Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Canaanites = "buy, sell (merchants & traffickers)"
They can also represent all humanity, or the people of the land of milk and honey. They represent many things, depending on context and the book they're used in. My reference is to the practice of human sacrifice; it's reviled by Jews, and also by Romans, oddly enough; Romans hated Druids, Carthaginians, and any other pagan peoples who practiced human sacrifice.
You are a busy body judgmental twit that obviously cannot look in the mirror to well. Do you even think before you write something? You made a claim about me and you do not know me or really much about me other than a few posts on this forum. You are a troll of the worst kind pretending to be something you are not.If you really are a teacher I feel somewhat sorry for your students because from all appearances in this forum ignorance abounds in you and with you.Canaanites = "buy, sell (merchants & traffickers)"
Bottom line: you engage in too much word-to-word Hebrew translation and therefore overlay meaning into Scripture that's not intended to be there. Reading too much into to and making meaning where none is intended. We are cautioned to meditate deeply on Scripture but not to overlay our own interpretation on it or to make meaning where there is none--to "add to" as it were. Make connections, look deeply, find meaning, but do not MAKE meaning.
The personal attacks have no effect on me. Are part of a "Holy Name" movement or what is this?
You are an anti according to your own words. If you have nothing to add concerning the original post about Jephthah of Gilead and what it means when this host sacrifices his daughter here in this thread you are merely being a busy body. If you desire to speak about vaccines take it over to that thread and dispute the studies posted if you can. If you want to talk about legalism and make claims of error I will call you what you are, 'a troll of the worst kind'.You are a busy body judgmental twit that obviously cannot look in the mirror to well. Do you even think before you write something? You made a claim about me and you do not know me or really much about me other than a few posts on this forum. You are a troll of the worst kind pretending to be something you are not.If you really are a teacher I feel somewhat sorry for your students because from all appearances in this forum ignorance abounds in you and with you.Canaanites = "buy, sell (merchants & traffickers)"
Bottom line: you engage in too much word-to-word Hebrew translation and therefore overlay meaning into Scripture that's not intended to be there. Reading too much into to and making meaning where none is intended. We are cautioned to meditate deeply on Scripture but not to overlay our own interpretation on it or to make meaning where there is none--to "add to" as it were. Make connections, look deeply, find meaning, but do not MAKE meaning.
The personal attacks have no effect on me. Are part of a "Holy Name" movement or what is this?
This is very true, I do not know much about you. I am seeking to know more. What I do know thus far is that you are very judgmental on vaccines, so judgmental that you think the Bible speaks on this based on one very, very nebulous treatment of a few words.
And you know I do have a problem with that. As I have said, that is legalism. That is taking an issue you feel strongly about--and you are absolutely allowed to feel strongly about issues--and making it Christian. And the problem with that is there are a lot of non-Christians reading who then believe this is Orthodoxy when it is not. And you bet I have a problem with that. You made it so personal in fact you attacked a woman whose relative had polio, after which I told you to "shut up" and then apologized. You have since told me that you wouldn't trust your dogs with me and taken swipes at my teaching over and over. This does not bother me, but it does reveal that your position is weak. Because rather than defend your position, you just continue to take personal swipes at me.
Since you have already at least strongly implied that you think vaccines/no vaccines is indeed a Christian position, I must conclude that your theology is deeply flawed. Since I am a Christian, I feel duty-bound to read what you say about Christianity here and then counter it. Not to give you grief personally, but to correct MORE flawed teaching. For instance, you say Jesus is a "Spirit of Prophecy". No, He is not. He is One of the Trinity: the Son. The Holy Spirit is a different part of the Trinity. Or what did you mean?
