Responding to Concerns with My Position on Ezekiel

[@20quid]

I can't think of any other creator that would give so much time to a very fair, good-faith and detailed explanation of the arguments against their own position before even attempting to respond to them, including brining up other academic sources that support the position refuting your own. Kudos Dan for showing us all how proper debate etiquette should be done.

[@justinboyett8843]

That is because Dan is a SCHOLAR who happens to be a creator. This kind of response is typical in scholarship. More than half of my thesis is an examination of contrary positions.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

To be fair, he only addresses the arguments against his position *advocated for.* This does not include: • God being evil 😈 • God being a metaphor • The Bible ✝ being written by another supernatural 👻 entity • The Bible ✝ being effectively a simulation by another supernatural 👻 entity

[@archivist17]

Very interesting. I liked the way you explained the counter-arguments fairly before looking at the rest of the data. Thank you. I'm learning a lot from your videos.

[@Carblesnarky]

One of the big issues to keep in mind with apologists & their arguments is that by definition apologetics is not seeking the truth, it seeks to defend a religion and it's dogmas.

[@thepalegalilean]

Of course. Once you take a position you absolutely have to defend it. We are all apologists for something. But your apologetic should not outweigh your ability to criticize your own position and take the criticism from other positions. It's quite possible to be an academic scholar and an apologist. But oftentimes the latter is more utilized than the former. And that's never a desirable thing.

[@shanonsnyder9450]

The notion that scholarship is free of its own unfounded commitments over and against confessional scholarship is naive to say the least

[@clearstonewindows]

Makes me think of the commandment that God gave to Abraham

[@dmckenzie9281]

Interesting. This old retired firefighter might have to watch it a couple of time to really get it though.

[@justinboyett8843]

7:30 It's not like the entire religion begins with a man being told to sacrifice his son with fire.

[@scottyvanantwerp]

Great demonstration of the difference between scholarship and apologetics, thank you.

[@shanonsnyder9450]

The notion that Critical scholarship is free of its own unfounded commitments is naive, to say the least.

[@scottyvanantwerp]

@@shanonsnyder9450 I don't think that is a notion, implied by the word, "critical". Unfounded? Critical scholarship is peer reviewed by the best minds in their fields and gathers an immense amount of data to confirm best understandings. It is good to have the data that informs us of context.

[@AMoniqueOcampo]

Fun fact: Moloch became a one-off villain in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode I Robot You Jane. It's a very cheesy episode, but there's definitely elements of Moloch's lore of humans offering sacrifices to Moloch. Also, I metaphorically spat out my drink when I heard Scott Hahn's name. To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time." What's your opinion on his apologetics?

[@braddersfam1754]

There is so much evil and vanityin the OT, in the name of YHWH. Thanks for the video

[@What_If_We_Tried]

And nothing like the love of suffering - for non-believers - in eternal hellfire in the NT, or the instructions of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, to hate your father, mother, wife, children, and friends in order to be his disciples, (Luke 14:26), or his new reality of not bringing peace to the world, but a sword, (Matt 10:34-36). /s

[@braddersfam1754]

@@What_If_We_Tried very interesting points, and words there which seem to contradict so many other words attributed to Jesus. It would be good if Dan did an episode on them, so we can see whether those words are the original translations, the sources etc.

[@bristolrovers27]

Food for thought, I liked your fair presentation of the opposing view. This is completely new to me, very interesting.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

*Sacrifice or Redeem the Firstborn Sons?* "Does the Torah require that every firstborn male child be sacrificed to God? The question seems preposterous, *yet this is the plain meaning of a passage in the Covenant Collection found in Exodus 22:* שמות כב:כח מְלֵאָתְךָ֥ וְדִמְעֲךָ֖ לֹ֣א תְאַחֵ֑ר בְּכ֥וֹר בָּנֶ֖יךָ תִּתֶּן לִּֽי:כב:כט כֵּֽן תַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה לְשֹׁרְךָ֖ לְצֹאנֶ֑ךָ שִׁבְעַ֤ת יָמִים֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה עִם אִמּ֔וֹ בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֖י תִּתְּנוֹ לִֽי: Exod 22:28 You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats.[1] *You shall give Me the firstborn among your sons.* 22:29 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. Although this passage does not use any of the common terms for sacrifice, *it draws a clear analogy between the act of “giving” firstborn children to God and “giving” firstborn cattle and sheep,* which are presumably destined for slaughter. *Nothing in the text suggests that firstborn humans or animals are to be treated any differently from one another."* *"Giving Your Firstborn Son to God"* - TheTorah.com

[@AmandaTroutman]

Not going to lie, had to listen a few times to follow why Adonai was defiling his chosen people

[@FilthyXylophone]

Because they were being bad and God had to show them who's boss. They didn't know how good they had it, so he had to remind them by punishing their innocent children. You know, the way an all loving God should do, and not at all the behavior of a psychotic despot /s

[@pansepot1490]

Same. Watched a few times, still confused.

