Victor is just making up bullshonta and fashioning gloves from the bloody pelts of dead baby rabbits.
Nowhere, NOWHERE, in the text does it say Jephthah sent his daughter to live out her days in the temple. The text says he did with her as he was bound by his oath: he set her ablaze until nothing but ash and smoke remained!
The Hebrew word for burnt offering is olah. Hebrew is read right to left. (Can you see what's coming?) The LXX usually translates this Hebrew word holokaustos. Now, does the Greek make it clear?
Let's look at the law by which the readers and writers of Judges would have been informed.
"Leviticus 1 (NET)
Burnt-Offering Regulations: Animal from the Herd
3 “‘If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he must present it as a flawless male; he must present it at the entrance of the Meeting Tent for itsacceptance before the Lord. 4 He must lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5Then the one presenting the offering must slaughter the bull before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, must present the blood and splash the bloodagainst the sides of the altar, which is at the entrance of the Meeting Tent. 6Next, the one presenting the offering must skin the burnt offering and cut it into parts, 7 and the sons of Aaron, the priests, must put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then the sons of Aaron, the priests, must arrangethe parts with the head and the suet on the wood that is in the fire on the altar. 9Finally, the one presenting the offering must wash its entrails and its legs in water, and the priest must offer all of it up in smoke on the altar—it is a burnt offering, a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord.
Animal from the Flock
10 “‘If his offering is from the flock for a burnt offering—from the sheep or the goats—he must present a flawless male, 11 and must slaughter it on the northside of the altar before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, will spladangs blood against the altar’s sides. 12 Next, the one presenting the offering must cut it into parts, with its head and its suet, and the priest must arrange them onthe wood that is in the fire on the altar. 13 Then the one presenting the offering must wash the entrails and the legs in water, and the priest must present all of it and offer it up in smoke on the altar—it is a burnt offering, a gift of a soothingaroma to the Lord."
-----------
Either the word says what it means and means what it says right there in the verse where it says it, or the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation falls apart.
I stand by my previous post that Gen 22 is a ridiculous story meant to teach obedience.
I disagree. I think it’s intended to show that Abraham believed God could and would raise his son from the dead, which is the crux of Christianity. Matter of fact, I think he was the first to ever really believe that… which is a large part (if not the sum and substance) of why Abraham is called the father of all them that believe.
Seems there are probably a lot of people who think (and call) themselves Christian (either currently, or perhaps in times past), but aren’t really “in Christ” nor are the actually a member in the body of Christ… because in their heart they never did truly and honestly believe that God really did raise Christ from the dead.
Furthermore, I don’t think speaking in tongues (or what some pass off as that) is “proof” that someone believes God raised Chiat from the dead.
I think it would have been great if vpw had included a citation that could be checked. He's not exactly reliable.
But he's not necessarily wrong just because we don't trust him.
Here's my thoughts on human sacrifice in the Bible:
There is nothing in Genesis that even hints that Abraham was asked to do anything other than kill his kid. There appears to be no historical record of any interpretation of Genesis 22 that claims Abraham misunderstood what God meant when he asked to sacrifice Isaac. Centuries of Jewish scholarship and rabbinical tradition: not a hint of this "Three's Company" interpretation.
I have a hard time thinking VPW got this one right and no one else in history did.
Jephthah is another story. There does seem to be at least some support for the notion that his daughter basically lived out her life as a kind of nun. It's a minority position, but it's not without support. I intend to look into it further, but that's where I'm at now.
A few points:
In the story in Judges, we never hear God's point of view. Is he ok with what Jephthah vowed? Is he ok with Jephthah following through?
We don't know, because he doesn't say.
And he doesn't say because...
Wait, why DOESN'T he say? I mean, he stopped Abraham. He got a jackass to talk to Balaam. For someone so chatty to suddenly fall silent when the life of a teenage girl is at stake...? Out of character.
And let's suppose Jephthah's daughter suffers the fate VPW suggested. Does that make it remotely just? I mean, yeah, it's better than killing her, but what is the lesson behind this story? Because Jephthah is kind of an a-hole. And why should his daughter have to suffer for his hasty vow?
