Ask a Catholic

[Meriweather]

Yes, the stories about Giants and Talking Snakes ARE silly. But if you take out all the silly stuff, you really don't have a lot left. A bunch of rules that Christians selectively follow in order to validate their own bigotries...

It is a case of hearing the story without recognizing the theme/lessons. A good teacher shines light on these enduring themes and illuminates them for students down through the ages. Those with bad or inept teachers miss out. So do those who do not or will not listen--not when they are eight, eighteen, twenty-eight, thirty-eight....I'm sorry.

 

[JoeB131]

It is a case of hearing the story without recognizing the theme/lessons. A good teacher shines light on these enduring themes and illuminates them for students down through the ages. Those with bad or inept teachers miss out. So do those who do not or will not listen--not when they are eight, eighteen, twenty-eight, thirty-eight....I'm sorry.

Ah, the old, "you just aren't understanding it."

As Mark Twain said, "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that trouble me, it's the parts I understand perfectly well."

The Old Testament is a book written by Bronze Age savages who thought every calamity they didn't understand was God, and God constantly needed to be appeased. These people were all manner of messed up, and have nothing to teach us.

The Churches themselves tend to "Disneyfy" the stories, so we think of Noah's Ark like this...

Instead of this

And the truly awful stories like Jephthah butchering his daughter to appease God, they leave those stories out of the teaching altogether...

 

[Meriweather]

Ah, the old, "you just aren't understanding it."

Yawn. And a pass. Old stuff, Joe. We've been through it multiple times. Let's move on.

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn. And a pass. Old stuff, Joe. We've been through it multiple times. Let's move on.

I guess....

Since this is "ask a Catholic", why haven't you guys held your leaders to account for all those kids who got molested?

 

[Meriweather]

Since this is "ask a Catholic", why haven't you guys held your leaders to account for all those kids who got molested?

Be specific. Do you have a case and/or leader in mind?

I know what many of us did: Made sure for the protection of both, priests and altar servers had separate areas where they put robes on over their clothes. Priests did have to have law enforcement. Congregations were notified.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I guess....

Since this is "ask a Catholic", why haven't you guys held your leaders to account for all those kids who got molested?

Again with this crap. I'm not even Catholic, but the secular world has a FAR worse record of taking advantage of children than the Catholic Church.

Physician, HEAL THYSELF

How a culture of covering up sex abuse at public schools is hurting children — and costing taxpayers millions

How a culture of covering up sex abuse at public schools is hurting children — and costing taxpayers millions School administrators, teachers and staff in California are required by la…

www.pe.com

 

[JoeB131]

Again with this crap. I'm not even Catholic, but the secular world has a FAR worse record of taking advantage of children than the Catholic Church.

Physician, HEAL THYSELF

Oh, not this tired shit again... THe only way you get to these numbers is if you count in students sexually abusing each other... which happens a lot.

 

[seaofnails]

,
The purpose of the story was to explain that Jephthah knew that his daughter was living in sexual immorality and Jephthah was allowing it to take place and was not stopping his daughter from committing wickedness pertaining to her virginity. As the following verses explain what it was all about.

Jdg 11:37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and mourn concerning / about my virginity, I and my fellows.

But this is also a Trinitarian Catholic Originated perversion and mistranslation.

Here is exactly what the original manuscripts say - word for word exactly...

ותאמר Saying - על upon - אביה her father - יעשׂה i will - יעשׂה do - לי הדבר this mater for me - הזה that - הרפה - leave forsaken / alone - ממני from - שׁנים two - חדשׁים months - ואלכה I go - וירדתי down - על upon - ההרים the mountain - ואבכה weeping / crying - על about / upon - בתולי the virginity - אנכי of myself - תי׃ורעי - and my lovers.

The Trinitarian translators changed the meaning of this entire story and they changed multiple words to tell a completely different story.

Jdg 11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, accomplishing herself his vow he vowed: and she knew no man. As it was the = " חֹק " ORDINANCE / statute / law in Israel.

This word Law, Ordinance, Statue = " חֹק " is used 127 times in the Old Testament and the Trinitarian Translators change this word 2 times to say " custom "

but the word has nothing to do with a custom.

it is always a commandment, an ordinance, and a law.

we can understand, reading from the manuscripts - that his daughter repented and kept the law pertaining to her virginity and sexuality. As her father vowed, knowing that she would walk right out of the front door the moment he returned home from war.

