Some links to show how modern circumcision differs in regards to ancient circumcision:

Circumcision: Then and Now https://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/

Circumcision in Reverse: https://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/

In sum: In ancient times, only the bit of foreskin beyond the tip of the glans was removed. The added procedures of "Periah" (which removes the entire foreskin) and of "Metzitzeh" (the sucking of blood from the wound) are rightfully seen as heinous and are in no way commanded in the Bible.

This also brings up the fact that circumcision should not have continued anyway after the second covenant, hence why the apostles did not encourage new converts to be circumcised. Even if it was only the original form of circumcision from ancient times that endured, the simple fact remains that the Bible encourages rather the "circumcising of the heart," thus nullifying whatever religious argument people use today in favor of circumcision.

Some links to show how modern circumcision differs in regards to ancient circumcision:

Circumcision: Then and Now https://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/

Circumcision in Reverse: https://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/

In sum: In ancient times, only the bit of foreskin beyond the tip of the glands was removed. The added procedures of "Periah" (which removes the entire foreskin) and of "Metzitzeh" (the sucking of blood from the wound) are rightfully seen as heinous and are in no way commanded in the Bible.

This also brings up the fact that circumcision should not have continued anyway after the second covenant, hence why the apostles did not encourage new converts to be circumcised. Even if it was only the original form of circumcision from ancient times that endured, the simple fact remains that the Bible encourages rather the "circumcising of the heart," thus nullifying whatever religious argument people use today in favor of circumcision.