fire:<\/span>\u00a0see\u00a0Ezekiel 16:20<\/a>,21<\/span>. Most insufferable affront to God, to see those children inhumanly offered to the devil, which, in remembrance of his redeeming the fathers, were consecrated to God!\u00a0Exodus 13:2<\/a><\/span>; and possibly this was first done when they offered to Baalpeor,\u00a0Numbers 25:3<\/a><\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s just common sense. If the Bible clearly says something \u2014 asserts it (\u201cchild sacrifice is an abomination\u201d) 20+ times \u2013, then we can be assured that this is biblical teaching, and (as we believe) what God wants to convey in His inspired revelation to mankind. Even Bob freely concedes that the Bible mostly<\/em> teaches this. But then he goes on to assert that it is self-contradictory and that the Bible is \u201ca sock puppet, and you can make the Bible say just about whatever you want.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Christians approach the matter very differently. If we run across one passage that appears at first glance<\/em> to contradict 20+ that say the opposite of what the one seems<\/em> to say, we don\u2019t immediately throw out all the others. That would be stupid. We assume that there is likely an explanation for why one appears to differ from the other 20+ (that we have something to study and learn). What I have explained is the plausible explanation: it\u2019s a particular non-literal genre or expression that is seen in other places in the Bible as well.<\/p>\n Bob (throughout his \u201cbiblical\u201d critiques) utterly ignores genre, style, cultural and linguistic aspects (and most relevant cross-referencing, too), so for him it\u2019s simple: God loves child sacrifice because (so he wrongly thinks), we have this one<\/em> passage supporting that assumption. He falsely accuses God, while personally advocating the glories and wonders of legal abortion<\/a>. He\u2019s<\/em> the one (not God) who believes in the child sacrifice that he casually assumes in this paper to be a great evil. Thus, he is a liar, blasphemer, and hypocrite to boot.<\/p>\n Moreover, even if a Christian couldn\u2019t<\/em> understand this one passage and synthesize it with the others, we still have the well-known principle of biblical hermeneutics: interpret the difficult, \u201chard\u201d or complex passages that are not readily or easily understood, by other clearer passages on the same topic.<\/p>\n It\u2019s really only the same approach that a scholar would afford any<\/em> literature. Say, for example, that we were studying the thought of Descartes<\/a> or Plato<\/a>, and find ten passages in one or the other clearly stating x<\/em>, but also one that states apparent direct contradiction y<\/em>. The scholar will go with what he knows<\/em>, rather than with what he has not yet explained. He either concedes ignorance, or assumes that an explanation will eventually be found, or that the thinker may have changed his mind at some point. In any event, the strong evidence for x<\/em> is not overcome by the exceptional evidence of y<\/em>.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the same in science as well. Just about every theory or hypothesis has to deal with anomalies<\/em><\/a> that don\u2019t fit into it. It doesn\u2019t make the scientist throw out the theory because it was not absolutely sufficient to explain every jot and tittle.<\/p>\n The same applies to biblical interpretation. But I have suggested a plausible solution<\/em>. I\u2019m not saying that no one can figure out or explain in another fashion what Bob casually assumes to be a biblical contradiction. I don\u2019t think this \u201cproblem\u201d is anywhere near impossible to resolve.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0Aztec human sacrifice<\/span> (16th century codex<\/a>) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17:\u00a0\u201cIn this blog, I\u2019ve responded to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":22935,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[1738,1043,745,258,335,4126,87,6240,6243,459,1367,5552,4765],"class_list":["post-22926","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","tag-anti-christian-bigotry","tag-anti-theism","tag-anti-theists","tag-atheism","tag-atheists","tag-bob-seidensticker","tag-child-sacrifice","tag-christianity-child-sacrifice","tag-christianity-human-sacrifice","tag-christology","tag-critiques-of-christianity","tag-cross-examined","tag-human-sacrifice"],"yoast_head":"\nBut doesn\u2019t the Bible\u00a0<\/strong>reject<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0human sacrifice?<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
Human sacrifice in the Bible<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:
\n<\/a>*<\/div>\nMatthew Poole\u2019s Commentary<\/a><\/div>\n