cujo006's Rebuttal to JP Holding Re: Jephthah

[Manwë Súlimo]

That's not a bird. That's a whoopie cushion with feathers.

[fm93]

Some more examples:







Typing in "doves fighting" on YouTube brings up an entire page of results.

Eat it, Sarah.

[Hamster]

Their ancestors were terrifying bloodthirsty raptors and now they beg elderly people for popcorn

[JB]

Their ancestors were terrifying bloodthirsty raptors and now they beg elderly people for popcorn

I would not be surprised to find that there are some people here at TheologyWeb of whom the same could probably be said.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Their ancestors were terrifying bloodthirsty raptors and now they beg elderly people for popcorn

Too bad Mossy is so stingy with it.

[jpholding]

That's not a bird. That's a whoopie cushion with feathers.

It kind of reminded me of Cocoa at bath time.

[SarahB]

Some more examples:


Typing in "doves fighting" on YouTube brings up an entire page of results.

Eat it, Sarah.

Are you saying that, in Matthew 10:16, Jesus instructs JP Holding to be vicious?

Please expound on what you mean by "Eat it, Sarah."

[Hamster]

I think he's talking about the eucharist

[SarahB]

I think he's talking about the eucharist

I'll have a hamster wry on rye.

[jpholding]

Let me guess what the little girl said:

HA! Those videos are obviously faked. Holding gave those poor helpless birds psychiatric medication to make them react violently. Duh hah heh...

Anywhere close?

[One Bad Pig]

Let me guess what the little girl said:

HA! Those videos are obviously faked. Holding gave those poor helpless birds psychiatric medication to make them react violently. Duh hah heh...

Anywhere close?

Not really.

[jpholding]

Not really.

Ah well. Y'all can have my other two guesses.

[BlacJac06]

A minor mistake that was admitted to is the best you got? That's pretty funny! But yeah, giving skepticism WITHOUT a reason is indeed a made up excuse.

I seriously hope it was a minor mistake Pixie -- cause I've seen you effectively dialogue with many skeptics and held you in high regard.

I don't see how you can say that repeating something (skepticism towards Papias' testimony) that is talked about and accepted by the broad mainstream of NT scholarship as "made up". It may be an excuse -- in the sense that you feel your opponent didn't provide adequate justification for it -- but "made up excuse" gives the impression that you think he just....made it up.

[lilpixieofterror]

I seriously hope it was a minor mistake Pixie -- cause I've seen you effectively dialogue with many skeptics and held you in high regard.

Blac,many people make minor mistakes and mistake one name for another. Get over it already.

I don't see how you can say that repeating something (skepticism towards Papias' testimony) that is talked about and accepted by the broad mainstream of NT scholarship as "made up". It may be an excuse -- in the sense that you feel your opponent didn't provide adequate justification for it -- but "made up excuse" gives the impression that you think he just....made it up.

Was there any attempt made to appeal to the scholarship or was there just a blanket assertion made?

[cujo006]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Phineas Q. Fexx of the ISRB, or International Stupidity Ratings Board. In order to save all of you time and grief, we will be assigning certain statements to follow Stupidity Ratings. In our system, 1 is intelligent, and 10 is mind-numbingly stupid. Explanations for ratings will follow.

If only you would actually apply a little self-criticism, you'd see why reality is not exactly in sync with you as will be shown below.

It's obvious that Matthew was originally written in Greek and this is apparent due to the many Greek ad verbatim similarities with Mark.

Stupid Rating: 8

As has been observed by numerous scholars, a qualified bilingual is perfectly capable of producing a work in one language (like Greek) that shows few or no signs of having been in another language before (like Aramaic), so that it is false (and exceptionally stupid) to say that such things would be “easily detectable.” In addition, uncritical acceptance of Markan priority, in spite of evidence to the contrary, to say nothing of innumerable problems with the thesis, earns a higher Stupid Rating.

http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.html

Markan priority is neither anything damaging to Christianity, nor is there any evidence to the contrary least of all in that link, as far as my memory of your material on this stuff serves. Unless of course one wants to say that Matthew was written by the Apostle (I don't know if that's true, but I find it unlikely personally and it's not necessary to be true for the Gospel's content to be true), and everyone knows Luke used sources as he states in his two prologues. John, being an eyewitness, in my opinion writes about new things and is thus different except for the ending which he adds additional personal information, and shows that he also knows Mark (but does not use him). Someone might translate something very well into a different language but hardly would so much be in common with Mark, and that's all anyone needs to say to that argument.

