Metacrock

I think it's a good answer. It doesn't say God wanted him to make such a sacrafice. It doesn't say God asked him to do so. It was his idea. Now of course it doesn't say "and the Lord said 'why I'm far too liberal and nice and kind to ever allow that, shame on you for promising that!'" But you know we are dealing with texts written by people around 3000 years ago.

link fixed
Is The Bible The Word of God?

Mageth

It doesn't say God wanted him to make such a sacrafice. It doesn't say God asked him to do so. It was his idea.

Since Jephthah promised to sacrifice "whatsoever" came out first, and was distraught when his daughter turned out to be the "whatsoever", it doesn't appear that Jephthah had the idea of sacrificing his daughter for victory in the first place. Having the daughter come out, and thus be sacrificed, appears very much to have been God's idea (whatever the reason behind that requirement one accepts).

7thangel

I do not believe man has free will. In fact, it is God Himself that gives us the will to serve him. It is God who sanctifies us.

And I don't believe the literal Hell.

Evangelion

If people honestly want to hear an alternative explanation of the passage, I'm happy to offer one.

On the other hand, if people only want to wallow in their anti-Biblical preferences, there's really no point in discussing the issue.

How about you, Mageth? What's your position? Are you willing to hear an alternative explanation, with a possible view to accepting that it might actually be valid?

Or will you simply dismiss it out of hand, because "We all know that the God of the Bible is a blood-lusting monster, and that's the end of that"?

Better let me know, because I've been down that road before and it's a complete waste of time for both parties.

7thangel

Nah. Do not just consider the action, didn't I say story?

Mageth

If people honestly want to hear an alternative explanation of the passage, I'm happy to offer one.

On the other hand, if people only want to wallow in their anti-Biblical preferences, there's really no point in discussing the issue.

Do you "wallow" in your pro-bible preferences? I thought the whole idea of this forum ws for discussing both sides of the issue.

I'm not "anti-bible" per se, in spite of the fact that I think many of the things the bible describes are myth and not reality like "pro-bible" people believe.

How about you, Mageth? What's your position? Are you willing to hear an alternative explanation, with a possible view to accepting that it might actually be valid?

Or will you simply dismiss it out of hand, because "We all know that the God of the Bible is a blood-lusting monster, and that's the end of that"?

Of course I am willing to hear it, consider it, and discuss it; fire away.

But I'd prefer if it's biblically supportable within the passage, or in passages directly related to it, and not an extra-biblical, made up attempt at "cleaning up" the story. When interpreting the bible, I think it's best to read and understand what's there rather than reading in what's not there. IIRC, the bible frowns a bit on adding to or detracting from what's actually written.

Evangelion

Mageth -

Nope. Do you wallow in your anti-Biblical prejudices?

And did I ever say that you did?

I used to think that too - until I became involved in a particularly heated discussion on another issue in this forum last year.

It was incredible to see just how quickly people became aggressive when I presented a rational interpretation of a passage which (a) was logically and textually consistent, and (b) did not accord with their pet prejudices.

I learned from that incident that there are fundamentalist atheists, just as there are fundamentalist theists - and neither side is willing to hear any explanation which runs contrary to their personal preconceptions.

With this in mind, I am now wary of any Biblical discussion here at IIDB, and highly skeptical of any atheist who appears to offer a friendly and reasonable exchange of views on the subject.

OK, thanks. I'll run with that.

Sure thing.

Yep, that's perfectly understandable. I feel the same way myself.

Now, how familar are you with Biblical idioms?

Mageth

Nope. Do you wallow in your anti-Biblical prejudices?

Of course not.

And did I ever say that you did?

Not exactly; you said preferences, not prejudices, when you implied that I may be doing just that:

if people only want to wallow in their anti-Biblical preferences...

...

Now, how familar are you with Biblical idioms?

Rather than playing "20 questions", I'd prefer if you just made your point. You can start by defining "Biblical idiom" if you wish.

Evangelion

OK. When I talk about "Biblical idioms", I refer to those colourful phrases which we find throughout both Testaments. They describe certain actions and/or concepts, using language that we (as Westerners) would find somewhat circumlocutive or obscure.

It will be seen that in many cases, the written form does not accurately reflect the concept referred to.

Some examples follow:

• He slept with his fathers.
  He died.
  
• He was gathered unto his fathers.
  He died.
  
• He lay with her.
  He had sexual relations with her.
  
• He knew her.
  He had sexual relations with her.
  
• He girded up his loins.
  He prepared himself.
  
• He covered his feet.
  He relieved himself.
  
• He fell on his neck.
  He embraced him.

Mageth

Are you confusing "idiom" with "euphemism"?

Many of the things you list are eupehimisms introduced in translations to "sanitize" the bible for target readers. The more important question is, what did the words in the original text mean at the time they were written? (I suspect this may be what you're getting to)

For example, the original hebrew word translated "know" in the "sexual relations" context had the meaning when written "to know (someone) carnally". In other words, in the original language, the meaning would have been clear to the reader, as would "had sexual reations with" to an english reader.

Here's some more examples of biblical euphemisms.