Kobojunkie:
You do realize you are not making any sense here stil.

The constitution in Nigeria, does it not define murder as a crime - "thou shall not kill" ?

Does the same constitution not allow for the death penalty as punishment for crimes?

Doesn't the same constitution also not allow for the killing of those considered enemy combatants by the Nigerian army?

---

Why is this even a conversation for Pete's sake?

Comparing constitution of a country to a law according to your good book is welcome.
You are only proving that religion is man made.

In your constitution, there are conditions for killing clearly spelt out .. like; man slaughter, self defense, murder etc.
But your good book says "thou shall not kill" which is in the affirmative.
No country's constitution has only "you shall not murder"... There are conditions

It would have made more sense if he divided it in sections like.
Thou shalt not kill unjustly
Thou shalt only kill thine enemies

Even your biblical Jesus frowned at peter pulling out a sword on an enemy

Steep:

Why are you avoiding from vs 1 to19? quote them first

You quote it and tell us how it changes the explicit 'I gave them statutes...'
yhwh starts by saying how angry and upset he is with the Israelites how they disobeyed him and then he got so angry that he gave then wicked statutes to kill their children.

Steep:

Do provide the evidence where yahweh commanded the children of Israel to offer human sacrifice.

I'm happy to keep on repeating the evidence for now, since your eyes don't seem to be working...


EZEKIEL 20:
25Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.

PastorAIO:


You quote it and tell us how it changes the explicit 'I gave them statutes...'
yhwh starts by saying how angry and upset he is with the Israelites how they disobeyed him and then he got so angry that he gave then wicked statutes to kill their children.

Didn't you see his answer to this?
He said, the fact that the bible says "God did something" does not mean he actually did it. That it means he only allowed it.
It seems his own English might be from another planet.

Steep:


@ bolded the word sacrifice was added by you.

The word sacrifice was not added by me but rather was removed by you and by those ye ye bible versions that you picked. This is a further example of how the bible is distorted when redaction and translations are made.

The word in contention is WAY - YIZ- BAH. This word in Hebrew means ritual sacrifice. There is no other context in which it is used in the Hebrew language other than as religious ritual sacrifice.

If you don't believe me, look it up in a concordance:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/vaiyizbach_2076.htm

If you can show me one other passage where way yiz bah did not mean a ritual sacrifice then I will send you 20 pounds.

kingxsamz:


Didn't you see his answer to this?
He said, the fact that the bible says "God did something" does not mean he actually did it. That it means he only allowed it.
It seems his own English might be from another planet.

Apparently there is a context in which it is possible to flip the meaning of that passage, I would just like to see the context and how he uses it to interpret the passage differently.

Steep:

2 Kings 23:10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.

23:19 And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Bethel.

23:20 And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.

These priest were all involved in human and the king killed them upon their own altar.
sacrifice vv10, secondly the high places are not places were yahweh is worshiped, the high places were places that sacrifice to pagan gods were offered.

So the fact that someone else is making human sacrifice makes it okay for you to make them a human sacrifice to your own deity?

Actually, talking of context, you need to know what was going on in Israel at the time of Josiah. There was a power struggle. Previously Yhwh was worshipped in a number of ritual 'High Places'. When the Temple was built there became a power struggle between the Priesthood in Jerusalem and the priesthoods out in the rest of the country. Josiah sought to centralise the worship of yhwh. That is why he ended up killing all the other priests and sacrificing them on the altars. Josiah was a yhwh only adherent so you know that those human sacrifices were made to yhwh.

1Samuel 9
13As soon as you enter the city you will find him, before he goes up to the high place [/b]to eat. For the people will not eat till he comes, since he must [b]bless the sacrifice; afterward those who are invited will eat. Now go up, for you will meet him immediately.” 14So they went up to the city. As they were entering the city, they saw Samuel coming out toward them on his way up to the high place.

Samuel the prophet of yhwh would bless the sacrifices in the High Places. These were sacrifices made to yhwh. Made in High Places.

1Kings 3
4And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place. Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, and God said, “Ask what I shall give you.”