Not really, Genesis 22:2 and Exodus 18:12 use "olah" as the word for burnt offering.

Stupid Rating: 10

The high rating is earned due to the commentators repeated error of simply shouting “A!” over and over again after A has been repeatedly refuted, it having been shown that “burnt” is a descriptive paraphrase and a liberty taken by translators --or as Sarna and Potok say in their JPS commentary on Leviticus, it is a "functional translation" and not a literal one.

You've refuted nothing because you haven't even addressed the fact that 'olah' is used as the word for burnt sacrifice clearly involving the killing of an animal in several verses. Here is a whole list of verses that have 'olah' as a 'whole burnt offering' as practically every concordance it seems translates it: http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/5930.html . It should be obvious then, that the "functional" reading of "burnt" is correct seeing how God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as "an olah" and so on. You have never answered how it is that 'olah' does not mean burnt offering despite being offered Genesis 22:2 and Exodus 18:12 as examples so it's not me who is claiming "A!" when it has been refuted - it's the other way around.

The word literally means ASCENT only some of the time.

Stupid Rating: 10

The high rating is earned because of the manifestly contrived nature of this excuse, in which it is supposed that a word could somehow semantically evolve to mean two such entirely different concepts as “burnt” and “ascend”. In reality ‘olah means “ascent” at ALL times, and “burnt” as noted is a descriptive paraphrase and a translational liberty.

My dear confused friend. Smoke ascends. Smoke comes from burnt things. And olah does not mean ascent all times as you can see for yourself in Genesis 22:2 and Exodus 18:12 (this is at least the 4th or 5th time I've mentioned those two verses as examples to you which you've ignored).

NO Scholar agrees with you.

Stupid Rating: 6, plus an Irony Rating of 10.

Many scholars have believed many things. It's simply that they have let their imaginations run wild.

But the ones that actually know the languages don't agree with you, and that's what I was referring to.

I never said 'olah' meant burning by itself. I said 'olah' referred to burnt sacrifices as a whole and this is how verses like Genesis 22:2 and Exodus 18:12 express it and this is how scholars translate the word in certain contexts. It never means "burnt" by itself and I never said that. It means ascend (like a staircase or smoke) or burnt sacrifices which undoubtedly originates from the Hebrew word for ascending due to the ascension of smoke.

Stupid Rating: 7, plus an Honesty Rating of 0 and an Open Self-Contradiction Rating of 10

Yeah, in your imagination. Where did I say it meant burnt by itself?

The "shame" the Arameans chose (a whole army) is in no way equatable to someone having the pain of cancer, I'm sorry to say. For many people to live with having lost a battle is a pretty good way to live and apparently so for the ancients as well.

Stupid Rating: 9

This of course is not an answer, merely a “nanny nanny boo boo is not is not” by someone whose readings in the social sciences comes mainly from cereal boxes.

Oh it's an answer and your response shows nothing but that you have no way out. The Arameans didn't care that they were defeated. The Roman cavalry that surrendered to Maharbal (one of Hannibal's commanders) don't show your version of the social sciences. I'm not the one who is reading things from cereal boxes, my friend: you're reading things from your wild imagination as if it were fact.

If every one of the Canaanites chose the supposed pain of shame then obviously this wasn't the pain your honor-shame society has in the ancient world.

Stupid Rating: 8

Already answered. The subject is unable to process anything but extremes in which people either all choose shame or all choose death.

But if one could choose inbetween extremes then your version of a difference between the modern and ancient world in terms of honor-shame no longer applies at all! Obviously there are extremes either way even today, so what is making the ancient world with their honor-shame any different if the extremes aren't much more acute than ours?

I don't need to read any books.

Stupid Rating: 10 x 10 x 10 x 10

People this stupid think “logic” is all they need, which is why they screw up so often on facts, a la little_monkey.

Of course when you quote it out of context you're doing nothing more than showing your own ignorance and hypocrisy especially when you point it out from all the atheists and unbelievers who do it. The full context of that statement (context is apparently alien to you) is that I don't need to read books to know that the ancients didn't have a high sensitivity to shame the way you describe it: all I need is a few examples to show you wrong, and I only cited 2!

That's exactly my point. They were shamed, but not to the degree you claim where they would choose death over life.

