What the heck is wrong with you people? I wrote a considered, thoughtful, question regarding something that I noticed that bothered me, and I prefaced it with a discussion to make it clear that it is out of place in the Bible, that it really doesn't fit with the rest of the text, which is against the practice.
Instead, you removed the introductory text, and turned it into a ridiculous rant, which makes it seem that I am unaware of the anti-child-sacrifice texts in the Pentateuch, and that this is an atheist's gotcha.
I wrote it in a considered way to place the text calling for first-born sacrifice in context--- the context is that there is a narrative, the J narrative (J only, not E), which is hostile to firstborn males, it has story after story of firstborn males being overly masculine, murderous, uncontrollable, subject to passion, etc, then it talks about killing firstborns in Egypt, and then there are hints (hints only) at the end of Exodus of firstborn child sacrifice. The naive interpretation makes the text more consistent within itself, and this means that I tend to read the Hebrew in this most straightforward way, although this reading is obviously doctrinally impossible for any denomination of any religion.
Instead, you took the text, removed the parts which are considered and place things in context, and left only text which, in context, is discussing the detailed word use in one particular passage, and made it seem that I have misinterpreted the whole of these passages! When I say "but Leviticus 22:28 is unambiguous", I am comparing it's ambiguity level regarding this to other verses, which are more ambiguous. Obviously, the whole thing is ambiguous to a certain extent, since it is contradicting an explicit injunction which appears elsewhere. But the injunction is E, which people say looks like later stuff, perhaps 600 BC.
The question has been downvoted a bunch since it was reworded, and it was completely fine in it's original formulation. You have essentially reworded a carefully worded honest sentiment about ambiguous passages to make it sound like I have some sort of agenda, when I don't. I didn't even know there was a scholarly investigation into this when I suggested it, I thought I was the only person to ever notice this! I wasn't sure though.
Anyway, I would appreciate having the text be the one that I wrote, since it's my picture next to it, and the deletions make me sound illiterate and ignorant (deliberately), as if I didn't close-read the entire text. It's offensive, really, and it's a political move that I think is quite disgraceful.
Note that I can't even access old versions at the moment, to copy and paste here to show what the original said, but the gist of it was that there is a strong anti-sacrifice sentiment, but it follows a narrative which seems to set up a first-born sacrifice tradition, and then, when the sacrifice comes, it is miraculously prevented. Is this a sign of textual evolution from an earlier version where firstborn sacrifice is required? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It is something one must investigate, not censor.