What a lying "troll" ... and hypocrite
-
John Carson wrote:
Jephthah was duly successful against the Ammonites. When he returned home, his daughter came out to greet him. True to his word, he killed her as a sacrifice to the Lord.
Except, of course, that it does not say that he killed his daughter. And further, it more than implies that she became a perpetual virgin (for, after all, it says that it became a tradition in Israel for the maidens of Israel to commemorate the virginity of Jephthah's daughter, her sacrifice in giving up hope of having children) -- she was given no husband, and therefore Jephthah had no grandchildren, and therefore his lineage died with her. You people are so ignorant and so proud to remain so.
Ilíon wrote:
Except, of course, that it does not say that he killed his daughter.
There is a way to make a burnt offering of a daughter without killing her? You are talking nonsense.
"Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry." "You may go", he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
And what was it that he vowed? He vowed: "I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering".
John Carson
-
Ilíon wrote:
Except, of course, that it does not say that he killed his daughter.
There is a way to make a burnt offering of a daughter without killing her? You are talking nonsense.
"Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry." "You may go", he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
And what was it that he vowed? He vowed: "I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering".
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
"Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."
Sounds suspicious to me....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
John Carson wrote:
"Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."
Sounds suspicious to me....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sounds suspicious to me....
The notes to one of my Bibles say: "Because a woman could suffer no greater disgrace than to die childless, Jephthah's daughter asks for time to bewail her virginity." The text is plain. He promised to make a burnt offering and he did what he promised.
John Carson
-
I would suggest that her perpetual virginity means she died a virgin. Perhaps because she didn't see it coming when she went to the door to welcome her dad home ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
I would suggest that her perpetual virginity means she died a virgin.
Of course she died a virgin ... else she'd not have been a perpetual virgin. But the Bible doesn't say that she was killed, it says that her father fulfilled his vow. Now, the vow has two parts: (NIV; Judges 11:30-31) "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." The word translated here as the connecting 'and' can be rendered in several ways -- including as a disjunctive, that is, 'or' or, when used with a negation, 'nor.' So, the vow can be rightly understood as "Whatever greets me [and only humans do that] shall be the Lord's OR I will offer it as a 'burnt offering.'" And then, further, the word translated as "burnt offering" ['olah[^]] does not literally mean "burnt offering," but rather "what is brought up" or "that which goes up." Its connotation is total dedication to the Lord. So, even if 'and,' rather than 'or,' is the correct understanding of the word, fulfilling the vow does not require that Jephthah kill his daughter.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Sounds suspicious to me....
The notes to one of my Bibles say: "Because a woman could suffer no greater disgrace than to die childless, Jephthah's daughter asks for time to bewail her virginity." The text is plain. He promised to make a burnt offering and he did what he promised.
John Carson
I meant, she goes into the wilderness for 2 months BECAUSE she is upset to die a virgin, that sounds to me like there could be something else going on. I was kind of kidding around.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I would suggest that her perpetual virginity means she died a virgin.
Of course she died a virgin ... else she'd not have been a perpetual virgin. But the Bible doesn't say that she was killed, it says that her father fulfilled his vow. Now, the vow has two parts: (NIV; Judges 11:30-31) "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." The word translated here as the connecting 'and' can be rendered in several ways -- including as a disjunctive, that is, 'or' or, when used with a negation, 'nor.' So, the vow can be rightly understood as "Whatever greets me [and only humans do that] shall be the Lord's OR I will offer it as a 'burnt offering.'" And then, further, the word translated as "burnt offering" ['olah[^]] does not literally mean "burnt offering," but rather "what is brought up" or "that which goes up." Its connotation is total dedication to the Lord. So, even if 'and,' rather than 'or,' is the correct understanding of the word, fulfilling the vow does not require that Jephthah kill his daughter.
Ilíon wrote:
else she'd not have been a perpetual virgin.
The phrase is stupid. I mean, she died a virgin, the end. Perpetual implies she's still alive.
Ilíon wrote:
So, the vow can be rightly understood as "Whatever greets me (and only humans do that) shall be the Lord's" OR I will offer it as a 'burnt offering.'
Sounds like a lot of word games to me.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Except, of course, that it does not say that he killed his daughter.
There is a way to make a burnt offering of a daughter without killing her? You are talking nonsense.
"Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry." "You may go", he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
And what was it that he vowed? He vowed: "I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering".
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
There is a way to make a burnt offering of a daughter without killing her? You are talking nonsense.
No, the truth is that you refuse to think and learn. Understanding what is really being related there upsets your little apple-cart of hypocritical critique of the Bible (and thus of God) ... but, because you are intellectually dishonest, and a hypocrite, you are quite willing to refuse to learn and to continue to ignorantly "criticise." I've already explained[^] that he did not *literally* vow to offer whomever greeted him as a "burnt offering."
