Child Sacrifice and Genocide

[sooda]

In Exodus 22:29-30 we read: “You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.”

Later on God admitted he did this in Ezekiel 20:25-26 where he purportedly said: “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.”

The context of the Exodus passage just quoted above concerns offerings and sacrifices, and it says God requires that first born sons are to be literally sacrificed to him. Hence, unlike other passages where there is the possibility of redemption with a substitute sacrifice (cf. Exodus 13:13; 34:10-20), none is stated there. The concept of "redemption" is an interesting one that goes hand in hand with child sacrifice, because animals were substituted for the firstborn.

Yet that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself, and many people in the Old Testament did just that. Circumcision was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice (Exodus 4:24). Child sacrifice was probably only considered evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity (Leviticus 20:2; 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; II Kings 17:17 23:10; II Chronicles 28:3; 33:4-10; Ps 106:38; Isaiah 57:5,6; Jeremiah 7:31 32:35 Ezekiel 16:20,21; 20:26,31; 23:37,39; Acts 7:43).

Child sacrifice was something that several Biblical people either did, or assisted others in doing so. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command itself and there is no command against this practice there by God (Genesis 22).

Then there is Jepthah who sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11); David (II Sam. 21:7-9); Solomon and his wives (I Kings 3:16); Ahab (I Kings 16:33-34); Ahaz (II Kings 16:2-3); Hoshea (II Kings 17:7); and Manasseh (II Kings 21:6; II Chronicles 33:6). It was a problem for King Josiah (II King 23:10), for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:30-31; 19:3-5; 32:35), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:20-21; 20:25-26, 30-31).

The prophet Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his oldest son “as a sin offering” (6:6-8). It was a practice so prevalent when offered to foreign gods, that it is named as one of the reasons God sent the Babylonians to conquer Israel and forcibly take many of them as captives (II Kings 17:16-18).

We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath,” (ketzef), which was an external force to the warriors in the story, indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab. (II Kings. 3:26-27). In the New Testament God the Father sacrifices his only son (Jesus) as the central redemptive act of Christianity, and God still seeks to fulfill his lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the lake of fire.

Hector Avalos tells us that, “For most of biblical history, Yahweh was not against child sacrifice per se, but rather against child sacrifice to other gods.” See his Creationists for Genocide. Jon D. Levenson states that "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous."

 

[sooda]

The ethics of biblical genocide

If every creationist might not be willing to defend Luther, it is different when it comes to biblical genocide. Indeed, all creationists defend biblical genocide in both the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament, and in the New Testament. First, there is little dispute among academic biblical scholars (Jewish, Christian or secular), or even among creationists, that genocide is the proper term for the practices evinced in some biblical texts.

This is clearly reflected in Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (2003), a book edited by four Christian conservatives. [35]

Among the most important of these genocidal biblical texts is Deuteronomy 20:16-18:

Deut. 20:16 But as for the towns of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive.

Deut. 20:17 You shall annihilate them -- the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites -- just as the LORD your God has commanded,

Deut. 20:18 so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the LORD your God.

And this text against the group called the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:

1. And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD.

2. Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt.

3. Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***."

Christians, in particular, have been more reticent to define certain New Testament passages as genocidal or even as violent. Consider the violence that Jesus plans for the enemies of Christians at the last judgment.

continued

Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

 

[sooda]

Love as a reason for genocide
Recall that Weikart believes that Christianity taught the universal love of all humanity. But the fact is that "love" itself can be defined in such a way as to render genocide a loving act. Consider this passage, from R. A. Torrey, one of the contributors to The Fundamentals, a series of anti-evolutionary tracts that helped popularize the name "fundamentalist":

The extermination of the Canaanite children was not only an act of mercy and love to the world at large; it was an act of love and mercy to the children themselves. [36]

Indeed, Christian "love" has been a very common defense for violence throughout Christian history.