You are an anti according to your own words. If you have nothing to add concerning the original post about Jephthah of Gilead and what it means when this host sacrifices his daughter here in this thread you are merely being a busy body. If you desire to speak about vaccines take it over to that thread and dispute the studies posted if you can. If you want to talk about legalism and make claims of error I will call you what you are, 'a troll of the worst kind'.You are a busy body judgmental twit that obviously cannot look in the mirror to well. Do you even think before you write something? You made a claim about me and you do not know me or really much about me other than a few posts on this forum. You are a troll of the worst kind pretending to be something you are not.If you really are a teacher I feel somewhat sorry for your students because from all appearances in this forum ignorance abounds in you and with you.Bottom line: you engage in too much word-to-word Hebrew translation and therefore overlay meaning into Scripture that's not intended to be there. Reading too much into to and making meaning where none is intended. We are cautioned to meditate deeply on Scripture but not to overlay our own interpretation on it or to make meaning where there is none--to "add to" as it were. Make connections, look deeply, find meaning, but do not MAKE meaning.
The personal attacks have no effect on me. Are part of a "Holy Name" movement or what is this?
This is very true, I do not know much about you. I am seeking to know more. What I do know thus far is that you are very judgmental on vaccines, so judgmental that you think the Bible speaks on this based on one very, very nebulous treatment of a few words.
And you know I do have a problem with that. As I have said, that is legalism. That is taking an issue you feel strongly about--and you are absolutely allowed to feel strongly about issues--and making it Christian. And the problem with that is there are a lot of non-Christians reading who then believe this is Orthodoxy when it is not. And you bet I have a problem with that. You made it so personal in fact you attacked a woman whose relative had polio, after which I told you to "shut up" and then apologized. You have since told me that you wouldn't trust your dogs with me and taken swipes at my teaching over and over. This does not bother me, but it does reveal that your position is weak. Because rather than defend your position, you just continue to take personal swipes at me.
Since you have already at least strongly implied that you think vaccines/no vaccines is indeed a Christian position, I must conclude that your theology is deeply flawed. Since I am a Christian, I feel duty-bound to read what you say about Christianity here and then counter it. Not to give you grief personally, but to correct MORE flawed teaching. For instance, you say Jesus is a "Spirit of Prophecy". No, He is not. He is One of the Trinity: the Son. The Holy Spirit is a different part of the Trinity. Or what did you mean?
Rev 19:10
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
And what I said about 'my dogs' still stands.
Not that the anti's will take any of it to heart as it would destroy their argument BS. It still needs to be noted for the record what it means to sacrifice something wholly to God.
Jephthah of Gilead ("May God Open; God Has Opened" known as chief of the robbers, a champion and a judge in Israel who helps break the yoke of the Ammonites whose king is Baasha "offensive - wickedness" son of Ahijah "Brother of Yah" the Shiloni = "The Secularists") whose daughter = "bethel (worship local)" a host brought forth is sacrificed to the Lord, Judges 11:31; Jephthah's daughter is put away into permanent celibacy in this case a female host/portion completely and wholly consecrated to the Lord (no side shows, agendas or purpose). This is Adah Sheula = "A Beautiful Binding, or Binding Ornament (first daughter)", a female Aqedah = "binding", male version of this would be named Akita. This particular host is a first learning/experience/vow. Lamentation is made because from that first no more host can be built up in that portion of this lineage of host as Jephthah's vow is to sacrifice it to God alone. If we keep in mind Jephthah's role as a host that fights for the spirit of the Son and that he is born from harlotry it should start to make sense for those who have been given eyes to see and ears to hear.
The tragedy Jephthah is that of being a host born of harlotry from Gilead's Harlot (that harlot is a portion/host in the hosts Gideon's consciousness [an err of idolatry/harlotry/vanity/wickedness], this host brought forth also made the err of giving credence/glory/place of any kind to the Moabite God Chemosh which is mentioned in the text) along with his wife, Peninnah "coral or a pearl (A face- meaning a piece a portion of the consciousness, a gem, a bit of wisdom)" and Hannah "hope", sons (Judges II; I Samuel I; I Kings 3) the legitimate wife bore him and when his wife's sons grow up they drive Jephthah away saying to him, “you shall not inherit anything in our father's house for you are the son of another woman” (female host capable of bringing forth new hosts). Jephthah takes up his dwelling in Tob, east of Gilead = "rocky regions"; "Outlaws collect around Jephthah to go out raiding with him." Jephthah is compelled to battle the Ephraimites, who refuse to aid him in the struggle against the Ammonites. The fugitive Ephraimites who are identified by their accent since they said the Hebrew word shibboleth as sibboleth (A shibboleth is any custom or tradition, usually a choice of phrasing, platitude, slogan, truism or even a single word, that distinguishes one group of people from another, a common or longstanding belief, custom, or catchphrase associated with a particular group, especially one with little current meaning or truth. Shibboleth
(šibbolet, “ear of wheat”), with reference to Judges 12:5-6: At that time 42,000 of the Ephraimite hosts fell, as Gilead cuts Ephraim off from the fords of the Jordan.
