Disprove The Bible, Not Modern Christianity

[Guest Davka]

The way this story has always struck me is that Moses, raised in Pharoah's court, had a polytheistic view of the world. So when confronted by a "god" who tells him to go back to Egypt and free the Hebrew slaves, Moses' reaction is "ok, fine - whom shall I say sent me?" As in, Osirus? Anubis? Exactly who is it hiding in that burning bush, anyhow?

 

It looks more like a case of YHWH re-introducing himself to the Hebrew slaves after 400 years in Egypt: "Hey. y'all forgot me! Over here! In the desert, burning in this bush! Steal everything that's not nailed down and come worship me! Me, me, me!"

That's true. I'm sure that's the idea behind the story.

 

That would make it even a bit more confusing if God tells Moses that "look, here's my name, it's the same name as Abraham knew me as, but now you will know me by the same name, but a different meaning." If Moses had lost most of his religious heritage, then he wouldn't know the difference between YWHW:God-who-do-stuff-for-Abraham, and YWHW:God-who-is-awsome'r-than-Abraham's-God.

Yeah, it makes little sense.

 

I wondered if perhaps Genesis refers to YHWH by "name," but Abraham calls him "lord" or "elohim" or something. Like maybe the writer knew the name YHWH but Abraham didn't? But no, in Genesis 15 Abraham twice calls god "YHWH." (verses 2 and 8). So it's not like Abraham didn't know that name but the writer of Genesis (supposedly Moses) did.

 

Well looky hyar, a major contradiction in the Bible, where YHWH is caught in a fib. My entire worldview is crushed.

 

Can I get fries with that?

[Ouroboros]

I wondered if perhaps Genesis refers to YHWH by "name," but Abraham calls him "lord" or "elohim" or something. Like maybe the writer knew the name YHWH but Abraham didn't? But no, in Genesis 15 Abraham twice calls god "YHWH." (verses 2 and 8). So it's not like Abraham didn't know that name but the writer of Genesis (supposedly Moses) did.

And I think in an earlier post I have the Bible verse where Abraham gives the name of a place with the name "YHWH" in it. And the author (Moses?) states that this city, built at this place, still "today" kept that name. In other words, Abraham definitely (according to the story) knew God by the name YHWH, and the author knows it, so it really sounds like different authors not knowing about each others story.

 

Or, as Phanta is arguing (and I have heard from some Christian before) is that it's the meaning of the name that changed. But how do you change a meaning of a name? My name "Hans" doesn't change its meaning just because one day I reveal that I can play flute. The view of me would change, that's true, but if someone wanted to point out the new (and important) character of me, then it would be more accurate to start calling me: Flutist Hans. And not to say, "From now on, the name Hans means someone who plays flute."

 

Well looky hyar, a major contradiction in the Bible, where YHWH is caught in a fib. My entire worldview is crushed.

 

Can I get fries with that?

Only if you supernaturalsize it.

[Ouroboros]

Okay. I kind of understand what you're saying, but still, does the verse when God present himself to Moses really refer to this new understanding of who he is, or does God refer to a name as a word? We can't really know. So your explanation, even if it opens up a possible alternative answer, it still is also open for the interpretation that it was the name itself and not a new definition of the name.

 

After all, if we look at the verses again (and Davka can probably give us a better understanding of the Hebrew interpretation of them):

 

Ex 6:3:

God told Moses, "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name JEHOVAH [YHWH] was I not known to them." (KJV)

 

It makes a point that Abraham only knew God by the name El Shaddai, and not YHWH. So to me it's quite clear it's about the specific name, not the interpretation of the name.

 

Davka, do you have anything to give some light to that verse? Does the verse indicate it's the meaning of the name that is changing, or...?

 

And for reference:

Gen 22:14 "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh [YHWH yireh]: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen."

[Guest Davka]

Davka, do you have anything to give some light to that verse? Does the verse indicate it's the meaning of the name that is changing, or...?

Afraid not. It looks like it says exactly what the translation says. Abraham knew God as "El Shaddai" but not by his name, YHVH.