 

[seaofnails]

.
Jdg 11:30 Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, saying If you will without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

: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 give up of such and such - wickedness / iniquity. “ עולה׃
-
This Hebrew word “ עולה׃ “ is not = “ A BURNT OFFERING “

This is a Catholic lie.

Job 11:14 If iniquity be in thine hand, put it far away, and let not “ wickedness - עולה׃ “ dwell in thy tabernacles.

Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh “ iniquity - עולה׃ “ like water?

Job 24:20 He is no more remembered; and “ wickedness - עולה׃ “ shall be broken as a tree.

Job 36:23 Who hath enjoined him his way? or who can say, Thou hast wrought “ iniquity - עולה׃ “ ?

Psa 37:1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of “ iniquity -עולה׃ “.

Jdg 11:30 Jephthah vowed unto the LORD, saying I will give up of such “ wickedness / iniquity. “ עולה׃ “

Job 36:13 But the hypocrites in heart heap up wrath: they cry not when he bindeth them. :14 They die in youth, and their life is among the unclean. :33 The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the “ iniquity - עולה׃ “

Isa 40:16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for “ iniquity - עולה׃ “

Mic 3:10 They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with “ iniquity - בעולה׃ “

Hab 2:12 Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by “ iniquity - בעולה׃ “


This Hebrew word - wickedness / iniquity. “ עולה׃ -

This story is so mistranslated by the Trinitarian Translators that they literally changed the entire meaning and events in the story.

This Hebrew word in עולה׃ the manuscripts always means wickedness and iniquity

Even if you google translate the word today it means detriments, expenses costs or losses or something lost or harmful.

 

[JoeB131]

The purpose of the story was to explain that Jephthah knew that his daughter was living in sexual immorality and Jephthah was allowing it to take place and was not stopping his daughter from committing wickedness pertaining to her virginity. As the following verses explain what it was all about.

Jdg 11:37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and mourn concerning / about my virginity, I and my fellows.

But this is also a Trinitarian Catholic Originated perversion and mistranslation.

Here is exactly what the original manuscripts say - word for word exactly...

Oh, please. This is a nice excuse, but it's bullshit. Jephthah killed his daughter because he made a foolish oath and didn't think through the ramifications. That was the point of the story.

The entire theme of the Book of Judges is that because Israel did not have a King, every man did what he thought was right in his own eyes.

 

[Meriweather]

Jdg 11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, accomplishing herself his vow he vowed: and she knew no man. As it was the = " חֹק " ORDINANCE / statute / law in Israel.

Judges 11:39 - At the end of the two months she returned to her father, who did to her as he had vowed. She had not been intimate with man. It then became a custom in Israel for Israelite women to go yearly to mourn the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite for four days of the year.

In this verse, isn't 'custom' the correct word? Surely it did not become a law or ordinance? I did read a Jewish translation of the final sentence. It reads:

From year to year the daughters of Israel went to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.

It doesn't seem the word "custom" is such a horrible translation.

 

[ding]

Oh, please. This is a nice excuse, but it's bullshit. Jephthah killed his daughter because he made a foolish oath and didn't think through the ramifications. That was the point of the story.

The entire theme of the Book of Judges is that because Israel did not have a King, every man did what he thought was right in his own eyes.

THE BOOK OF JUDGES​

The Hebrew word translated “Judges” in the English title of the book refers not to specialized judicial officers or magistrates but to leaders in general. According to the biblical narrative these judges led Israel from the end of the conquest of Canaan until the beginning of the monarchy. The period of the Judges, therefore, extended from the death of Joshua (Jos 24:29–31; cf. Jgs 1:1) until the installation of Saul as Israel’s first king by the prophet Samuel, who was also the last judge (see 1 Sm 7:15–17).

The Book of Judges begins with two introductory passages. The first (chap. 1) gives a description of the situation in Canaan after the Israelite conquest. It emphasizes the continued existence of the indigenous inhabitants of Canaan in many parts of the land because of Israel’s inability to drive them out completely. The second passage (2:1–3:6) is a thematic introduction to the period of the Judges, describing a cyclical pattern of infidelity, oppression, “crying out,” and deliverance (see note on 2:10–19).

The main part of the book (3:7–16:31) consists of a series of stories about thirteen leaders whose careers are described in greater or lesser detail. The exploits of six of these—Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson—are related at length, and all are shown to have delivered Israel from oppression or danger. They are customarily called “major judges,” whereas the other six—Shamgar, Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon—who appear only in brief notices, are designated “minor judges.” The thirteenth, Abimelech, is included in neither group, since his story is essentially a continuation of that of Gideon and his career is presented as deplorable, a cautionary tale of royal ambition.

The final section of the book consists of two episodes, one about the migration of the tribe of Dan (chaps. 17–18) and the other about an intertribal war directed against the tribe of Benjamin (chaps. 19–21). These stories illustrate the religious and political disorder that prevailed at the time when, as yet, “there was no king in Israel” (see note on 17:6).

The principal contribution of the Deuteronomistic historian to the Book of Judges is the thematic introduction to—and theological evaluation of—the period of the Judges in 2:1–3:6, as well as editorial comments structuring the narrative throughout, e.g., 3:7; 4:1; etc. The historian drew the stories of the judges themselves from older sources, which could have existed in written form but derive ultimately from oral tradition.

Thus the principal divisions of the book in outline are as follows:

1. The Situation in Canaan Following the Israelite Conquest (1:1–3:6)
2. Stories of the Judges (3:7–16:31)
3. Further Stories of the Tribes of Dan and Benjamin (17:1–21:25)

Judges, THE BOOK OF JUDGES

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

bible.usccb.org

 

[seaofnails]

Thank you JoeB131 for replying, I enjoyed reading your reply. I do understand what you are saying

You state that there were no Kings ruling Israel in the days of Jephthah.

therefore, Jephthah was misguided { HAVING NO KING }

he then murdered his daughter - because he did not have a king, he just did whatever he believed was right in his own eyes.

However, none of these passages mentioning the absence of a King. None of them are EVER referring to the absence of morality and wrongdoings and transgressions, sins and perverted acts of some of the Jews.

Trinitarians portray the image that is suggesting that because there was no King in Israel that somehow the Israelites getting away with sinning and committing evil acts, due to the fact that there is no King in Israel

But the fact is, there were no Kings reigning Israel at any time before Jephthah. Jephthah himself was elected and chosen to be as a Judge of Israel because he was a righteous, holy and honorable man.

Jdg 12:7 Jephthah judged Israel - for six years.
Jdg 12:8 Ibzan judged Israel - seven years.
Jdg 12:11 Elon judged Israel - ten years.
Jdg 12:13 Abdon judged Israel - eight years.
Jdg 15:20 Samson judged Israel - twenty years.

And there were no Kings, 50 to 70 years after Jephthah. Here are the list of the Judges of Israel.

1. Othniel - 2. Ehud - 3. Shamgar - 4. Deborah - 5. Gideon - 6. Abimelech - 7. Tola - 8. Jair - 9. Jephthah - 10. Ibzan - 11. Elon - 12. Abdon - 13. Samson - 14. Eli - 15. Samuel

BUT, the fact that Israel - now has kings reigning, this does not mean that sin, wickedness and evil and wrongdoings have ceased or diminished in Israel or that anything is any different regarding morality. This has nothing to do with what the manuscripts are saying.

You claim that the passages of the bible saying that

“ in those days, when there was no king in Israel “ Is mentioned in the context within the Book of Judges that is explaining that “ because Israel did not have a king, there was great wickedness in the land. “

But let’s look at these passages and see exactly what they are saying.

Jdg_17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with the people doing right or wrong in their own views or eyes concerning a moral code of conduct or acts of wickedness or ethical behaviors. But every single last time that this phrase is repeated - the passage is simply referring to land ownerships, the dividing lines of property between the tribal families and the encroachments and intrusions into foreign territory and foreign lands

Every single time that you see the phrase - “ in these days, there was no king in Israel “

This is always, without exception being directly used - in every single last one of these verses, in the precise context of explaining in the proceeding storyline - how that these individuals who were living in Israel, were existing, traveling and crossing through regions as strangers, aliens and living as foreigners in a land.