Stupid Rating: 7

What evades out subject here is the very simple point that what would be sought was honorable death in battle. Once disarmed, there was no such honorable death possible; any death, even a self-inflicted one, would be considered shameful.

Uh, anyone would seek glory in battle, that has nothing to do with the honor-shame society you use for most of your points, such as the one where the Canaanites would have preferred death over being defeated by Israel and surviving. They were in fact defeated and they didn't prefer death, when they were captured and put to servitude in Joshua's day.

Of course this type of ignorance is common among those who claim “I don’t need to read any books.”

If someone who "doesn't read books" is thrashing your theories, imagine if I actually read one - you would probably have to invent some game show to try to make your posts interesting, and I do say try, so that you make up for your absence of logic and lack of facts.

They were rendered helpless that's EXACTLY my point, and they didn't kill themselves according to your honor shame society.

Stupid Rating: 8

Again, the sort of ignorance that comes of someone who says they don’t need to read books, thinks “common sense” can tell them what they need to know, and which is indeed reflective of a fundamentalist “all or nothing” approach.

Of course, someone like you might not have common sense as is obvious from all of your posts (i.e. ignoring 'olah' as burnt sacrifice in Genesis 22:2 and Exodus 18:12 15 times, not realizing that your position on honor-shame necessities extremes most of the time, that sort of thing). My friend, don't you realize that if you never had the extremes in your version of honor-shame, you don't have an honor shame society at all - you just have today's society.

That's seizing one's own destiny only in a grandiose imagination. Nobody would have seen it that way, least of all Jephthah's daughter.

Stupid Rating: 4

Not particularly stupid, since nothing is said or argued, merely another nanny nanny boo boo is not is not. Everybody would have seen it that way, particularly the younger women.

Nobody would have seen it that way, especially if someone like Deborah wasn't being celebrated 1 day out of the year. Nobody would have given 4 for Jephthah's daughter for such an absurd version of "seizing one's own destiny".

I didn't claim Deborah being judge was minor, I said Jephthah's daughter seizing her own destiny was minor in comparison... yet Jephthah's daughter is celebrated???

Stupid Rating: 8

The original comment replied to never claimed Deborah being a judge was minor either. The rest had been clearly answered by pointing to the equitable social and honor rating of Jephthah with Deborah, which would be shared with his daughter and thus make the incident anything but “minor”.

1) Jephthah's daughter would have never shared it to the same degree or status
2) Deborah would have clearly been the one to be celebrated over Jephthah's daughter since she was herself a judge (and prophetess!) whereas Jephthah's daughter was simply 12-14 years old - the daughter of a judge (who was not a prophet)

Come on. Jephthah may have had prestige, but Jephthah's daughter's action would have never been as newsworthy as you try to make it. It's simple common sense.

Stupid Rating: 10 x 5

Those who appeal to “common sense” as appendices to their nanny nanny boo boos and offer no other answer merely manifest their incorrigible ignorance and lack of education.

Let me tell you a secret that you apparently don't know. Those who appeal to common sense actually make sense, my friend. That's no nanny boo boo - it's simple logic which you fail to grasp. It would be like saying someone's 12 year old daughter decided to get herself sent to military school by doing something that made her father do it (such as breaking something and getting him angry) - no one in their right mind (not sure if that includes you, since you don't think having common sense is a good thing apparently), would see this the way you're trying to say it seems. Moreover, had Jephthah's daughter wanted to become celibate and dedicated to God, she would have simply done it without having to enter Jephthah's vow.

Stupid Rating: 6

As has been pointed out, apart from doing the young female population injury, which would be even stupider, there was no means to stop them. And once again, ignoring Lysistrata shows a remarkable depth of cultural ignorance.

Lysistrata is a city-state, not a tribe of Israel which would have been more than capable to have its male population stop an opposition by women (which is by the way, once again invented by you). Moreover, if they weren't able to stop the women, one wonders why they felt any need from pressure of a presumably patriarchic society to celebrate the action of Jepthah's daughter - it would be like the men of Sparta going to a place in honor of a man having become a king - it would have been no big deal if the women were so capable of fighting off the men. On the other hand, if they were looking for minor examples everywhere, then clearly they were being oppressed and clearly had no power in the first place.

Are you kidding? Of course the male judges were celebrated.