[@AmandaTroutman]

@@pansepot1490 What filthy said. The Israelites were following religious laws laid down pre-Adonaic law and they apparently weren't even following them well. Adonai established new more lenient laws (ones that ignored child sacrifice) at Mt. Sinai that they ignored. So, in anger, Adonai required them for follow BOTH sets of laws which included child sacrifice, knowing they would fail to follow the laws and be defiled, thus justifying future punishments. If you think about it not as a modern rational person, but as a tribal member of an insular, patriarchal culture that despises other cultures of the region, it makes more sense. It's heavy handed as a means of control.

[@justinboyett8843]

5:50 That was a rational and well argued position... which is immediately negated by a word search within the same text.

[@jericosha2842]

The explanations were seamless and easy to follow. Excellent work.

[@pgbollwerk]

Outstanding explanation sir

[@justinboyett8843]

1. Thank you for answering my question on your recent video. 2. Do you have a paper on this subject? I would like to dig in deeper.

[@alanb8884]

Nice deep dive!

[@michaelmaloskyjr]

Watching apologetics work through labrythine layers of explanation can sometimes remind me of a rollercoaster relationship: You're in some extreme circumstance looking for reasons or blame, then find the "total package" (at the time), go through a honeymoon period of happy worship/fellowship, rebuild to a stable, solid position in life -- THEN start digging into the actual lore of your faith with expected questions. At that point, after so much invested, one can simply gloss over the critical enterprise, content with its efficacy. Or -- double down intellectually and retrofit scripture and connect passages to assuage the cognitive dissonance. i.e., "There's no way my [significant other] could've said that! Or committed those acts! There MUST be a good, worthy explanation."

[@andrebrown8969]

I have very serious problems with the idea that any god would communicate with people in such a way where they would need encyclopedic knowledge to understand what it is saying. How would someone with limited mental understanding even begin to understand?

[@FilthyXylophone]

Yes! Why would a loving God not provide plain and simple directions/writings for people of all languages? It's like he wants people to end up in hell over mistranslations or honest misunderstandings. The simpler reason: it's all man made, so of course there are inconsistencies, mistranslations, and highly prone to misunderstanding.

[@20quid]

We only need such knowledge and study because the distance between us and the authors of the text are so vast. They lives completely different lives from us in a completely different millennia in a completely different part of the world in a different language and with a different culture. The Avengers would seem as incomprehensible and difficult to understand to them as their writings are to us.

[@lisaboban]

And all-knowing God would not. But human writers would assume that anyone reading this would understand the language and cultural references of the time it is written.

[@toniacollinske2518]

If I understood him, God did give them simple/doable commandments at Sinai but they didn't even follow those, so God then layered those simple commandments with their Ancestors' complicated laws.

[@andrebrown8969]

@@toniacollinske2518 Suppose I was born with an intellectual disability or divergence where I could not understand deeper meanings or concepts such as metaphorical language.

[@sunshowerpainting1]

This falls in line with the attitude of this storm god diety. I hope I never have occasion to run into him. What a brutal beast.

[@X1Y0Z0]

Congrats on a wonderful vid!

[@BabyHoolighan]

In the history of the uncertain relationship between Hebrews and Yaweh reported in the OT, these requirements of first born might explain why god was shopping around for a group of people willing to follow him. Was the covenant worth the real estate? How many failed the binding test before Abraham passed it?

[@ammo9599]

While I don't have a dog in this fight, Wilbur often seems to find one paper that supports his position and then that's it. Of course that's far better than most folks, so good on him for putting forth some effort.

