Sheshbazzar

Not quite all.

Minimalist

This is all just another example of the tendency of bible-thumpers to maintain that the bible is the unalterable word of god until it doesn't make any sense or is too embarassing for them and then they have to step in and "interpret" it for us.

I prefer the handful who said Jepthath was right to kill his daughter. At least they are being honest.

WVIncagold

I don't read any inner inflection given just what the bible says. You constantly say the bible meant this when it said that and it doesn't mean this what it actually means is that. Horse=tank airplane=bird and such nonsense. Critics point out the glaringly obvious fact that you cannot produce one fricking piece of magic in your delusion of self gratification that is proof the magic sky genie your people stole from the Jews actually exists. The critics are crazy? Christians believe in a magic sky fairy that if they pray to it will grant them wishes and for their devotion are rewarded by being able to bask in their slavery in a remote Valhalla on some other plane of existence that you cant see or touch. Critics do not accept your "word" without proof. How about you provide some proof to back up your personal inflections you post as if your the word of Yahweh? Sorry if us critics don't just roll over in awe at your nonsense but my guess god is testing you on your ability to spread his word and your failing. Its either that your you just unable to back up anything you write. Both have the same outcome whether god exists or does not.:wave:

Darklighter

What? I never said that YOU SAID he was unrighteous, in fact I never said YOU SAID ANYTHING. I didn't put words in your mouth, but I'll ask you not to put words in my mouth. You should READ posts before you respond to them.

Sure, not every "sin" is rebuked by God. And according to scripture, one mans actions would logicly not necesserily reflect on God. That's not really the issue here. God apparently saw fit to record the story of Jepthah, yet he did not see fit to clarify the account, even though HIS reputation could potentially be harmed. Same with the Elisha account. These accounts were not presented in a negative way. God rewarded Jephthah for his sacrifice and Elisha was not reprimanded. These accounts are not presented as "sin" in any way shape or form. Yet the sheer nature of these crimes demands at least a mention that they were not looked favorably upon, instead of just brushing them aside. People were put to death back then for far less!

I gave up my faith in the Bible and God because that's where the overwhelming evidence led me. Maybe if your reading comprehension were better you could see the Bible for what it really is.

WishboneDawn

Just thought I'd ditto this since it got sort of lost. The story really seems like a cautionary tale and related in essence to the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain. Essentially, if you invoke God, you're playing with real power so don't play around with it in rash vows or idle threats.

mg01

Genesis 22:1-19 - Elohim commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. The entire text is attributed to E with the exception of verses 11-15 where "YHWH" (previously Elohim) intervenes. Abraham is praised for "not witholding his son" and receives the promise of the covanent who's decendednts shall "as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore." Curiously Isaac is not mentioned comming down the mountian and never again appears in text attributed to E. The impression is in E Isaac was in fact sacrificed but the text was re-worked in the time of the Deuteronomist who forbid child sacrifice.

Exodus 11:1-8 - 10th plague and the killing of the 1st born of Egypt. This story, as is most of the plagues, is E.

Exodus 13:2-3 - "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal. Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because YHWH brought you out of it with a mighty hand." Again the text is E. This is one of several reasons given for the celebration of Passover. Verses 13:3-10 are connected to other verses in chapter 12 and 13 that are all extraneous to the story and appear to be latter insertions that substitute the Passover celebration reason of sacrifice of the first born with "because they ate unleavened bread".

Exodus 22:28 - "Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons." This is within what is known as the "Covenant Code", which is considered to be the oldest law codes in the Torah and is embedded in E. Many of the laws listed by it are reproduced later by D in Deuteronomy and P in Leviticus.

While there is no doubt that later laws forbid child sacrifice and condemed its practice by other peoples, indications from the earliest parts of the Torah are that it had once been an Israelite practice as well. This is no surprise since archeology tells us that Israelite culture arose out of a Canaanite background.

Sheshbazzar

As an Atheist though I might reject thousands of claims by and about the bible, and the stories found therein, scholarship still constrains me to consider those stories within their cultural context, and how they were perceived by those to whom they were originally addressed.

That torah which "Is Written" versus that torah which "Was (Is) Spoken."
Just because a thing is found to be "written" within a Jewish religious text, does not imply that the thing written, was (or is) the thing acted on, or be done (or even to be believed)
Consider "circumcision" it was an already commanded ancient practice prior to the official institution of The Law of Moses, and one of the first things Moses Law commanded and explicitly demanded was circumcision of the foreskin in the eighth day, Excluding all from the Covenant who were uncircumcised.
And yet by an unwritten torah, contrary to that "which was written" Moses spent the next 40 years in preventing even one single circumcision from being performed, violating the "letter" of the very Laws that he had instituted. (Josh. 5:2-7)
There are other examples of "written" Torah laws being annulled, suspended or even reversed in subjection to the "unwritten" torah. (to those unfamiliar with Hebrew the term "torah" has a broader application than just being a name for the first five books, thus there is a "written" torah for everything of scripture, and also an "unwritten torah")
This story of Jepthath has always also had an unwritten explanation.

The Jewish legal system was based around the premise of the Priesthood being the sole authorised interpreters of the Law (and of course that would also of necessity include their agreed understanding of their own Laws, stories and religious traditions and their interpretations of those stories and traditions.) This is clearly set forth in such places as Deut.17:8-17, and 25:1.
Thus irregardless of what The "written" words might seem to say, or to indicate, the very Torah specifically alloted to the Jewish Priesthood the only authority to interpret or to enforce any aspect of anything written.
It is thus, that while the "written" Torah might explicitly command the stoning of a disobedient son, and death penalties "without mercy" for a great variety of infractions, there are very few examples of such penalties ever being enforced.

Thus the narrative of "Jepthath" although it might be no more than a legendary fabrication, is an integral element of the culture that produced it, and there is NO record of that culture ever placing it in the negative light that has become the modern norm.
Thus my opposition to sugarhitman's "going along with" the popular character assassination of YAHWEH's servant.
He "professes" to be a Bible believer, yet in this instance, the very instance when he should not, he turns against the God of Israel, and joins in with the popular condemnation of a man (whom he has never known) who found favor in the eyes of the God of Israel, and praise and honor by the writer of the Book of Hebrews.
To this, this "believer" opposes himself.
Rather he should renounce his unholy profession of beliefe, than to speak as is only befitting to one found being in truth, a betrayer and a traitor to that beliefe.

DaMan121

No. It was not lost. Everyone here concedes its a cautionary tale to not f*ck with this god character because he is an asshole - "Hey watch how I teach this guy a lesson by making him have to kill his daughter" - Swell guy.

Timetospend

In the OT, clearly wrong activities are often given without designation that they is wrongl; instead it is the ramifications of the act that indicate that it is wrong. A good review of this is the many acts in the life of Jacob.

Thanks,

makerowner

"And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, 'If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering.' So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the LORD gave them into his hand. " (Jdg. 11:30-2 RSV) "Jephthah judged Israel six years. Then Jephthah the Gileadite died, and was buried in his city in Gilead. " (Jdg. 12:7 RSV). After he sacrifices his daughter, he wins a battle against the Ephraimites and rules Israel for seven years! But remember kids, human sacrifice is bad.