₦airaland Forum

stimulus:
@KAG,

Which is immaterial to the gist of my pointers. Even if I didn't highlight any word, how does that take away from the substance of the excerpts quoted from the website you recommended?

In that you've given it your own slant and moved the focus from what was proposed.

You preempted your games and offered a weblink that diffused your argument. My position still remains unwavered as to Isaiah 9:6 pointing to the Messiah who in that verse is called 'the Mighty God'.

I offered a weblink that provided the Jewsih interpretation of Isaiah 9:6, the site was intentionally chosen because it is a site that, despite holding a different view, still showed the Jewish interpretation of the verse. Furthermore, your position could remain stationary on the Messiah issue, but that of course has little to do with what can be seen as the full and right interpretation of the verse.

When you're done with your 'translation', could you offer us a contextual interpretation as to who Isaiah referred to as the Mighty God in Jewish understanding? Please go back and read the article on the weblink you offered.

For the third time, the Mighty God is YHVH, and the part of the text you've, in a manner of speaking, quote mined is the “The Mighty God is planning grace". In context, not only does that make sense, but it also aligns itself with the Jewish understanding of what the Messiah will be like.

The context once again: For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

Glad you noted that.

Well, it was either that or follow your detraction.

Which is not what my initial question was about. I offered the context of Zachariah 12:10 as pointing out that the 'The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced' in allusion to the Messiah.

I don't remember debating 'the book as a whole'; nor contrasting an equality between the Messiah and YHVH. The point of Zachariah 12:10 was that the One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced.

While you may have offered Zachariah 12:10 as an allsuion to the messaiah, the verse itself still doesn't support that premise. Also, you may not have been debating the book as a whole, but the chapter as a whole does serve as context for the verse and helps put it in perspective.

Who would that be other than the Messiah?

YHVH; hence metaphor.

Aiight, so in your 'context' the inhabitants of Judah would be 'pierced' and they also would pour out the Spirit?

No.

I'm not nonplussed by that, because it doesn't come as a surprise that you were seeking to lead the discussion to such theories. And for all that, the weblink you offered earlier simply affirms what you tried to disprove - that Isaiah 9:6 was in reference to the Messiah whom honest Jewish interpretations affirm was being called 'The Mighty God.'

I wan't trying to "lead the discussion to such theories"; I was simply trying provide as much information for you while supporting my allusion to the polytheistic roots of Judaism (allsuions you termed "allegations". That you're non-plussed about that aspect of Judaism isn't of much concern, but that you should re-introduce your earlier point on Isaiah 9 is.

Let's be clear once again, the Jewish interpretaion of Isaiah 9:6 is "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—" Some have applied a midrashic reading to it and have decided it's a messianic prophecy; however, that contention shouldn't change the common interpretation of the verse.

If you wanted to maintain an honest debate on the issue, I would oblige you. If, on the other hand, you take the liberty to be accusative with such terms as 'schizophrenic' just to drive a point, how does that help your reasoning?

It's hardly accusative to call a reference to a "Us" by a singular deity, schizophrenic. So, if you're done playing "injured party", you can actually respond to my question. Furthermore, I've tried to maintain an honest debate, even going as far as to support my "allegations". If anything, it's you that hasn't been able to keep it honest.

As alluding to the Trinity, Gen. 1:26 has been offered. Already in verse 2 we find the Spirit; and in vs. 16 & 17 it is said that 'God made' and 'God set them'.

Er, this verse 2:" And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."; vs 16&17 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth"?

First, verse two doesn't indicate that the Spirit of God is a separate entity from God. It is, in essence, talking about the same GOd from verse 1 who created the heavens and the Earth, then moved across the face of the waters, not a separate spirit from or of that God.

Secondly, what does the "God made"s in verses 16 and 17 have to do with the trinity?

Repeating your allegation hasn't really helped your argument there. Even without my offering any interpretation of Prov. 30:4, what has been your difficulty offering one yourself instead of making so much of what you don't like about mine?

This is getting ridiculous. What has been my difficulty in offering an interpretation? For the thrid time of asking, "I have no idea what the chapter is about "; however, being unable to offer an interpretation doesn't stop me from recognising a flawed one.

KDK:
@KAG,
So you actually believe that the bible contains inane passages. Well, as for me, I am believe it contains no such things.