 

I can muddy the waters a bit by pointing out that "shaddai" is not actually a Hebrew word. It may refer to a city of the same name, or it might be a related Semitic word from Aramaic. The closest thing in Hebrew would mean "breasted one," but my wife assures me this is not an accurate translation. Damn, I thought I had the God With Tits for a minute there.

 

YHWH is a weird one, too. It looks like it comes from the verb "to be," and in Modern Hebrew it would mean "I will be." Ancient Hebrew uses tenses differently though, so it could have been "I was." The literal translation of what YHWH told Moses after telling him his name was YHWH is "I will be what I will be." This is usually translated "I am that I am."

 

The Twisted Davka Version says "Abraham thought I had tits, but you know better - I'm totally transgender and I will be whatever I want to."

[Ouroboros]

The Twisted Davka Version says "Abraham thought I had tits, but you know better - I'm totally transgender and I will be whatever I want to."

[Ouroboros]

I'm reading Genesis for the first time now. This kind of calm, cold, clinical analysis is valuable.

You know, reading Genesis for what it is, as a mythological religious relic which is connected to the old beliefs from Sumeria, Babylon, and so on, that book is probably the one I think is most intriguing and interesting to read. The rest of the books are more like propaganda, while Genesis is more like a fairytale story book, it doesn't try so hard to convince the reader that these or those guys are the good ones, but rather everyone are corrupt in one way or another, and God (Nature, Fate) picks victims and favorites by some obscure method.

 

Thank you both for your patience...

You're welcome. And I tend to be bit of an asshat sometimes, so you better take my patience whenever you can...

[Guest Marty]

Afraid not. It looks like it says exactly what the translation says. Abraham knew God as "El Shaddai" but not by his name, YHVH.

 

I can muddy the waters a bit by pointing out that "shaddai" is not actually a Hebrew word. It may refer to a city of the same name, or it might be a related Semitic word from Aramaic. The closest thing in Hebrew would mean "breasted one," but my wife assures me this is not an accurate translation. Damn, I thought I had the God With Tits for a minute there.

 

I thought "el shaddai" meant 'god of the mountain'?

[Guest Davka]

I thought "el shaddai" meant 'god of the mountain'?

 

El Shaddai*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Not to be confused with "The God Who Shagged Me."

[Ouroboros]

Aaah. Okay. I can see the different understanding here. It's basically the idea of having an epiphany, or personal experience (revelation), which could be referred to here. I can see that. Even though the problem I see is that revelation of this kind would be more likely related to a person, not a whole group of people. The Gnostics (if I understand it right) believed in that true belief or faith wouldn't be possible unless you had a personal experience. And this would make more sense in this text, except the part that it's directed towards the whole Israel, and not just Moses. (Does that make any sense? I'm just throwing my thoughts out there at the moment.) So basically it's a promise that God would reveal himself to each and every individual in the whole group of people.

 

It's not like: the word Tomato changes its meaning from red to reddish.

 

But rather: Ivan the Terrible, and for years we have known him, but he hasn't done anything terrible yet, but now, you will see Ivan to be the Terrible for real.

 

They knew the name, the knew the meaning, but they had never seen God live up to the name, and now the promise they would. Am I right?

 

(Imagine it would take a non-Christian to really explain these things.)

[mwc]

While a grammatical analysis affords these preliminary conclusions, they can also be amplified on the interpretive level. For P, the divine name El Shaddai represents the Israelite deity active in the patriarchal period, who first appeared in a berit and in that context made a number of promises. There is no evidence that El Shaddai himself fulfilled any of these promises. Yahweh, however, does. The divine name Yahweh represents the Israelite deity who first identifies himself in the period of Moses and the Israelite people, in a berit, in which he recalls his (former) covenantal promise(s) to the patriarchs and states with certainty that he keeps his promises. There is also evidence that, even in the patriarchal period itself, Yahweh was acting to fulfill the promises made by El Shaddai. What El Shaddai promises, Yahweh fulfills; El Shaddai's limitations are (ful)filled by Yahweh. Thus in the covenantal context, El Shaddai is more restricted in scope (promising), while Yahweh is more complete (fulfilling).

...