The way I read it, and I'm not alone, is that she died a virgin because that's what she was at the moment her dad made good on the negotiated deal he made with the Lord.
I don't need it to fit a theological glove. The story doesn't embarrass me. But I could be reading it wrongly - there's a chance. After all, hey, I didn't write the book. (Nor did God.)
Judges 11
30Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, saying, “If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me, 31 then whoever is the first to come through52 the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites—he53 will belong to the Lord, and54 I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.”
39 After two months she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. She died a virgin.70 Her tragic death gave rise to a custom in Israel.40 Every yearIsraelite women commemoratethe daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite for four days.
70tnHeb“She had never known a man.” Some understand this to mean that her father committed her to a life of celibacy, but the disjunctive clause (note thevav+ subject + verb pattern) more likely describes her condition at the time the vow was fulfilled. (See G. F. Moore,Judges[ICC], 302-3; C. F. Burney,Judges, 324.) She died a virgin and never experienced the joys of marriage and motherhood.
I disagree. I think it’s intended to show that Abraham believed God could and would raise his son from the dead, which is the crux of Christianity. Matter of fact, I think he was the first to ever really believe that… which is a large part (if not the sum and substance) of why Abraham is called the father of all them that believe.
That idea is nowhere to be found in Gen 22. It is something that was permanently implanted into people’s minds thousands of years later.
1. God's commandment to sacrifice Isaac was specifically to test Abraham's obedience. Vs 1
2. The idea that Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead is never stated or hinted at before, during or after the incident.
3. Abraham did tell Isaac God would provide a lamb for the sacrifice. vs 8 (Perhaps he was lying to Isaac, but the fact that God did provide a ram and that Abraham named the place Jehovahjireh meaning "The Lord will provide" gives support to his statement. Vs 14)
4. Even though the angel stopped Abraham at the very last second, Abraham had by then proven he feared God by not withholding his only son Isaac from him. Vs 12
The idea that Genesis 22 was all Abraham’s faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead comes up for the first time thousands of years later in Heb 11:17-19. The writer actually goes on to say that in a way God did raise him from the dead by preventing his death.
Having said all this, God’s need to test Abraham’s complete obedience in such a homicidal way shows he’s a narcissistic death-obsessed god. The fact that he pulls a ram out of his hat at the last second doesn’t change a thing.
If Jephthah did NOT make his daughter a burnt offering, which is to say, set her ablaze until only ash and smoke remained, but allowed her to live a celibate life instead, and the Lord never said a word either way, what does that make Jephthah?
A liar? An oath breaker? A defecator into the mouth of God like victor?
Do I need to read the rest of the book of Judges to find out what kind of calamity befalls Jephthah because he broke his vow to the Lord? Does he lose his eyeball before he dies a painful death?
I think it would have been great if vpw had included a citation that could be checked. He's not exactly reliable.
Jephthah is another story. There does seem to be at least some support for the notion that his daughter basically lived out her life as a kind of nun. It's a minority position, but it's not without support. I intend to look into it further, but that's where I'm at now.
I tried unsuccessfully to google if such an Eastern Custom ever existed. You may have better resources than google - I hope you success!
I checked all 366 times burnt is used in the bible. When I was unsure, I checked the context. Every time it was used with the word "offering", it was about burning something as a sacrifice.
"The Hebrew word for “burnt offering” actually means to “ascend,“ literally to “go up in smoke.” The smoke from the sacrifice ascended to God, “a soothing aroma to the LORD” (Leviticus 1:9). Technically, any offering burned over an altar was a burnt offering, but in more specific terms, a burnt offering was the complete destruction of the animal (except for the hide) in an effort to renew the relationship between Holy God and sinful man. With the development of the law, God gave the Israelites specific instructions as to the types of burnt offerings and what they symbolized." What is a burnt offering? by Got questions?
One last thing, there's the account in 1 Samuel 1 where Samuel's mother makes a vow to God saying "if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no rasor come upon his head."
Comparing how she puts it to what Jephthah says (I will offer it up as a burnt offering), I wouldn't consider them meaning the same thing.
Abraham was rewarded for his intentions, for what was in his heart, for his faith, NOT his beleeeving. His intentions were to slay his precious son. Because that's what God commanded him to do.