[@MarcusRobertsonTwo]

Hi Dan, thanks for this video. I just want to question something you said. You say “it is CLEARLY a reference to sacarifice” around the 1:05 mark. This is something that some, including my camp, are usually called out on, especially in regards to biblical interpretation and understanding. Not necessarily saying it is unclear, it just peaked my radar as you said it, and that the appeal to clarity isn’t always a great way to make a point. Thanks again 😊

[@johnburn8031]

Interesting 🙋🏻‍♂️

[@therion5458]

There's also Exodus 34, the real ten commandments, which calls for the sacrifice of the first born. When you read Exodus 13, there is no denying what it originally meant...It clearly says that: just as the Lord killed all the first born of Egypt , so must the Israelites sacrifice to the Lord the firstborn of both man and beast. One thing to point out about Exodus 13 (and Exodus 34) in terms of "redeeming" the first born, is that it's clearly a later edit of the text. It simply makes no sense to blatantly call for the sacrifice of all first born of "man and beast" and then say first born sons should be "redeemed" instead. The final verse that wraps it all up is Leviticus 27, verses 28-29, which says a man or animal who is dedicated to Lord (to be sacrificed) can NOT be redeemed. Apologists will go to every length to deny the truth if it goes against their narrative of the bible being "morally perfect" and consistent, which of course is already a debunked and silly argument to begin with.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Totally against Torah laws.. No human sacrifice allowed or man god idol Trinity..

[@therion5458]

@@MitzvosGolem1 Such sacrificial commands aren't surprising and are consistent with other actions of the "Lord." The few verses in the torah that say such sacrifice is "not allowed" was arguably speaking about sacrificing to foreign gods, and or are simply later edits of the texts made when such practices were no longer culturally acceptable.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@@therion5458 No where in Torah ( which is authority over Tanakh Navi Prophets ) is human sacrifice permitted . Northern Kingdom heretics were idolatory paganism Etc destroyed for going against Torah laws. Perhaps they are the ones who did such evil pagan human sacrifice.

[@therion5458]

@@MitzvosGolem1 That's like saying that no where in the Torah did the god of Moses permit the killing of people, since Exodus 20 says, "thou shall not kill." The god of Moses undeniably commanded such things.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@@therion5458 It says in original Hebrew " do not murder".. different than " kill" . One example of mistranslation from Christian bibles.

[@DoloresLehmann]

Honestly, I had always understood that passage to mean additional commandments that God gave after the people had already broken the Sinai covenant, and yet, even on this basis I had a discussion with an apologist who claimed that doesn't mean that God commanded the Israelites to sacrifice their children, but that God gave some - whatever - not good commandments, and THEN the Israelites started to implement child sacrifice on their own, without that being a command from God. He even wouldn't acknowledge that there's a clear contradiction between this passage and passages like Jeremiah 32,35 (and other parallel Jeremiah passages). He said there's no contradiction there, because it actually never entered God's mind to command child sacrifice, the people came to that idea on their own after God had given them different, not identified "commandments that were not good". Sometimes you almost have to admire those ways of twisting words to make them fit a preconceived narrative. But there's just no way to get your point across with such people.

[@Tjstube32]

Agreed, the linguistic gymnastics apologists have to preform to "prevent" contradictions can be utterly mind blown and also hilarious...

[@What_If_We_Tried]

@@Tjstube32 These are Olympic Games levels of biblical gymnastics.

[@vulteiuscatellus4105]

Friebel doesn’t “look elsewhere… in Ezekiel and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible” to find out what the חקים and משפטים of 20:25 were referring to. He does not “go outside chapter 20.” In pages 29-30 of his essay, Friebel looks to verse 20:23, two verses before verse 25: “Moreover, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the countries” (NRSV translation). To Friebel, verses 23 and 25 are paralleled with the use of גם-אני, “I also,” suggesting they are discussing the same event: the scattering/dispersal of verse 23 and the decrees/statutes by which the Israelites could not live in verse 25. Verses 24 and 26 are also paralleling the same events: the Israelites rejecting God’s statutes and going after idols in verse 24 and defiling themselves by offering up the firstborn in verse 26. Verses 23 and 25 give God’s concurrent punishments and judgments (the ensuing exile and bad decrees) while verses 24 and 26 indicate the lapses into old ways that caused those ensuing judgments. Yes, חקים and משפטים are also found in verse 18 but there is nothing in verse 25 indicating that God was explicitly reinforcing those old, ancestral, idolatrous decrees and statutes, rather than giving new judgments of his own. Hence why Friebel compares the God-given חקים and משפטים in Ezekiel 20:25 with the God-given משפטים of Ezekiel 5:8b (“I will execute judgments among you in the sight of the nations”). You make it sound like Friebel just jumped to looking at 5:8 and other texts without looking at the parallel in verse 20:23, which is far from ephemeral to his point.

