Sheshbazzar

To burn their sons and their daughters in fire to their Elohim, as the Cannanites, and other nations did, is an ABOMINATION to Yahweh, a thing which he HATES, and which Yahweh expressly commands that his people SHALL NOT DO unto him.
In this case there is nothing to assume, Israel is warned against the practice.

No, there is no mass human "sacrifice" performed in Numbers 31, the text reads;
There is no mention of, nor any evidence at all for this having been performed in a ritual manner, no "sacrifice" nor any evidence of ritually burning these children on an altar. Just plain slaughter.
Admittedly the very idea of commanding the slaughter of these innocent children is repugnant to us, (-perhaps even to Moses, and to the soldiers carrying out the sentence, note the elaborate ritual "cleansing" of the troops which follows. Num. 31:19-24, such ritual cleansing is in itself an acknowledgement of an awareness of becoming "unclean" by their participation in the matter)
Not trying to justify, or to excuse the matter of Number 31, there are after all, reasons why I myself came to reject "scripture", and become an atheist.
I have no problem with accepting that it was a cautionary tale, only that the level of careful detail that is involved ties it very closely to the Mosaic Laws concerning "vows", "dedicated" things, and "devoted" things. and as such it is more than just a cautionary parable.

But lets step back for a moment and reassess, this "vow" that Jephthah made, when he made it, evidently by the text, it was a private matter between him and Yahweh his Elohim. basically, that in his prayers he had made a promise.
Now he could have just kept the matter to himself, and no one would have been any the smarter. But he first "lets the cat out of the bag" when he is greeted by his daughter.
This is where it gets interesting because both he, and his daughter seem to be of one mind that the penalty incurred by him breaking his vow would be of a worse consequence than her willingly submitting becoming "DEVOTED" to Yahweh (whatever the term might entail in this context)
The narrative makes it quite clear how much he loves and values his daughter, his only child. (and her, for her part, her care for her father)
Any father placed by his own rash words into such straits, and in such distress would normally rather choose to shoulder and bear his own responsibility, and what ever penalty it was that would be laid upon him, to spare his only child from certain destruction by burning just to save his own ass.
Thus it seems to me that whatever this "devotion" actually consisted of, it was seen by both the father and the daughter to be the preferable choice, as the lesser of two penalties. This is why I do not believe that the narrative was intended to indicate that the daughter was actually consigned to be burned on an altar.

WVIncagold

Okay i give you the heart thingy. give it a rest appealing to authority aside your contention is the bible is just even though it condones human sacrifice? And i wasn't raised catholic the whole "eat me" things was done in baptist churches and Presbyterian and methodist i attended. Again its what is practiced by many Christians and you have to accept it as a Christian way. I am sure sugar and Robert both enjoy the a nibble and blood sucking on their lord. The ironic part is the simple act of declaring oneself Christian you therefore condone human sacrifice as a way to clean away that which is evil inside you, so you accept it and worship it. There is no doubt the Jep killed his daughter and i never heard it or read it any other way. You can also call a rape and assault with a friendly weapon but i doubt the person being raped considers it as such. Instead of apologizing or trying to manipulate the scriptures you should be finding the practice detestable whether Jep killed her or not. as to your bible reference doesn't that mean that you shouldn't pay attention to people who interpret prophecy? Also as taken litteral it doesnt condem human sacrifice just the throwing of your children into the fire.

Amaleq13

Christianity is founded upon and continues to this day to glory in a human sacrifice. :huh:

Sheshbazzar

I actually addressed this objection way back in post #47, but will repeat it here for ease of examination.
So contrary to your declaration THERE MOST CERTAINLY ARE " ifs, buts and maybes."