Woah, blast from the past (isn't that just a most curious cliche?). Anyhoo, yeah I accpept the fact it does.

stranger12:
@ KAG,

in reference to the 10% usage of our brain. I am not actually of that school of thought.

But I strongly believe that our brains are not efficiently applied. The 10% figure is just an arbitrary fraction.

It's not just an arbitrary figure, it's untrue:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

and so on.

In years to come, the average man will be more knowlegeable than Albert Einstein. The application of our brain may however not be as efficient as Albert's.

That's a possibility.

stimulus:
@KAG,

Here are excerpts from the weblink you offered for the 'Jewish' translation:

Yes, I read it, and it seems you've employed your rather irritating habit of highlighting words to give a different impression from their contexts.

Please note that all Jewish references in your argument (Talmud and Midrash; Targum Jonathan; and 'The Midrash on Deuteronomy') categorically point out that the verse in Isaiah was referring to the Messiah. The peripheral argument by some that it referred to Hezekiah is dissolved in the answers following the section quoted above. Clearly, Isaiah 9:6 referred to the Messiah as God.

Yes, so? The argument isn't whether Isaiah 9 could be interpreted as a messianic prophecy, the argument is whether the writer of Isaiah was not only talking about the Christian concept of the trinity, but also alluding to an only Son of God. If you hadn't decided to instigate the games we play, you'd have noticed that I wasn't arguing against a midrash reading that offered a prophecy of a messiah.

So, once again, that portion of the verse should read, "The Mighty God is planning grace" and not the attempt to take it out of context by simply highlighting just "the mighty God".

Also, that the verse couldn't be an out and out refernce to Hezekiah and his seed is debatable, but that's not the point here.

Specifically, my question was pointing to the One who pours out the Spirit. And if we adopt your own interpretation, how does Zachariah 12:10 indicate that the one being referred to was "Jerusalem and the house of David"? So, without 'taking it out of context', could you give your own contextual interpretation in the 21st century?

While, the verse makes it clear that YHVH will pour out his spirit, the verses that both precede and follow verse 10 all allude to both Jerusalem and the house of David

So, in essence the book as a whole was speaking of the relationship between YHVH and the Jews. By the way, I still don't see how you concluded from that verse that Zechariah was talking about an equality between the Messiah and YHVH.

That being so, who else was being referred to in that verse?

Other than YHVH, the inhabitants of Judah, no one else.

Just because you say so does not establish your allegation.

I'm glad you asked, because due to a discussion I had with a rather nice poster on this forum, I stumbled not only on David Rohl's (a source she kindly provided) theory that the Jewish God was the same as Enki of Sumerian fame, but also on this rather suggestive tidbit:

"At Kuntillet 'Ajrud (in Hebrew Horvat Teman) in the Sinai Desert in the 1975 excavation, a pottery ostracon was inscribed "Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" ("I have blessed you by YHVH of Samaria and His Asherah". This inscription would appear to show northern Israelite influence but others have suggested that "Shomron" should be read “shomrenu”, "our Guardian". There may also be another reference to YHVH and His Asherah in an inscription on the building wall.

, An additional reference to YHVH and His Asherah, has been found at Khirbet el-Qom, near Hebron, where an inscription reads "Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh and by his Asherah; from his enemies he saved him!" (Berlinerblau)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah#Asherah_and_other_gods). Just a quick and easily referenced example that supports my "allegation".

What question, please?

You asked what the "Us" in Genesis meant, I replied that it was "either a throwback to the polytheistic roots of the story, a respectful term, or a schizophrenic"; you replied that it was none of the options I mentioned, I asked you "why isn't it any of the options I put forward?"

Gen. 1:26 is one of the earliest texts that clearly indicates the Trinity; for both in the entire OT and NT a consistency is maintained as to the Father being the Source of creation; the Word (the Son who is the Logos) bringing creation into existence; and the Holy Spirit the agency by which creation subsists.

I'm trying to find some kind of reference to that in the verse, but for the life of me, I can't. Could you perhaps show me where in even the entire chapter it alludes or mentions what you've written?

Even without highlighting any word, what is 'prophecy' doing in that verse? If you had a context, why haven't we seen it earlier instead of:
??