[@beerexperience360]

🔥🔥🔥

[@underthelidar]

I haven’t been around your channel long, and there was an initial shock to this. It was followed fairly quickly by several predictable apologetic arguments in my head, until finally I wondered what the big deal is. Child sacrifice is bad, yes, but it’s already part of the well-established and accepted traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - the Abrahamic religions. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son to God, and intended to comply with the commandment. Therefore, Abraham believed in a god who would command child sacrifice, and it was acceptable to him. Do we believe in the same god as Abraham? The scriptures are supposed to help us to remember, not to forget or to justify away the things we don’t like.

[@seanmiller6747]

Ask yourself the next question: is a god who would command human sacrifice worthy of worship? I’d argue, full stop, no. Human sacrifice is a deliberate waste of human life, there is no justifiable excuse. The problem of evil, for example, could be explained away with god needing suffering to be present in the world for some purpose impossible for us to comprehend. I don’t find that argument compelling, but it’s at least somewhat reasonable. There is no equivalent for human sacrifice, certainly not as the given reason: as punishment for disobedience.

[@LoveAllAnimals101]

This is simple. 66 books written over 1,400 years. Result? Total and utter pandemonium!

[@Lowlandlord]

Sacrifice to the moloch gods, comments for the comment throne!

[@rainbowkrampus]

Khorne, Yahweh, po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

[@benjamintrevino325]

YHWH couldn't even rely on Adam and Eve to follow one simple rule. Why would He think their descendants would be able to follow 613 rules?

[@Dave01Rhodes]

So does this mean all of Exodus 21, 22, and 23 were among the "not good" commandments?

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the not good laws to just be the entire laws of Moses? They do seem deliberately bad, if you ponder 🤔 them honestly ✅ and pragmatically.

[@dantesinferno4580]

Jeremiah professed that the children of Judah sacrificed their children to Baal. He wrote that the thought of child sacrifice never entered "gods" mind, and that god never commanded to the children of Judah to sacrifice their children in the fires of Moloch. Saying, "They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind." (Jer 19:5). Those that worship the god(s) of the bible often boast that their god is never changing. It is the same yesterday, today and forever. Some, if not most of christianity, profess that their biblical god(s) objectively morality separate it from all other Mesopotamian religions that were born out of a combination of ancient Semitic faiths. What’s known about Moloch largely comes from Judaic texts outlawing the worship of it. There are also references to a Molock in Ancient Greek translations of old Judaic texts. These date back to the Second Temple period between 516 B.C. and 70 C.E. Some scholars attribute Topheth as Moloch, which was made of brass (see Rev 1:15). A fire was set in the brass horned bull, from his lower parts. With its scorching hot hands stretched out, they put the child between its hands, and the child was burnt alive. When the child vehemently cried out, the priests simply beat the drums louder, that a father might not hear the voice of a son. That his heart might not be moved. ”Moloch is most frequently referred to in Leviticus. Here is a passage from Leviticus 18:21, condemning child sacrifice, “Do not allow any of your children to be offered to Molech." Moloch is a type of sacrifice, or is a kind of child-consuming demon. Biblical scholar Dan McClellan argues that 'Moloch' isn't a diety but is in the Hebrew bible used as a noun that refers to a specific type of offering - 'child sacrifice.' Others suggest that the identity for Molech is the Canaanite deity, Ba’al-Hadad or Hadad. Hadad was considered the king of the gods by the ancient Canaanites. Assyrian texts state that child sacrifices were made to Adad, the Assyrian equivalent of the Canaanite Hadad. Evidence that Moloch can be identified with him comes from the fact that the pagan alters in the valley of Ben-Hinnom where children were sacrificed are described as altars to Ba’al, as noted above by the prophet Jeremiah. I am positive that all reading this would agree that a god such as Moloch be defined as diabolical, corrupt, and or morally repugnant. Some might even say such a god forever deservant to remain contained within its own consuming fire. Judaism, as noted, were one of the many Mesopotamian religions born from an older combination of ancient Semitic faiths. McClellan implies that YHWH, according to scripture, did give Moloch to his people. I agree that god may of changed its mind and issued / proscribed and commanded laws be enacted that would cause all the first born children opening the womb to pass through the fire. The Hebrews - Israelites - Judahites, before the days of jesus, did sacrifice their firstborn children to Yahweh. .. Ezekiel, contradictory to modern apologetics, wrote, "I (Yahweh), gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate." (Ezekiel 20). One of those Statues enacted within those specific set of laws is that of Respecting the Messianic King, Psalm 2:7. The name “Molech” or “Moloch” most likely comes from the Hebrew word Melekh, meaning King. Amos wrote, "Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? Ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves." .. And when Saul, i.e. the Christian Paul, slew Stephen before his gods council of scribes and elders in their shared gods synagogue, Stephen declared before death, "god turned, and gave them [Judahites] up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon." .. Backing up to Jeremiah 7 - we find that god, because they worshipped Moloch in the form of child sacrifice, god did changed its mind. And that cannibalism and the sacrifice of it's own son entered into its heart. He wrote, "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. *For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:*... they did worse than their fathers... for the LORD hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his wrath... For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. [BUTT] - behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place. And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate." In another place. "For Tophet is ordained of old .. Yea, for the king it is prepared .. He hath made it deep and large .. The pile thereof is fire and much wood .. The breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it .. And again, "Thus will I do unto this place, saith the LORD, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as Tophet: And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods." Question:1). If the TETRAGRAMMATON 'spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that It brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.' (Jeremiah 7:22). - Which TETRAGRAMMATON met 'Moses as he kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush' saying to 'Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you' to beseech that the king of Egypt allow the Israelites three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God? 2). Christians, do you understand that if god 'spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that it brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices; that the god that your god was sacrificed to is not god; as god said that it was not sacrificed to in the wilderness for forty years?