Thus, Exod 6:3 can be translated as "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (in limited form) as El Shaddai (who makes covenantal promises). But I was not the object of (full) covenantal knowledge to them as conveyed by my name Yahweh (who keeps covenantal promises)." From this standpoint, grammar and interpretation suggest the same conclusion: For P, the divine name El Shaddai represents a partial characterization of the Israelite deity, whose complete counterpart is represented by the divine name Yahweh.87

 

The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3

Author(s): W. Randall Garr

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 111, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 385-408

The entire article is too long to post but this is the gist of it (keep in mind this article only focuses on the "P" tradition in which the Exodus verse appears). The name and the "god" (object) are related and so the earlier people were given a different name "El Shaddai" which correlated with a "limited" version of "god." Moses was given the name that correlated with the full-strength version of "god."

 

So Abraham got the 40% power "god" whenever he said "El Shaddai" but "YHWH" gets you the 100% strength "god." Although it makes you wonder if this is all relative and "Splinctor" will be his new, new name and that's really the 100% version and not "YHWH" even though he said something like that to Moses?

 

I mean xians will have us believe that "jesus" is exactly this but with his failure to deliver the goods just like "elohim," "El Shaddai" and "YHWH" I think "Splinctor" might have a chance to make his move as the full-strength "god" here making good on the promises that all these others have made but failed to keep.

 

mwc

[Guest Marty]

The new and improved Yahweh, now with 60% more FREE!

[Guest Davka]

The new and improved Yahweh, now with 60% more FREE!

I think that's actually 66.6% if you read the fine print.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

SO Jephthah is yet another example of Man's sinfulness.

 

"

 

The fact that God used Jephthah to accomplish His purpose, does not mean that God approved everything he did. Jephthah is yet another example of God using sinful men to accomplish His purposes. God certainly used Peter to preach His Gospel and lead the Early Church - and yet God did not approve of Peter denying Jesus three times - which God knew would happen and Jesus clearly stated would happen - to Peter's protestation.

 

Hebrews 11 verse 32 mentions Jephthah in a list of examples of the faithful. He's mentioned but a tiny bit of the Bible, yet the writer of Hebrews includes him in his list of faithful examples among Abraham, Moses and Joseph. I distinctly remember one service in my church having a lesson entirely on the faithfulness of Jephthah that he was willing to sacrifice his child to honor a vow made to God, and as a warning of controlling what we say. It essentially means that breaking a vow to God is worse than killing your child. It means that although God did stop Abraham from killing Isaac (who promised he would kill his son) and had the option to 1. make an animal be the first thing Jephthah sees meet him on the road or 2. told Jephthah not to do this terrible thing and sacrifice some other living thing and burn it for His Almighty need for blood. But instead he praises Jephthah, who lets his daughter bewail her imminent death (virginity) for 2 months (maybe giving God a chance to change his mind) and accepts the sacrifice. And later all the way in the NT (when God is supposed to be nicer) the 'inspired' writer uses Jephthah as an example of behavior to follow. As an inspirational tale of faith. I remember asking my dad if he would sacrifice me if God asked him to. He didn't really answer, but even as a child I always thought of that poor young girl and her heartbroken family watching her die and be burned all because their wonderful loving god needs his blood sacrifice to be happy.

 

And how could you compare killing a child to denying Jesus? Seriously. None of the other names mentioned in Hebrews did anything like this and it is pretty much the only thing mentioned about Jephthah that he did.

[Guest Davka]

Jephthah was a schmuck. When God told me to sacrifice my daughter, I burned the neighbor's cat on a stake instead.

 

Tastes like chicken.

[rayskidude]

SO Jephthah is yet another example of Man's sinfulness.

 

Hebrews 11 verse 32 mentions Jephthah in a list of examples of the faithful... the writer of Hebrews includes him in his list of faithful examples among Abraham, Moses and Joseph. I distinctly remember one service in my church having a lesson entirely on the faithfulness of Jephthah that he was willing to sacrifice his child to honor a vow made to God, and as a warning of controlling what we say. It essentially means that breaking a vow to God is worse than killing your child. It means that although God did stop Abraham from killing Isaac (who promised he would kill his son) and had the option to 1. make an animal be the first thing Jephthah sees meet him on the road or 2. told Jephthah not to do this terrible thing and sacrifice some other living thing and burn it for His Almighty need for blood. But instead he praises Jephthah, who lets his daughter bewail her imminent death (virginity) for 2 months (maybe giving God a chance to change his mind) and accepts the sacrifice... in the NT (when God is supposed to be nicer) the 'inspired' writer uses Jephthah as an example of behavior to follow. As an inspirational tale of faith. I remember asking my dad if he would sacrifice me if God asked him to. He didn't really answer, but even as a child I always thought of that poor young girl and her heartbroken family watching her die and be burned all because their wonderful loving god needs his blood sacrifice to be happy.

