Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DBT · 02-07-2008, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

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.

But Jephtath did promise the Lord a burnt offering - "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'' - so what else could he do but keep his pledge to God? How could he renege on his vow?

Jack the Bodiless · 02-07-2008, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

"heave offering": Hebrew terumah, a sacrificial offering."

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.

It is pretty consistently used to indicate a religious offering: a sacrifice (in the sense of "something given up"). What the priests actually did with each offering depends on the type of offering: and, in the case of livestock and other stuff that could be burnt on an altar, that's what they did.

After all, what else would they be used for?

Quote:

Biblical scholars often skirt the issue of what happened to these 32 Midianite virgins, either saying that those women and girls were made servants carrying out menial tasks to maintain the tabernacle, or, as Noth asserts, that they were given as slaves to the members of the Aaronic priesthood. Both conjectures fail if this story has any validity at all. Certainly the Midianite/Moabite women, the remnant of the nation that tried to seduce worshippers away from Yahweh, would not have been trusted near the holy cult objects of that god. As to the portion devoted to Yahweh going to the Aaronic priests as separate from the Levites, this only makes sense in terms of the divisions of the Levites as established with the centralization of sacrificial worship at Jerusalem in the time of David and later (i.e. after 1000 BCE). In fact, despite the war on Midian (or Moab) being a Priestly narrative, if it was derived from actual history, then that which was "devoted" or "dedicated" to Yahweh denoted sacrifice. P is quite clear on the fate of human beings "offered to the Lord." Lev. 27:29 says: "No oe devoted, who is to be utterly destroyed from among men shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death." The Hebrew word translated as a "heave offering" in the KJV is terumah, meaning specifically, a sacrificial offering.

-Callahan T. Secret Origins of the Bible Altadena: Millenium Press, 2002

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

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.

Nope, that is still what I am claiming: that, within the context of the story, Jephthah himself either killed his daughter, or gave her to the priests for use as a human sacrifice. The details don't really matter, because it's only a story. Real-world practical difficulties and technical loopholes don't apply.

Ray Moscow · 02-07-2008, 04:02 AM

I think the big assumption that our apologists are making is that the "Law of Moses" even existed at the time the Jephthah story would have occurred, or that Jephthah would have followed it if it had.

Darklighter · 02-07-2008, 09:24 AM

Sacrificed or not, it still doesn't reconcile God's supposed aversion to human sacrifice and his commands to kill "every man woman and child" of the Israelites enemies.

reniaa, how do you reconcile the two? How can someone be agianst killing a child, but be OK with killing children? Why is killing children bad only if done in a ritualistic fashon?

WVIncagold · 02-07-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

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

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.

BIGdiffrence between honoring your dead and the deads they did and worshiping them and expecting the wish of everlasting life to come true by ceremonialy eating their flesh and drinking there blood!

Minimalist · 02-07-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

and the only reason the Jews didn't indulge in it on a regular basis is because they kept losing battles, and therefore had no prisoners to sacrifice.

Eminently practical, Jack!

Sheshbazzar · 02-07-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

It is pretty consistently used to indicate a religious offering: a sacrifice (in the sense of "something given up"). What the priests actually did with each offering depends on the type of offering: and, in the case of livestock and other stuff that could be burnt on an altar, that's what they did.

Wrong Jack, on several counts.
A "sacrifice" in the sense of "giving up something" is NOT the problem, the problem arises when the word "sacrifice" is abused in English in a prejudicial fashion as being synonymous with an an act of "ritual" killing. As you did earlier when you consistently used the term "human-sacrifice" in such manner as would require it be understood as ritually performed slaughter upon an altar to please a god.
There is a considerable difference with just "surrendering" something, or "handing over" something as a "gift" and "a offering" as "sacrifice", than falsely implying that such a "surrender of" automatically implies the death by fire of whatever it is that is so surrendered or so "sacrificed".

In Scripture, when anything is ritually offered up on an altar it is usually indicated by the employment of the terms "zabach" and "olah", but not even these, in every instance necessarily mean a destruction by burning.
Moses had those children slaughtered by the soldiers, they were not "offerings", "gifts", "oblations" or "sacrifices".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

What the priests actually did with each offering depends on the type of offering: and, in the case of livestock and other stuff that could be burnt on an altar, that's what they did.

