diridiri:

When Abraham wanted to sacrifice Isaac, was it not God that stopped him?
So why did God not stop Jephthah? Obviously he wanted human sacrifice.
The Bible says that God delights in the smell of burnt offering. Maybe the smell of goats and cows wasn't enough anymore.

Where in the Bible did it say Abraham wanted to kill Isaac?
Do you people read this your Bible at all?

NNTR:

Let me ask you 3 questions:

Is burnt offering not a way to give (literally offer) something to Yahweh?

So why contrast this two phrases as different vows?

shall surely be Yahweh's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

is the it in that phrase not referencing whatsoever in the earlier clause?

sonofthunder:
probably before the
Israelites left Egypt].

probably before the
Israelites left Egypt].

probably before the
Israelites left Egypt].

Why will the grandsons of a former prime minister be rading cattles in Gath?

Besides the very next chapter has a daughter of Ephraim bulding towns in Canaan. Clearly this is a story of a settled people in Canaan not people moving between Egypt and Canaan.

Wait guys... I think we are forgetting something here...

Ephraim, in the Genesis narrative is the son of Joseph. So how can the grandsons of an Egypt prime minister be stealing cattle up in Gath?

Most of the responses here have assumed Ephraim was born in Canaan! Ephraim was born in Egypt, the son of the prime minster and his mother, the daughter of a priest, was personally handpicked by Pharoah for Joseph.

We are talking about a child of high priviledge born in the most aristocratic family of the richest country in the world!

Y'all can't be serious

Scholar8200:
20 And the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son, 21 and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath that were born in that land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle. 22 And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brethren came to comfort him. 23 And when he went in to his wife, she conceived, and bare a son, and he called his name Beriah, because it went evil with his house. 24 (And his daughter was Sherah, who built Beth-horon the nether, and the upper, and Uzzen-sherah.)
1 Chronicles 7:20-24

Now this is where you referenced.

Consider the fact that:

1. Joseph was thirty when he got married Genesis 41:46,45
2. He had his sons about that time Genesis 41:50
3. Joseph died age 110 years Genesis 50:26 (meaning when Joseph was 90, his sons Ephraim and Manasseh were about 60)
4. Egyptian bondage started after Joseph's death not during his lifetime.
5. Gath is a city in the land of the philistines. Note that it was Ephraim's deceased sons , not Ephraim that went there; meaning Ephraim remained in Egypt while his sons who went to Gath perhaps to feed cattle were killed.

QED

Why in God's name will Ephraim's sons remain in Canaan while the rest of their family be in Egypt to avoid a famine

NNTR:
So you do see the point that Jephthah clearly is familiar with and equally aware of Deuteronomy 12:31, Deuteronomy 18:10, Leviticus 18:21 and 2 Kings 21:6 then

There's no conflict of interest whatsoever between Deuteronomy 12:31, Deuteronomy 18:10, Leviticus 18:21, and 2 Kings 21:6 and Jephthah's action.

Both the first and second promises that Jephthah made in his veiled forked coded vows did not, in anyway, come into conflict with Deuteronomy 12:31, Deuteronomy 18:10, Leviticus 18:21, and 2 Kings 21:6 because Jephthah's intended action had nothing to do with a dead sacrifice of a fellow human being

You dont want to know the truth. What you really want to know and what you're getting at, is digging your heels in to the ground believing lies, that Jephthah sacrificed another person, his daughter as a burning sacrifice to God

When reading all the verses, you didnt pay meticulous attention to every detail of the verses. If you did, you wouldnt have brought up the topic.

The only one word reason, you brought this up is not because Jephthah's actions were not in line with other teachers, it is because of ignorance (i.e. meaning, your lack of knowledge of the significant facts in the bible passage)

Now watch this tctrills. What Jephthah did in Judges 11:31 was to combine two vows, which to an untrained or unsuspecting eyes, like yours, appears on the surface, to look as if its just one straight vow.

Judges 11:31, as a matter of fact and truth, is a coded message verse, wrapping up and holding within it, two vows.

Judges 11:31
Then it shall be, that whatsoever comes forth of the doors of my house to meet me,
when I return in peace from the children of Ammon,
shall surely be the LORD'S,
and I will offer 'IT' up for a burnt offering.

Vow number 1:
"whatsoever comes forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S"

Vow Number 2:
"and I will offer 'IT' up for a burnt offering."

Listen to this tctrills, Judges 11:31, in relation to the two vows, is explained like this:

Referring to Vow number 1:
Whatsoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me shall surely be the LORD'S (i.e. meaning, whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet Jephthah, will be given over to God, as a living sacrifice that's devoted to service)

Referring to Vow number 2:
Better still, if it happens to be an 'IT' (i.e. meaning, if it happens to be an animal AND NOT a human being, then Jephthah, will offer 'IT', the animal up for a burnt offering sacrifice.)

Vow number 2, served as, an extra or added bonus vow. Do you, now get it? Hmm?

Judges 11:34-37
³⁴When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter came out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy.
She was his one and only child; he had no other sons or daughters.
³⁵When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish.
“Oh, my daughter!” he cried out. “You have completely destroyed me! You’ve brought disaster on me!
For I have made a vow to the Lord, and I cannot take it back.”
³⁶And she said, “Father, if you have made a vow to the Lord,
you must do to me what you have vowed, for the Lord has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites.
³⁷But first let me do this one thing: Let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin

Smh at you. I am saying that Judges 11 is part of the bible, while your confusion about Jephthah and his daughter is not in the bible

tctrills, you can see from Judges 11:34-37 above, that when Jephthah's daughter came out to meet him, father and daughter instantly knew the fate of the daughter is now a lifetime of celibacy, meaning that, Jephthah's daughter now never will marry and she'll be sexually abstinent in addition to her dedication to God (i.e. as per the detail in vow number 1)

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

How do I even begin to unpack this mess!

This is not a coded vow. Jephthah is not playing as a Russian spy. The vow is pretty straight forward: Whatever comes out of his house to meeting him, he will offer it up to Yahweh as a burnt offering.

Who do you think owns an animal that has been dedicated to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? It's Yahweh of course.

The use of the and conjunction (vaw in Hebrew) in the vow was to expand on the first part of the sentence i.e. in what form is he to dedicate this thing. So the second half of the phrase is simply the form: "as a burnt offering". This is an example of a subordinating conjunction where a conjunction can signal a cause-and-effect relationship, a contrast, or some other kind of relationship between the clauses.

Finally, pronouns in Hebrew does not have seperate words for human and non-human animal/thing just gender. Therefore, it's one word for him/it and her/it. Translators have to figure out the correct word based on the context. In this passage, it is clear that Jephthah did not rule-out humans. What this means is that his vow included both humans and animals and no specified gender which is why the words whatsoever and it are apprioprate to use here.

NNTR:
If thats a source of wisdom and consolation for you, then so be it

Whatever the depth, this hole you've digging yourself and climbing down in to, just know that there's a way out of it, and the way to safely climb out of the hole, is by conceding that this one verse did give evidence of human sacrifice, albeit none of your fantasy burnt offering for that matter, but it was a perpetual living sacrifice performed by Jephthah's daughter, until death (i.e. the rest of her life

Do you notice how you evaded answering the question, asking if you, believe that Jephthah wasnt familiar with and wasnt aware of Deuteronomy 12:31, Deuteronomy 18:10, Leviticus 18:21 and 2 Kings 21:6? Hmm?

I am leaving for you, to toy and play with in your mind, that important it word, that I underlined in Judges 11:31 above, loll.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Jephthah is unlikely to know about this passages has they were likely authored generations after the time the story of Jephthah is supposed to take place.

All I can just say is biblical authorship is a bit more complicated than you might have been taught an you will need to read-up on it.

In any case most Isrealites would have been illiterate and not have had the opportunity for the law to be read to them and Jephthah seems to have grown-up as an o;utcast in the community.

How many times are all their livestock stock going die in this version?

Janosky:


It's either u did not read those verses or U lack comprehension skills .
Jesus himself stated the valid ground for divorce in matt19:3-9. Why U no see am there?

Oga you don't need to insult me.

What I'm saying is that Matt. 5:32 already has a clause for divorce so Matt. 19 3-9 is not adding anything new so does not "clarify" the first verse.
That is why I said they are virtually the same.

[quote author=Deicide post=57915950][/quote]
Yeah thanks for that image

Janosky:


Matt19:3-9 clarified the verse u posted above.
divorce is allowed ,says Jesus Christ

Is that verse not saying virtually the same thing?

At least Jehovah Witness do not believe in the ridiculous doctrine of the Trinity.

Personal insults aside, don't you Christians think it is a little bit hypocritical to always accuse Bible critics of taking verses or "passages out of context," when that is literally the MO in Christian circles. (This criticism also applies to Muslims by the way.

Jetjacky:
how are you certain that those who claim there is space, actually do go to space. Do your research, Google proofs of flat earth, Google proofs of spherical Earth, Google Nasa lies, and Google more.

Who let this one out of the madhouse?

In this passage, God was worried that mankind working together can achieve whatever they set their minds to and can even upset the cosmic order. Hence, why He confounded their languages and forced them to spread.

In those days heaven (the dwelling place of the gods) was thought to be a semi physical place above and can actually be reached by man. Hence why the sons of God could 'come down' and take daughters of men as wifes.

INTROVERT:


You cannot used earthly words to describe heavenly events...

This is an unbelievably stupid comment when you think about it.

The Bible makes it clear that Yahweh is not the only god. Yahweh, in fact was not always the most powerful.

This is getting ridiculous now.

I mean you guys cannot agree on one issue using the same Bible. Shouldn't that tell you something about the Bible? Perhaps as someone as already pointed out, you guys need another Ecumenical Council.

The first thing one must accept is that the Bible is not as harmonious as we have been taught. The Bible is a collection of different texts by different authors --sometimes schools of authors-- with sometimes polar intentions and motivations. A good example is the author of Ruth as compared to the xenophobe that is Ezra. In fact, the author of Ruth seem not to be aware of the commandment to ban Moabites from the assembly of the Israelite (Deut. 23:3). The same commandment that Ezra then used as an excuse to ban foreigners, even the ones that have married a Jew.

Now to the topic at hand.

I believe that Matthew represents the historical Jesus best. As far as Matthew was concerned, Jesus was the perfect Jew because he came to fulfill, i.e obey to the fullest, the requirements of the Law not just in the face-value interpretation that was common among the religious elites of the day but in a deeper heart based level of obedience.

According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus did not come to abrogate the Law, but to obey perfectly and teach others to do likewise. Which brings us to the interpretation of Matt. 5:17-18

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

From the get go, Jesus clearly says he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. That pretty much answers our question. But looking further, did Jesus establish another covenant in this passage? No. Did Jesus directly establish another covenant in any other passage? No.
Did Jesus promise another covenant will come that will do away with the Law, perhaps after he has been crucified? I do not know of any such passage.

So what then is the cause of all this confusion? The answer is due to the influence of Paul the Apostle, and Luke his protege and many others. It is this people that directed the course of Christianity, which was just a sect in Judaism at that time, into what we have today. I will get back to this latter.

Here, I would like to quote Thom Stark:

When Jesus said that he came to “fulfill” the law, he meant that he came to be perfectly obedient to it, and not just in spirit (as Christians are wont to argue), but, expressly, to the very letter, to the least “jot and tittle.” Moreover, his disciples are to do the same, and teach others to do the same. This will be the case “until everything is accomplished.” What does this mean? Ever since Jesus did not come back after the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, Christians have argued that “until everything is accomplished” refers to the death of and resurrection of Jesus. It is at that point, Christians claim, that the law passes into obsolescence. But that is not what this phrase means. “Until everything is accomplished” refers to the coming of the Son of Man to vindicate Israel after the temple’s destruction, and to usher in the new age of everlasting peace and justice[...]. This is clear enough already in verse 18: “until heaven and earth pass away.” The Law of Moses is to be obeyed to the letter, until the end of the world. That’s when “everything is accomplished.” [...]
Let’s not conflate John’s theology with Matthew’s. It is in the Gospel of John that Jesus says from the cross, “It is finished.” John’s Gospel was written very late, and was a move away from the apocalyptic-ism of the Synoptic gospels. In Matthew’s gospel, the crucifixion is not presented as the “fulfillment.” Matthew ends with a promise of Jesus to his disciples that they had a task to complete (the evangelization of the world), and that he would be with them “until the end of the age.” When would that be? Mat-thew 16:28 and 24:34 make it clear that the end of the age would come within the lifetime of his disciples.

More to follow soon...

openmine:


The truth is that one side does not want to listen/reason with the other individual or group out of pride or because of the fear of a better argument against what they already know....this applies to the law of moses,tithe,the divinity of God,the lifestyle or appearance of a believer!
And yes U are right,its one of the very reasons why there are many christian denominations in the world today....!
I wont lie to U there was actually some slight confusion made by paul during his ministerial times....
He gave different doctrines to different believers which is a cause of confusion right now for believers presently...
For instance,he will admonish the people of galatia,ephesians,colossians, not to observe the laws of moses calling such acts stupid and then go to the people of rome,asking them to uphold the law....same apostle but a slightly different doctrines to different churches....but i think he made an amazing admission which made me understand his reasons and intentions...

That is because it was not Paul that wrote all the Pauline epistles.

alchemist13:

How is the question a non sequitur?

Moreover, only an argument can be a non sequitur not a question. So please provide an answer and stop dodging.

felixomor:


thank u brother.
U got it. I saw it
There is no need answering a non sequitur..

How is the question a non sequitur?

johnydon22:
this is ludicrous excuse - if all humans thought like this we possibly might still be riding horses.

We wouldn't even realize the benefit of riding horses.

alchemist13:
Cause he's a self-servicer?

God, I hate NL word policing. Ruined the thrust (get it?) of my comment there.

Cause he's a self-servicer?

petra1:


Hebrews 7:9 (KJV Strong's)
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

Thank God for scriptures like this . They said would have maintained it's not tithe . It's war booty . They wanted to kill the evidence . Just as some people who wanted to kill Lazarus after Jesus raised him . .

John 12:10 (KJV Strong's)
10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;



Satan you can't put tithing to death . You can't put offerings to death .you can't put worship of God to death in the name of any strange doctrine

What's so ironic about posts like this is that they are the same people that will criticize critics and atheists for quoting the Bible out of context and then go on to quote the Bible out of context.

This topic has been so over flogged on NL that frankly, its like beating a dead horse.

Anyway, here is my take on the matter. Pastor don't like talking about other passages because it will expose them as the fraud they are.

For those who are saying that tithing is an eternal principle because it predated the law need to explain why circumcision is no longer a requirement to be part of God's family. Keep in mind that unlike tithing, circumcision was explicitly commanded by God before the Mosaic law.

felixomor:
If u cared to read the article, u even referenced,
u wouldnt even reference it.

Its funny when people are trying to diaprove a book and at thesame time have over 80 percent of their knowledge coming from what they want to disprove.
Its funny.

What is wrong with the article?

In 1 Chr. 7 : 20 - 24, Ephraim, his father, his brothers and his children live in Canaan completely u aware of the migration of the sons of Jacob to Egypt.

Obviously this cannot be reconciled with the more popular Joseph-in-Egypt story.

In 1 Chr. 7 : 20 - 24, Ephraim, his father, his brothers and his children live in Canaan completely unaware of the migration of the sons of Jacob to Egypt.

Obviously this cannot be reconciled with the more popular Joseph-in-Egypt story.

Apart from the fact that the Exodus story has been thoroughly discredited by archeology, there are droplets of evidence in the Bible itself that show that the were other stories of how the loose confederation of tribes that would later become the nation of Israel emerged.

At IsThatInTheBible blog, the author presents a compelling case: The Story of Ezer and Elead (and What It Means for the Exodus)