Ah, a few points.
First. Absolutely- Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. The text is very clear on that, he did not consecrate her to an order of nuns. He offered her up as a burnt sacrifice.
second, in the context of the Book of Judges, it kind of makes sense. This was the time between Joshua and David, where the people were lawless and God punished them by putting them under the yoke of their enemies. So the notion that a leader could ignore the law and sacrifice his daughter fits into the concept of a lawless time before they had a King.
Bible thumpers like to ignore this story because it paints Yahweh in a bad light, as it should. But in the whole testament, Yahweh is kind of a bastard, why does this stick out. Jephthah's daughter was kind of fine with being sacrificed, as opposed to all the people Hebrew and non-Hebrew alike, Yahweh slaughtered for generally petty reasons.
Canaanites = "buy, sell (merchants & traffickers)"
They can also represent all humanity, or the people of the land of milk and honey. They represent many things, depending on context and the book they're used in. My reference is to the practice of human sacrifice; it's reviled by Jews, and also by Romans, oddly enough; Romans hated Druids, Carthaginians, and any other pagan peoples who practiced human sacrifice.
The Bible should be read as the Bible presents itself. The Bible is not a word-study book. It is helpful to know the history of the Canaanites but the Canaanites do not present in the Bible as a topic for word-study. Everything in the Bible should be taken as it presents itself as much as possible, without us overlaying our own agenda on it.
Ah, a few points.
First. Absolutely- Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. The text is very clear on that, he did not consecrate her to an order of nuns. He offered her up as a burnt sacrifice.
second, in the context of the Book of Judges, it kind of makes sense. This was the time between Joshua and David, where the people were lawless and God punished them by putting them under the yoke of their enemies. So the notion that a leader could ignore the law and sacrifice his daughter fits into the concept of a lawless time before they had a King.
Bible thumpers like to ignore this story because it paints Yahweh in a bad light, as it should. But in the whole testament, Yahweh is kind of a bastard, why does this stick out. Jephthah's daughter was kind of fine with being sacrificed, as opposed to all the people Hebrew and non-Hebrew alike, Yahweh slaughtered for generally petty reasons.
I am a "Bible thumper" and I don't ignore any story in the Bible. Many people mistakenly believe that just because a story is recorded in the Bible it means God endorses it, or God condones it. That's foolish, even stupid. It doesn't. God didn't ask Jephthah to make that vow---that was all his idea. Anyone who has been following God for any length of time knows it's a bad idea to give God ideas and so knows the general gist of this story at any rate.
Actually the bible doesn't state that she was actually killed or not, which is why there is the question in the first place. The reason it is never explicitly stated that he killed her is because it is irrelevant to the points being made.
Canaanites = "buy, sell (merchants & traffickers)"
They can also represent all humanity, or the people of the land of milk and honey. They represent many things, depending on context and the book they're used in. My reference is to the practice of human sacrifice; it's reviled by Jews, and also by Romans, oddly enough; Romans hated Druids, Carthaginians, and any other pagan peoples who practiced human sacrifice.
The Bible should be read as the Bible presents itself. The Bible is not a word-study book. It is helpful to know the history of the Canaanites but the Canaanites do not present in the Bible as a topic for word-study. Everything in the Bible should be taken as it presents itself as much as possible, without us overlaying our own agenda on it.
Well, actually it is very much a book full of dualisms, symbolism, allegories, parables, and numerology; the real fundamentalists know this; it's written on many levels, and even the fundamentalist schools are now studying and find ever more complex chiasms and chiastic structure that pervades the entire book.