 

You bring up some excellent points - my only reason for mentioning Peter's denial is just to illustrate that all people sin, even close followers. If God didn't use sinners, then He would use no one but Jesus Christ. But it is to God's glory that He can and does use such failed creatures as ourselves to accomplish His purposes. And this is certainly comforting to us - even though we have failed and sinned - yet God does not abandon us. He will forgive when we confess (I John 1:9 - 2:2), and He employs us in His service to advance His Kingdom.

 

But regarding the thought that Jephthah had to pay his foolish vow to please God - I think not. Note that King Saul foolishly vowed to kill anyone who ate food prior to a victory - and he said he would kill even his son Jonathan in this vow. Yet when Saul discovered that Jonathan had eaten - he did not carry out this vow - at the urging of the people. See I Samuel 14:24-30, and then 14:36-45. And Saul was not condemned by God for this failure to carry out his foolish vow.

 

So my thought is that Jephthah insisted on fulfilling his foolish vow - maybe to save face before the people and as a way of ensuring their obedience. Also, there are a number of Bible teachers, with whom I agree, that would state the 'sacrifice' here consisted of the daughter being dedicated in a life of celibacy - since this fact is the subject of Judges 11:37-40. The life of a young child being dedicated in service to God by a parent would be consistent with the vow of Hannah regarding her son, Samuel (I Samuel 1:9-11 & 24-28). And human sacrifice is completely contrary to anything that God required - in fact God condemns such activity;

 

Lev 18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

 

2Ki 23:10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.

 

Jer 32:33 They have turned to me their back and not their face. And though I have taught them persistently, they have not listened to receive instruction.

Jer 32:34 They set up their abominations in the house that is called by my name, to defile it.

Jer 32:35 They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

 

I also believe it is a grave misuse of Scripture for anyone to teach the lesson you heard with that awful application - where would the context indicate that application? Jephthah is regarded as one flawed man who acted in faith to be used of God to accomplish as aspect of God's plan. Nothing more. If this is not the case, then how should we apply all the personal vengeance that Samson exercised on his enemies? These men were commended for episodes of faith.

 

And don't lose sight of the theme of the book of Judges;

Jdg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

[centauri]

And human sacrifice is completely contrary to anything that God required - in fact God condemns such activity;

Which makes Jesus an illegal sin sacrifice.

[Dagan]

Ray, you still don't explain Hebrews 11:32-40:

 

32And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets...the world was not worthy of them...These were all commended for their faith.

 

The way Judges and Hebrews tell it, it looks like Jephthah was honoured for keeping his vow to God.

[mwc]

But regarding the thought that Jephthah had to pay his foolish vow to please God - I think not. Note that King Saul foolishly vowed to kill anyone who ate food prior to a victory - and he said he would kill even his son Jonathan in this vow. Yet when Saul discovered that Jonathan had eaten - he did not carry out this vow - at the urging of the people. See I Samuel 14:24-30, and then 14:36-45. And Saul was not condemned by God for this failure to carry out his foolish vow.

 

So my thought is that Jephthah insisted on fulfilling his foolish vow - maybe to save face before the people and as a way of ensuring their obedience. Also, there are a number of Bible teachers, with whom I agree, that would state the 'sacrifice' here consisted of the daughter being dedicated in a life of celibacy - since this fact is the subject of Judges 11:37-40. The life of a young child being dedicated in service to God by a parent would be consistent with the vow of Hannah regarding her son, Samuel (I Samuel 1:9-11 & 24-28).

Foolish? If it were foolish then "god" should have notified him of this. He didn't. And so we're led to trying to jump through hoops to make excuses for "god" now aren't we?

