The Ezekiel passage is quoted in the Moloch article in the 1899 Encyclop didia Biblica as the strongest evidence for the theory that the offerings were considered to be to Yahweh along with Jeremiah 7 31 Both passages are also cited in the Moloch aritlce in the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia which reponds rather weakly in my opinion But this position is to say the least improbable The texts appealed to may well be understood otherwise and the prophets expressly treat the cult of Moloch as foreign and as an apostasy from the worship of the true God It is cited in 1911 Encyclop dia Britannica Moloch with the comment Note also the attitude of Ezekiel in xx 25 seq 31 references which can not be explained away The article The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Molech Moloch treats it rather strangely remarking That this prophet regarded the practice as among the statutes that were not good and ordinances wherein they should not live Ezekiel 20 25 given by God to His people by way of deception and judicial punishment as some hold is highly improbable and inconsistent with the whole prophetic attitude toward it It is not clear what this means quoting parts of the passage and paraphasing part of it and then adding as some hold This article shows itself elsewhere quite aware of the theory that infants were sacrificed to Yahweh It also brings in bogus Moloch worship in connection to Carthage Not a good article in any case Three different Rabbinical interpretations of the Ezekiel passage appear at The interpretation by Rashi accords with the most obvious meaning disliked by TRS but the writer finds this inconvincing as not in accord with his own theology and prefers another interpretation That would not be a reason to suppress Rashi s interpretation and the writer does not do so There is a discussion at which covers in part John Day s treatment favorably but also discusses the Ezekiel passage in respect to the problem of the people s belief and apparently Ezekiel s beliefs that commands which Ezekiel saw as bad came from Yahweh Note John Day believes Moloch is not Yahweh but that still does not answer the problems with that passage In short the passage has been long used in support of the theory that the offerings of children lmlk was understood as commanded by Yahweh It has long been in general a problem pasage But those who feel that it is being misinterpreted do not suppress it It is dishonest to present a theory that has been held and still is held and suppress its strongest supporting argument On could respond by citing the Catholic Encyclopedia response which seems to me weak But add it with a citation if you will But do not suppress The inclusion is not editorializing by me I am presenting various theories that are held along with evidence for and against The Ezekiel passage is cited as part of a common argument that children were sacrificed to Yahweh and normally used as support for that argument indeed one of the main sources for that argument My own POV as much as I have one is that the evidence is confused there are good arguments as well as weaknesses in various positions and that one should present all sides though of course full discussion would be a book length article Your particular POV on a Biblical passages is not grounds to suppress it when cited with a different interpretation especially when it is normally cited in the Moloch context by sources usually considered reputable sometimes very much supporting the POV that the sacrifices were to Yahweh Even when when that interpretation is rejected the Ezekiel passage is still cited in discussion I don t believe that anything I have included in this article including the Ezekiel passage is non standard for discussion of Moloch I have tried to present the vanilla arguments and give enough information to allow them to be understood One obviously can not agree with all sides Moloch can not easily be at once Yahweh an entirely different god the name of a kind of sacrifice Passing through fire can not be at the same time a human sacrifice or an initiation ceremony But people do hold different views and the task of the article is to explain these views and give their history It should be obvious now that your original feeling that this material was novel was incorrect Please let the normal statements used as arguments stand regardless of the positions I am restoring the passage with some reasonable weasel words to make it clearer that this is the expound