Moreover, some creationists even use medicalized language, quite similar to that of Nazi ideologues, to explain the necessity of genocide of the Canaanites. Gleason Archer, a renowned evangelical creationist, phrases it thus:

Just as the wise surgeon removes dangerous cancer from his patient's body by use of the scalpel, so God employed the Israelites to remove such dangerous malignancies from human society. [37]

Archer has no trouble thinking of Canaanite children as being part of the "malignancy" that had to be removed.

continued

Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

 

[sooda]

Child sacrifice is biblically approved
Miller's justification of Canaanite genocide is premised on the idea that child sacrifice is unconditionally repugnant to the biblical God. Miller forgets that child sacrifice may have been perfectly acceptable to the biblical god, something demonstrated in painstaking detail by Jon Levenson, the Albert A. List professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity School. In his brilliant treatment, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (1993), Levenson states that "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous." [41] He points to Ezekiel 20:25-26, as one example where Yahweh says:

[25] Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life;

[26] and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.

But of which statutes is Yahweh speaking when referring the sacrifice of a first-born son? That statute may be the one in Exodus 22:29-30:


[29] "You shall not delay to offer from the fulness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses.

"The first-born of your sons you shall give to me.

[30] You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.

As Levenson observes, many Christian and Jewish scholars have tried to mitigate or eliminate the obvious meaning of these passages. But even Moshe Greenberg, author of a major commentary of Ezekiel, and who otherwise minimizes the idea that normative Yahwism engaged in child sacrifice, admits:

The polemic against child sacrifice (to YHWH) in Deut. 12:29ff.; Jer 7:31; 19:5, 32:35 indicates that at least from the time of the last kings of Judah it was popularly believed that YHWH accepted, perhaps even commanded, it. [42]

For Levenson, it was late texts that sought to substitute animals for actual human first-born sons. Genesis 22, which shows Yahweh substituting a ram for Isaac, is part of a late biblical tradition. Indeed, in Genesis 22, Abraham seems to presume that child sacrifice is not an impossible request, and it is the substitution of the ram that is unexpected. For most of biblical history, Yahweh was not against child sacrifice per se, but rather against child sacrifice to other gods.

And, of course, Miller forgets that sacrifice of a son is the foundation of Christianity. After all, Jesus Christ is viewed as the only-begotten son of God, who must be sacrificed to redeem the world because of "love" (John 3:16). Christ's sacrifice is premised on the sort of blood-magic inherited from the ancient Near East. This blood-magic is evident in Hebrews 9:22: "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." Christian creationists might claim that their god has the authority to order sacrifice, but this claim is no more verifiable than that of any other religion that practices human sacrifice.

Then there is the sheer logical absurdity of the pragmatics suggested by Sarfati and Miller, who argue that the Israelites had to kill Canaanite children because the Canaanites were killing their children. This, of course, leaves unexplained why we have to kill the children, instead of killing the perpetrators of the infanticide. Such a measure is, in fact, attributed by Tertullian, the famous church father, to a Roman official:

In Africa infants used to be sacrificed to Saturn and quite openly, down to the proconsulate of< Tiberius, who took the priests themselves and on the very trees of their temple, under whose shadow their crimes had been committed, hung them alive like votive offerings on crosses. [43]

This is a far wiser and most just punishment than killing children so that they will not be killed by their parents. Such actions by the Romans refutes the usual apologetic mantra that Christianity was needed to finally stop such killings.

Furthermore, Miller's suggestion violates at least one biblical commandment found in Deuteronomy 24:16:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

But, as usual, creationists often disregard their own scriptures or pick-and-choose scriptures that favor their view. Whatever the biblical passages chosen, Miller wishes to convince us that it is logically acceptable to kill children because those children are being killed.

 

[sooda]

This may be an easier read;

Child Sacrifice and the Bible - Ministry Magazine

excerpt:

We have already seen how the king of Moab performed the act during a grave crisis that faced his city, much like the Carthaginians did under siege, and one may suggest that Ahaz and Manasseh, both condemned for offering their children, may have done so in similar times of crisis. Another similarity here is, of course, the nobility of these royal children.

The existence of a special precinct for the rite, the tophet, would indicate a more or less regular practice of the rite, possibly yearly, like the Punic cities. That molek-sacrifices were offered for special individual re quests is suggested by the fact that, in spite of orthodox religious disapproval and the existence of righteous kings who evidently did not perform the rite, it continued to exist. It is hard to explain this tenacity unless one posits a separate influential group of people who continued the practice on an individual, nonofficial level.

Whether rich persons could purchase infants of poor individuals to use in the rite is not known, though oppression of the poor by the rich is well known from the invectives of the prophets.

In Israel, the practice seems to have been brought to a close by Josiah (2 Kings 23:10) in his reforms of the seventh century B.C., and does not seem to have cropped up again in Israel after the exile.

This may have been at least partly due to the fact that the Persians were in control of the Near East at that time and it was they, according to the classical authors, who banned the rite from Phoenicia itself. Only in the western Phoenician colonies, now independent from the motherland, did the practice continue until Rome banned it there too.

 

[shmogie]

Once again, drivel.

Giving God the first born does not mean as a sacrifice to be killed, it means as a living sacrifice in the service of God. There were all kinds of sacrifices, find in the law vwhere God says human sacrifice/killing is acceptable.

The law was given at Sinai, and was the most revered thing in Israel next to God.

Whenever Israel strayed from it, disaster followed.

Absolutely nowhere is human sacrifice found in the law, no where.

So, your proposal is that Israelites, in harmony with God, the law, and the people, murdered their children to YHWH ? That is ludicrous.

Please find me a a direct quotation that says unambiguously that God ordered Israel to sacrifice their children to Him.

Israel was always fighting and some succumbing to the influences of the barbarians around them. Some did adopt the practice of human sacrifice, but not with the approval of God, or the Levitical priests who guarded the law, or the true Israelites.

Why do you think God wanted these heathens destroyed in the first place ? Because they had totally succumbed to evil, and were beyond redemption.

 

[sooda]

Once again, drivel.

Giving God the first born does not mean as a sacrifice to be killed, it means as a living sacrifice in the service of God. There were all kinds of sacrifices, find in the law vwhere God says human sacrifice/killing is acceptable.

The law was given at Sinai, and was the most revered thing in Israel next to God.

Whenever Israel strayed from it, disaster followed.

Absolutely nowhere is human sacrifice found in the law, no where.

So, your proposal is that Israelites, in harmony with God, the law, and the people, murdered their children to YHWH ? That is ludicrous.

Please find me a a direct quotation that says unambiguously that God ordered Israel to sacrifice their children to Him.

Israel was always fighting and some succumbing to the influences of the barbarians around them. Some did adopt the practice of human sacrifice, but not with the approval of God, or the Levitical priests who guarded the law, or the true Israelites.

Why do you think God wanted these heathens destroyed in the first place ? Because they had totally succumbed to evil, and were beyond redemption.

I already posted the verses.. firstborn children like first born ox and sheep is pretty clear.

 

[InChrist]

The scriptures are clear that God is adamantly against child sacrifice and that this practice of the surrounding nations was detestable to Him. I find it extremely ironic that you claim to be a Christian, yet express the heart and thoughts of a hardcore, antichrist, anti-Bible skeptic.

You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. NOTE: the victims are sons and daughters. Deut. 12:31

"Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."

God forbids human sacrifice, but the critics have a handful of instances where they think God had people violate this one:

Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Since God's intent never was that Abraham complete the sacrifice, this is hardly contradictory. For more on this subject, see Glenn Miller's essay here

Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."

This is not referring to sacrifice, but to service. No one sacrificed fruits and liquors on an altar.

Leviticus 27: 28-9 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
Is this human sacrifice? No, it is judicial execution. Those among men who are "devoted" (charam) are those who worship false gods (Exodus 22:19 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed (charam.) or deceive others into doing so (Deut. 13:15)."

Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education

 

[The Reverend Bob]

It was a symbolic act, they didn't actually kill their first born sons. They presented him to the High Priest in the Temple. And the Canaanites and others didn't sacrifice their children either, they merely passed them or jumped with them over a fire. The Persians still do this to this day during their New Year

 

[shmogie]

land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Since God's intent never was that Abraham complete the sacrifice, this is hardly contradictory. For more on this subject, see Glenn Miller's essay here

Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."

This is not referring to sacrifice, but to service. No one sacrificed fruits and liquors on an altar.

Leviticus 27: 28-9 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
Is this human sacrifice? No, it is judicial execution. Those among men who are "devoted" (charam) are those who worship false gods (Exodus 22:19 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed (charam.) or deceive others into doing so (Deut. 13:15)."

Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education[/QUOTE]
Great post ! Let me add a couple of things.

In Exodus 22:29-30 we read: “You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.”

Later on God admitted he did this in Ezekiel 20:25-26 where he purportedly said: “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.”

The context of the Exodus passage just quoted above concerns offerings and sacrifices, and it says God requires that first born sons are to be literally sacrificed to him. Hence, unlike other passages where there is the possibility of redemption with a substitute sacrifice (cf. Exodus 13:13; 34:10-20), none is stated there. The concept of "redemption" is an interesting one that goes hand in hand with child sacrifice, because animals were substituted for the firstborn.

Yet that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself, and many people in the Old Testament did just that. Circumcision was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice (Exodus 4:24). Child sacrifice was probably only considered evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity (Leviticus 20:2; 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; II Kings 17:17 23:10; II Chronicles 28:3; 33:4-10; Ps 106:38; Isaiah 57:5,6; Jeremiah 7:31 32:35 Ezekiel 16:20,21; 20:26,31; 23:37,39; Acts 7:43).

Child sacrifice was something that several Biblical people either did, or assisted others in doing so. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command itself and there is no command against this practice there by God (Genesis 22).

Then there is Jepthah who sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11); David (II Sam. 21:7-9); Solomon and his wives (I Kings 3:16); Ahab (I Kings 16:33-34); Ahaz (II Kings 16:2-3); Hoshea (II Kings 17:7); and Manasseh (II Kings 21:6; II Chronicles 33:6). It was a problem for King Josiah (II King 23:10), for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:30-31; 19:3-5; 32:35), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:20-21; 20:25-26, 30-31).

My friend In Christ has destroyed most of your argument. Let me add this.

Picking proof texts to support a particular argument, in your case, to undermine the Bible and those who believe in it, is disingenuous.

Quoting critics blindly without actually STUDYING can result in embarrassment.

Exodus 13:1 ¨Consecrate to me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the animals or children of Israel, both man or beast, it is mine¨ No human sacrifice there, consecration is not sacrifice.

Exodus 13:13 ¨ But every firstborn of a donkey, you shall redeem with a lamb, and if you will not redeem it, break itś neck. And all the firstborn of man among your sons, you shall redeem." No human sacrifice there, in fact just the opposite.

So, your exegesis of Exodus 22 is dead wrong. The sons were consecrated to God in service, not to sacrifice


The entire chapter of Ezekiel is a history of the rebellion of Israel against God and his law, and the consequences they suffered.

V. 25 says God gave them up ( gave up on them) to a law, certainly not his, where child sacrifice was practiced. Why ? ¨ to make them desolate, so they shall know am the Lord΅.

So, God allowed them to go their way, and the result was desolation. They adopted the laws and rituals of the pagans, and sacrificed their children, and as a result they were desolated.

If they had stayed true to Gods law, where human sacrifice is an abomination, they would never have had to go through what they did.

 

[sooda]

The scriptures are clear that God is adamantly against child sacrifice and that this practice of the surrounding nations was detestable to Him. I find it extremely ironic that you claim to be a Christian, yet express the heart and thoughts of a hardcore, antichrist, anti-Bible skeptic.

You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshipping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. NOTE: the victims are sons and daughters. Deut. 12:31

"Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."