Because there was no king to divide the land and set boundaries, borders and protect the Jews from non-Israelites and half breeds and other invaders who would not respect the rights of the Israelites,

The manuscripts explain that - In those days, when there was no king in Israel, CAUSING / THAT REQUIRED.... a certain Levite to travel where he was sojourning as a “ - gêr / stranger “

Again - Jdg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. :8 And a man departed out of the city from Bethlehemjudah to sojourn as a “ - gêr / stranger “ where he could find a place for himself to live in. He had no place to call home, he was a sojourning “ - gêr / stranger “ looking for a place to live.

:9 And Micah said unto him, where do you come from ? And he said unto him, I am a Levite of Bethlehemjudah, and I go as a “ - gêr / stranger “ where I may find a place to live.

He was wandering and looking for a location to live along the borders and did not know where to settle down because their lands and properties had not yet been legally divided and given unto them among the tribes of Israel.

Again - Jdg 18:1 In those days there was no king in Israel: and in those days the tribe of the Danites sought them an inheritance to dwell in; for unto that day all their inheritance had not fallen unto them among the tribes of Israel.

Again - “ there was no king in Israel “ the Danites are searching and seeking, looking for themselves an inheritance or a location to dwell in; all their inheritance, their lands and properties, and belongings had not yet been legally divided and given unto them among the tribes of Israel.

there are four verses total in the bible that have this phrase " there was no king in Israel "

The last one occurs during a great war where Israel is taking vengeance upon unknown men who appear to be non-Israelites who had raped and killed a man’s wife.

Benjamin refuses to or is unable to identify and hand over these men probably because they do not know who exactly who the individuals are and Israel goes to war against Benjamin because Benjamin is not concerned or interested in helping to locate and punish these rapist murdering thugs.

Jdg 21 - again uses this phrase “ " In those days there was no king in Israel "

But it has absolutely nothing to do with morality or doing wicked or wrong - doing. Because no one was doing anything wrong. The context of the phrase is based upon the verses saying :6 And the children of Israel were sorry for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day.

:17 And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel.

:24 And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.

Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Trinitarians assume and pretend that something was going on in the chapter pertaining to immorality.

No one was ever acting Immoral or wicked concerning the reference of the passages saying " In those days there was no king in Israel: "
Every single last time this is mentioned - without exception it is always referring to

their lands and properties, and belongings had not yet been legally divided and given unto them among the tribes of Israel.
unless you are reading from a Trinitarian mistranslation.

Trinitarians simply have absolutely no manuscripts for their faith.

This Hebrew word “ עולה׃ “ is not = “ A BURNT OFFERING “

Trinitarians will not find a single place in the entire Hebrew manuscripts showing where the Hebrew word “ עולה׃ “ is pertaining to a burnt offering or blood sacrifice.

It always means - in the manuscript wickedness, immorality and iniquity.

Also - this Hebrew word " חֹק " chôq is translated in the Trinitarian Translation as ORDINANCE / statute / law a total of 125 times

two times the Trinitarians change it to mean custom. -

There is a Hebrew word that literally means custom and it is not " חֹק " however it was a custom the Hebrew word - מִשְׁפָּט - mishpâṭ - would have been used,

This is called fantasy drift - Trinitarians need words to mean something other that what they mean in Hebrew - so they run through passages altering specific words to invent the message they want instead of translating exactly as it is in the original.

Please provide a single instance where this Hebrew word “ עולה׃ “ is indicating a burnt offering in your translation - it does not exist in your translation or the manuscript, except only in Jdg 11::31 - the Trinitarians delete the word and alter the passage and change it to say burnt offering.

every single last time it is used - the Trinitarians always translate it as wickedness, immorality and iniquity.

In fact, it is the Trinitarians who change the bible to render what is right in their own eyes.

 

[JoeB131]

he then murdered his daughter - because he did not have a king, he just did whatever he believed was right in his own eyes.

However, none of these passages mentioning the absence of a King. None of them are EVER referring to the absence of morality and wrongdoings and transgressions, sins and perverted acts of some of the Jews.

Trinitarians portray the image that is suggesting that because there was no King in Israel that somehow the Israelites getting away with sinning and committing evil acts, due to the fact that there is no King in Israel

Actually, the Book of Judges itself says that.

The last verse in the book, 21:25

25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

That is actually the theme of the whole book, that after Moses and Joshua, there was no central moral authority in Israel, and people used their own bad judgement. So Samson came to a bad end for cavorting with Philistine Women, and Jephthah was the son of a harlot who made a foolish oath and had to butcher his daughter. The Tribes of Israel slaughtered each other or fell under the dominion of their enemies.