Like I said, I have no idea what the chapter is about (it's certainly very strange both structurallay and grammatically), but it is plain that you have to stretch, drop words, and pull others out of context to get a reference to not a only the messiah, but also to a God that is the same as his son.

stimulus:
@KAG,

For all of that, in reference to the 'Jewish translation', who is being referred to as the Mighty God in that verse other than the Messiah? Please read the article carefully in the weblink you recommended.

I already told you: YHVH. That's why it's "The Mighty God is planning grace".

Whether metaphorically, physically or any other way you choose, does it take away from my answer earlier?

Yes, because taking it out of context and trying to make it a reference to a physical event is something apologists that site Jesus as the messiah have done for ages.

The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced - and that is the Messiah, which Zachariah 12:10 indicated as God Himself.

Nope. No where in the verse does it mention or refer to a messiah.

You could choose whichever to suit your personal persuasion. Judaism was not founded on polytheism; nor any of the options you couldn't settle for.

If Judaism was forged from it's environs, then it most certainly had polytheistic roots. Now, you still haven't answered my question. Also, how does the verse point to the trinity as believed by most Christians?

The prophecy of Agur clearly indicated the answer to your question - the Son of God is deity Himself.

How so? Just highlighting and taking wrds out of their context only works if the context isn't available to be seen.

stranger12:
@ atheists

Do you sometimes wonder if Man would one day become as powerful as God?

So far, we use 10% of our brains but we've been able to create robots that have AI.

I speak to someone on a funny looking piece of block and someone hears me some 1000miles away.
My fellow has travelled as far as the moon.

Definitely one day we will become God.

Depends on your definition of "God". Also, we use practically all of our brain, not just 10%.

stranger12:
I don't understand you guys sometimes.

Statistically and scientifically the probability that life exist elsewhere is not 0.
The probablitity that something more superior to humans exist is not 0
Therefore common sense that is not so common suggests that the probability of the existence of a being very very powerful to the point of being supreme is not 0.

GET THAT?

NOT ZERO. (0)

I think most people get that; however, that's not evidence that leprechauns have hidden their pot of gold under a rainbow (that's because they hide it beneath waterfalls. Don't ask me how or why).

GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK SKULLS AND STOP THINKING EVERY OTHER PERSON IS STUPID!!!

**I WOULDNT BE THIS PISSED OFF IF YOU GUYS WERENT THINKING YOU WERE TOO SMART.**

Stop being so damn insecure and defensive. Nobody has said you're stupid and don't presume to know what we're/I'm thinking.

stimulus:
@KAG,

What exactly is the "Jewish" translation of Isaiah 9:6?

"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us.  And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”—

In token of abundant authority  And of peace without limit  Upon David’s Throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established  In justice and equity Now and evermore.  The zeal of the LORD of Hosts Shall bring this to pass."

Read Zachariah 12:10 again - carefully: "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

The One who pours out the Spirit is the same One who would be pierced.

Metaphorically, not physically.

Which is which? None of what you allege.

I'd go for polytheism my self. Why isn't it any of the options I put forward?

In what context did you read it?

This context:

"The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,

Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.

I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: "

stimulus:
@KAG,

In Isaiah 9:6, who was the prophet Isaiah referring to by the name "The mighty God"?

YHVH. see: http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/7_Messiah_Objections_Isaiah/ for a Jewish translation of the verse.

Who was the prophet referring to in Zachariah 12:10?

Jerusalem and the house of David.

What did Genesis 1:26 point to - "Let Us make man in Our image"?

Either a throwback to the polytheistic roots of the story, a respectful term, or a schizophrenic.

And what does Proverbs 30:4 point out?

I have no idea, especially after reading it in context.

big_bumper:
And us Christians would rather neither waste our limited time worshipping Richard Dawkins, nor agencies in biological entities that have certain level of awareness nor methodological nasturalism.

end of

People worship Richard Dawkins? Talk about irony.

batu:
@All-the-resident-Atheists-in-the-House: babaearly, KAG, nferyn etc

Shalom! I have read all your arguements, and request for data of the efficacy of faith in Christ or existence of God. Now, here is one of the valid data from the only valid source; afterall logic suggests that a phenomenom operates according to a set of evidence.

Begging the question. What makes the Bible the only valid source? Furthermore, what makes any of what you'll post from it, valid data?