Sheshbazzar

Running fast and loose with the scriptures Hitman, you really ought to be more careful in your citations (unless you are deliberately corrupting them in an effort to deceive)
First, it was not "The spirit of Gawd" or ("The Spirit of Elohim") but specifically "The Spirit of -YAHWEH -that came over Jephthah"
Whereas in Saul's case it was first an "EVIL spirit from Yahweh [that] was upon Saul" (1 Samuel 19:9)
And latter, when Saul prophesied among the prophets, (1 Samuel 19:23) it was not with "The Spirit of YAHWEH that came upon him", as it had been upon Jephthah. but rather it was only "The spirit of elohim which came upon him"
Perhaps you are either ignorant, or unaware, that the Scriptures distinguishes between the two? and that the appellations are not accounted equal, nor randomly interchangeable at your whim?
Yes the Scriptures do let us know of Israel's disobedience and backsliding, but always also counterbalanced that by examples of faith and good works of the few that did remain faithful to Yahweh.
(1 Kings 19:10, 19:18 and Romans 11:3-4)

WishboneDawn

Part human, part divine technically but regardless, we're not the only ones...Visit a war memorial lately?

Here in Canada we have Remembrance Day to honour those who gave their lives for freedom.

Jack the Bodiless

You are still citing the verses which apply specifically to the Caananite (and former Hebrew) custom of sacrificing all firsborn children. This is not a prohibition on all human sacrifice.
You're reading the wrong verse!

The massacre leaves them with 32,000 Midianite virgins, which are divided out as war booty, and a portion of all booty is given to the high priest for a sacrifice to God:
"heave offering": Hebrew terumah, a sacrifcial offering.

Now, would the priests see Jephthah's daughter as another sacrificial virgin, like the ones they had despatched in the past? Or would they invoke the "do not sacrifice your own kids" clause? Well, if this really happened, I expect they WOULD refuse to sacrifice her! She was, after all, one of their own: a Hebrew, not a Midianite.

...But I don't think it DID really happen. It's a horror story, the Jewish equivalent of an "urban legend". Like an urban legend, it only has to be superficially plausible. THe author is tryng to spin a cautionary tale, apparently loosely based on earlier tales of sacrificial virgins. It doesn't matter (to the storyteller) if there was actually a rule that would have prevented the priests from taking this action if the situation ever occured in real life. Such techicalities get in the way of good storytelling!

Sheshbazzar

Ok, moving on then to Numbers 31:35-41, and the phrase "heave offering" as applied to those thirty two virgins which Moses gave unto Eleazar the priest.

You have stated Interesting, where did you look this up to arrive at this particular definition?

Checking multiple concordances it is shown that terumah has a primary meaning of an "oblation, offering, and gift,"
However "sacrificial offering" is not even mentioned as a definition, Only within definite and unmistakable contextual situations would the limited definition of "sacrificial offering" apply (particularly when such definition would imply destruction by burning, or human sacrifice)

"Terumah" occurs many times throughout the text of the OT, and in such contexts, and applied to such objects, as could not be considered to be
"sacrificial" "heave offerings", For example "terumah" appears in Exodus 30:14,15, 35:5 & 35:21 translated as "offerings" or "gifts" of gold, silver, and brass.
And in Numbers 18:24 "Terumah" is the "tithe" given to the Levites to inherit. And in Numbers 31:52 the "terumah" is in shekels of gold, none of which would be burned in a sacrifice on the altar.
In Ezekiel 45:1, 6, 7, & 9, "terumah" is an "oblation" ("gift") of measured out pieces of land, real estate! not human sacrifice "heave offerings", and not anything that even could be burnt on the altar.

Good that you could realise that Jephthah's daughter would not necessarily need have been burned up on the altar, came a long way from the initial assertions that Jephthah himself had undertook to burn up his own child.
Now the error is to shift the unwarranted accusation from Jephthah, unto the Levitical Priesthood which served Yahweh the Elohim of Israel.
There is nothing at all to be found within the text indicating that Eleazar the Priest of Yahweh offered up these thirty two virgins as human sacrifice burnt offerings upon the altar.

DBT

Be it a cautionary tale or an actual event...it's not the worst example of brutality in the OT. The Israelites may have abolished the practice of ritual human sacrifice and unlawful killing amongst their own people, but that same moral code apparently did not apply to outsiders, the Amalekites, Canaanites, etc. The atrocities against the latter, which are reported to be ordered by Yahweh, make the Jepthath incident pale into insignificance.

reniaa

here here, a sensible answer to this whole post