Mageth

Two points:

I wasn't the one who made a big song and dance over Biblical idioms. I simply referred to them and defined what I meant by "Biblical idiom"; you made an unnecessary digression into the topic and wasted a considerable amount of time on something that wasn't even relevant.

Unmitigated bullshit. I clearly asked you in my first and second posts to make your point.

I have now answered your question twice, in two different ways: (a) the long answer (complete with commentary to support my argument) and (b) the short answer (executive summary.)

And thanks for that; you beat around the bush long enough. But your "point", I believe, had already been mentioned by someone on the first page. In the second post, actually, by keyser_sosa:

I agree with his sentiment.

So there you have it. Feel free to disagree; it's no skin of my nose.

Feel free to try to find any roundabout explanation that dubiously relies on a "somewhat obscure piece of legislation in the Law of Moses" and "idioms" rather than a plain reading of the text to try to make god not look so bloodthirsty. It's no skin off my nose.

Next time, try to realise that it's not always possible to explain a passage of Scripture (particularly one which turns upon a somewhat obscure piece of legislation in the Law of Moses) in a few short sentences.

Next time, in place of the "are you familiar with a biblical idiom?" question, just enter your #@$%& point, however long (and all such long, convoluted points should include a summary)!

Evangelion

Mageth -

ROTFL!

Oh, so if I'd just come right out and said it, without providing any Biblical evidence to support such a view, nor any commentary that might vindicate such an assertion, that would have been fine?

Get real.

In order to support my interpretation (and show that it's not simply ad hoc) I first have to provide the context of the vow, the bylaws which governed it (Leviticus 27), the parallel cases (Abraham/Isaac; Hannah/Samuel), and the textual evidence to support it.

I can't believe I'm being criticised for presenting evidence to support my case. This is just surreal. :banghead:

Well, surprise, surprise.

[sarcasm]Gee, I sure didn't see that coming.[/sarcasm]

*snip*

You've totally ignored (a) the Hebrew word in question, (b) the legislation of Leviticus 27, and (c) the example of Samuel.

Well, whatever.

Duh! Of course not! Good grief, man - that's not even logical! (See, this is why I asked you to read Leviticus 27.)

Look, it's very simple. Leviticus 27 says that you could dedicate anything (in your possession) to God, by means of a vow. If it was an animal, etc. you would kill it. If it was a piece of property, it was given to the Levites. If it was a human being, they would serve at the tabernacle (or temple.)

However, you were at liberty to redeem whatever it was that you'd dedicated, by paying a proportionate sum.

Jephthah waived this privilege.

End of story.

Evangelion

yguy -

Firstly, it's not "my" translation; it's Young's Literal Translation.

Secondly, Young's is more credible because (a) it's a later translation, and (b) it's demonstrably more accurate.

And why? Because it's rigidly faithful to the literal meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek. (Hence "Young's Literal Translation.")

Now, I have already shown that the KJV is generally quite accurate, even to the point of reproducing Hebrew idioms word-for-word. But it is unfortunately inconsistent in this regard, while Young's is not.

An example: in the NT, the KJV has "world", where Young's often has "ages." The Greek word in question is aeon, meaning "age" or "ages." The KJV has misleadingly translated this as "world"; Young's has correctly translated it as "ages."

As an aside, I should also point out that the "she-was-dedicated-to-God-and-lived-as-a-virgin-for-the-rest-of-her-life" interpretation was proposed and defended by the medieval rabbis.

It's certainly not a Christian invention, in case you were wondering.

Mageth

I can't believe I'm being criticised for presenting evidence to support my case. This is just surreal.

What's surreal is that you think that's what I'm criticizing you for. You could have posted all that two pages ago instead of taking the obtuse track of "Are you familiar with a biblical idiom" etc. That's my criticism, not what all you have to say to back up your point.

Get real.

This coming from someone who accused me of being responsible for his own obtuseness.

As to your argument, I'll quote from a rather well-known Jewish historian, and one who I would assume knew something about the scripture, Jewish idioms, Jewish history, Mosaic law, and such:

"However, this action that was to befall her was not ungrateful to her, since she should die upon occasion of her father's victory, and the liberty of her fellow citizens: she only desired her father to give her leave, for two months, to bewail her youth with her fellow citizens; and then she agreed, that at the forementioned thee he might do with her according to his vow. Accordingly, when that time was over, he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt-offering..." Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews 8:10

Note that he also said:

"...he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt-offering, offering such an oblation as was neither conformable to the law nor acceptable to God, not weighing with himself what opinion the hearers would have of such a practice." Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews 8:10

So the argument that his actions were not sanctioned by god are backed up by Josephus.

So was Josephus not being "logical"?

Baidarka

Leviticus 27

29 " 'No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death.

If we continue to read from Leviticus 27 we are treated to this gem.

yguy

It really is difficult to avoid the impression that you are throwing a lot of irrelevant information at us as a diversionary tactic. The accuracy of Young's in general is not at issue. What is questionable is the substitution of "talk to" for "lament", especially in light of this:

Strong's Number: 08567 hnt
Original Word Word Origin
hnt a primitive root [identical with (08566) through the idea of attributing honour]
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Tanah taw-naw'
Parts of Speech TWOT
Verb 2525
Definition
(Piel) to recount, rehearse, tell again

Translated Words
KJV (2) - lament, 1; rehearse, 1;
NAS (2) - commemorate, 1; recount, 1;




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by LightSpeed Technology
© 2001-2003, StudyLight.org

Now, if you can tell me how you get "talk to" out of the definition in bold, I'm all ears.

Jack the Bodiless

There is a rather obvious problem with this.

Virgins captured in battle were "sacrificed". This interpretation requires us to believe that, after the slaughter of their parents and relatives, non-Jewish virgins were forced to become nuns and were then allowed to operate within the temple.

Whereupon they would trash the place, steal everything of value, and run away: possibly after murdering a priest or two.

Jabu Khan

So god did it to teach him a lesson. Isn't that still sacrificing her for a cause wether it be a lesson or a battle. If Whats -his -face was so strong in his convictions then what led him so far astray anyways why didn't the "holy spirit" say hey you can't barter with god like that or ask that of him?

the_cave

Who on earth is this "they" who says that this is "good"???

This seems like a straw-man argument to me, and a lot of wasted debating.

Mageth

Well, god seemed to have seen it as "good". Otherwise, why give Jephthah the victory over the Ammonites, why let the daughter be the first to come out to meet Jephthah, and why let Jephthah go through with the sacrifice?