Romans 1 vs 20-22:
(20): For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (i.eDivinity); so that they are without excuse;
(21): Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(22): Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (this is particularly poignant in this topic)

Now listen to the explanation of the verses:
God's Creation reveals two things about Him: His eternal power and Divinity. Creation reveals that God is powerful; hence man is obligated to Him and the fact that He is God.

Still begging the question. Also, by science and logic we can deduce that a "creator" is unnecesssary, therefore the world and all its inhabitants wouldn't reveal the power of any God, etc.

Importantly and very relevant here is the phrase that "they are Without excuse" in verse 20: this means that no man or woman including Richard Dawkins, philosopher, atheist, secular humanist, Epicurian or Stoic etc, will be able to stand before God and say that he/she turned away from God because God did not give any light or evidence of His existence. ALL men/women have had the revelation of God from creation.

I haven't.

This Cosmological evidence for the existence of God from cause and effect is one of the logical arguements for the existence of God. As everything that exists must have an adequate cause; an all powerful and intelligent God is the ONLY adequate cause to explain the universe. The scriptures identifies that "cause" as the creative power of the Almighty God.(Ref: Genesis 1:1, Romans 1:19,20, Psalms 94:9)

First, since everything that exists must have an adequate cause, and you've - without any reason or explanation - decided God was the adequate cause, but God possibly didn't need a cause, then God doesn't exist. Q.E.D.

On the other hand, I could point out that not everything in our Universe needs a cause.

Final word: It does not matter whether we, in our wisdom, believe in God or not; we are still going to be Judged by God. Additionally, it does not matter whether you believe in the scriptures or the Bible verses I quoted/referenced or not; we are all going to be judged by the very words of God in the Bible.
It is just like standing in path of a 40ft-high tidal wave and saying you do not believe in the wave or it's power; you are still going to be swept away whether you believe or not. Sounds like 'blind dogma' and rethorics to you(?),,,,,,,,,,well it might sound like that, but it's not! Peace.

Okay, but just so you know, it's noting like standing in the path of a 40ft-high tidal wave (well, unless the tidal is invisible and cannot be detected in any tangible way). And, it is "blind dogma" and rhetoric.

stimulus:
@sage,

I'm sorry to observe that you don't even have a good grasp of theology and Biblical history. Long before Constantine was born, the inspired apostles of the NT and the prophets of the OT have all indicated that the Son of God is God; and the Trinity is a central Biblical teaching in the Christian faith.

Which prophets in the OT indicated the son of God is God? Furthermore, which, if any, of them mentioned or alluded to a trinity?

naijacutee:
@ KAG (I suspect you are male?)

I am.

It seems you don't understand what I've been typing since. I'm not interested in getting into a long-winding arguments. Please don't go too deep into my analogies, they are just pictures I draw to try to make you understand (howbeit unsuccessfully) where I'm coming from.

I understood what you were trying to say and I offered a rebuttal to it, and that's especially why I wrote: "you missed the subtle difference between using euphemisms and outright impossibility".

So, for example, inspite - and perhaps because of - the language used in the Eden saga, one can conclude based on reading the story as a whole, that it is mythology.


[quoteI never said Nostrademus was "predicting". I only said he had some writings.

[/quote]Sorry I misunderstood; I got a different impression.

[quote]All I'm saying in a nutshell is that there are similarities in events in the book of Genesis and other accounts which would cause any non-biased person to think the accounts are different views of the same event.

Not necessarily. It can be deduced that rather than being different views of the same event, they are instead different accounts influenced by earlier mythology. An analogy would be Grimm's fairy tales. Rather than being different views of events that happened a long time ago, they could just as well be retellings of old fables.

Backslider:
@Kag

Jephtah Violated the Natural law of God. God does not accept Human Sacrifice no where were the CHILDREN OF A NATION OF IRSREAL supposed to sacrifice a citizen.

But it seems the Bible God did accept his sacrifice, because he went on strongly and with God on his side (so to speak). I can't think of any incident in the Old Testament where the Bible God's displeasure isn't made known when he's displeased.

He violated the Moral law of the state of Isreal, God had no hand it. It was wrong and no one should ever do it.

The Bible doesn't say he did. In fact, the rest of Isreal didn't say he did, the maidens oly mourned and remembered the death of the daughter, but they didn't seem to disapprove of the way she died.

Abraham was tested on this and the lord did not allow him do it. So Jephtah was Foolish and over Zealous.