 

One excuse would be the one that was invented in the 11th or 12th century that says that his daughter didn't die but was forced to be a virgin. How very sad. Jephthah would have no one to leave his estate to and whatever. But it seems Jephthah lived on. So I'm guessing he could have got a wife a squeezed out a kid or two (or three or five) after this lone daughter. One virgin does not end a legacy. A single son would remedy this nicely. Oh well. We've "established" that he was "foolish" because he made a pact with YHWH.

 

So did she have to be a virgin because her dad said so? Nope. Just like one couldn't force a child into other vows this forced virginity thing makes no sense at all. Even your argument that Jonathan didn't die because of what Saul said could apply. Saul didn't make a pact with YHWH. He, himself, cursed anyone who didn't follow anyone who didn't follow the rules. YHWH upheld the curse by not responding to the magical prophecy phone when they called. So, when the others made sacrifice for eating animals with blood, Jonathon kept quiet. He did not atone. Ooops. There's your problem right there. So when he took responsibility for his "crime" and was willing to be killed and the "righteous" were willing to intervene on his behalf this was enough to appease Saul and he left off the attack. He no longer needed YHWH's help in the fight against the Philistine's and so it didn't matter if he answered the magic phone or not. Jephthah got his help and the vow needed to be completed. Saul didn't get help because Jonathan was in the way. If Saul wished to continue he would need to kill Jonathan.

 

Anyhow, back to what I was saying. Until the 11th/12th century pretty much everyone accepts that he kills his daughter. This is just the way it was. It's hard to imagine that people were so confused on this issue for so long. Then, on day, wouldn't you know it? Someone finds a loophole in the language that allows for a either/or type situation. But it doesn't quite work. If he plans to sacrifice an animal OR give a human to YHWH then what if an animal that cannot be sacrificed were to have appeared? He's back in the same boat. Semantics doesn't help except to try to avoid a human sacrifice and if that's all you're interested in, well, then it won't matter if he sacrificed a pig to YHWH. Just as long as his daughter didn't get what the story logically implies.

 

And human sacrifice is completely contrary to anything that God required - in fact God condemns such activity;

Don't forget Isaac. The classic case. You know. He's on the alter and then, right at the last second, there's a ram and he dodges the (metaphorical) bullet? Whew. Too bad YHWH didn't do that here. I mean he could have, right? Saved that girl with a lamb? Testing the faith of both the father and daughter? Like Abraham and Isaac? What an amazing story. But he didn't. He let the vow be kept. The "foolish" vow.

 

I guess when YHWH says "Sacrifice your child to me" that is NOT "foolish" and then YHWH intervenes. Amazing! But if someone, say Jephthah, says "YHWH, if you do this for me I will sacrifice whatever comes out of my house first to you" that IS foolish and YHWH (knowing it will be his only daughter) does the thing and then does NOT intervene. Foolishness.

 

Just like when the king of Moab sacrifices his first born on the city wall after the great battle to the kings. This must have been to YHWH (or the city god) to appease him. Elisha must have been so proud even though nothing is said. Perhaps the problem YHWH has with Molech and the like is they're getting all them babies and he's not? After all babies sure are tasty.

 

I also believe it is a grave misuse of Scripture for anyone to teach the lesson you heard with that awful application - where would the context indicate that application? Jephthah is regarded as one flawed man who acted in faith to be used of God to accomplish as aspect of God's plan. Nothing more. If this is not the case, then how should we apply all the personal vengeance that Samson exercised on his enemies? These men were commended for episodes of faith.

Samson? Maybe he was pissed because his eyes were put out? Maybe lots of people were pissed because there eye(s) were put out. This is missing from certain copies of the text but it seems to be the case. I think if someone came around and did this I might be a little miffed too.

 

And don't lose sight of the theme of the book of Judges;

Jdg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Are you sure? I could have sworn it was this:

2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.

17 Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they played the harlot after other gods and bowed themselves down to them. They turned aside quickly from the way in which their fathers had walked in obeying the commandments of the LORD; they did not do as their fathers.

18

When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge

; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them.

YHWH was with whatever judge(s) were in power. That's what I'm getting. Can't be a judge unless you've got YHWH. No rogue judges here...unless this is some sort of lie.

