Dogfish

Of course, the word "adequate" means different things to the emotionally invested and the objective readers.

Sheshbazzar

The thing is, that in post after post within this thread, the ones who want to keep it a "simple account" have been unwilling to deal with all of the "setting" details that so obviously indicate that it is NOT just a "simple account".

For instance, it has been brought up several times now, that Jephthah employed a good working knowledge of Israelite history, also a strong confidence in his knowledge of how rights of ownership, and possession were obtained and "rightfully" established and held among nations.
And as yet none of the "simple story" mantra repeaters here have even began to address or to refute any of the the background information provided which quite clearly establishes that Jephthah was not just some country bumpkin, and was not at all ignorant of the complexities of the Mosaic Law. Even his lament, "I HAVE OPENED MY MOUTH UNTO YHWH, AND I CANNOT GO BACK." is founded and bounded by the restrictions set forth in The Law of YHWH as given by Moses.

It appears that the accusers here are the ones that are so "emotionally invested" into their bias, and into the continued chanting of their mantra of accusation, that they are unwilling, (perhaps even unable) even to impartially weigh and consider all of the evidence that reveals the error and unreasoning bias of their position.

I myself find thousands of valid reasons to reject various claims of The Bible, this story however is not one of them.
I sincerely believe that in the long run, those who persist in this continued bias and misrepresenting Jephthah's character, will be found to actually being doing immeasurable harm to the Atheist cause.

The Adam Clarke Commentary as presented in the above referenced link is cogent, detailed, and reasonable.
What is unreasonable here is the bias and closed-mindedness that prevents many from realising that the "defense" is in this case is presenting a much stronger, well reasoned, and evidentially supported case, and that as this Defense Team "gets it act together", and marshals and focuses its collective resources and efforts, their case will only grow stronger and stronger, while this "hold your hands tightly over your ears" and chant your mantra form of argument, will become more and more untenable and unpersuasive.
Think of what you are doing. If you are avoiding an unbiased examination and discussion of all of the evidence, and your opponents are able to clearly show that this was and is the case, they have not only effectively accomplish showing you up as being biased, and unable to even correctly interpret a "simple" Biblical narrative, but also gain another strong lever to move the undecided over to their "side", and to further strengthen the resistance of those already indoctrinated, or friendly to their position.

I again repeat my warning;
"I most sincerely believe that you are "reading into" this story of Jephthah, and are thus falling into the very moral trap and reproach that it was composed to elicit. The "story" was and yet is a clever trap, a snare for the unwary.
Certainly, you don't have to believe me, but I have done my best to warn you against this cleverly laid "snare".

Would be far better for the Atheist cause, if our collective foot was carfully withdrawn from this particular patch of ground, before the trap closes.
I can warn you of the pitfall, but I cannot make you avoid it, that is up to you.

WVIncagold

she wept for her virginity because the only reason for a womans existence was to continue the blood line. they were chattel and of little use to the men of that era besides the production of children.

makerowner

Sheshbazzar, there are quite a few Jewish and Christian commentators who interpret this passage to mean that Jephthah killed his daughter. Are they biased as well? Or is it possible that the passage is ambiguous, and that the interpretation I've presented is a reasonable one to draw from the text?

Sheshbazzar

No argument that in the past there has been no lack of commentators, Jewish, Christian ,and atheist, who did so interpret the passage in that argumentum ad-populum fashion.
These, just as the majority in this thread, made their pronouncements with little or no allowance for any ambiguity.
Now, the wind is changing directions, Their children are realizing that the "old" interpretation is only damaging to the faith, and of no advantage at all.
That long held dogmatic position is being assailed, questioned, challenged, and being revealed as deficient, and is being renounced by an increasing number of Biblical scholars of all stripes.

So now you propose, "Or is it possible that the passage is ambiguous" ?
Like so many of those pathetic Fundies on here, whom when they see one of their long cherished dogmas being shredded and coming unravelled under the onslaught of examination and reason, seek for a shred that they can salvage, whining can't we just settle for a compromise?
Don't you get it yet? The opponents of your position are already holding the winning hand, wrangling a compromise or a concession out of me here in this thread is not going to change the fact.
The forces against that old and untenable position are right now gathering strength by the hour, and the hour is now near where they (believers in the most, with everything to gain, and very little to lose, in revising their opinion of Jephthah) will begin to draw together, united in promoting a "new understanding" of those passages.
You either learn of those details that mitigate against your cherished interpretation, or your adversaries having learned them will use them to reveal that deficiency of your knowledge, or that evasion that you will be forced into.

There are ten thousand far better and solider arguments, ones without ANY "ambiguity", that are still available to refute the claims and validity of the Bible.
So, no, I say No. There is no room for compromise here. What may have served as "a reasonable interpretation or conclusion" in the past will no longer cut it.
The opposition itself is no longer buying that line, not from within, and most certainly will not from without.

If you want to do the right thing, make the wise choice, and do what is best for Atheism, for Free-Thought, and to help prevent others from being sucked in by religions lies, you will back carefully away from any further posturing over these "ambiguous" passages.

If you are uncomfortable about changing your interpretation, then at least have the decency to your fellow Atheists, to keep it out of the public view.

mens_sana

"Exodus 22:29–30 comprises an unqualified demand to make the firstborn sacrifice to Yahweh; the option to redeem the firstborn is not offered here as in later and Priestly texts." Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p.913.

mens_sana

Agreed, and it shouldn't be.

Genesis 18, the "Akedah" account (Genesis 22), the vow of Jepthah (Judges 11), the prophetic allusions of Hos 13:2; Mic 6:7; and Isa 66:3 indicate that human sacrifice in Israel was acceptable to God. 2 Kings 16:3 and 21:6 hint at human sacrifice. Ancient cultic stipulations to give all the firstborn to Yahweh (Exod. 22:28-29), or to allow firstborn children to be ransomed while firstborn animals were to be sacrificed (Exod. 34:19-20), are indications that human sacrifice was a mandated feature of the early Yahwism, later tempered by animal substitutions.

DBT

As Jepthath is said to have promised God a burnt offering, that, and nothing less than that, is what I would expect him to provide God. Otherwise what is his word and his vow to God worth? If he offers a substitute...nothing. He is a liar.

I answered that in post #125.

Jepthath's daughter bewails her virginty because she shall never know love, sex, womanhood, children, family...offspring, bloodline.... which is represented by her ''virginity.''

And renaiaa, what was his vow? What did he do with her? ''And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her [according] to his vow which he had vowed''

Sheshbazzar

Been answered, and was further analysed verse by verse in the two links that I provided, (and I could supply a hundred more with like conclusions) your still asking these same questions shows that you have either closed off your mind, or never bothered to examine the evidence that was being offered.

You can keep on chanting that same old off-key tune of ignorance till the facts come up and bites you in the ass.

Sheshbazzar

Your Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible is WRONG, Exodus 22:29-30 does not "comprise an unqualified demand to make the firstborn sacrifice to Yahweh"
The Hebrew phrase "t'ten-L'ee" indicates "give to me" only in the sense of the "presenting" as was the common custom to bring male children to the
temple priests in the eighth day of their lives for circumcision (Gen. 17:11-14) And note that this command dates all the way back to the time of Abraham.
Nothing to do with human sacrifice, again just another -reading into the text- of words and thoughts that are not present in the original.