-
Ilíon wrote:
else she'd not have been a perpetual virgin.
The phrase is stupid. I mean, she died a virgin, the end. Perpetual implies she's still alive.
Ilíon wrote:
So, the vow can be rightly understood as "Whatever greets me (and only humans do that) shall be the Lord's" OR I will offer it as a 'burnt offering.'
Sounds like a lot of word games to me.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
John Carson wrote:
There is a way to make a burnt offering of a daughter without killing her? You are talking nonsense.
No, the truth is that you refuse to think and learn. Understanding what is really being related there upsets your little apple-cart of hypocritical critique of the Bible (and thus of God) ... but, because you are intellectually dishonest, and a hypocrite, you are quite willing to refuse to learn and to continue to ignorantly "criticise." I've already explained[^] that he did not *literally* vow to offer whomever greeted him as a "burnt offering."
Your dissection of the verses to prove they meant he DIDN'T burn his daughter is the most intellectually dishonest thing I have read for some time. I know I call you that sometimes half in jest, but this time I really mean it. You are everything you accuse others of, you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Your dissection of the verses to prove they meant he DIDN'T burn his daughter is the most intellectually dishonest thing I have read for some time. I know I call you that sometimes half in jest, but this time I really mean it. You are everything you accuse others of, you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
Your dissection of the verses to prove they meant he DIDN'T burn his daughter is the most intellectually dishonest thing I have read for some time.
I'm fascinated by the fact that he keeps insisting that while the Word of God must be taken literally, he and he alone will interpret everything it says for us. And his version of what God says appears to be at total odds with what it is plain that God has said. He seems quite perturbed when you, or any of us, question his divine revelations - he seems to spit up as much vitriol as Leo X did when he read Martin Luther's 95 Theses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I would suggest that her perpetual virginity means she died a virgin.
Of course she died a virgin ... else she'd not have been a perpetual virgin. But the Bible doesn't say that she was killed, it says that her father fulfilled his vow. Now, the vow has two parts: (NIV; Judges 11:30-31) "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." The word translated here as the connecting 'and' can be rendered in several ways -- including as a disjunctive, that is, 'or' or, when used with a negation, 'nor.' So, the vow can be rightly understood as "Whatever greets me [and only humans do that] shall be the Lord's OR I will offer it as a 'burnt offering.'" And then, further, the word translated as "burnt offering" ['olah[^]] does not literally mean "burnt offering," but rather "what is brought up" or "that which goes up." Its connotation is total dedication to the Lord. So, even if 'and,' rather than 'or,' is the correct understanding of the word, fulfilling the vow does not require that Jephthah kill his daughter.
Ilíon wrote:
And then, further, the word translated as "burnt offering" ['olah[^]] does not literally mean "burnt offering," but rather "what is brought up" or "that which goes up." Its connotation is total dedication to the Lord. So, even if 'and,' rather than 'or,' is the correct understanding of the word, fulfilling the vow does not require that Jephthah kill his daughter.
The entry you link to is an entry for burnt offering, which is said to be the ordinary translation of "olah".
John Carson
-
Gary Kirkham: There are only errors in interpretation by those who have their own bias or reject certain parts of the Bible (people such as Oakman). DryRot, the "Troll": Gary. I don't reject anything. My favorite part of the Bible is where Lot, the one good man in Sodom, offers his virgin daughters up to the mob to screw, blue, and tatoo so he can have a private confab with God's angels. I've often thought that should be the biblical text for every father's day sermon. It's such a touching story. . .
Oakman knows, of course, that the Bible is relating an event/decision here which is relevant to the overall story, that it is not saying "Go thou and do likewise." Oakman ought to know (and I suspect does) that Lot's act was all-but dictated by the norms of his time and place, backed up by fear. Oakman ... who uses other men's daughters (or so he claims) as sluts ... who declares, when it suits him, that there are no transcendant and binding moral obligations, is now declaring, because it suits his trollishness to do so, that there *are* transcendant and binding moral obligations. This is both intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. Oakman knows, of course, that the angels -- God's mouthpieces -- would have none of that, and that they performed an immediate judgment upon the men, even aside from the fatal one the next day.
^H^H^H^H^H^H^H NO CARRIER [edit] [giggles]
modified on Sunday, November 9, 2008 1:25 PM
-
Ilíon wrote:
else she'd not have been a perpetual virgin.
The phrase is stupid. I mean, she died a virgin, the end. Perpetual implies she's still alive.
Ilíon wrote:
So, the vow can be rightly understood as "Whatever greets me (and only humans do that) shall be the Lord's" OR I will offer it as a 'burnt offering.'
Sounds like a lot of word games to me.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Sounds like a lot of word games to me.
Do you want to understand, or do you not?