Those that can't grasp or feel uncomfortable with the higher level exegeses or are just intellectually lazy can always rely on the Sermon on the Mount to guide them and be fine. It was not written by idiots or crazies, it's all of a piece and sophisticated literature. A lot of people would stand to gain from learning about the society and culture of the times, as that would clear up a lot of confusion and misunderstandings as to word meanings as well.
Actually the bible doesn't state that she was actually killed or not, which is why there is the question in the first place. The reason it is never explicitly stated that he killed her is because it is irrelevant to the points being made.
I think it's kind of relevant.. God accepted a human sacrifice, and the people involved felt honor bound to carry out that sacrifice because they feared God's wrath.
Actually the bible doesn't state that she was actually killed or not, which is why there is the question in the first place. The reason it is never explicitly stated that he killed her is because it is irrelevant to the points being made.
I think it's kind of relevant.. God accepted a human sacrifice, and the people involved felt honor bound to carry out that sacrifice because they feared God's wrath.
Learning about the societies and cultures of the times is part of the history that's presented, of course. So is making connections between books and testaments. But you can go way, way too far with word studies and every part of exegeses and overlay meaning that is simply too far. You generally know you have gone too far when you stop seeing the material presented as simple history and begin seeing is as "allegory" or "metaphor" when it is not presented as such.
Actually he served his own purposes, and human sacrifices was outlawed; he was either not a Jew or it was just convenient for God to indulge him for several reasons, since the man's personal vow was useless and worth nothing.
Learning about the societies and cultures of the times is part of the history that's presented, of course. So is making connections between books and testaments. But you can go way, way too far with word studies and every part of exegeses and overlay meaning that is simply too far. You generally know you have gone too far when you stop seeing the material presented as simple history and begin seeing is as "allegory" or "metaphor" when it is not presented as such.
Or we can just conclude a guy murdered his daughter to please a savage sky fairy, and when later generations rewrote the story, they tried to polish it up to make it all look better.
These were fucking savages... Yet you idiots want to take their writings and say, "Yup, these are words to live by, if we cut out all the nasty parts, leave in all the cute parts, and maybe throw in a few things that aren't there for good measure."
which is why you Christians have been slaughtering each other for hundreds of years about whether or not Jesus was made out of bread or not.
Actually he served his own purposes, and human sacrifices was outlawed; he was either not a Jew or it was just convenient for God to indulge him for several reasons, since the man's personal vow was useless and worth nothing.
Except he prayed to God to win the battle, and he won the battle.
I prayed to God for my mom's cancer to get better, and she died anyway. I guess I should have offered to sacrifice someone.
Canaanites = "buy, sell (merchants & traffickers)"
They can also represent all humanity, or the people of the land of milk and honey. They represent many things, depending on context and the book they're used in. My reference is to the practice of human sacrifice; it's reviled by Jews, and also by Romans, oddly enough; Romans hated Druids, Carthaginians, and any other pagan peoples who practiced human sacrifice.
The Bible should be read as the Bible presents itself. The Bible is not a word-study book. It is helpful to know the history of the Canaanites but the Canaanites do not present in the Bible as a topic for word-study. Everything in the Bible should be taken as it presents itself as much as possible, without us overlaying our own agenda on it.
Well, actually it is very much a book full of dualisms, symbolism, allegories, parables, and numerology; the real fundamentalists know this; it's written on many levels, and even the fundamentalist schools are now studying and find ever more complex chiasms and chiastic structure that pervades the entire book.
Those that can't grasp or feel uncomfortable with the higher level exegeses or are just intellectually lazy can always rely on the Sermon on the Mount to guide them and be fine. It was not written by idiots or crazies, it's all of a piece and sophisticated literature. A lot of people would stand to gain from learning about the society and culture of the times, as that would clear up a lot of confusion and misunderstandings as to word meanings as well.
Learning about the societies and cultures of the times is part of the history that's presented, of course. So is making connections between books and testaments. But you can go way, way too far with word studies and every part of exegeses and overlay meaning that is simply too far. You generally know you have gone too far when you stop seeing the material presented as simple history and begin seeing is as "allegory" or "metaphor" when it is not presented as such.
