Jeptha's Daughter- what actuallyt happened??

by Kudra 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  God is not to blame for everything mankind attributes to God, or everything mankind decides to do or not do as a result of their own attribution of blame or success.

  Sounds like stepping out of the author/reader contract when you don't like the story.

  This is probably unavoidable to a modern reader, but the flip side is all the more obvious. Any ascription of anything (including "love" or "mercy") to God we may believe as true we only do because we decide to. So much for the umbrella of "scriptural authority".
• 

  metatron

  He killed his daughter.

  I recall that the word used is 'tinnah' - which is elsewhere translated as "recount". So, they

  "recounted" the daughter from time to time.

  The account says nothing about tabernacle service. The "kind" explanation has no foundation in history

  or legend and is of late origin, especially with Protestants.

  As one scholar said, the very terseness of the account argues strongly that the writer doesn't want to

  elaborate...............

  metatron
• 

  Jim_TX

  I guess I can olny add to this by asking...

  What did this fella expect to be coming out of his house to greet him when he got home? - that he felt comfortable in sacrificing to god?

  Did he have pet goats living in his house? Pet sheep? A pet camel perhaps? What?

  (I may have slept through this explanation at the JW meetings, too.)

  If he had no pets, then he surely expected someone/something human to come out of the house (tent?). In this case, he fully expected to be sacrificing a human - and the mighty jeehober 'gave' him victory, based upon this knowledge (surely the great and mighty jeehober knew the contents of this fellas' house (tent?).

  Just my .02 worth...

  (Great discussion, by the way...)

  Regards,

  Jim TX
• 

  Gill

  The ancient Jews practiced human sacrifice that is WHY they had to be told NOT TO!

  Read history and you discover that Baal and Jehovah were Gods of the ancient Jews.
• 

  Cold Steel

  Atheists will always assume the worst at a moment's notice, then stick with that assumption until Judgment Day.

  See Feminist Musings On The Strange Story of Japtha for an LDS take.

  The Lord has NEVER countananced human sacrifice. In Judges, we find Samson, a man that not only did NOT deliver Israel; he was a total screwup from the time he born to the day that he died. He frequented prostitutes, did horrendous things to animals, consorted with the enemy, murdered to pay off a debt. Not much of a role model for kids. I've oftentimes wondered if he was even real. Contrary to what many Bible people think the Philistines were actually more cultured, more technelogically adept than the Jews and were excellent warriors. No one knows where they came from exactly, but they were Greeks. They were later absorbed into the various cultures in the Middle East and we're only now learning more about them from the cities and art they left behind.

  I can't see anyone but an apostate Judge in Israel doing such a thing. As the author (above) notes, what if a dog had come out to meet him? To offer up an unclean animal would be an affront to God, so Japtha most likely dedicated her to service to the Lord. Had he actually offered her up as a human sacrifice, I can't see that Paul would have any admiration for him (see Hebrews 11).

  Also, if you want to have a serious discussion about the Bible, please stop using the New World Translation. Is is both course and horribly inaccurate. It might also help to quote scholars instead of activist atheists who know next to nothing about what they're talking.

  
• 

  Hairtrigger

  Marked. Thanks.
• 

  88JM

  what if a dog had come out to meet him? To offer up an unclean animal would be an affront to God, so Japtha most likely dedicated her to service to the Lord

  It seems there's a couple of flaws in that reasoning.

  I haven't read the LDS source (I'm on a bad connection right now) but what justification does it have for suggesting that the Jews at that time would be keeping unclean animals in their houses? Even many muslims today do not keep dogs in their home for similar reasons. Would Jephtha really be expecting an unclean animal to come running out of his house to greet him? I know there is reason to believe he was the son of a prostitute, but still? Even in the account of Jezebel, she had to be thrown outside before the dogs could get to her - they were not invited into the house to kill her (yes I know it was supposedly a "prophecy" so it had to happen that way but...).

  Assuming that Jephtha could have expected and conceivably there had been a dog running out of his house and such an animal would not have been an appropriate burnt sacrifice, are you then saying the same dog, still an unclean animal, would instead be an appropriate servant around the tabernacle?

  Judges 11:31 in the Jephtha account (apologies that it's the NWT) says: "whoever comes out of the door of my house" - I can't look up a Strong's Dictionary right now, but it seems apparent that he was limiting it to a person ("whoever") and it was not something running down the garden path, but definitely 'out of the door of his house'.
• 

  nancy drew

  Remember that Abraham was told to sacrifice his son and he knew exactly what that meant. He prepared an altar and grabbed the weapon then when the big "J" stopped him an animal was promptly slaughtered so what do you think happend to that young woman.
• 

  humbled

  Hey, nancy,

  We know what Abe thought he knew what God meant----because of what he tried to do. But I am not convinced that he knew what the hell was going on with that test...

  Because "burnt offering" is olah . and Olah is the word that was used in the Genesis22 story. not zebach. Zebach is the word for slaughter. It is unequivocal for the slashing cut of the victims throat. It would have been a wrap if that word were used.

  Though it is reasonably assumed that a burnt offering is a whole animal killed and burnt (without the offerer retaining so much as a tail tassle)It is a mistake to think that olah and zebach were always understood to be interchangable. Abraham certainly assumed they were the same. And yet he was wrong. The word olah in its root meaning is completely different from the explicit word that graphically descibes slaughter (zebach).

  How do we know that the Hebrews eventually made this distinction? When the Mosaic law set up all the involved practice for sacrifice ( and there were slews of new words and types of sacrifices) over and over you will see the two words are used in the same sentence--"sacrifice and burnt offering"--an occurance not necessary if they meant the same thing, But they didn't

  It is said so often that Hebrew language is derived from concrete ideas--Written, the Hebrew alphabet pictures material objects--aleph=ox or bull, bet=house, gimel=throwing stick, dalet=door---stuff like that.

  Olah means "ascent, as smoke rises up to heaven".

  Eventually, there were no mistakes of understanding--and no one tried to kill their child for a burnt offering.

  And I am not going to say one way or another what I think Abraham heard--I don't know if he got a letter, heard voices or ate the wrong kind of mushrooms. Just saying that this idea that Abraham hadn't a clue what was really going down as he walked toward Mt. Moriah--- But the Genesis22 word that was always used in every copy of scripture has been olah-- so maybe Abe figured it out afterward.

  Old, old story.