Here's a question. Is the bible written in a way that people can understand, or do they require an interpreter, someone like you to explain why various passages do not mean what they actually say ? Was Jesus bringing a message to all men, or just people who know you ? Do you have similar word games to explain why you're free to ignore Paul when he tells us to be all things to all men, or any of the other verses I've raised in the past that condemn your actions here ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Ilíon wrote:
And then, further, the word translated as "burnt offering" ['olah[^]] does not literally mean "burnt offering," but rather "what is brought up" or "that which goes up." Its connotation is total dedication to the Lord. So, even if 'and,' rather than 'or,' is the correct understanding of the word, fulfilling the vow does not require that Jephthah kill his daughter.
The entry you link to is an entry for burnt offering, which is said to be the ordinary translation of "olah".
John Carson
Are you surprised? He never understands what he reads. There's been two academic papers we've discussed on this message board and both times he has got their interpretation completely wrong. Is it any wonder he can't understand his scripture?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Your dissection of the verses to prove they meant he DIDN'T burn his daughter is the most intellectually dishonest thing I have read for some time.
I'm fascinated by the fact that he keeps insisting that while the Word of God must be taken literally, he and he alone will interpret everything it says for us. And his version of what God says appears to be at total odds with what it is plain that God has said. He seems quite perturbed when you, or any of us, question his divine revelations - he seems to spit up as much vitriol as Leo X did when he read Martin Luther's 95 Theses.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Yeah, it's definately at odds with his claims of intellectual superiority,
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Oakman knows, of course, that the Bible is relating an event/decision here which is relevant to the overall story
Absolutely. If Lot doesn't get private face time with the angels then he doesn't get to escape from Sodom. It's imperative that Daddy offer up his virgins, otherwise his ass is grass and God is the lawnmower. Luckily, he does get out of town in time. And after some other adventures, he gets falling down drunk one night at which point his daughters decide to show how much they love him, by playing ride-a-cock-horsie with dear old dad and both of them end up pregnant and founding a new city.
Ilíon wrote:
Lot's act was all-but dictated by the norms of his time and place, backed up by fear
Well, if Lot was acting out the norms of Sodom - how come he was saved? And if he was acting out of fear, what kind of a man is that? An Ilion-type I suppose. Your life seems full of fear. Me, I don't understand ball-less wimps.
Ilíon wrote:
who uses other men's daughters (or so he claims) as sluts
Not me. I have loved women all my life - as many as possible as often as possible. Of course we may not be at odds here - aren't you one of those who defines "slut" as any woman who has a healthy appreciation for sex?
Ilíon wrote:
Oakman knows, of course, that the angels -- God's mouthpieces -- would have none of that, and that they performed an immediate judgment upon the men, even aside from the fatal one the next day.
But they didn't perform a judgement on Daddy, apparently deeming his actions to be proper and holy. Whereas his wife who commits the terrible and unpardonable sin of looking back at her homeland as it is destroyed, is punished immediately and without any of the forebearance that Lot seemed to enjoy. Go figure.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But they didn't perform a judgement on Daddy, apparently deeming his actions to be proper and holy. Whereas his wife who commits the terrible and unpardonable sin of looking back at her homeland as it is destroyed, is punished immediately and without any of the forebearance that Lot seemed to enjoy. Go figure.
We could never begin to understand the way God thinks. He is so far above us we can not relate. However, Lot's wife's screw up was lack of faith and still wanting that which she was leaving, but they had been warned. Most likely the reason for Lot and his daughters riding the wild pony, was to produce a lineage of honest, faithful, upstanding people, which at that time, it seems, was hard to find.
My Blog: http://cynicalclots.blogspot.com
-
Oakman wrote:
But they didn't perform a judgement on Daddy, apparently deeming his actions to be proper and holy. Whereas his wife who commits the terrible and unpardonable sin of looking back at her homeland as it is destroyed, is punished immediately and without any of the forebearance that Lot seemed to enjoy. Go figure.
We could never begin to understand the way God thinks. He is so far above us we can not relate. However, Lot's wife's screw up was lack of faith and still wanting that which she was leaving, but they had been warned. Most likely the reason for Lot and his daughters riding the wild pony, was to produce a lineage of honest, faithful, upstanding people, which at that time, it seems, was hard to find.
My Blog: http://cynicalclots.blogspot.com
Dirk Higbee wrote:
We could never begin to understand the way God thinks. He is so far above us we can not relate
I'll throw my bible out immediately since it must be full of wild-ass guesses.
Dirk Higbee wrote:
Lot and his daughters riding the wild pony, was to produce a lineage of honest, faithful, upstanding people
Unfortunately they produced the city of Moab which, while it spoke a dialect of Hebrew, worshipped Ashtar and Baal. Something presumably not considered honest, faithful, or upstanding.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface