Passover Mystery

I'll answer; #1. Christians(I was one) would have us believe that God wanted to make examples out of the egyptians, and God wanted to prove his power. But I was taught that Pharoah was'nt approached by God because Pharoah was "sinful" as opposed to Moses & the Jews who were "righteous". #2 Why did God choose to kill all the first-born? I don't know, but I have an Idea that is not fully thought out at this time.: I think it has something to do with child-sacrifice of the first-born son in early Semetic religions, but I'm not sure. #3 Maybe the Hebrews decided to commit mass murder on the first-born sons of the egyptians as their religion produced a kind of mass hysteria today might be classed as a mental-disorder like Sociopathic Disorder, but on a large scale.

I got this idea from reading the texts critically, and sort of combining a general study of levantine & middle-eastern ancient history, although I must caution that I am nowhere near expertise on the matter. It appears that the Egyptians weren't the only ones who substituted a Bull/Cow for a firstborn male child when performing sacrifices to their gods, as you have mentioned regarding the Abe/Isaac story. I have read(somwhere, I'll find it) that not only has the story been changed, redacted, etc. from an original(s?), the particular original(s?) told of how Isaac may have been actually sacrificed, and the verion we have now reflects a change in ancient Hebrew thinking regarding sacrifice to their god! There is some interesting interprtations of the story at this URL: Wikipedia,
and a modern scholar's interp. is forthcoming at thid URL.I am aware of the verses in Ezekiel which tell of child sarifice to Molech. However, I have also read(somewhere again) that Molech did not exist as a god to the middle-eastern peoples. Perhaps you know something about this? Anyway, I understand that the Israelites were influenced by the Canaanites who did practice child-sacrifice. And it is true, that without exception, every version of Deuteronomy I've read tells of the substitute of animals in the place of the firstborn sons, although the KJV is quite ambiguous(for polemic reasons?). I'll get back to you. fixed url - the Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-07-2004]

Very interesting info. on Molech. There's a bunch of reading to do, but you appear to be correct as I have read a little on the gods' Chemosh & Melqart. It seems that all three gods were baal's & Canaanite in origin(?) and had a fetish for burnt children. Correct me if I'm wrong about Melqart. I did a little remedial reading last night on child-sacrifice and found some verses you may be aware of which at least imply the former sacrifice of children on the part of the ancient Jews. First, of course, is the contention that Abraham did sacrifice Isaac, & that the story we have now is a mixture of earlier stories; one of these telling of an actual sacrifice. Another interp. is that the story is a moral tale about how God no longer accepts children & takes animals instead. This may or may not be the case because as it is, other passages like Numbers 18:14-18 tell that the children can be redeemed with a payment of 5 shekels of silver to the priests. Hmm...What if parents didn't have the payment?! Seems the priests had alot of power. Then there are possibly vague passages like Ex.13.1-2 where the firstborn are "consecrated" to the Lord. You mention that the rite of circumcision and child-sacrifice may have been related; w such passages as Ex.22.29b-30 on the eighth day the firstborn of animals & humans were "given to the Lord", may bear this out. See also Ex. 27.28-29 where humans are " devoted to God for destruction", and Num.18.17-18 where now the service of the Levites in Priesthood is to be done instead of sacrifice of the firstborn. The reference I meant to supply in my previous post for the sacrifice of Isaac is in the notes to Gen.22.1-19, pg. 27 of my New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha(NRSV),Bruce Metzger.Ed. I'll get back to you. I'm back. Thankyou for the URL's and the info. you've provided. It will be an enjoyable couple of evening hours of reading. Cain, hmmm... as I understand it even though God accepted Able's sacrifice (a blood sacrifice) over Cain's, Cain was not condemned for the attempt but was told to do right and things would be OK. I have heard an anthropological interpretation of this which basically states that it was the writer's way of decribing the conflicts that occured between nomadic peoples' & sedentary farmers. What do you think of this?[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-08-2004][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-08-2004]