Solomon went to sacrifice at the high place in Gibeon and yhwh met him there. So you see yhwh was worshipped in high place very very well and much.

Steep:


Exodus 13:14 And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage:

13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

This was a ceremonial practice in Israel to teach their descended how the Lord God killed all the firstborn of Israel but saved Israel.
Israel is God's firstborn. To redeem is to save or to deliver.
What happens when an Israelite is not able to redeem his son, then his son will continue to be in the service of the Lord

You don't think that it is a mighty coincidence that the sacrifice of first born sons was common in Canaan and the Israelites also had a ritual for redeeming the first born son?

MaxInDHouse:

You will only continue running from one thread to another, but as far as Jesus is concerned you will never get anyone to debunk Jesus' story as fake!

MaxInDHouse:
Matthew wasn't relating a literal event but a vision of what will happen in the nearest future!
It's a vision of what will happen in the future due to the sacrifice Jesus just made with his own blood. No dead bodies left their graves because resurrection will only take place when Jesus call {John 5:28-29} the one who will make that call is dead so it's a vision not literal event!

You are the one who continues, running from one thread to another with your deceit and fake gosples. So you and Matthew were sitting together and he told you he was having a vision when he wrote in Matthew-27-52-53
52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Broveens42:
Comparing constitution of a country to a law according to your good book is welcome.
You are only proving that religion is man made.

Oh, so, you expect a constitution for a Kingdom that was created over 3000 years ago for the Kingdom of Israel to be structured and formatted exactly like your constitution is today before you can consider it an authentic constitution?

You sure say you dey alright so?

Read the books... the details of the Law that was meant to govern the existence in the Land of Israel is written in detail in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

kingxsamz:

Did you miss the part where I mentioned "Innocent" kids?
So kindly tell us which army was ordered to kill Innocent children still sucking their mother's breasts. Answer, mr man.

Where they children of Israel or Children of the enemy?
Innocent by whose standard? The UN of the time?
Please stop already with the sentimental bullsheet!

Myer:


It's ok to acknowledge that the bible has it flaws.
Do not deny the obvious.

Instead find the reason and explanation as to why.
But denying that there are contradictions and errors makes you look religious.

Your opinion doesn't matter. You are free to believe whatever makes you sleep well at night.

Kobojunkie:
Where they children of Israel or Children of the enemy?
Innocent by whose standard? The UN of the time?
Please stop already with the sentimental bullsheet!

You have two tasks now.

1: Which Army was asked to slaughter innocent children in 1st Samuel 15:3.

2: Logically, kindly tell us how an infant can be guilty of any crime.

If you can't answer these questions directly, then we can all assume that you're scared. These questions won't kill you, lol.

kingxsamz:


Oh but you failed to point that out when he did the same thing earlier without any cause for it.



Your hypocrisy stinks.

Not hypocrisy, just the case of I did not see his shots.

Kobojunkie:
Oh, so, you expect a constitution for a Kingdom that was created over 3000 years ago for the Kingdom of Israel to be structured and formatted exactly like your constitution is today before you can consider it an authentic constitution?

You sure say you dey alright so?

Read the books... the details of the Law that was meant to govern the existence in the Land of Israel is written in detail in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

@ kobojunkie
So the laws in your good book were later amended ?
#constitution review/amendment
Religion

Although I haven't read the reference texts.
But one thing to take note of in the O.T(for reference sake) and the world then was their culture. You'd see cases of a man marrying only when his father gets a wife for him, with exception to if his father is physically limited to doing it.
Cases of where war was the order of the day, and some would say it was God who ordered that certain people be killed. No, Read contextually, all of the bible(don't base your opinion on just one text).

Historically, in the Jewish culture, sacrificing bulls and goats was believed to be a service to God. But we later see in scriptures that God never asked them to do so, neither was he pleased with it.

Cases where the description of land, earth, sea, sky, cloud were shallow as they saw the world back then as limited to their place of residence and surrounding regions; more like a flat earth.
Their science was very much shallow in revelation.

