I'm not tearing apart anything. I read the passages and even though I do believe it's all fiction I gave my opinion on what it meant. If you go to a book club and give your opinion on what the author was saying, and it differs from someone else's, are you tearing the book apart? Are they tearing it apart because they interpret it differently than you?
quote:Originally posted by b50m:
No NS, I don't have to throw out the entire book. Just look for what makes sense, that's all.
You and Jenn can 'light up all the people you want to', I'll go with what I said.
I still don't know why all atheists love to tear apart a book they don't believe in just so they can ridicule someone.
I really would not waste my time even reading it if I believed it to be a fairy tale.
Like all the 'conspiracy site' with lizards, aliens, inside jobs, fake moon landings, etc...
You all say it's to enlighten the ignorant and brainwashed but I don't sense any feelings of help coming out of it, just ridicule and a massive dose of superiority complex.
As you like to say NS, meh.
b,
If you cannot read the plain text and arrive at the conclusion that everyone else does, no complex is necessary.
It's written down for you. Sure, it is likely another fairy tale, but before you can parse the fairly tale, you have to understand the story.
Jephthah killed his daughter. It IS the story. He burned her body. It's a horrible story, but that is the story. I gave you the verses. It's right there.
This is not controversial.
nsns
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
I'm not tearing apart anything. I read the passages and even though I do believe it's all fiction I gave my opinion on what it meant. If you go to a book club and give your opinion on what the author was saying, and it differs from someone else's, are you tearing the book apart? Are they tearing it apart because they interpret it differently than you?
depends on the book.
if it were Moby Dick.. crap.. censors... ok..
if it were Moby Richard by herman melville... then yes.. it would mean i was taking it apart.
i would personally like to personally urinate on every printed copy of moby richard in existance. i hate that book with a sick blinding greasy hate.
i realize this had nothign to do with the topic at hand, but it was a chance for me to once again announce my bile ridden vomitous loathing for that book, so i took the opportunity when it presented itself.
thank you, have a nice day.
after post note:
Cool.. the censor didn't *** out the name of the book. i figured it would..
I didn't care for it either. Guy book.quote:Originally posted by thenagel:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
I'm not tearing apart anything. I read the passages and even though I do believe it's all fiction I gave my opinion on what it meant. If you go to a book club and give your opinion on what the author was saying, and it differs from someone else's, are you tearing the book apart? Are they tearing it apart because they interpret it differently than you?
depends on the book.
if it were Moby Dick.. crap.. censors... ok..
if it were Moby Richard by herman melville... then yes.. it would mean i was taking it apart.
i would personally like to personally urinate on every printed copy of moby richard in existance. i hate that book with a sick blinding greasy hate.
i realize this had nothign to do with the topic at hand, but it was a chance for me to once again announce my bile ridden vomitous loathing for that book, so i took the opportunity when it presented itself.
thank you, have a nice day.
after post note:
Cool.. the censor didn't *** out the name of the book. i figured it would..
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
And what would an animal be doing in his house to begin with? Or was he waiting on a servant?
At the time and place, it was very common for animals to be on the ground floor of the house. The people would sleep on the roof.
Beternu will be crushed.
quote:Originally posted by Jack Hammer:
Abraham and sarah laughed at the angel sent by God with the massage
they were going to have a child. The child Ishmael.
They have been mad every since.
JH
No wonder they laughed. Even if the massage was given by an angel, that isn't how babies are made. Unless of course, "massage" is a euphemism.
quote:If you cannot read the plain text and arrive at the conclusion that everyone else does, no complex is necessary.
That's the point, NS. Not everyone else does. The Catholic church does not teach it this way. Many other people do not read it that way.
Answer this:
If she was going to be cooked for dinner, why give her two months to moan about being a virgin? She could have fixed that in about 10 minutes. Why did he not immediately slit her throat and yell dinner's up!
Really, for a logical guy, killing her is illogical, morally wrong, and not allowed by scripture.
But please enjoy your version. You can't have God be benevolent now can you?