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Yes, well Ezekial is dealing with that transition. Isra'el fell in 720 BCE and it was polytheistic and people were probably sacrificing their firstborn, either to the priesthood or to the fire. Ezekiel lived from 622 to 570. Notice the theophoric to El. Els people are dispersed upon the land and Assyria claimed dominance over the northern kingdom and increased its grip on Judeah. Assyrians don't want child sacrifice, its entire machine works off a professional army of young men handed over by its territories or vassal inclusions thereof. They will increasingly need more soldiers as events with the Medes and Chaldeans unfold. It should be noted that the period that ends the neoAssyrian empire (609 BCE) is a period of great instability for Assyria, marked by rather epic internal struggle within the hereditary dynasty itself. Many senseless wars of attritition will be fought with a couple of pyrrhic victories that simply kick Assyrias ultimate decline down the road a decade or so. We have to take some perspective on exactly what has gone on and why Ezeki'el stands over an important point in the history of the levant, because its not simply about the fate of Judeah, there is going to be a sweeping change. So lets backtrack. Babylon was at its peak during Kassite rule during the early-mid 2nd millenium BCe and was the longest lived period outside of Sumer 1 (post Ubaid, predynastic Sumer roughly 3100 BCE to 2400 BCE, but can be extended easily a millenium prior). During this period the eastern influences become well established in the eastern levant (and the biblical literature shows a preference for this eastern culture). During the Amarna period the Eastern influences are in a losing competition with Egypt's New kingdom and the hittites with the Assyrian Empire growing and babylon as a polity shrinking. Assyria is the only institution to survive the LBAC. Babylon is overrun, essentially by habiru like tribal entities, most notably the chaldeans, an aramaic tribe, it resuurects as rather weak kingdoms, puppets of assyria. In the west we see a proliferation from tribal confederations of City States, basically progressing from north to south as LBAC fission products renegotiate their polities to exit the LBAC and enter the iron age. Assyria, begins to grow. Eventually Egypt begins to rebuild, but nowhere near as powerful as it was at the end of the Amarna period. The Neohittite confederation (actually luwian, but . . .) appears. As time progresses Assyria increasingly dominates the landscape, the politics and the religions. El is superfluous, Asshur is god and Ninevah is lord over the land. Increasingly the Elohim of the levant have less influence in the politics of daily life, except one god, Yahweh, who by the 7th century BCE is walled up and forced to pay tribute to Ninehvah. To state this more clearly, the plurality of Isra'els Elohim had far less influence in daily religious life than they had during the time of LBAC. There are a few port cities that also survive independently. What does Assyria need in tribute? Only 20% of Isra'els population underwent forced migration. 80% of Israelites remained behind and were forced to pay tribute, either with blood (soldiers, prostitutes and legistics) or with coin or tradegoods; every community had to pay up or perish. So this is the new reality that Ezekiel is born into. Under Hezekiel and Yosiah this is further restricted by the removal of all sacrificial sites within Judea. And so El is being squeezed out, the Elohim are being crushed under the might of the Assyrian empire and Judea is becoming more and more henotheistic. Then, at the end of the 7th century the bubble pops. Assyrians long internal struggle has so weakened it that it cannot stand up to the combined threat of the chaldeans and Medes. But the early babylonian king (his son actually Nabo kudurri Usar) is more or less running around trying to collect tributes of Assyrian proportions determined and who will need to be punished for not doing so. Vassal states become immediately independent when the dynasty falls apart. Now we are in Ezeki'el's lifetime. The king of Jerusalem decides to test the king of Babylon. Why? 1. Judeans dislike the Egyptian rule and Assyria was an ally of Judea and Babylon an ally of Egypt. That changed unexpectedly after Yosiah's son was deposed by Necro II 2. The Babylonian king, Nabo-polassar looks weak, but in fact his son has the real power. 3. Babylons gods are the gods, essentially, of Isra'el (its eastern compliment), and Judea has gotten rid of those gods. 4. The fall of Syria just makes a mess of alliances and noone trusts anyone. 5. Jeroaikim was determined by the internal to be an unfit ruler, Egypt deposed his younger brother and installed him. In the End, Egypt decided to help Assyria against babylon. Once Chladean Babylon was in power (onset: 620 to 609 BCE) Necro II of Egyot decided to retake what Egypt had lost in Egypt(605 BCE). On the way he deposed the young king, son of Yosiah and put Jeroikim as King of Judea. The Egyptians forced Judea to pay a heavy tarriff. Nabo-Kadurri-usur forced Jeroiakim into vassal status with Babylon. So to recap, Judea was a vassal of Assyria, an Independent City state, A vassal of Egypt, and then a vassal of Babylon all in a period of 15 years. Jeroiakim was not well liked by the prophets, and he further upset the balance by allying with an invading Egyptian Army against the babylonians. 'Nebuchadnezzar' threatened the kingdom and he mysteriously died, and consequently Jerusalim was put into exile, its last king simply a symbol with no power. Where are Ezeki'els gods? They are killing each other. Asshur - Dead. Marduk - belial. El - powerless, dismantled.