People taking slaves to themselves, to them it was 'normal', if I may use that word loosely. But we see later in the scriptures that slavery wasn't desired by God.
It was man's culture, not all God would have them do.


Of course, God accommodated himself into these practices, he didn't say, No the earth is spherical or gave them scientific info to make certain things. That's why Jesus didn't come 'differently', he wore clothes they wore, he ate food they ate, he spoke their language, he did as they did in their culture, even went to the temple.

They saw their enemy's children as their enemy. They were more like a 'steel age' savage people, we're talking several thousand years ago. No UN then, no science as we have it now, no enlightenment of what is good or bad as we know it now.

It'd be dishonest and wicked to treat their behaviour based on what your law says today, 2022. These things were normal to them. They were but men.


The focus should be, "Did God do these things, ask them to do these things, desired these things, allow these things?"

kingxsamz:


You have two tasks now.

1: Which Army was asked to slaughter innocent children in 1st Samuel 15:3.

2: Logically, kindly tell us how an infant can be guilty of any crime.

If you can't answer these questions directly, then we can all assume that you're scared. These questions won't kill you, lol.

Dtruthspeaker:


Not hypocrisy, just the case of I did not see his shots.

How will you see when you're dull and blind?
Abeg shift comot.

StJohnofChrist:
Although I haven't read the reference texts.
But one thing to take note of in the O.T(for reference sake) and the world then was their culture. You'd see cases of a man marrying only when his father gets a wife for him, with exception to if his father is physically limited to doing it.
Cases of where war was the order of the day, and some would say it was God who ordered that certain people be killed. No, Read contextually, all of the bible(don't base your opinion on just one text).

Historically, in the Jewish culture, sacrificing bulls and goats was believed to be a service to God. But we later see in scriptures that God never asked them to do so, neither was he pleased with it.

Cases where the description of land, earth, sea, sky, cloud were shallow as they saw the world back then as limited to their place of residence and surrounding regions; more like a flat earth.
Their science was very much shallow in revelation.

People taking slaves to themselves, to them it was 'normal', if I may use that word loosely. But we see later in the scriptures that slavery wasn't desired by God.
It was man's culture, not all God would have them do.


Of course, God accommodated himself into these practices, he didn't say, No the earth is spherical or gave them scientific info to make certain things. That's why Jesus didn't come 'differently', he wore clothes they wore, he ate food they ate, he spoke their language, he did as they did in their culture, even went to the temple.

They saw their enemy's children as their enemy. They were more like a 'steel age' savage people, we're talking several thousand years ago. No UN then, no science as we have it now, no enlightenment of what is good or bad as we know it now.

It'd be dishonest and wicked to treat their behaviour based on what your law says today, 2022. These things were normal to them. They were but men.


The focus should be, "Did God do these things, ask them to do these things, desired these things, allow these things?"

Thanks for your input but the Christian god was the one who gave the army the instruction to slaughter children, and that invalidates the epistle you have written. If a god has to accommodate and endure certain inhumane practices and even give rules on how such practices should be carried out rather than just abolishing them completely, then such god is an accomplice of said inhumane practices. You're only validating the Op's thread.

kingxsamz:


You have two tasks now.

1: Which Army was asked to slaughter innocent children in 1st Samuel 15:3.

2: Logically, kindly tell us how an infant can be guilty of any crime.

If you can't answer these questions directly, then we can all assume that you're scared. These questions won't kill you, lol.

@Kobojunkie it'll always be here waiting for you.

PastorAIO:


The word sacrifice was not added by me but rather was removed by you and by those ye ye bible versions that you picked. This is a further example of how the bible is distorted when redaction and translations are made.

The word in contention is WAY - YIZ- BAH. This word in Hebrew means ritual sacrifice. There is no other context in which it is used in the Hebrew language other than as religious ritual sacrifice.

If you don't believe me, look it up in a concordance:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/vaiyizbach_2076.htm

If you can show me one other passage where way yiz bah did not mean a ritual sacrifice then I will send you 20 pounds.