My guess, this was probably a lot of Disney-level retconning, to explain away stuff like human sacrifice being fairly common before the Kings, and this story stuck out so much they couldn't whitewash it any other way.

 

[ding]

25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

That is actually the theme of the whole book

Don't all men and women do what is right in their own eyes regardless of who is in power?

The verse you are applying to the whole book is in actuality about the intertribal war directed against the tribe of Benjamin (chaps. 19–21). These stories illustrate the religious and political disorder that prevailed at the time when, as yet, “there was no king in Israel.”

It doesn't necessarily apply to the whole book.

 

[seaofnails]

I understand what you are saying.

You feel that the very last passage or the very last line of each book of the Bible should be the sum total that summarizes the plot and entire theme that focuses the drift or impulse for the message pertaining to the book or chapter.

I hope you can reconsider this and recognize that even this last verse is still connected to the idea of drawing border lines and regions for the tribes distinguishing and determining property and borders

Every single one of these four instances are directly related to the property, inheritance and borders.

:17 And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel.

:24 And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.

:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

I respectfully contend to the fact that we will not find a single place in the entire Hebrew manuscripts showing where the Hebrew word
“ עולה׃ “ is pertaining to a burnt offering or blood sacrifice.

Only in the story of Jephthah is this word changed and altered and not translated as iniquity, wickedness

hebrew to english - Google Search - paste the word - עולה׃ -

and it does not mean “ burnt offering “

עוֹלָה - ‛ôlâh this is the word that always means
" BURNT OFFERING " = ‛ôlâh in hebrew

עולה׃ - ‛ avlâh this is the word that always means " iniquity, wickedness " ‛avlâh in hebrew

The only different between these two words is one Hebrew vowel called the Sh’va vowel and this is the two vertical dots you see here " ׃ "

עולה׃ - avlâh this is the word that always means " iniquity, wickedness - with the Sh’va vowel as two vertical dots

" ׃ "

and עוֹלָה - ‛ôlâh this is the word that always means
" BURNT OFFERING " = ‛ôlâh in hebrew

without the ’VA vowel as two vertical dots

it is consistent, unchanging, concordant and always conforming exactly the same throughout the entire Old Testament.

עולה׃ - avlâh always means - iniquity, wickedness
and
עוֹלָה - ‛ôlâh always means " BURNT OFFERING "

every single last time without a single exception - only one single time in the story of Jephthah is this word changed and altered and not translated as iniquity, wickedness

ותאמר Saying - על upon - אביה her father - יעשׂה i will - יעשׂה do - לי הדבר this mater for me - הזה that - הרפה - leave forsaken / alone - ממני from - שׁנים two - חדשׁים months - ואלכה I go - וירדתי down - על upon - ההרים the mountain - ואבכה weeping / crying - על about / upon - בתולי the virginity - אנכי of myself - תי׃ורעי - and my lovers.

furthermore the hebrew word " והעליתיהו עולה׃ " means
that I will raise or bring up this up iniquity

to ascend, - arise (up). (cause to) ascend up, to bring (up), (cause to) cast up, + shew, to, make to) come (up), mention, offer, (make to) rise (up), set (up),

Jephthah was saying " אֲשֶׁר - who " cometh forth of the door of my house to meet me

This Hebrew word " אֲשֶׁר " WHO - this is not a word that means just whatever or anything or just some loose word that refers to gambling or playing Russian roulette anything goes or some type of gambling game of dice or cards of uncertainty and chance

The Trinitarians took this word " אֲשֶׁר " WHO "
who comes out of the door of my house

The word " אֲשֶׁר " WHO is translated a total of " 5448 total times in the Trinitarian Translation as specifically " whom, which and that "

Never once out of the total 5448 total times do the Trinitarians translate this word as " WHATEVER : or ANYTHING or as - a whatever or any - thing .

not one single time EVER - NOT EVEN ONCE - never is this word translated as WHATEVER : or ANYTHING

One single time in the entire translation, out of the total 5448 times, the Trinitarians change this word to mean " whatever " and the other " 5447 total times the Trinitarian Translators always without exception always translate this word as specifically " whom, which and that " directly indicating a direct clause to an intended noun or pronoun.