Wrong Jack, only a very small proportion of the livestock "sacrificed" ("gifted") to the Levitical Priesthood and to the Temple, would be ritually sacrificed and burnt on the altar, most was kept alive as living herds and constituted a portion of the wealth and resources of priesthood and Temple.

Quote:

After all, what else would they be used for?

Food supplies to alleviate hunger, trading livestock to provide for such non-food items as were needed by the Levites, and the maintenance of the Temple, Trade items to negotiate for peace with the surrounding countries.
In this instance having in possession THIRTY-TWO LIVING and "PRIME" non-Jewish VIRGINS to be used as bargaining "incentives" in the negotiating of treaties, truces and "trade agreements" would make a lot more sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack

Nope, that is still what I am claiming: that, within the context of the story, Jephthah himself either killed his daughter, or gave her to the priests for use as a human sacrifice. The details don't really matter, because it's only a story. Real-world practical difficulties and technical loopholes don't apply.

Well Jack, you are certainly welcome to claim whatever you will, and of course most will continue to fall for it. They always have.

DBT · 02-07-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

I think the big assumption that our apologists are making is that the "Law of Moses" even existed at the time the Jephthah story would have occurred, or that Jephthah would have followed it if it had.

Moses himself, under God's direction, didn't appear to have any aversion to killing women, children and infants...

jemand · 02-08-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In Scripture, when anything is ritually offered up on an altar it is usually indicated by the employment of the terms "zabach" and "olah", but not even these, in every instance necessarily mean a destruction by burning.
Moses had those children slaughtered by the soldiers, they were not "offerings", "gifts", "oblations" or "sacrifices".

Yay, it's not human sacrifice! Just genocide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In this instance having in possession THIRTY-TWO LIVING and "PRIME" non-Jewish VIRGINS to be used as bargaining "incentives" in the negotiating of treaties, truces and "trade agreements" would make a lot more sense.

Yay, it's not human sacrifice! Just sex slavery.

Seriously though, since the genocide was conducted with a religious mandate, I would think that "ritual" sacrifice or not, those people were killed by what was understood to be divine command. That sounds like human sacrifice, whether or not the dying/dead were burned on the altar or not. The argument here seems to hinge on semantics-- whether or not "human sacrifice" requires elaborite "ritual". Personally, however, if someone was killed with the express purpose of appeasing a deity or satisfying a divine order, I think it would qualify.

Note also that the Deuteronomy verses mentioned previously condemn making children "pass through the fire." This leaves open the possibility of human sacrifice with a knife, as Abraham intended to do to Isaac. If Jepthah killed his daughter first, and then burned her, as it appears Abraham planned to do in the Genisis narrative, he would be both fulfilling his oath and not causing her to "pass through the fire." That is, of course, assuming Jepthah even knew of those prohibitions, which I doubt.

Cheerful Charlie · 02-08-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatertot

So I was discussing with some friends on whether the stories in the old testament pointed to an angry/vindictive god. Someone brought up the story of Jepthath from judges 11, and it intrigued me. I have heard two theories on the story, that it either refers to a literal killing of the daughter, or that he sent her away to someplace where she would never marry. I unfortunately have no skills in literary criticism or ancient hebrew and I would appreciate it if some here could enlighten me.

He killed her. He let her live two months and then sacrificed her as he promised.

Google Jepthath. Read the story for yourself. See also the story ofhow Jacob cheated Esau out of his rights to be blessed by Isaac. The point is of all of this, God does not allow correction of mistakes. If you make a vow you are stuck with it, according to the Bible.

CC
CC

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2008, 04:02 AM	#93
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	I think the big assumption that our apologists are making is that the "Law of Moses" even existed at the time the Jephthah story would have occurred, or that Jephthah would have followed it if it had.

02-07-2008, 09:24 AM	#94
Darklighter Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Pale Blue Dot Posts: 463	Sacrificed or not, it still doesn't reconcile God's supposed aversion to human sacrifice and his commands to kill "every man woman and child" of the Israelites enemies. reniaa, how do you reconcile the two? How can someone be agianst killing a child, but be OK with killing children? Why is killing children bad only if done in a ritualistic fashon?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.