Words are interpreted according to context, way-yiz-bah primarily mean slaughter to sacrifice, but any slaughter done on an altar can also be way-yiz-bah, since sacrifices are usually done on altar.

The word was used in 2 kings 22 vv 20 because the slaughter was done on an altar which ordinary is a place where sacrifices are made but in this context Josiah wasn't making a sacrifice but defiling the altar.

There is nowhere God commanded human sacrifice or God accepted human sacrifice, the animals that are used for sacrifice were given in the Torah, they are bull, sheep, goat and doves.

StJohnofChrist:
Although I haven't read the reference texts.
But one thing to take note of in the O.T(for reference sake) and the world then was their culture. You'd see cases of a man marrying only when his father gets a wife for him, with exception to if his father is physically limited to doing it.
Cases of where war was the order of the day, and some would say it was God who ordered that certain people be killed. No, Read contextually, all of the bible(don't base your opinion on just one text).

Historically, in the Jewish culture, sacrificing bulls and goats was believed to be a service to God. But we later see in scriptures that God never asked them to do so, neither was he pleased with it.

Cases where the description of land, earth, sea, sky, cloud were shallow as they saw the world back then as limited to their place of residence and surrounding regions; more like a flat earth.
Their science was very much shallow in revelation.

People taking slaves to themselves, to them it was 'normal', if I may use that word loosely. But we see later in the scriptures that slavery wasn't desired by God.
It was man's culture, not all God would have them do.


Of course, God accommodated himself into these practices, he didn't say, No the earth is spherical or gave them scientific info to make certain things. That's why Jesus didn't come 'differently', he wore clothes they wore, he ate food they ate, he spoke their language, he did as they did in their culture, even went to the temple.

They saw their enemy's children as their enemy. They were more like a 'steel age' savage people, we're talking several thousand years ago. No UN then, no science as we have it now, no enlightenment of what is good or bad as we know it now.

It'd be dishonest and wicked to treat their behaviour based on what your law says today, 2022. These things were normal to them. They were but men.


The focus should be, "Did God do these things, ask them to do these things, desired these things, allow these things?"

You are trying to separate the truth from the whole truth.
Nice attempt.
The biblical stories are all about a culture/philosophy of a people/persons.
No exemption.
Your attempt to say "God later frowned at this and that.." is also a culture/philosophy of a people/persons because even before the law in OT was given, some characters in your good book exhibited good acts.
The concept of God in OT is a duality of function .. some see him as vengeful, some as kind,(applicable also to the igbos precolonial)

But this bad sides were later attributed to another character; Satan

Steep:


Words are interpreted according to context, way-yiz-bah primarily mean slaughter to sacrifice, but any slaughter done on an altar can also be way-yiz-bah, since sacrifices are usually done on altar.

The word was used in 2 kings 22 vv 20 because the slaughter was done on an altar which ordinary is a place where sacrifices are made but in this context Josiah wasn't making a sacrifice but defiling the altar.

Way yiz bah means ritual sacrifice. Full stop.

If you know of any source where that word is used to mean anything other than sacrifice please present it to us. And stop making things up as you go along.

It was done on an altar, the more reason to realise that it was a ritual killing.

And it is also worth noting that these altars were dedicated to yhwh. Just like the temple was dedicated to yhwh. There were many high places in Israel where yhwh was sacrificed to before the temple was later built. After the temple was built sacrifices were still made to yhwh in the high places but the Jerusalem priesthood wanted to monopolised the whole game. That was when the slaughter and sacrificing of priests to yhwh on the high places started.

Josiah reign was one of the major periods when the bible was redacted and tampered with in order to favour the Jerusalem priesthood.


But all these ones are just details. The biggest and more glaring case of human sacrifice remains the very basis of christianity. The ritual killing of Jesus. The problem is that when you are born in and raised in a faith like Christianity such a hideous notion is very easily normalised.

PastorAIO:


You don't think that it is a mighty coincidence that the sacrifice of first born sons was common in Canaan and the Israelites also had a ritual for redeeming the first born son?