 

mwc

[trashy]

I'm 59 and I've spent at least 53 of those thinking, wondering, reading, studying religion, and getting a degree in the same, and yet I'm still unsure whether there was or was not a real Jesus that somewhat matches the gospel accounts.

 

Finally, someone who took longer to come out of the fog than I did - thanks Chef! LOL

 

P.S. No, no real Jesus. I'm sure.

[Neon Genesis]

 

But regarding the thought that Jephthah had to pay his foolish vow to please God - I think not. Note that King Saul foolishly vowed to kill anyone who ate food prior to a victory - and he said he would kill even his son Jonathan in this vow. Yet when Saul discovered that Jonathan had eaten - he did not carry out this vow - at the urging of the people. See I Samuel 14:24-30, and then 14:36-45. And Saul was not condemned by God for this failure to carry out his foolish vow.

Expect nowhere in the bible does it indicate that Jephthah did not carry out the vow and you're just making things up that isn't there in the scriptures. Name one bible verse where it says Jephthah did not carry out the vow.

 

So my thought is that Jephthah insisted on fulfilling his foolish vow - maybe to save face before the people and as a way of ensuring their obedience. Also, there are a number of Bible teachers, with whom I agree, that would state the 'sacrifice' here consisted of the daughter being dedicated in a life of celibacy - since this fact is the subject of Judges 11:37-40. The life of a young child being dedicated in service to God by a parent would be consistent with the vow of Hannah regarding her son, Samuel (I Samuel 1:9-11 & 24-28). And human sacrifice is completely contrary to anything that God required - in fact God condemns such activity;

Even if we presume this is what really happened, how does this make God's actions any better? A god who would forbid people from ever having sex, even sex within the bible's parameters of acceptable sex, is still an immoral and twisted god not befitting of worship. Can you imagine what would happen if the same thing happened in today's time? If a parent forbid their child of ever being allowed to get married when they grew up because of some vow the parent made with God, I would hope that even most modern day fundamentalist Christians would consider that action to be an act of child abuse and most fundamentalists would hopefully consider a religion that forbids their child from ever getting married if they wanted to to be nothing more than a destructive cult. Yet for some reason it's ok as long as the bible God commands it? If Jephthah wants to make a vow to God for himself to be celibate for the rest of his life, that's his business, but for him to force his daughter to never get married is clearly child abuse and a god who would approve of child abuse is not a god worthy of worship. Furthermore, as centauri points out, does this mean Jesus' sacrifice was illegitimate if God doesn't approve of human sacrifice?

 

 

 

I also believe it is a grave misuse of Scripture for anyone to teach the lesson you heard with that awful application - where would the context indicate that application? Jephthah is regarded as one flawed man who acted in faith to be used of God to accomplish as aspect of God's plan. Nothing more. If this is not the case, then how should we apply all the personal vengeance that Samson exercised on his enemies? These men were commended for episodes of faith.

 

So, if God isn't praising Jepthah's actions in these verses, what exactly did Jephthah do that was worthy of praise?

[rayskidude]

Ray, you still don't explain Hebrews 11:32-40. The way Judges and Hebrews tell it, it looks like Jephthah was honoured for keeping his vow to God.

 

Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets--

Heb 11:33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

Heb 11:34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

 

These are the great things all these men did by faith - is there any mention of the fact that Jephthah fulfilled his foolish vow by faith?

 

Is it really difficult to understand that even the best of men can sin terribly? And that God does not condone their sin, but He will forgive all who cry out to Him for mercy? Look at the sins of King David - murder and adultery >> yet when he saw his sin as the grievous evil that it was, he called out to God for forgiveness and cleansing - and God is gracious to answer this prayer. Read Psalm 51.

[rayskidude]

Even if we presume this is what really happened, how does this make God's actions any better? A god who would forbid people from ever having sex, even sex within the bible's parameters of acceptable sex, is still an immoral and twisted god not befitting of worship. If a parent forbid their child of ever being allowed to get married when they grew up because of some vow the parent made with God, I would hope that even most modern day fundamentalist Christians would consider that action to be an act of child abuse and most fundamentalists would hopefully consider a religion that forbids their child from ever getting married if they wanted to to be nothing more than a destructive cult. Yet for some reason it's ok as long as the bible God commands it?