Stupid Rating: 9

The subject broadens the category of “celebrated” from observances, as with J’s daughter, to such things as “being made national leader,” which illicitly expands the category. However, in turn, this also brings forth an Open Self-Immolation Score of 10, since it would now be possible to say that Deborah too was “celebrated” which earlier it has been claimed was not the case. At the same time:

Umm, your comment was that the male judges weren't celebrated. If having become the commander and leader of Gilead from being the head of robbers (Judges 11:8-12), that's certainly not a man without celebration, though one doesn't need to go to the hills 4 days out of the year to do it. And this celebration, since you apparently shun common sense, does not involve going to the hills for 4 days, then neither would it have happened for Jephthah's daughter.

And nobody would have ever seen the action of Jephthah's daughter as anything to be celebrate by reason of common sense.

Stupid Rating: 5

As noted, “common sense” appeals are the refuge of the ignorant. To wit:

Sorry, but if you learned some common sense, you would probably:

A) Stop trying to replace legitimate arguments and facts with attempts at being interesting and funny
B) Actually learn something and improve Christian apologetics overall

They would have probably regarded it strange because they would have judged the results which amount to more or less nothing (becoming dedicated to be celibate for life? So what destiny did that achieve?).

Stupid Rating: 8

As sole heir to Jephthah’s wealth as a tribal cheiftain, his daughter would enjoy the power and prestige that came with it. That’s “more or less nothing” all right.

And everyone would have said to themselves - what a shame. Not, "oh snap, she seized her own destiny by entering her father's vow!"

Not to mention that by your theory, it's men who force her to be celibate anyway, so you can't say that just because Deborah was a prophetess by God's will, she wouldn't have been celebrated because it was God's will and not her own. That makes no sense.

Stupid Rating: 9

The theory in question does not say men “force” her to be celibate.

In a patriarchial society, who would be doing that? Much less that it's her father's vow - who do you think will be taking her to have the vow completed?

Don't ascribe to me your judgments of patronization which I nowhere made, you judgmental idiot.

Hypocrisy Rating: 10

Oh no my friend, if you haven't actually understood, one can judge things that aren't doubtful (Romans 14:1-2) such as your obvious stupidity. But when someone says or does something that may or may not be a sin for them, depending on how they understand things, then you should refrain (which is what you didn't do).

The death was unfortunate and anyone who reads the text with the same understanding that I have (iow 99% of the people since the 18th century; prior to it 100%) would agree. The word means both celebrate and lament whether in Judges or elsewhere as you can see for yourself from Strong's (e.g. qbible.com).

Stupid Rating: 7

Merely contrives yet another semantic fantasy by use of circular reasoning, as well as a fallacious appeal to majority as a substitute for real argument. In addition, one cannot judge from “elsewhere” as the word appears only in Judges. There is also a rather obvious word for “lament” (caphad) which was used frequently in contexts of deceased persons, but not here, and lexical sources like Gesenius make it clear that the meaning of the word (tanah) is to give gifts, celebrate with praise, or narrate.

My fallacious appeal to majority would be my first fallacy, and the previous one was your 151st. Furthermore, I was merely referring again to that little thing you so disdain - common sense. Most people who read the story know what the author is trying to say. Furthermore, the author wouldn't have written it the way he did if he meant what you're trying to say, because he would have pointed out the "seizing the destiny" and everything else. Furthermore, giyl is a much more common and unambiguous word for celebrate/rejoice and is used exclusively for that. In fact "tanah" appears only one other time in the Old Testament - in Judges 5:11 and it's translated as "rehearse". Gesenius, who lived in the 19th century, was undoubtedly not unknown by the people who translated the Hebrew since time immemorial, so this word clearly doesn't mean only one thing, and judging from its usage and from the context of the story, the fact that "giyl" wasn't used, makes it more probable it refers to "lament" (as I'm sure every translator of the Bible, who knows Hebrew, has done). In fact, find one reading that has "celebrate" or "rejoice" instead of "lament" in Judges 11:40.

By any means obviously. The gathering would not be major at first: they'd execute the leaders once the movement became obvious and maybe even the followers much like the Romans did with Jewish false prophets as I'm sure you know from Josephus.

Stupid Rating: 8

It takes a great deal of stupidity to suppose that Israel’s leaders would risk the future of their nation, at a time when infant and child mortality was so high, by executing young women on such a scale.

Uh, are you kidding. 100-200 women at the most would not have been a big deal in order to restore order - they had plenty of people and it wasn't until the 11 tribes made a vow to utterly destroy Benjamin (about 26,000 people - