DBT

And I was just speaking generally. It appears to be rather difficult to determine God's word if there is a discrepancy between the Inspiration, the intended meaning, and the actual text. That's all I meant.

DBT

But aren't there other examples in the bible of human sacrifice carried out by the Israelites, even by Moses himself?

Ray Moscow

It's not missing -- it's just ignored by most "believers" and biblical apologists.

Just what do you think happened to all those enemies of Israel who were "devoted to the LORD"?

To give one example of the many:

Ray Moscow

You are assuming a lot of things here that contradict the story itself.

Jack the Bodiless

In Numbers 31, the Israelites ended up with 32,000 Midianite virgins. They sacrificed one-thousandth of all their spoils, including 32 virgins. Are you seriously suggesting that, just by coincidence, exactly 32 Midianite virgins perpetrated crimes that required capital punishment at this time?

Why would otherwise intelligent people feel compelled to ignore human sacrifice in the OT when it is so evidently present?

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that he would have given her to the priests (who were familiar with human sacrifice). Would this have been a "flagrant abuse against the Commandments"? Not necessarily, as "thou shalt not murder" prohibits only unlawful killing. But you may be reading too much into the story: it IS only a story (a parable about making rash promises), and the writer might not have considered that detail.

Equinox

TTS - thanks for responding, it's clear that the main point was Abraham doing what he's told, the text never says nor implies that Abraham thought that Isaac would survive - this is yet another example of a Christian adding what they want to add to the Bible to make it more in line with their thoughts. That happens so much, and it shows that even most Christians already know, deep down, that the bible is not the word of God.

The prevalence of the God of the OT asking for and enjoying human sacrifice early on (and then being changed into a god that doesn't want human sacrifice, then in the NT being changed back again to a God that likes human sacrifice) has been made clear in many of the subsequent posts (thanks all for those, jack, and others).

have a good day-

Equinox

WVIncagold

It is not a strawman as you may want to dismiss it as since it shows the total lack of understanding of the basic simple processes we are aware of today. How can you trust the judgment of a people who describe emotion coming from the organ that pumps blood? Anytime i can i try to point out how silly it is to follow the words of nomadic sheep herders. Did you even see my second sentence? This is laughable that people today attribute wisdom to people who thought emotion originated from the HEART. You probably subscribe to the thought that a bat is a bird as well? Or is that another strawman you need to hold onto a belief that nomadic sheep herders know more about the world then you do? Besides being a Christian means you accept and believe in Human sacrifice and thats a "good' thing. I can accept the whole ya godidit straight forward but trying to weasel out of it...well smacks with irony for me. Of course Xtians believe and accept that J was Right in killing his daughter why wouldn't they be since killing your kin seams to be a constant theme Xtians follow.

Sheshbazzar

First let me remind you, that in the narrative Jephthah is unmistakably presented as being an Israelite who is faithful to Yahweh (Jdg. 11:11, 11:29-31, 11:35)
We are told that "the Spirit of Yahweh came upon Jephthah" (11:29) while we are not told exactly -within this narrative-, what this "Spirit of Yahweh" consisted of, yet at the very least it would indicate receiving a heightened sense of consciousness, and a degree of direct divine guidance.
Yet even before this "Spirit of Yahweh came upon Jephthah", he displays a strong knowledge of Israel's history and of all of the circumstances that gave Israel a valid and rightful claim to the land. (11:12-27)
It is a far greater assumption, to evaluate the story under a biased assumption that Jephthah was ignorant of The Law of Moses, and of the express prohibitions and warning against human sacrifice, than it is to accept that he was well aware of these prohibitions and warnings;

In regard to Jephthah invoking a vow, this would not have only been a private matter, but if he was, as the text indicates a devotee of Yahweh the Elohim of Israel, then the making of such a vow valid and binding would require him adhering to certain specific procedures given by Yahweh to be followed in such occasions, requiring the payment of a monetary fee to the Levitical Priesthood.(Lev 27:1-33)
A careful reading will show that the word "DEVOTED" (Heb. "cherem") does NOT always mean "to burn or to be destroyed by fire"
A plot of land could be by, or through a vow, become "DEVOTED" to Yahweh, and become His permanent possesion, with NO provision for, nor any possibility of redemption by the owner.
Thus a vow "DEVOTING" anything, was the highest form of vow, one that once confirmed with the payment of the required fee to the Levites, there could be no going back from, and no possibility of repurchasing.

So Jephthah kept his word and performed his vow, "devoted" his only child to Yahweh his Elohim, for Yahweh to do with her whatsoever he would. By the narrative we are made to understand that at the very minimum it was understood by all parties that she would remain a virgin, never have children, and be permanently removed and barred from all further contact with her family.
There is a reasonable alternate interpretation of the Hebrew wording ending Judges 27, that gives a somewhat happier conclusion;

"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: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, That the daughters of Israel went yearly to update the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, for four days each year."

Jack the Bodiless

You are still assuming that human sacrifice WAS against the law. But the only verses you cite for this are the prohibitions against Caananite-style infant sacrifice of all firstborn children (generally to other gods, like Molech). And the obvious mass human-sacrifice in Numbers 31 remains as a counterexample.

But, if the story is read as a cautionary tale against rash oaths, these details still don't matter. In effect, the author is saying "even the holiest of men should be careful what they wish for".