I thought you said you are gathering huge evidence to show yahweh commanded human sacrifice. This is pure clownery.

Go and check again every male firstborn of Israel must be redeemed if not it remained with the priest.

PastorAIO:


Way yiz bah means ritual sacrifice. Full stop.

If you know of any source where that word is used to mean anything other than sacrifice please present it to us. And stop making things up as you go along.

It was done on an altar, the more reason to realise that it was a ritual killing.

And it is also worth noting that these altars were dedicated to yhwh. Just like the temple was dedicated to yhwh. There were many high places in Israel where yhwh was sacrificed to before the temple was later built. After the temple was built sacrifices were still made to yhwh in the high places but the Jerusalem priesthood wanted to monopolised the whole game. That was when the slaughter and sacrificing of priests to yhwh on the high places started.

Josiah reign was one of the major periods when the bible was redacted and tampered with in order to favour the Jerusalem priesthood.


But all these ones are just details. The biggest and more glaring case of human sacrifice remains the very basis of christianity. The ritual killing of Jesus. The problem is that when you are born in and raised in a faith like Christianity such a hideous notion is very easily normalised.

reading words according to context is not making things up. Ritual killing of Jesus?
Jesus death was a judicial sacrifice not a ritual enlighten yourself.
till now you have not provided a single shredd of evidence of yahweh commanding human sacrifice

PastorAIO:
We can talk around and around this issue but there can be no denying the blatant and obvious biblical truth which is that YHWH was/is genocidal and filicidal. He accepts and is appeased by human sacrifice. This so obviously and blatantly the case in Judaism but more so in Christianity, the entire edifice of which is based on the human sacrifice of Jesus for the cleansing of sins.

Apparently there is no other way for YHWH to forgive you. Even the sheep and goats that were substituted for humans would not do the trick so in the end Jesus had to die.

Yhwh directly asks for and admits to asking for Humans to be sacrificed and the Bible demonstrates this by being full of human sacrifices.

I detect an assumption here. That Jesus who was crucified by an ignorant mob, was a sacrifice YHWH demanded. Could you show where that demand was made please?

And if you have the time, is it not truer that everytime Yhwh supposedly "directly asks for and admits to asking for Humans to be sacrificed", it is the people themselves justifying their own untoward crime of murder and genocide by claiming their God said?

Concerning redeeming the firstborn of Israel.
The following verses shows the reason how and what lead to it.
Numbers 3:40 And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I am the LORD.

3:46 And for those that are to be redeemed of the two hundred and threescore and thirteen of the firstborn of the children of Israel, which are more than the Levites;


Originally all the firstborn of Israel were meant to serve at the temple, but God choose the levite instead and for this reason every Israelitie firstborn must be redeemed from this service failure to do so would logically mean they will have to serve till they redeemed themselves.

I dare say God never instructed any slaughter.

kingxsamz:


Thanks for your input but the Christian god was the one who gave the army the instruction to slaughter children, and that invalidates the epistle you have written. If a god has to accommodate and endure certain inhumane practices and even give rules on how such practices should be carried out rather than just abolishing them completely, then such god is an accomplice of said inhumane practices. You're only validating the Op's thread.

StJohnofChrist:
I dare say God never instructed any slaughter.

What's this then?

1st Samuel 15:3
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"

Steep:
reading words according to context is not making things up. Ritual killing of Jesus?
Jesus death was a judicial sacrifice not a ritual enlighten yourself.
till now you have not provided a single shredd of evidence of yahweh commanding human sacrifice

I'm happy to keep repeating the evidence as long as you keep pretending not to see it. yhwh himself admits that he gave commandment to sacrifice their firstborn.

EZEKIEL 20:
25Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.



I thought you were a christian. possibly not. Okay let me explain the christian doctrine to you. Jesus is a sacrifice that cleanses humanity of sins and makes humanity acceptable to yhwh.

Ephesians 5
2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.


In fact the ritual sacrifices of previous times are supposed to be an inferior version of the ultimate sacrifice which is Jesus.