[@bargle8181]

“Data”

[@francescocarlini7613]

Can anyone think of a more radically antinomian passage in the entire Hebrew Bible?

[@TheMesomovie]

So, the apologists are trying to reinterpret Ezekiel, who was an apologist.

[@rainbowkrampus]

I generally view the whole book as a series of apologetics. It's all several thousand years of excuse making.

[@gwendolynwyne]

Would you say Stephen is renegotiating this in Acts 7:19 when he says that “evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live”?

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Isn't that just the old practice of leaving unwanted children to die? Though that might mean all of them instead.

[@gromit1996]

There are many passages in the prophets where God says how he is going to punish Israel, (Sooooo many passages), and he says words to the effect of “they even sacrificed their children and that’s something I did not command or even suggested.” I always think that’s sort of a weird way to phrase things. Why would they think it was something that should be done unless possibly it had been a requirement in the past? Like in Jeremiah 7:31.

[@PaulTempesta-id8wr]

I don't think a real god or at least any good god would want any sacrifice including the poor animal s Abaham should have told god to go to hell.

[@danielgibson8799]

Huh. You learn somethin’ new everyday. That’ll help with Genesis 22 studies.

[@Mattspeak86]

Is there one “clear” story when a child was sacrificed to YHWH in scripture that you’ve found? I mean if the ultimate sacrifice was required then there should be a clear and prominent story surrounding it other then Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice? Just wondering…

[@scambammer6102]

you mean besides all the children yahweh murdered in the flood etc etc

[@Mattspeak86]

Hi! Not sure if you understood the question… I’m specifically referring to what the creator of the video states as “law.” I feel that the worldwide deluge which is recorded in ancient documents from cultures around the world is really concerning a very separate situation… thanks though!