Thanks Crusty, I was getting to that.
Many times they also slept with the animals. Not exactly a Holiday Inn back then.
quote:At the time and place, it was very common for animals to be on the ground floor of the house. The people would sleep on the roof.
Many times they also slept with the animals. Not exactly a Holiday Inn back then.
I know the stables were on the ground floor and the house above, but not about them sleeping on a roof. And again, why would it upset him that she came out first if he hadn't meant a human sacrifice? "Welcome back daddy, whatcha doing"? "Hey daughter, waiting on an animal to come out".quote:Originally posted by CrustyMac:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
And what would an animal be doing in his house to begin with? Or was he waiting on a servant?
At the time and place, it was very common for animals to be on the ground floor of the house. The people would sleep on the roof.
I'm no Biblical scholar, Jennifer, but she now becomes the Lord's. This I assume means that she essentially becomes a nun - hence her bewailing her virginity - and this ends Jephthah's ancestral line. Not a good thing for someone with his ambition.
This all makes sense considering that human sacrifice at that time was not pleasing to God, so He - knowing the outcome - wouldn't have agreed to the deal to begin with.
What amazes me more than anything are all the deals OT God has to make in order to get his chosen people to behave, then they do it so poorly.
This all makes sense considering that human sacrifice at that time was not pleasing to God, so He - knowing the outcome - wouldn't have agreed to the deal to begin with.
What amazes me more than anything are all the deals OT God has to make in order to get his chosen people to behave, then they do it so poorly.
I didn't say it pleased his god.quote:Originally posted by CrustyMac:
I'm no Biblical scholar, Jennifer, but she now becomes the Lord's. This I assume means that she essentially becomes a nun - hence her bewailing her virginity - and this ends Jephthah's ancestral line. Not a good thing for someone with his ambition.
This all makes sense considering that human sacrifice at that time was not pleasing to God, so He - knowing the outcome - wouldn't have agreed to the deal to begin with.
What amazes me more than anything are all the deals OT God has to make in order to get his chosen people to behave, then they do it so poorly.
Josephus-""…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 fore-mentioned time he might do with her according to his vow. Accordingly, when that time was over, he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt-offering, offering such an oblation as was neither conformable to the law, nor acceptable to God…"
*******************************************
I wonder what's the point of all these gruesome stories unless they were little fables told to keep anyone from attempting these things. In other words this could mean he did this and it peeved his god, so don't go around offering up human sacrifices. Then the buzz would be, "did you hear about that dude that burned his own kid for god? Man that teed off his god too, can't be doing that".
quote:Accordingly, when that time was over, he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt-offering,
That is not Biblical. That is someone's else's interpretation.
Adam Clarke's Commentary[11] has an exposition of the issues at stake in this passage and contends that the vow Jephthah made was not as rash as it sounds.
"Verse 31. Shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering.] The text is (Hebrew letters follow) hlw[ whytyl[hw hwhyl hyhw vehayah layhovah, vehaalithihu olah; the translation of which, according to the most accurate Hebrew scholars, is this: I will consecrate it to the Lord, or I will offer it for a burnt-offering; that is, "If it be a thing fit for a burnt-offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him." That conditions of this kind must have been implied in the vow, is evident enough; to have been made without them, it must have been the vow of a heathen, or a madman. If a dog had met him, this could not have been made a burnt-offering; and if his neighbour or friend's wife, son, or daughter, &c., had been returning from a visit to his family, his vow gave him no right over them. Besides, human sacrifices were ever an abomination to the Lord; and this was one of the grand reasons why God drove out the Canaanites, &c., because they offered their sons and daughters to Molech in the fire, i.e., made burnt-offerings of them, as is generally supposed."
quote:That is not Biblical. That is someone's else's interpretation.
True, and others interpretations were that he didn't burn her. So who's interpretation is correct?