Ultimately it is a human sacrifice without which yhwh cannot or will not forgive his followers.

budaatum:


I detect an assumption here. That Jesus who was crucified by an ignorant mob, was a sacrifice YHWH demanded. Could you show where that demand was made please?

And if you have the time, is it not truer that everytime Yhwh supposedly "directly asks for and admits to asking for Humans to be sacrificed", it is the people themselves justifying their own untoward crime of murder and genocide by claiming their God said?

Buddha, I'm not sure if you're an atheist or follow another religion but I actually do believe in the existence of yhwh. For many years encouched my spirituality in christian terms and within a christian framework and I've had the chance to get a close look at the whole affair.

That yhwh demanded Jesus as a sacrifice was a claim made by the first christian apostles, Paul especially. His letters are replete with it. Perhaps you don't think that the apostles can speak for yhwh. I cannot argue against that.

Of course many people hide behind religion to commit all sorts of vile and atrocious acts. An atheist may say that yhwh was created in the image of the people worshipping him. However I think quite the contrary. I do think the vile acts of these people was inspired by yhwh, an actual autonomous being.

This how you know redactions and revisions are taking place. They can not be consistent but they keep contradicting each other. Now you say that the first borns are redeemed from doing priestly work Abi?
But just a while a go from the other side of your mouth you quoted the folllowing:
Exodus
13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

So which is it? Is it because yhwh prefers levites as priests that they are redeemed or is it because yhwh killed all the first borns in Egypt?

It sounds like fabricated excuses. I've learnt in life (this could even be a definition of truth) that the 'Truth is what people speak when they think they are talking about something else entirely'.

This passage remains unchallenged:


EZEKIEL 20:
25Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.


These passages do not tally. Either you redeem the first born from being a priest. Or you redeem him from being killed like the Egyptians. Or you don't redeem him at all and you sacrifice him. These 3 things cannot all be true. Evidence suggests that the Ezekiel passage is what actually happened and the exodus passages were redacted later.

Steep:
Concerning redeeming the firstborn of Israel.
The following verses shows the reason how and what lead to it.
Numbers 3:40 And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I am the LORD.

3:46 And for those that are to be redeemed of the two hundred and threescore and thirteen of the firstborn of the children of Israel, which are more than the Levites;


Originally all the firstborn of Israel were meant to serve at the temple, but God choose the levite instead and for this reason every Israelitie firstborn must be redeemed from this service failure to do so would logically mean they will have to serve till they redeemed themselves.

Steep:
reading words according to context is not making things up. Ritual killing of Jesus?
Jesus death was a judicial sacrifice not a ritual enlighten yourself.
till now you have not provided a single shredd of evidence of yahweh commanding human sacrifice

This is shameful. You actually deny the very meanings of the words "ritual" and "sacrifice" in a bid to flee the self evident. In a bid to flee from your very own faith, strangely. I have watched people of faith do this so often that it's become meaningless to me - the lengths to which you guys would go to deny things written in black and white in your own scripture is staggering beyond belief. I am tired of wondering just how people could lie so blatantly to their own selves.

PastorAIO:
This how you know redactions and revisions are taking place. They can not be consistent but they keep contradicting each other. Now you say that the first borns are redeemed from doing priestly work Abi?
But just a while a go from the other side of your mouth you quoted the folllowing:
Exodus
13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

So which is it? Is it because yhwh prefers levites as priests that they are redeemed or is it because yhwh killed all the first borns in Egypt?

It sounds like fabricated excuses. I've learnt in life (this could even be a definition of truth) that the 'Truth is what people speak when they think they are talking about something else entirely'.

This passage remains unchallenged:


EZEKIEL 20:
25Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, 26and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.


These passages do not tally. Either you redeem the first born from being a priest. Or you redeem him from being killed like the Egyptians. Or you don't redeem him at all and you sacrifice him. These 3 things cannot all be true. Evidence suggests that the Ezekiel passage is what actually happened and the exodus passages were redacted later.

You are really giving this guys a hard time