But it's such a twisted scenario! I've read that story countless times and it always gives me anxiety. It really is a well-crafted narrative. A nail-biter all the way to the cliffhanger when the angel says, "Psych!"
I mean WTAF! What a test! As dark as a Jordan Peele or Jason Bateman film, just not as good.
And if victor is right about burnt offerings (he is demonstrably wrong), what did they do with the ram?
"Oh, well," says Abe. "I'll let y'all deal with getting the ram untangled from that thicket, if you don't mind. I need to vomit and lay down awhile. Really need some alone time. Thanks for the mindfock."
"Having said all this, God’s need to test Abraham’s complete obedience in such a homicidal way shows he’s a narcissistic death-obsessed god. The fact that he pulls a ram out of his hat at the last second doesn’t change a thing."
Abraham was rewarded for his intentions, for what was in his heart, for his faith, NOT his beleeeving. His intentions were to slay his precious son. Because that's what God commanded him to do.
But it's such a twisted scenario! I've read that story countless times and it always gives me anxiety. It really is a well-crafted narrative. A nail-biter all the way to the cliffhanger when the angel says, "Psych!"
I mean WTAF! What a test! As dark as a Jordan Peele or Jason Bateman film, just not as good.
And if victor is right about burnt offerings (he is demonstrably wrong), what did they do with the ram?
"Oh, well," says Abe. "I'll let y'all deal with getting the ram untangled from that thicket, if you don't mind. I need to vomit and lay down awhile. Really need some alone time. Thanks for the mindfock."
Meanwhile, Isaac is looking for some clean underwear.
If Jephthah did NOT make his daughter a burnt offering, which is to say, set her ablaze until only ash and smoke remained, but allowed her to live a celibate life instead, and the Lord never said a word either way, what does that make Jephthah?
A liar? An oath breaker? A defecator into the mouth of God like victor?
Do I need to read the rest of the book of Judges to find out what kind of calamity befalls Jephthah because he broke his vow to the Lord? Does he lose his eyeball before he dies a painful death?
Will someone please spoil it for me?
Going by what is written below, it looks like he kept his vow to offer her up as a burnt offering.
Judges 12
4 Jephthah assembled all the men of Gilead and they fought with Ephraim. The men of Gilead defeated Ephraim, because the Ephraimites insulted them, saying, “You Gileadites are refugees in Ephraim, living within Ephraim’s and Manasseh’s territory.” 5 The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan River opposite Ephraim. On that day forty-two thousand Ephraimites fell dead. 7 Jephthah led Israel for six years; then he died and was buried in his city in Gilead.
And lastly yes I am 100 percent f ing lunatic because now I’m going to remind you of PFAL collateral volume 3 entitled Of Human Sacrifice.
Read it again. Or not. It might explain a little Abraham and Isaac and might give a clue to a blend of inspiration and people thinking God told them something.
It took a simple google search to check something vpw wrote and find out he was wrong.
He said, "Had this been God's will, as Abraham thought it was, there never would have been an angel needed to suddenly terminate the action because God cannot contradict Himself, He cannot change His will." However, in Jonah 3, it says
1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, 2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. 4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
God changes his will again in 1 Kings 21:17-29 and Numbers 14:11-20.
~~~~~~~~
Also, after messing up the meaning of Genesis 22 which clearly speaks of a burnt offering, he ends the chapter by bringing us into the story via Romans 12:1-2.
"What good are we to God as dead sacrifices? He needs us as living, active sons to be faithful and carry out this work, totally committed to Him until death. By living according to God's Word, we are proved by Him and are "burnt offerings."
Considering how vpw required his "kids" in the corps to be faithful and carry out the work of his ministry, totally committed to him unto death, his final words now fall far short of being inspirational.
Judges 11:30 Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, saying, “If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me, 31 then whoever is the first to come through the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites – he will belong to the Lord and I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.”