To find what is actually said, you have to view the original language, like b50 just did. The problem comes in trying to translate, in this case, a Hebrew word or words with much meaning into a singular English word that means much less. I disagree sometimes with words chosen in certain translations because they don't seem to accurately reflect the original wording. However, I cannot imagine such a task. IMO, English Standard Version has done a pretty good job of translating into English. Still, if it's a subject in which you need to know more, it's in a person's best interest to use a Greek Hebrew lexical aid.
JMHO
JMHO
Translations, by their very nature, are flawed. Unless you are a native born speaker of ancient Greek and Hebrew, a fair portion of the Bible will be lost in translation.
quote:Originally posted by b50m:quote:If you cannot read the plain text and arrive at the conclusion that everyone else does, no complex is necessary.
That's the point, NS. Not everyone else does. The Catholic church does not teach it this way. Many other people do not read it that way.
Answer this:
If she was going to be cooked for dinner, why give her two months to moan about being a virgin? She could have fixed that in about 10 minutes. Why did he not immediately slit her throat and yell dinner's up!
Really, for a logical guy, killing her is illogical, morally wrong, and not allowed by scripture.
But please enjoy your version. You can't have God be benevolent now can you?
LOL, now we're getting someplace. First, killing her is entirely logical. Jephthah made a deal with a bloodthirsty god, and had to make good on it.
Timbrel-babe bewailed her virginity because she knew she would die unmarried and horny. Nothing illogical about that.
Morally wrong? YES! That is the whole point! It was morally abhorrent, much like god helping Jephthah murder all those Ammonites with a great slaughter. That wasn't even sporting. The book is immoral, you see, and this is just one example.
Not allowed by scripture?? It IS the scripture!
b, you're trying to rationalize your way out of an uncomfortable story but it won't work. Judges 11:39! Timbrel-babe is toast! Sorry, but god was not benevolent toward her, if one is to believe the story.
You may take comfort in knowing it's likely a fairy tale, as is so much of the bible. But you cannot say that the KJV, from which I borrowed that passage, says Jephthah did not kill his daughter.
I don't care what the Catholics say, I know what the book says. Sounds like Bill, doesn't it? God help me.
But this speaks to a theme I've discussed for years here. The bible is simply a Rorschach blot. It is an assembly of vague stories from which you may take anything that strikes you. Feel free, but don't call it certainty and please don't say it was not the invention of men.
nsns
NS, you are acting like Bill. It never says he actually sacrificed her by burning her. No where.
I don't need to rationalize. Did God kill people, yes.
Did God save people, yes.
Did Jephthah murder his daughter, I don't think so. You do.
You don't care what any one else says, Catholics or otherwise, which is why this conversation is pointless. You are Bill, only YOUR view point is right.
That's the end of this for me. See you elsewhere.
I don't need to rationalize. Did God kill people, yes.
Did God save people, yes.
Did Jephthah murder his daughter, I don't think so. You do.
You don't care what any one else says, Catholics or otherwise, which is why this conversation is pointless. You are Bill, only YOUR view point is right.
That's the end of this for me. See you elsewhere.
quote:It never says he actually sacrificed her by burning her. No where.
Actually, it does, but never mind.
Lest you think that this is just me spinning it, dig this. It's the first reference I found when I Yahoo'd it.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jephthah
Now we get to discuss Elisha! Yay!
nsns
quote:Originally posted by b50m:
I still don't know why all atheists love to tear apart a book they don't believe in just so they can ridicule someone.
how could you not know why? if the bible was universally perceived at the book of fairy tales and quasi-history that it is, we would have no reason to discuss anything other than the prose it contains.
but you guys use this book to guide not only your life but the lives of others who do NOT agree with its teachings. you even use it as a SCIENCE BOOK fro crying out loud. may atheists believe - with very good evidence - that the bible is an evil, archaic, profoundly ignorant book to base our morality upon. anyone with a moral fiber is and should be outraged that people still use this book for moral guidance.
i do enjoy reading parts of it that shows me how far we have come and and how little has changed since those ancient times. but as long as you and cohorts use it to modify MY life and to do evil, someone has to call BS on it. it is a moral imperative.