 

Again, where in Scripture do you see that Jephthan is commended for this foolish vow? See my previous post.

 

Furthermore, as centauri points out, does this mean Jesus' sacrifice was illegitimate if God doesn't approve of human sacrifice?

God does not disapprove of executions for capital crimes. Though Jesus was wrongly executed by the Jews and the Romans for crimes He did not commit, God shows His power in that He can take this monumental injustice and use this sacrificial death of His own Son to pay the debt of all sin of all believers for all time.

 

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Act 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

Act 2:25 For David says concerning him, "'I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;

Act 2:26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope.

Act 2:27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.

Act 2:28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.'

Act 2:29 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.

Act 2:30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne,

Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Act 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand,

Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool.'

Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

 

So, if God isn't praising Jepthah's actions in these verses, what exactly did Jephthah do that was worthy of praise?

 

Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets--

Heb 11:33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

Heb 11:34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

[rayskidude]

You know, reading Genesis for what it is, as a mythological religious relic which is connected to the old beliefs from Sumeria, Babylon, and so on, that book is probably the one I think is most intriguing and interesting to read. The rest of the books are more like propaganda, while Genesis is more like a fairytale story book, it doesn't try so hard to convince the reader that these or those guys are the good ones,

 

Not true, Genesis ia a true accoiunting of what actaully happened - written as a polemic against the traditions of other kingdoms which had corrupted and twisted the facts to fit their ways & worship. Thus, we would expect to find some similarities with other ANE thought, but also some significant differences.

 

but rather everyone are corrupt in one way or another, and God (Nature, Fate) picks victims and favorites by some obscure method.

 

What do you find obscure in the following from Genesis?

 

Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Gen 15:6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Gen 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless,

Gen 17:2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly."

Gen 17:3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him,

Gen 17:4 "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.

Gen 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

Gen 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you.

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

Gen 17:8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."

Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.

Gen 26:2 And the LORD appeared to him and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land of which I shall tell you.

Gen 26:3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father.

Gen 26:4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,

Gen 26:5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

Gen 26:6 So Isaac settled in Gerar.

Gen 28:10 Jacob left Beersheba and went toward Haran.

Gen 28:11 And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep.

Gen 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!

Gen 28:13 And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.

Gen 28:14 Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Gen 28:15 Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you."

Gen 28:16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it."

Gen 28:17 And he was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." Gen 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

 

God has made a covenent with His people - those who believe & trust in Him. They are to follow His ways and He promises to bless them. What is obscure here?

[centauri]

God does not disapprove of executions for capital crimes. Though Jesus was wrongly executed by the Jews and the Romans for crimes He did not commit, God shows His power in that He can take this monumental injustice and use this sacrificial death of His own Son to pay the debt of all sin of all believers for all time.

 

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Act 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

Using Jesus as a vicarious human sin sacrifice would involve God violating his own law on sin sacrifices.

The death of a man, which Acts 2:22 declares Jesus as being, cannot redeem the life of another man.

Psa 49:7(ESV)

Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life,

 

God had already declared that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and obeying God.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='25 July 2009 - 08:11 AM' timestamp='1248523880' post='470399']

God does not disapprove of executions for capital crimes. Though Jesus was wrongly executed by the Jews and the Romans for crimes He did not commit, God shows His power in that He can take this monumental injustice and use this sacrificial death of His own Son to pay the debt of all sin of all believers for all time.

 

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Act 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

Using Jesus as a vicarious human sin sacrifice would involve God violating his own law on sin sacrifices.

The death of a man, which Acts 2:22 declares Jesus as being, cannot redeem the life of another man.

Psa 49:7(ESV)

Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life,

God had already declared that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and obeying God.

 

But Jesus is not simply a man; He is the unique God-Man of the universe.

Rom 1:3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Rom 1:4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you."

Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Rom 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Luk 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

Luk 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

Luk 1:33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God.

Luk 1:36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.

Luk 1:37 For nothing will be impossible with God."

Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

 

Read also John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and John 17 - Jesus is God Incarnate.

 

Ergo, His life (and therefore, His death) are of sufficient value to pay the debt of sin.