[@seanmiller6747]

Jephthah comes to mind, from Judges, though that’s a bit different than what’s described here. But importantly there doesn’t need to be a specific story detailing something for it to be an important part of a religion (take the Trinity, for example, or the Christian conception of Satan). Given that there are multiple prominent aspects of Christianity not found in the text of the Bible, implying that something requires a narrative story to be recognized as a tenant of a religion is odd. If it’s about what the text says, the relevant verses are cited in the video in the first place.

[@Mattspeak86]

Thanks for your response! I definitely understand where you’re coming from as far as the trinity goes, and the Christian conception of Satan, but I feel that’s really not “nailing” my question, because first of all a three part God is spoken of clearly in the new testament, as opposed to still “no clear reference to God requiring, as law (as your video states) to pass children through the fire.” I mean the Laws were the most primary focal point of the Israelites lifestyle, so how could it not be written clearly - because God wanted to hide it? Sounds funny… I say this because the story of Jephthah definitely is not an answer to my question… God never told Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter - Jephthah mad a dumb oath - what did he expect to walk out of his house?? Human error… Also, I wonder what “prominent aspects of Christianity are not in the Bible,” that you speak of, sounds fascinating, I just wonder how it’s part of Christianity if it’s not in the Bible?? I thought the framework of Christianity solely was the Bible? And yes I am being a bit sarcastic.. I think primarily where we differ is as foundational as it can get, because the Bible, although it’s a library of books, says it’s living. I feel that when we inspect the book as a pile of dry bones, and do not view it as an immensely integrated, and miraculously interconnected book, that is alive, then we fall prey to a dull view like the idea that a law thats never clearly stated as a law, “to pass your children through the fire,” wouldn’t need a prominent story surrounding it. I believe there is a prominent story surrounding this topic that perfectly argues the opposite of what you are saying. The story of Abraham being asked of God to sacrifice his only Son Isaac, yet when he obeyed YHWH a ram was provided. That very act of YHWH, which becomes a framework for what Jesus would eventually do, clearly designates YHWH as a compassionate God, distinguishing Himself from all the other God’s in the east from those times, and not a God who would ever require humanity to sacrifice there children as law, by passing them through the fire. Antithetical.

[@oritheo]

God never commanded human sacrifice. States clearly multiple times that passing through the fire is not something he came up with and is directly against it

[@rickiestubbs8779]

Dan, come on, man. While grammer is important context is even more important. Oftentimes context determines how grammer is used. Please read things in full context. Verse 25 in context is stating that the ordinances given were to hard not because the people could not obey, but because the people did not want to adhere to them. Like a child that is instructed to do something and says I can't its to hard. It was a cop out from obeying! So in their disobedience they served other gods because it was easier to follow their wicked desires and feelings than to come under the authority of an almighty God. Much like people today. Verse 26 states that when they murdered their children, God punished them. Stay in context and you will never have to side step.

[@THUNDERSTUD]

Imagine trying to give Dan a lecture on grammar and using 'too' wrong twice.

[@sethcaro]

@@THUNDERSTUD Imagined you respond to the actual argument.

[@THUNDERSTUD]

@@sethcaro ok yeah sure. Hes completely wrong and dan has full context

[@scambammer6102]

@@THUNDERSTUD he also misspelled grammar lol

[@scambammer6102]

@@sethcaro his "argument" is both irrelevant and misconstrues Dan's point. It doesn't matter why the Israelites did not comply with the ordinances. They just didn't, for which they were punished by requiring child sacrifices. Nice religion ya got there.

[@ernestschultz5065]

disgusting book

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Nonsense . No human sacrifice is allowed ever in Torah. Perhaps study Judaism. This interpretation is nonsense.

[@saturnhex9855]

you say to a literal Professor of Theology who has read the Hebrew bible and studies it for a living...

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@@saturnhex9855 Nope..Ask any Orthodox rabbi . it takes 24 + years of study to be one No Human sacrifice for sin no vacarious atonement.. He is reading Torah through a Christian lense.. תודה רבה שלום

[@rotag-itsni]

@@MitzvosGolem1ah yes, definitely listen to the people who have every reason under the sun to manipulate and superimpose their beliefs onto the text. Nice try, champ.

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@MitzvosGolem1 Wouldn't it be orthodox jews reading this through a christian lens? Since the change in interpretation came about as a response to criticisms of judaism as a religion which sacrifices children?

[@toniacollinske2518]

​@@saturnhex9855 FYI, not a Theology PhD, but one in Religion and Religious Studies (something like that) but for the commenter, FYI, he's got a Master's in Judiasm from Oxford.