No where did God require normal human Sacrifice.

Selah

I'm glad you mentioned Abraham, because the Bible God DID ask him to sacrifice his son. That he stopped him at the last second brings up a lot of issues, but the one I'd like to focus on is the part where Bible God stops one and allows the other to go on. Why didn't the Bible God somehow intervene in Jephtah's case?

Backslider:
@KAG

So you're trying to say Jephtah didn't know "thou shalt not kill"

If He knew or did not Know. Let us Examine his heart.

If he knew he was to keep his oath are you saying that he did not know that he was not to kill any one for God?

He knows how to write and yet he does not know how to read ABC.

That's still not clear. While I could point out the many parts of the Bible where the Bible God commands "his people" to kill, thereby contradicting what you've written, I'd like to know whether you think Jephtah didn't know the "thou shalt not kill" edict.

naijacutee:
Ok, that's your opinion. Mine is that it's a story that has been told in a certain way that depicts something important in history. Different tribes had different uses for words, and to understand the Old Testament fully, one would have to understand a range of different cultures, languages and civilisations. I don't know if I'm getting my point across but I'll give a bad example.

It's more than just my opinion, it's more of an informed assertion. While it is possible for the story to be a depiction of something important in history (mythologies do that sometimes) it still wouldn't detract from the fact that it has the characteristics of mythology. Also, while one needs to have a good knowledge of many of the cultures mentioned in the Tanakh to fully appreciate it, that shouldn't stop the ability to identify the myths and allegories.

The french prophet/astrologer Nostradamus had a number of writings but they do not translate exactly to the world as we see it today. For example, he referred to bicycle as "metal horse". In the same way, people of ancient times used language differently from how we do today. Genesis is probably symbolic of many different things we do not know.

Er, Nostradamus wasn't predicting, he was making things up and coating them in vague and colourful language. It has nothing to do with the translation of language - remember, we haven't had translation problems with any of his contemporaries, at least as far as I know.

Agreed. However, it is also believed that the father of the Sumers was one of the Biblical Noah's son - Shem, who travelled to a "distant land" (and puportedly founded the tribe). Therefore some of the Sumerian accounts seem to be either influenced in the same way by the accounts of the Genesis author. Like I said, their culture and language would cause them to paint the stories differently.

I haven't heard of Shem being the father of the Sumers. Do any reputable historians support that view? In any case, it isn't difficult to deduce how the Sumerian culture could have influenced that of the OT people.

Sure. I watched the documentary a few years ago on Discovery though but I'm sure I can find a commentary somewhere. . .

[color=#990000]Rohl said, "You have to picture him carrying Inanna's sacred standard, and her awe-inspiring effect: 'For her, they humbly saluted with greetings like mice.' En route to the Edin, he had to pass through seven 'gates', as in 'seven steps to heaven'. And the order of the gates, one to seven, starting at Susa, indicates that Aratta (Eden) had the spiritual status of heaven." Traditionally, "gates" are associated with mountain passes, but here they're something special - spectacular river-cut mountain gorges that have their own geological name, tangs. -- Culled from Rohl's account, The secret garden : http://www.ramsdale.org/dna6.htm [/color]

Intersting, thanks for that.

I was just trying to portray the fact that different people (especially in ancient times) see things differently. An aeroplane could be a "fine mechanical design","weapon of pollution","flying roaring dragon", "another of Richard Branson's Virgin propaganda" or a" great metal bird". It just depends on who you are, what social influences you've been brought up around and your level of understanding. I think the same applies to these stories. We only read them from one culture's point of view,

I understood your point, but you missed the subtle difference between using euphemisms and outright impossibility. Saying a dragon felled the buildings then flying superheores (with tights, capes etc) flew into the building to save some people is not the same thing as saying, for example, "the weapon of pollution" (whatever that means) was flown into the buildings. In fact, if a full story is written out with the two scenarios the difference would become apparent (I could do a quick mock-up if you like). By the way, I doubt anyone would call a plane any of the last two phrases in an important report.

but the same themes lie in other cultures that are neither Jewish, Christian or Islamic.

Outside of the Middle East?

naijacutee:
Yet another christianity-basher?

To be honest, I don't think it's Christian bashing to point out that the story of Eden as presented in Genesis is mythology.

Yet, there are similarities between the Sumerian culture and not only Christianity but Judaism and Islam. Sumerian art and folklore for one depicts some biblical events. In fact, the archaelogist David Rohl had to refer to Sumerian literature and language in his quest for the Garden of Eden.

It is generally accepted that the stories that appear in Genesis were influenced by that of the Sumerians. Also, Christianity and Islam clearly originated from Judaism and took with them what is now called Genesis in the Bible.

For example, in the earlier writings, the "seven steps to heaven" turned out to be seven mountains towards a very significant place in history.

Could you possible reference that? I'm just curious about it.

Now let's fold that and put that away. The bombing of the twin towers in New York - Different account have been written about it worldwide. A woman whose husband died in the building would give a different account from the jobless poet who lives down the road and watched it all happen who would give a different account to the man who schooled the bombers and gave them a reason to do the "deed". Now, 3,000 years from now, a bunch of kids read these accounts and therefore conclude it was fake, as all 3 accounts present the same event differently. What would you say to them?

The analogy doesn't really apply to the Garden of Eden story. It isn't just different people giving different accounts of the same event, it's different people giving accounts that include dragons causing the towers to fall and superheroes flying in to save a few.

[QUOTE]Abortion Should Be Made Legal[/QUOTE]

I agree.

shahan:
@KAG,

It had everything to do with Jephtah as long as he was under the Law - a precedence well established in Exo. 20:7 unto Israel. God had clearly stated that the one who takes His Name in vain would not be guiltless.

The thing is Jephtah didn't take the name of the Bible God in vain, so I still don't see how it applies.

One was not obligated to make such pronouncements as Jephtah's; and whatever one did pronounce under oath was binding upon him --

"If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth" (Num. 30:2). It was irrevocable.

My reference to this precedence is in allusion to the Law of oaths in Lev. 5:4 -- "Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an aoth, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these."

Jephtah was not compelled to make such a pronouncement as he did; for the Law also stipulated what type of sacrifice an Israelite could offer - "Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats." - Lev. 22:18-19.

That Jephtah was rash to pronounce otherwise than recommended, does not make the Law less serious in its implimentation; and Num. 30:2 was well established long before Jephtah's mishap.

Sad as it was, Num. 30:2 could not be revoked solely on Jephtah's rash pronouncement. If it could, then would the whole Sinaitic Law be rendered ineffective.

That is part of the problem from my perspective. You say Jephtah was under no obligation to make the vow, but he did for reasons best know to him; however, I disagree that the law couldn't be changed for his case. Since - and I've been told this several times - the Bible God abhorred the practices of the Gods of other tribes, especiallly their thirst for human sacrifice, then it stands to reason that the Bible God should have been able to stipulate that the sacrifice of Jephtah's daughter would be unacceptable.

Furthermore, it could have been reovoked for Jephtah's daughter's sake, not necessarily for Jephtah. Revoking or amending a law that would lead to the unnecesary death of a young child wouldn't have led to the "whole Sinaitic law be[ing] rendered ineffective" (I don't how it would), instead it may have led to better reasoning.

We have political laws and constitutions today in many countries, such laws which would invite dire consequences where people violated them. Indeed, they are altogether different in structure from divine laws; yet, people have been judged severely by them according to the stipulations of such political laws.

However, in Jephtah's case, we are not looking at a political law; but rather one that was well-established and binding upon all who came under its operation. One was free to offer whatever was prescribed in the Law; anything outside of that prescription came under the treatment of Num. 30:2.

I'd have to agree with you on that; and precisely to what I've discussed above with the repeated mention of Num. 30:2 - "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."

Yes, we have laws and constitutions, and sometimes because of reasons - humane or otherwise - it is necessary to amend them to scenarios and individuals. I find it particularly disturbing that dogmatism as unwavering as what has been presented led to a human sacrifice. Also, that the child was killed and burnt presents, at least for me, a good reason to eschew dogmatism of that kind.

You may be strongly opinionated about this; but even before I became a Christian, such strong views did not help the deeper felt need and question of my own heart, nor has the vexed opinions of Richard Dawkins.

Okay.

For us who believe, we can better appreciate the vicarious sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the Cross - and the love and mercy therefrom can only misrepresented by people who have a difficulty grasping the subject of Holiness.

And for those of us that don't believe we can see that the tale is absurd, there's little mercy or love to be garnered from a story that involves an omnipotent deity temporarily dying to change an absurd belief he created.

Wrong. Not after having carefully and honestly read the precedence spelt out in Exo. 20:7; Lev. 5:4; 22:18-19; and Num. 30:2. One may be bitter and acrid in issues like this; but my question is: have such people actually, honestly examined their complaints in light of the precedence spelt out?

Wrong? So much for asking me what I thought. In any case, I said yes because if the Bible God is omniscient, etc, he would have known what Jephtah was going to pronounce and how it could potentially have ended. It certainly wouldn't have killed the Bible God to compel a goat or sheep to exit first - that shouldn't violate the thorny issue of freewill, since I hear other animals don't have freewill. So, based on the properties ascribed to Bible God and how Jephtah's tale ended, one must conclude that the Bible God expected and wanted it to end that way.

Backslider:
@Kag

IF JEPHTAH KNEW THOU SHALL NOT KILL HE WOULD HAVE PROMISED THIS.

SELAH

So you're trying to say Jephtah didn't know "thou shalt not kill"

The egg.

Backslider:
@kaG

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND GOD BY GOING TO HIM DIRECTLY READ THE BIBLE AT LEAST 2CE AND THEN YOU WILL BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE MIND OF GOD.

THE BIBLE HAS A COMPILATION OF EVENTS POINTING TO THE MIND OF GOD YOU MUST ALWAYS USE SCRIPTURE TO INTEPRETE SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE YOU DONT DO THIS YOU ARE EITHER A FANATIC OR A HERETIC IN THE MAKING.
[snipped]

Look, no offence, but all of that was just pointless rhetoric. In any case, I'm using the Christian book to explore the Christian ideas of their God.

shahan:
@KAG,

The first was an established precedence, with dire consequences when violated.

I still don't see what it has to do with Jephtah.

Jephtah was bound by his oath, which he was not obliged to have pronounced in the first place.

But he did pronounce it, and he did burn his daughter as an offering to his God.

And what reason might that be?

I don't know, but we can deduce that because the story has him seeing the oath to the end he must have felt he had to fulfill the sacrifice.

True. And that is why the bigger sacrifice is yet a very difficult one for many people to grasp - the Crucifixion of Jesus on the Cross, and the triumph of the resurrection.

Although that's another problematic aspect of Christianity(anyone heard the bit about a God sacrificing himself to himself?), exactly. That also brings us back to an earlier point: the Bible God is just as bloodthirsty and immoral as many of the Gods that we condemn today.

Without detracting from my question earlier, I believe God to be omniscient and omnipotent. So, the question again:

#3. Do you think that God would nonetheless have demanded of Jephtah that same thing if he never pronounced it with his own mouth?

Based on your response, yes.

shahan:
@KAG,

Please first read the following:

Exo. 20:7
'Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.'

Eccl. 5:2-7
'Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words. When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands? For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.'

Okay, I've read them. I don't see what the first has to do with Jephtah, though. The second does apply, however it still in no way excuses the fact that the story has God allowing and accepting the human sacrifice.

Bloodthirsty. . .shocked. . etc. I just have a few questions:

#1. Did God ever demand of Jephtah what he pronounced with his own mouth?

It would appear Jephtah had reason to believe he had to see his vow to the bloody end.

#2. Did Richard Dawkins discuss the holiness of God, if he ever cared to know in the first place?

No, and in my opinion, it's a little hard to discuss the holiness of being when faced with a story of human sacrifice to the being.

#3. Do you think that God would nonetheless have demanded of Jephtah that same thing if he never pronounced it with his own mouth?

Do you believe the Bible God is omniscient and omnipotent?

I had a chance to reread the story of Jephtah the other day because it was referenced in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and to be honest I was as shocked this time as I was when I read it as a child. I find it hard to understand how anyone can not only worship the Bible God, but also deign to call the Bible God a loving and good one. Furthermore, it's almost impossible for me to understand how that God is distinguishable from the other bloodthirsty Gods that have been condemned by Christians.

In any case, it made me wonder whether any theist here approves or condones the actions of Jephtah and the Bible God. If there are any, then I guess the question would be why.

Judges 11: 31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh 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.

38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

39 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

babaearly:
What If Christianity Was A Sham?

It isn't?

freelance:
Imagine You went for a medical check up today, and your doctor decided to confide in you, you have the whole of today and no more, by 12 midnight today, your breath will literally cease!

The question for you today is what would you wish you had done?

Inter-galatic travel

If today was your last, what would you wish you had done differently, how would you spend today?

Godspeed!!!!

Sobering questions. I'll try to think of some, then I'll try to do them, because today could be my last.

Po Deep:
U already know:beg profusely for forgiveness & do as many good deeds as i can.

Why not do them anyway?

Backslider:
YOU WILL BEG HIM IN HELL WHEN YOUR SOUL IS THROWN TO HELL BY YOUR OWN SIN AGAINST MAN AND GOD

What happens next? I mean, will he (Abraham) remain umoved? What about God? Won't she intervene at some point?

Bobbyaf:
My question about the big bang.

1. Did it create the universe?

It could have caused Space and time to come into being

2. Did the big bang occur after the universe existed?

Couldn't say.

3. How extensive was the big bang relative to the size of the universe? Did it occur in a smaller section of the universe?

The Big Bang would have caused the expansion of the Universe, so it was in a sense the entire Universe.

4. If the big bang was an explosion why is it that the universe is so orderly?

The Big Bang was an expansion. And, just so you know, explosions can eventually lead to order.

Why aren't bodies crashing over each other?

You mean like meteors crashing into Earth and colliding bodies in Space?

I am under the impression that explosions tend to lead to chaos, and not order. I mean if one wwere to blow up a building, or a junk yard would you expect to see something being formed automatically from the chaos?

Eventually. However, that's the not the same thing as the Big Bang.

5. Was the big bang the only one of its kind?

Hard to say.

[quote]If there was one why haven't we heard about another since? Do the same forces exist today in the universe that once supposedly caused the big bang?

Look into string theory.

Just one more question. How do you explain the origin of atoms and the extensive force which they possess. Did they just happen to be like that, or were they created?

E.G. Nucleogenesis http://www.cns.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/omeg03/presentation/Takibayev1.pdf
Nucleosynthesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

[/quote]

star01:
nw u hurt my feelings

Well, since I'm already heading for hell -

sharetroll:
Depravity is the state of moral corruption or degradation. By God's standards, this is exactly what atheism/liberalism represent. Having made that clarification, I make it a point never to accuse anyone personally of this since I do not know any of you on that level. I can only evaluate a person's conscience based on what is written and said. . . . .

We are a modern society in moral conflict with powerful forces trying to dictate how we will define ourselves for the future. . . .In the past, liberalism and atheism were merely terms used to define a certain radical fringe. However, today they represent a growing seed of moral cancer that has gained an increasingly more influential foothold in a government and legal system to the degree that they can no longer be ignored and are dangerously threatening our traditional values, redefining our Christian heritage and ripping apart our moral fabric. . . . .

Interestingly, atheists are usually highly moral and are less likely, statistically, to be imprisoned for a crime; however, if atheism is ripping apart your moral fabric, then maybe you weren't so moral to begin with.

We are at a critical crossroads in our history as a nation & every decision and election has greater significance then it has ever had. This is why God has called people like me and many others to speak on His behalf. If we are to continue to survive and prosper, humans w/ a moral and righteous conscience had better listen. . . . .

I'm sure.

smile4kenn:
The bible is so straigh forward and i wonder why titanic hero want to be the expected anti christ. My lord Jesus died and resurected on 3rd Day. even though his bones were fond thats another miracle of His.

FactorChic:
Some people actually claimed that the cross where Jesus was crucified if still there, there's a fence around it, and the mysterious part is that, they said the blood is still fresh, not dry, what do u have to say about that?

Oh dear!

dblock:
If particles can indeed get created for no reason for no apparent reason, then science must be so fascinating
I never knew this part of science before, countering religion with unexpained pieces of information

And just to level the playing field, God appeared out of no where for no reason, It happens that's how Ganeesh appeared, he appeared for no reason, created from nothing, just like you subatomic particles

Hmm, one is observed evidence, the other is, clearly, ad-hoc. I just can't decide which to go with. Maybe Ockham's razor can help?

Interesting thread; interesting responses.

star01:
hell fire awaits yall talkin about CHRIST DOSENT EXIST

I particularly like this response - the "this thread makes me sick" response is also a keeper.