What would have happened to Wierwille's interpretation of the story if someone other than Jephthah's daughter was the first to come through the door? What if maybe a half-beaten-to-death slave or one of the lawless men he hung out with (vs 3) or even one of his brothers who had, along with all his other brothers, previously kicked Jephthah out of their home because he was only a half-brother (and the son of a prostitute to boot) and who hadn't gone into battle that day because he had tripped over the dog and jabbed himself in his eye with his breakfast fork... happened to come through the door first that dreadful day? To make the story even more ridiculous, what if that person wasn't even going out to meet Jephthah returning victoriously from battle but just wanted to get some fresh air.
Point being that the vow was whoever came out first, Jephthah would offer him/her up as a burnt offering. Then keeping with vp's definition of a burnt offering, any one of the above-mentioned characters in this soap opera would have had to be given for "total commitment to God's service."
It took a simple google search to check something vpw wrote and find out he was wrong.
He said, "Had this been God's will, as Abraham thought it was, there never would have been an angel needed to suddenly terminate the action because God cannot contradict Himself, He cannot change His will." However, in Jonah 3, it says
1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, 2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. 4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
God changes his will again in 1 Kings 21:17-29 and Numbers 14:11-20.
~~~~~~~~
Also, after messing up the meaning of Genesis 22 which clearly speaks of a burnt offering, he ends the chapter by bringing us into the story via Romans 12:1-2.
"What good are we to God as dead sacrifices? He needs us as living, active sons to be faithful and carry out this work, totally committed to Him until death. By living according to God's Word, we are proved by Him and are "burnt offerings."
Considering how vpw required his "kids" in the corps to be faithful and carry out the work of his ministry, totally committed to him unto death, his final words now fall far short of being inspirational.
So I did see the website you posted that duplicated VPW work on Abraham and Isaac.
I completely do not agree with your logic or necessarily VPs direct statement that God can’t change His will. Anyone can change their will. All they need is a lawyer . Ba dump tish.
The point being an angel intervened to save the kid. The angel was a sent messenger from God. So if a direct sent messenger corrects your understanding of Gods Will then it’s pretty clear that killing the kid was not Gods intent or will.
In Jonah God literally changed his will because they repented. It literally says it right in the verse you quoted. But you are so busy attacking VP - mostly justly I would add - that you missed the logic right there.
No it’s not a good catch it is spreading a virus for logic.
Regarding your last paragraph summarizing VP I am 100 percent with you on that- he was a sociopath cult leader that twisted scripture for his own gratification and enrichment and the impact on all his “burnt offerings” is horrible.
This account to me shows the blend of inspiration and getting it twisted up with natural reasoning leading Abraham to a pretty dark place.
To me it shows even more how faith is necessary to correctly get the scripture intent and not add in barbaric human additional practices which always enslave.
I disagree. I think it’s intended to show that Abraham believed God could and would raise his son from the dead, which is the crux of Christianity. Matter of fact, I think he was the first to ever really believe that… which is a large part (if not the sum and substance) of why Abraham is called the father of all them that believe.
Seems there are probably a lot of people who think (and call) themselves Christian (either currently, or perhaps in times past), but aren’t really “in Christ” nor are the actually a member in the body of Christ… because in their heart they never did truly and honestly believe that God really did raise Christ from the dead.
Furthermore, I don’t think speaking in tongues (or what some pass off as that) is “proof” that someone believes God raised Chiat from the dead.
Hey TLC
So I differ on the Abraham reading. What I pick up is he misunderstood the idea of sacrifice, meaning to give up something of your own for the greater good of all. He read the common reading which was executing and burning on an altar an animal to consumption outside the tithe given to the Levites which they ate. Other cultures also sacrificed animals to their gods in this fashion.
The idea of being raised from the dead was probably a foretelling in stars or a couple prophecies but not likely to be mistaken IMO.
Regading your idea of “true Christian” or not I think that is up to the Lord to decide and not me to judge.
I agree with you on the common phenomenon of glossallalia is not proof that someone believes God raised Christ from the dead that is more of VPs illogic.
I completely do not agree with your logic or necessarily VPs direct statement that God can’t change His will.
The point being an angel intervened to save the kid. The angel was a sent messenger from God. So if a direct sent messenger corrects your understanding of Gods Will then it’s pretty clear that killing the kid was not Gods intent or will.
In Jonah God literally changed his will because they repented. It literally says it right in the verse you quoted. But you are so busy attacking VP - mostly justly I would add - that you missed the logic right there.
I never said God could not change his mind. I showed verses to prove that He could. That was an important point you overlooked.
I didn't hear any words of "correction" from the angel. What I heard said was "12 ...Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."
This implies that the angel (or God) had doubt that Abraham would sacrifice has son to God as a burnt offering which is why he waited to the very last second to stop him instead of like maybe earlier when Abraham was gathering the wood and getting the fire - even when tying up Isaac would have been a good time.
You really need to let go of weirwille's teaching. The account was a test of Abraham's obedience which God apparently needed. I hope he never gives you such a test of your obedience to him.
So I differ on the Abraham reading. What I pick up is he misunderstood the idea of sacrifice, meaning to give up something of your own for the greater good of all. He read the common reading which was executing and burning on an altar an animal to consumption outside the tithe given to the Levites which they ate. Other cultures also sacrificed animals to their gods in this fashion.
If that was the true meaning of a burnt sacrifice in this incident, then where is the account of Abraham getting it right and giving up his son for the greater good after the incident? Seriously, show me.
What you are parroting of wierwille simply is not true.
Glossolalia is off topic on this thread. Feel free to discuss in doctrinal or, from a skeptical perspective, on a thread in this forum where it is on topic.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
77
47
92
214
Popular Days
May 18
36
May 13
28
Nov 13
24
May 16
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 77 posts
Rocky 47 posts
Nathan_Jr 92 posts
Charity 214 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2024
36 posts
May 13 2024
28 posts
Nov 13 2024
24 posts
May 16 2024
24 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Yeah, see. That kinda leaves us between a rock and a hard place. We were either following the teachings of a man with devil spirits or he was wrong about what he taught. That means he could have been
Raf
I consider myself humanist as well. Since there is no hierarchy in humanism, no one really gets to define it. This website gathers various definitions that permit us to ascertain some kind of co
Nathan_Jr
I don't know if they accept the science or not, but I suspect it doesn't matter to them either way because of the new earth. If anything, I could see them pointing to climate change as evidence of the
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
Victor is just making up bullshonta and fashioning gloves from the bloody pelts of dead baby rabbits.
Nowhere, NOWHERE, in the text does it say Jephthah sent his daughter to live out her days in the temple. The text says he did with her as he was bound by his oath: he set her ablaze until nothing but ash and smoke remained!
The Hebrew word for burnt offering is olah. Hebrew is read right to left. (Can you see what's coming?) The LXX usually translates this Hebrew word holokaustos. Now, does the Greek make it clear?
Let's look at the law by which the readers and writers of Judges would have been informed.
"Leviticus 1 (NET)
Burnt-Offering Regulations: Animal from the Herd
3 “‘If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he must present it as a flawless male; he must present it at the entrance of the Meeting Tent for itsacceptance before the Lord. 4 He must lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5Then the one presenting the offering must slaughter the bull before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, must present the blood and splash the bloodagainst the sides of the altar, which is at the entrance of the Meeting Tent. 6Next, the one presenting the offering must skin the burnt offering and cut it into parts, 7 and the sons of Aaron, the priests, must put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then the sons of Aaron, the priests, must arrangethe parts with the head and the suet on the wood that is in the fire on the altar. 9Finally, the one presenting the offering must wash its entrails and its legs in water, and the priest must offer all of it up in smoke on the altar—it is a burnt offering, a gift of a soothing aroma to the Lord.
Animal from the Flock
10 “‘If his offering is from the flock for a burnt offering—from the sheep or the goats—he must present a flawless male, 11 and must slaughter it on the northside of the altar before the Lord, and the sons of Aaron, the priests, will spladangs blood against the altar’s sides. 12 Next, the one presenting the offering must cut it into parts, with its head and its suet, and the priest must arrange them onthe wood that is in the fire on the altar. 13 Then the one presenting the offering must wash the entrails and the legs in water, and the priest must present all of it and offer it up in smoke on the altar—it is a burnt offering, a gift of a soothingaroma to the Lord."
-----------
Either the word says what it means and means what it says right there in the verse where it says it, or the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation falls apart.
Hey! I didn't write the book
Edited by Nathan_JrGrammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I disagree. I think it’s intended to show that Abraham believed God could and would raise his son from the dead, which is the crux of Christianity. Matter of fact, I think he was the first to ever really believe that… which is a large part (if not the sum and substance) of why Abraham is called the father of all them that believe.
Seems there are probably a lot of people who think (and call) themselves Christian (either currently, or perhaps in times past), but aren’t really “in Christ” nor are the actually a member in the body of Christ… because in their heart they never did truly and honestly believe that God really did raise Christ from the dead.
Furthermore, I don’t think speaking in tongues (or what some pass off as that) is “proof” that someone believes God raised Chiat from the dead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
No True Scotsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Speaking in tongues is proof of nothing but itself.
I'm trilingual in glossolalia and bilingual in interpretation. I would that you all speak in tongues as much as I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Glad to oblige.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thats the pneuma!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
waysider,
I think it would have been great if vpw had included a citation that could be checked. He's not exactly reliable.
But he's not necessarily wrong just because we don't trust him.
Here's my thoughts on human sacrifice in the Bible:
There is nothing in Genesis that even hints that Abraham was asked to do anything other than kill his kid. There appears to be no historical record of any interpretation of Genesis 22 that claims Abraham misunderstood what God meant when he asked to sacrifice Isaac. Centuries of Jewish scholarship and rabbinical tradition: not a hint of this "Three's Company" interpretation.
I have a hard time thinking VPW got this one right and no one else in history did.
Jephthah is another story. There does seem to be at least some support for the notion that his daughter basically lived out her life as a kind of nun. It's a minority position, but it's not without support. I intend to look into it further, but that's where I'm at now.
A few points:
In the story in Judges, we never hear God's point of view. Is he ok with what Jephthah vowed? Is he ok with Jephthah following through?
We don't know, because he doesn't say.
And he doesn't say because...
Wait, why DOESN'T he say? I mean, he stopped Abraham. He got a jackass to talk to Balaam. For someone so chatty to suddenly fall silent when the life of a teenage girl is at stake...? Out of character.
And let's suppose Jephthah's daughter suffers the fate VPW suggested. Does that make it remotely just? I mean, yeah, it's better than killing her, but what is the lesson behind this story? Because Jephthah is kind of an a-hole. And why should his daughter have to suffer for his hasty vow?
Maybe more later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The way I read it, and I'm not alone, is that she died a virgin because that's what she was at the moment her dad made good on the negotiated deal he made with the Lord.
I don't need it to fit a theological glove. The story doesn't embarrass me. But I could be reading it wrongly - there's a chance. After all, hey, I didn't write the book. (Nor did God.)
Judges 11
30 Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, saying, “If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me, 31 then whoever is the first to come through 52 the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites—he 53 will belong to the Lord, and 54 I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.”
39 After two months she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. She died a virgin. 70 Her tragic death gave rise to a custom in Israel. 40 Every year Israelite women commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite for four days.
70 tn Heb “She had never known a man.” Some understand this to mean that her father committed her to a life of celibacy, but the disjunctive clause (note the vav + subject + verb pattern) more likely describes her condition at the time the vow was fulfilled. (See G. F. Moore, Judges [ICC], 302-3; C. F. Burney, Judges, 324.) She died a virgin and never experienced the joys of marriage and motherhood.
https://netbible.org/bible/Judges+11
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
That idea is nowhere to be found in Gen 22. It is something that was permanently implanted into people’s minds thousands of years later.
1. God's commandment to sacrifice Isaac was specifically to test Abraham's obedience. Vs 1
2. The idea that Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead is never stated or hinted at before, during or after the incident.
3. Abraham did tell Isaac God would provide a lamb for the sacrifice. vs 8 (Perhaps he was lying to Isaac, but the fact that God did provide a ram and that Abraham named the place Jehovahjireh meaning "The Lord will provide" gives support to his statement. Vs 14)
4. Even though the angel stopped Abraham at the very last second, Abraham had by then proven he feared God by not withholding his only son Isaac from him. Vs 12
The idea that Genesis 22 was all Abraham’s faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead comes up for the first time thousands of years later in Heb 11:17-19. The writer actually goes on to say that in a way God did raise him from the dead by preventing his death.
Having said all this, God’s need to test Abraham’s complete obedience in such a homicidal way shows he’s a narcissistic death-obsessed god. The fact that he pulls a ram out of his hat at the last second doesn’t change a thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If Jephthah did NOT make his daughter a burnt offering, which is to say, set her ablaze until only ash and smoke remained, but allowed her to live a celibate life instead, and the Lord never said a word either way, what does that make Jephthah?
A liar? An oath breaker? A defecator into the mouth of God like victor?
Do I need to read the rest of the book of Judges to find out what kind of calamity befalls Jephthah because he broke his vow to the Lord? Does he lose his eyeball before he dies a painful death?
Will someone please spoil it for me?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I tried unsuccessfully to google if such an Eastern Custom ever existed. You may have better resources than google - I hope you success!
I checked all 366 times burnt is used in the bible. When I was unsure, I checked the context. Every time it was used with the word "offering", it was about burning something as a sacrifice.
"The Hebrew word for “burnt offering” actually means to “ascend,“ literally to “go up in smoke.” The smoke from the sacrifice ascended to God, “a soothing aroma to the LORD” (Leviticus 1:9). Technically, any offering burned over an altar was a burnt offering, but in more specific terms, a burnt offering was the complete destruction of the animal (except for the hide) in an effort to renew the relationship between Holy God and sinful man. With the development of the law, God gave the Israelites specific instructions as to the types of burnt offerings and what they symbolized." What is a burnt offering? by Got questions?
One last thing, there's the account in 1 Samuel 1 where Samuel's mother makes a vow to God saying "if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no rasor come upon his head."
Comparing how she puts it to what Jephthah says (I will offer it up as a burnt offering), I wouldn't consider them meaning the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Abraham was rewarded for his intentions, for what was in his heart, for his faith, NOT his beleeeving. His intentions were to slay his precious son. Because that's what God commanded him to do.
But it's such a twisted scenario! I've read that story countless times and it always gives me anxiety. It really is a well-crafted narrative. A nail-biter all the way to the cliffhanger when the angel says, "Psych!"
I mean WTAF! What a test! As dark as a Jordan Peele or Jason Bateman film, just not as good.
And if victor is right about burnt offerings (he is demonstrably wrong), what did they do with the ram?
"Oh, well," says Abe. "I'll let y'all deal with getting the ram untangled from that thicket, if you don't mind. I need to vomit and lay down awhile. Really need some alone time. Thanks for the mindfock."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
let, Let, LET this be repeated...
Charity wrote,
"Having said all this, God’s need to test Abraham’s complete obedience in such a homicidal way shows he’s a narcissistic death-obsessed god. The fact that he pulls a ram out of his hat at the last second doesn’t change a thing."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Meanwhile, Isaac is looking for some clean underwear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Going by what is written below, it looks like he kept his vow to offer her up as a burnt offering.
Judges 12
4 Jephthah assembled all the men of Gilead and they fought with Ephraim. The men of Gilead defeated Ephraim, because the Ephraimites insulted them, saying, “You Gileadites are refugees in Ephraim, living within Ephraim’s and Manasseh’s territory.” 5 The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan River opposite Ephraim. On that day forty-two thousand Ephraimites fell dead. 7 Jephthah led Israel for six years; then he died and was buried in his city in Gilead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Sounds rather mundane. Surely, the Lord would not have let Jephthah get off that easily had he broken his vow.
I'm increasingly convinced Jephthah burned his daughter as promised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
It took a simple google search to check something vpw wrote and find out he was wrong.
He said, "Had this been God's will, as Abraham thought it was, there never would have been an angel needed to suddenly terminate the action because God cannot contradict Himself, He cannot change His will." However, in Jonah 3, it says
1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying, 2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. 4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
God changes his will again in 1 Kings 21:17-29 and Numbers 14:11-20.
~~~~~~~~
Also, after messing up the meaning of Genesis 22 which clearly speaks of a burnt offering, he ends the chapter by bringing us into the story via Romans 12:1-2.
"What good are we to God as dead sacrifices? He needs us as living, active sons to be faithful and carry out this work, totally committed to Him until death. By living according to God's Word, we are proved by Him and are "burnt offerings."
Considering how vpw required his "kids" in the corps to be faithful and carry out the work of his ministry, totally committed to him unto death, his final words now fall far short of being inspirational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nice catch.
Abraham was ready to make his kid a burnt offering. Jephthah made his kid a burnt offering.
VPW made his followers into burnt-out offerings.
And we haven't even gotten to Job yet!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Judges 11:30 Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, saying, “If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me, 31 then whoever is the first to come through the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites – he will belong to the Lord and I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice.”
What would have happened to Wierwille's interpretation of the story if someone other than Jephthah's daughter was the first to come through the door? What if maybe a half-beaten-to-death slave or one of the lawless men he hung out with (vs 3) or even one of his brothers who had, along with all his other brothers, previously kicked Jephthah out of their home because he was only a half-brother (and the son of a prostitute to boot) and who hadn't gone into battle that day because he had tripped over the dog and jabbed himself in his eye with his breakfast fork... happened to come through the door first that dreadful day? To make the story even more ridiculous, what if that person wasn't even going out to meet Jephthah returning victoriously from battle but just wanted to get some fresh air.
Point being that the vow was whoever came out first, Jephthah would offer him/her up as a burnt offering. Then keeping with vp's definition of a burnt offering, any one of the above-mentioned characters in this soap opera would have had to be given for "total commitment to God's service."
You can't make this stuff up!
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So I did see the website you posted that duplicated VPW work on Abraham and Isaac.
I completely do not agree with your logic or necessarily VPs direct statement that God can’t change His will. Anyone can change their will. All they need is a lawyer . Ba dump tish.
The point being an angel intervened to save the kid. The angel was a sent messenger from God. So if a direct sent messenger corrects your understanding of Gods Will then it’s pretty clear that killing the kid was not Gods intent or will.
In Jonah God literally changed his will because they repented. It literally says it right in the verse you quoted. But you are so busy attacking VP - mostly justly I would add - that you missed the logic right there.
No it’s not a good catch it is spreading a virus for logic.
Regarding your last paragraph summarizing VP I am 100 percent with you on that- he was a sociopath cult leader that twisted scripture for his own gratification and enrichment and the impact on all his “burnt offerings” is horrible.
This account to me shows the blend of inspiration and getting it twisted up with natural reasoning leading Abraham to a pretty dark place.
To me it shows even more how faith is necessary to correctly get the scripture intent and not add in barbaric human additional practices which always enslave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey TLC
So I differ on the Abraham reading. What I pick up is he misunderstood the idea of sacrifice, meaning to give up something of your own for the greater good of all. He read the common reading which was executing and burning on an altar an animal to consumption outside the tithe given to the Levites which they ate. Other cultures also sacrificed animals to their gods in this fashion.
The idea of being raised from the dead was probably a foretelling in stars or a couple prophecies but not likely to be mistaken IMO.
Regading your idea of “true Christian” or not I think that is up to the Lord to decide and not me to judge.
I agree with you on the common phenomenon of glossallalia is not proof that someone believes God raised Christ from the dead that is more of VPs illogic.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I never said God could not change his mind. I showed verses to prove that He could. That was an important point you overlooked.
I didn't hear any words of "correction" from the angel. What I heard said was "12 ...Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."
This implies that the angel (or God) had doubt that Abraham would sacrifice has son to God as a burnt offering which is why he waited to the very last second to stop him instead of like maybe earlier when Abraham was gathering the wood and getting the fire - even when tying up Isaac would have been a good time.
You really need to let go of weirwille's teaching. The account was a test of Abraham's obedience which God apparently needed. I hope he never gives you such a test of your obedience to him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
If that was the true meaning of a burnt sacrifice in this incident, then where is the account of Abraham getting it right and giving up his son for the greater good after the incident? Seriously, show me.
What you are parroting of wierwille simply is not true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Glossolalia is off topic on this thread. Feel free to discuss in doctrinal or, from a skeptical perspective, on a thread in this forum where it is on topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.