Learning about the societies and cultures of the times is part of the history that's presented, of course. So is making connections between books and testaments. But you can go way, way too far with word studies and every part of exegeses and overlay meaning that is simply too far. You generally know you have gone too far when you stop seeing the material presented as simple history and begin seeing is as "allegory" or "metaphor" when it is not presented as such.
Or we can just conclude a guy murdered his daughter to please a savage sky fairy, and when later generations rewrote the story, they tried to polish it up to make it all look better.
These were fucking savages... Yet you idiots want to take their writings and say, "Yup, these are words to live by, if we cut out all the nasty parts, leave in all the cute parts, and maybe throw in a few things that aren't there for good measure."
which is why you Christians have been slaughtering each other for hundreds of years about whether or not Jesus was made out of bread or not.
Actually he served his own purposes, and human sacrifices was outlawed; he was either not a Jew or it was just convenient for God to indulge him for several reasons, since the man's personal vow was useless and worth nothing.
Except he prayed to God to win the battle, and he won the battle.
I prayed to God for my mom's cancer to get better, and she died anyway. I guess I should have offered to sacrifice someone.
Canaanites = "buy, sell (merchants & traffickers)"
They can also represent all humanity, or the people of the land of milk and honey. They represent many things, depending on context and the book they're used in. My reference is to the practice of human sacrifice; it's reviled by Jews, and also by Romans, oddly enough; Romans hated Druids, Carthaginians, and any other pagan peoples who practiced human sacrifice.
The Bible should be read as the Bible presents itself. The Bible is not a word-study book. It is helpful to know the history of the Canaanites but the Canaanites do not present in the Bible as a topic for word-study. Everything in the Bible should be taken as it presents itself as much as possible, without us overlaying our own agenda on it.
Well, actually it is very much a book full of dualisms, symbolism, allegories, parables, and numerology; the real fundamentalists know this; it's written on many levels, and even the fundamentalist schools are now studying and find ever more complex chiasms and chiastic structure that pervades the entire book.
Those that can't grasp or feel uncomfortable with the higher level exegeses or are just intellectually lazy can always rely on the Sermon on the Mount to guide them and be fine. It was not written by idiots or crazies, it's all of a piece and sophisticated literature. A lot of people would stand to gain from learning about the society and culture of the times, as that would clear up a lot of confusion and misunderstandings as to word meanings as well.
Learning about the societies and cultures of the times is part of the history that's presented, of course. So is making connections between books and testaments. But you can go way, way too far with word studies and every part of exegeses and overlay meaning that is simply too far. You generally know you have gone too far when you stop seeing the material presented as simple history and begin seeing is as "allegory" or "metaphor" when it is not presented as such.
Well again, much of it is indeed presented as what it is, multiple meanings, links to other parts of the bible, and dualisms, especially in the apocalyptic texts; it is written from four different perspectives, all with different agendas they want to convey. If you're uncomfortable with that, that's fine; those of us who do study it aren't upset by it's complexities.
Those interested in deeper learning should find some basic texts on how to read the bible; it is indeed a skill. An intro text like Randstra's Reading the Old Testament: An introduction to the Hebrew Bible will make it less confusing and uncomfortable with the dualisms and allegorical references.
Though the literary material of the Hebrew Bible is ancient compared to the Western literary tradition, this does not mean it is primitive or artless. The Hebrew tradition utilized a rich repertoire of literary techniques. The stylistic techniques and literary strategies we will notice in the text include hyperbole, metaphore, symbolism, allegory, personification, irony, wordplay, and parallelism.
.... The major genres found in in the Hebrew Bible include narrative, prophecy, law, hymn, proverb, chronicle, and genealogy.
So, the term 'literalist' is not what many think it means re the bible; the real genuine literalists and 'fundies' recognize the complexities and try to learn about this stuff.. What the media and Hollywood considers as 'the Fundies' is just their own pseudo-intellectual ignorance showing.
So, the term 'literalist' is not what many think it means re the bible; the real genuine literalists and 'fundies' recognize the complexities and try to learn about this stuff.. What the media and Hollywood considers as 'the Fundies' is just their own pseudo-intellectual ignorance showing.