Jephthah was not saying that anything or whatever I see or coming out of my door I am going to automatically just kill and burn it -

he was saying - WHOM or THAT WHICH COMES OUT - not WHATEVER OR ANYTHING that comes out of the door as if it is some type of a wishy washy game of chance or a wild card.

אֲשֶׁר - 'ăsher / ash-er' = a pronoun - who, which, what, that; when, where, how, because, in order that.

One single time in the entire translation, out of the total 5448 times, the Trinitarians change this word to mean " whatever "

one single time - this is what it takes for Trinitarians to insert their perversity into the Bible - they go through making little edits and changes to insert an alteration to depict the Old Testament characters in the most harsh unkindness and brutal savagery that they possibly could.

 

[ding]

Ah, the old, "you just aren't understanding it."

Maybe the point is you aren't making an effort to understand it. You are making an effort to dispute it. You can only discover truth by doing both.

 

[ding]

The Old Testament is a book written by Bronze Age savages who thought every calamity they didn't understand was God, and God constantly needed to be appeased. These people were all manner of messed up, and have nothing to teach us.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's statements like this that reveal your true motivation.

 

[JoeB131]

I understand what you are saying.

You feel that the very last passage or the very last line of each book of the Bible should be the sum total that summarizes the plot and entire theme that focuses the drift or impulse for the message pertaining to the book or chapter.

I hope you can reconsider this and recognize that even this last verse is still connected to the idea of drawing border lines and regions for the tribes distinguishing and determining property and borders

Actually, the last verse does summarize the Book of Judges. The main theme of the book is that tribes of Israel had lost their way, which is why Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, why Samson cavorted with Delilah, Why Abimelech declared himself King and oppressed his own people before being mortally wounded by a millstone and asked one of his soldiers to finish him off so they wouldn't say he was killed by a woman. Lots of being concurred by other tribes, fighting among themselves, worshipping idols, and so on.

One single time in the entire translation, out of the total 5448 times, the Trinitarians change this word to mean " whatever "

one single time - this is what it takes for Trinitarians to insert their perversity into the Bible - they go through making little edits and changes to insert an alteration to depict the Old Testament characters in the most harsh unkindness and brutal savagery that they possibly could.

Yeah, here's the problem. Jewish Scholars for centuries accepted that the verse says exactly what it says... that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter. Long before Christianity and those evil "Trinitarians".

The people playing fast and loose are folks like you trying to "Disney" the story up by saying she took a vow unto God and lived the rest of her life as the first Nun.

Let's put it in perspective. Jephy prayed to God to defeat the "Children of Ammon"- you know, the people who occurred because Lot had drunken sex with one of his daughters after God turned his main squeeze into a condiment. He went ahead and slaughtered them, overthrowing 30 of their cities and killing every man woman and child. But he made that pesky vow, without thinking it through.

That's the theme of the story- that he had made a foolish vow, and was obligated to follow through on it because God loves him some virgin meat. (Again, I largely suspect that the early Hebrews were sacrificing people often, but when they started writing shit down, they tried to whitewash it. This story was harder to whitewash than others.)

Which begs the question, why are we still looking to Bronze Age Fairy Tales to guide ourselves morally?

 

[JoeB131]

There's a reason I have this idiot on ignore usually.

Don't all men and women do what is right in their own eyes regardless of who is in power?

The verse you are applying to the whole book is in actuality about the intertribal war directed against the tribe of Benjamin (chaps. 19–21). These stories illustrate the religious and political disorder that prevailed at the time when, as yet, “there was no king in Israel.”

It doesn't necessarily apply to the whole book.

yeah, actually it does because the verse is repeated several times. It's kind of the theme of the book. Israel had no King, and they variated between anarchy and Judges who were often suspect. Samson cavorted with Philistine women, Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, Deborah had a vagina.. it was pure chaos, I tell you!!!! Good thing we finally got some Kings... who by and large, weren't much better.

Maybe the point is you aren't making an effort to understand it. You are making an effort to dispute it. You can only discover truth by doing both.

12 years of dealing with psycho nuns in habits was more than enough for me, thanks. My understanding was I couldn't put enough distance between me and them fast enough.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's statements like this that reveal your true motivation.

Not at all. In fact, Bible's should come with warning labels.