God forbids human sacrifice, but the critics have a handful of instances where they think God had people violate this one:

Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Since God's intent never was that Abraham complete the sacrifice, this is hardly contradictory. For more on this subject, see Glenn Miller's essay here

Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."

This is not referring to sacrifice, but to service. No one sacrificed fruits and liquors on an altar.

Leviticus 27: 28-9 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
Is this human sacrifice? No, it is judicial execution. Those among men who are "devoted" (charam) are those who worship false gods (Exodus 22:19 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed (charam.) or deceive others into doing so (Deut. 13:15)."

Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education

Burnt Offering of Children - Canaan and Israel

 

[InChrist]

Burnt Offering of Children - Canaan and Israel

The article you have linked is in clear agreement with the scriptures...that sacrificing children was not an allowable practice in Israel and was something which God forbid and detested.

 

[sooda]

The article you have linked is in clear agreement with the scriptures...that sacrificing children was not an allowable practice in Israel and was something which God forbid and detested.

I think it is more honest to recognize that the Israelites were a Canaanite tribe and their version of monotheism evolved from the Canaanite pantheon.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Circumcision was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice (Exodus 4:24).

Most likely, because even really devout knowledgeable Jews don't know the exact reasons why circumcision became a thing amongst Jews.

 

[sooda]

The article you have linked is in clear agreement with the scriptures...that sacrificing children was not an allowable practice in Israel and was something which God forbid and detested.

Ezekiel 20:25-26

 

[sooda]

Most likely, because even really devout knowledgeable Jews don't know the exact reasons why circumcision became a thing amongst Jews.

In ancient Egypt both men and women who were temple priests were circumcised. I think circumcision was widely practiced long before Abraham.


Moses forbid circumcision.. Joshua reintroduced it.

Egyptian Circumcision Before the Time of Abraham – TaborBlog
TaborBlogegyptian-circumcision-before-the-time-of-abraham
Egyptian Circumcision Before the Time of Abraham. In contrast, in the covenant initiated with Abraham in Genesis 15, circumcision is not mentioned. The entire book of Deuteronomy only mentions circumcision as a “spiritual” rite of the heart–connected to a passionate love of God–and this notion is echoed in the Prophets (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4).

 

[InChrist]

I think it is more honest to recognize that the Israelites were a Canaanite tribe and their version of monotheism evolved from the Canaanite pantheon.

I think it is more honest to accept the biblical account that God led Abram out of his home country to Canaan and then formed the Israelite people and nation, but you are free to have your view.

Now the Lord had said to Abram:

“Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
4 So Abram departed as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 Then Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people whom they had acquired in Haran, and they departed to go to the land of Canaan. So they came to the land of Canaan. 6 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land. Genesis 12:1-6

 

[sooda]

I think it is more honest to accept the biblical account that God led Abram out of his home country to Canaan and then formed the Israelite people and nation, but you are free to have your view.

Now the Lord had said to Abram:

“Get out of your country,
From your family
And from your father’s house,
To a land that I will show you.
2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
4 So Abram departed as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 5 Then Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people whom they had acquired in Haran, and they departed to go to the land of Canaan. So they came to the land of Canaan. 6 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land. Genesis 12:1-6

The glitch here is that there was NO Ur of the Chaldees in the time of Abraham.

 

[InChrist]

Ezekiel 20:25-26

It's important to read the verse in context. It is saying that because the people rejected God's way and were not obeying the statues God gave them they would be dispersed among the nations and end up keeping the statues and practices of those nations which were not good, but wicked and horrible. God allowed the Israelites to go their own way and govern themselves by pagan statutes as part of their punishment

Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’

 

[sooda]

It's important to read the verse in context. It is saying that because the people rejected God's way and were not obeying the statues God gave them they would be dispersed among the nations and end up keeping the statues and practices of those nations which were not good, but wicked and horrible. God allowed the Israelites to go their own way and govern themselves by pagan statutes as part of their punishment

Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’

Yes, I know.. and it gets worse in Ezekiel 23.