What does the WT say in response to the Bible command of human sacrifice?

by Crazyguy 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Crazyguy

    In the Bible at exodus 22:29 and Numbers 3:13 its very specific that the first born males belong to god. At Leviticus 27:28,29 is specifically says all that is given to the lord even the sons can not be ransomed and are to be destroyed.

    This makes it clear that human sacrifice of the first born males was expected. So what does the WT say to try and get around this?

  • humbled
  • Crazyguy

    It’s interesting that in almost every case where the words cherem or charam is used it’s obvious that it means to destroy or to devote to destruction. But when it comes to human sacrifice the it could just mean to Ban. It’s also interesting that the Canaanites also known as Phoenicians the people’s that the Jews have been linked to via DNA and other means did preform human sacrifice until the Romans finally outlawed it.

  • Crazyguy

    I think what’s written in Numbers 5 where the Levites were substituted for the firstborn is the explanation the JWs would use. What’s funny here is what’s written in Numbers chapter 5 is a direct contradiction to what was written in both Leviticus and Exodus because those writtings said you could not Rasom or substitute things devoted to god.

  • humbled

    I don’t have my strong concordance with me right now. But the Leviticus 27:28,29 as the link above suggests had to do with things that had been “devoted to destruction“ as was mentioned of things like Jericho. But in reference to the dedicated children of the Israelites at least in the Scriptures there seemed to be consistency the substitution of a whole burnt offering of a sacrificed animal in the dedication of an oldest son.

    The premiere of this ritual (if the Bible were to make sense///omg Crazyguy—this stuff drove me crazy)\\\) had to precede the Jepththah business with his daughter or....he would have killed her as a sacrifice—something Jah didn’t go for according to other scriptures.

    The words used in Leviticus (if the story were true and followed a timeline)were in force before the Jephthah thing went down. There are a variety of Hebrew words that had to do with the law sacrifices. They are not the ones referring to Jephthah’s offering up of his daughter or of things sacrificed to Jehovah.

    The antecedents for this business of God and sacrifices of children really have the beginnings with Abraham and Isaac. You can see the concept was hard to put across.”Offer your son your only son Isaac whom you love” offer him in a place that I will show you” I got disfellowshipped basically on this issue. Presented the idea that the Scriptures never made the word for it offering and sacrifice interchangeable they were words that were different so different that they would appear in the same sentence as “sacrifice and Brett offering” it’s tedious to talk about but it was the only way to reconcile the idea that Jehovah to God who doesn’t lie and doesn’t think anyone would evil would have tempted his friend Abraham with an active he called evil. And that it says in James That God does not text anyone with evil.

    I told the brothers that if God did tell Abraham to sacrifice instead of “offer up”his son then he was a monster and a liar. The only way that God could get a pass on this is if they were some ambiguity in the word “burnt offering”

    The CO heard about it. There was more unpleasantness. They wanted Bethel to judge the matter. Bethel took about three months to process my information . They agreed with it and told me to shut the hell up. They wanted to keep the bloody picture in there my book of Bible stories. Saying that God told Abraham to Kill and burn his son.

    I caught hell about this whole thing and it showed me what lying sacks of shit the whole outfit were.

    I have little doubt the Bible is been thoroughly edited to try to patch up all the leaky pieces of the various bits and pieces that have been written over the years.

    Some poor Jewish Carpenter came along and saw how bad everyone was being treated under the freaking OT and he tried to make sense of it,treat people better and teach them how to love each other and you saw how that went.

    Good luck crazy guy

  • humbled

    All of the above needed a massive edit.I wasn’t able to get in under the wire

    So it goes that post is pretty much laughable because I was talking to the phone in a parking lot.

    Unless you buy this garbage wholesale, prepackaged from a preacher who is selling it to you you have to sit and figure it out in your real life.

    Ain’t happening. And I ain’t buying.

  • scratchme1010
    This makes it clear that human sacrifice of the first born males was expected. So what does the WT say to try and get around this?

    Conveniently, that part of the bible was abolished by Jesus, which is why it's called the "old testament". Not so with the same Leviticus part that they use to hate gay people, though. To them that part is as good as new.

  • humbled

    I am sorry Crazyguy for the comments that turned into a diatribe.

    Your post asked how the WT explained human sacrifice (and the DNA revealing the blood ties of Jews to the Canaanites.)

    Aren’t there bits in the Bible where the the Israelites did sacrifice children?

    How the WBTS would push bible verses and words this way and that! Why ? When they were not concerned with the axis of evil described in the Abraham / Isaac scenario.

    It seems that you study the Bible like a religious anthropologist ? Is there such a thing?

  • BluesBrother

    Under the law a provision was made for the firstborn to be redeemed with animal sacrifice. The verse is a statement of God's ownership, that is all. Anyway, the law was abolished for Christians.

    That's what a dub would say.... if today's crop of button-pushers and app clickers have ever seen the verse !

Share this