Dialogue on Human Sacrifice in the Bible, and the Origins of Scripture

[T]he God of the Bible was worshipped from Neolithic times, and a historical document of the Patriarchs was established, and kept through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and this document was of the God El--a Mesopotamian word for Lord, El from Ellum which means "Pure" or "Noble One"--that migrated up into Egypt where you see the worship of Yahweh, which then gets transplanted to Canaan by Moses. So, the God of the Bible is not "Baal" but El Yahweh Elyon. As the God of the Patriarchs was always one preoccupied with righteousness, and opposed to sin. You see that from the days of Hammurabi, which were inspired by Laws codified probably by Abraham, and also why we find concurrent myths in the ANE that are similar to the Bible's, is that Abraham was a Mesopotamian Lord. As "El" is an Akkadian word that means "Lord".

Just from information the book of Genesis gets right, such as Abraham following a law in the Lipit Ishtar, or the politics of the Isen Larsa Period with the battle of Sidim, which talks about the Amorites and Elamites being at war, we know the book of Genesis has information dating before the Exodus, from the time period.

My theory is there were two manuscripts, each venerated by the Jewish People, and they merged them together after the Exodus into the Book of Genesis, as that's what the evidence suggests. But we also know that the Jews worshipped a different Deity than the Egyptians, and had a different language. That would be the God El Yahweh Elyon, who was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

El has a {connection} with Mesopotamia, [so because of that] it proves a Mesopotamian Link with the scripture, which is why we see El Yahweh Elyon come from Mesopotamia, into Egypt, and then{} those two traditions were merged by Moses, being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob respectively. The flood happened at the break between the First and Third dynasties of Ur. As, you see there's no Second, and all historical civilizations have a gap at that period. Sargon is Nimrod. So, that's about 200 years before Abraham.

{}[So,] there's a Mesopotamian link to the Bible, through El, and that Moses merged the El and Yahweh traditions together around 1300BC. Being respectively the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, the flood happened in the 24th century BC, where we see there's a gap between the First and Third dynasties of Ur. Which, that Second Dynasty is when the populations are recovering after the flood. And we see a similar gap all over the world, and the universal Neolithic Culture disappears. And Sargon is Nimrod, so that's about 200 years before Abraham. Abraham lived under Sulgi, and the battle of Sidim is actually recorded by Sulgi's historians

Also, under Biblical Poetry, the Chaldeans, Akkadians and Amorites are all Babylon. Or, there could have been Chaldeans there, we just don't know about it, as for most of history, we thought the Hittites were just made up. But, it turns out they weren't. It's more likely the Bible's right, and Babylon was part of the Mesopotamian Basin.

Leviticus 27:29 is not condoning Human Sacrifice. It says explicitly it's an abomination. That law is the one that put Christ to death, and only in that instance, which relates to Isaac and Abraham, where God was foreshadowing the Cross. In fact Isaac and Abraham is an allegory for the fact that God does not desire human sacrifice. That's what it means. And Jephthah's daughter wasn't sacrificed either, in the Hebrew, it explicitly says she stayed alive, but was visited by the Maidens once every year on a pilgrimage.

You absolutely don't understand Ezekiel, if that's what you're saying. It is literally the complete opposite of what you say. The infant sacrifice is why God had Babylon destroy it. Among several other things, such as its sexual immorality, and its poor trade practices.{}

Leviticus is written by Moses, and is given a tradition through Abraham's laws which he founded in Mesopotamia. And then the Ten Commandments which were given by God, and written on the Stone Tablets. Although, the other laws were possibly derived from Mesopotamian origin, which is why the Gospels refuted them. But those same laws condemn the world, and make it guilty of capital sin, and why God has every right to put the sinner in hell.

The words [in Exodus] are updated, but the syntax shows it's from the 13th century, not to mention Loan Words that pop up from the 18th Egyptian Dynasty.

Yes, [Ezekiel's] prophesying Christ Jesus. It's not talking about infant sacrifice, which is expressly condemned in all parts of scripture. It's talking about the Dietary laws, the Laws on war--which give God justice to destroy the whole earth--and it sets judgment in God's hand, not man's. Basically, the laws that weren't good, were the laws that set Israel up to judge the nations, which God saw they couldn't accomplish, so He brought Christ Jesus. And that's prophesied through the Messiah, Seed of David, in Psalm 2 and other places. And His suffering is prophesied in Psalm 22.

[God's] saying, He's justified in bringing the Babylonians down upon Judea, because they were committing Infant Sacrifice, which it says in the prophets, "Which I neither commanded, nor was it even in my mind that you should do."

Jeremiah 19:5 and they have built altars for Baal in order to burn their children in the fire as sacrifices. I never commanded them to do this; it never even entered my mind.

I don't think [my scholarship] should be rejected, due to the fact of the deep research I did, seeing the traces of Genesis through Mesopotamian history, and some other things showing a Genesis from the Neolithic times. {}It's clear in the scripture, God never commanded human sacrifice, and that's what Abraham's story means, is that God doesn't demand it.

Marduke didn't destroy Jerusalem, but the LORD God Jehovah-Jireh did. And if you had any comprehension of the clear teachings of the Prophets, you would know that. So repent, [scholars] lest Babylon fall upon you, and I be like Daniel.

It's just [they] couldn't be any more wrong, based on the clear teachings of scripture. Every single word [they say], is 100% false. The half truths are even false. Like [they're] taking clear passages condemning infant sacrifice, and twisting them to mean their complete opposite. How can [someone] read the Bible like that? It's simple. [They] don't know God, therefore, have lawlessness dwelling in [them]. [One] can't know God at all, if [they] think the LORD would command infant sacrifice. That's explicitly condemned in the Law, it's condemned in the story of Abraham,--where God said He would provide a sacrifice, Who is Christ Jesus--and I have no cognitive dissonance. I've studied the scripture hard, long and intensely, so I know the Prophets, what they are actually saying, and I've documented the entire Bible through history. Which I will not show here, because it's about 50 pages. 

[Y]ou need Christ to interpret the Bible. All of [modern scholarship is] false, but {} Leviticus 27:29 is about [Jesus]. Human sacrifice is not part of the religion. Ergo, the story of Abraham, where God brings Abraham to the threshold, and then proves to Abraham that He will provide the sacrifice.

Exodus is also written at the time of the Exodus.{}

The fact is, scholars are wrong. The evidence doesn't say any of that, in fact it proves quite the opposite, that Exodus was written around the time of 1300BC, and that the Bible is concurrent with the Jews and their history.

I've painstakingly documented the historical evidence coinciding with the Jews and their history, in both the books of Genesis, and Exodus, and also the Gospels.

{}[N]one of the evidence shows [the Bible was written in 800BC. In fact, it] shows the exact fact that the Exodus was written around the time of the Exodus, and so with all the concurrent events of the scripture were written at those time periods.

Yes, both Hezekiah and Josiah rediscovered the Law, that's written in the scripture... and perhaps you need to be like them, and see what the Bible's actually saying. You shouldn't be mixing Sin in with the Scripture. That's why scholars cannot know Who the God of the Bible is.

[B]y saying "Multiple divinities contribute to Yahweh" those divinities are derivative of Baal. Therefore, you are calling the God of the Bible Baal. It has to be.

Also, that's a homonym. It'd be like mixing up Zeus because we called him a "god" with Jehovah. It's simply illogical, and an equivocation.

The instance where the Bible calls Yahweh Baal isn't actually calling Him Baal, but that you will call the LORD "Husband", and that's for a woman to call Him that, as that's one of the blessings of Heaven. It's a different word. It just sounds the same. 

Like when I say "Thursday" I don't mean it's "Thor's Day". I mean the fifth day of the week. Even so, Baal is not the God of the Bible, and He has no derivative roots from that pantheon, but is from a God of a People Group who migrated out of Mesopotamia, into Egypt, and then into Canaan, as we see from the linguistic tracing.

Also, by saying "Yahweh" is a derivative of Baal, and Yahweh was invented, you ipso facto say Yahweh is Baal. He is not. He's a specific God of a specific people, of a specific culture, that happened to be the True God of all the worlds, and that's who He is. And Who He always was; and who He always will be. Period.

No, Israel left Egypt under Amenhotep III and all the evidence shows that. The information gaps and plagues recorded during his reign, the chariots and bodies off Nuweiba beach, the words used in the Book of Exodus, the Merneptah Stele, the Tablet at Ebal. You're just wrong. And of course you have Akhenaten who some reason converts to a whole new pantheon, almost like his entire world was shaken.

There is lots of evidence. The word "El" from Mesopotamian origin moving into Canaan, from Egypt, and then the Curse Tablet at Ebal which is dated to 1250BC, which is exactly when the Jews would be in there. It has both El and Jah on it. Not to mention the Wadi El Hol, written in Canaanite script being in Egypt, which shows a Semitic group in Egypt at the exact right time period.

The fact is, what [scholars are] doing would be like trying to understand Modern English through all their French and Latin roots. That's not how you do language studies. In fact, that can confuse almost everything, into gibberish nonsense. Which [Bible Scholars right now seem like] some kind of confused Pagan, I get that, but I attest to the traditions of my ancestors. The God of Paul of Tarsus, Jesus of Nazareth, David, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham.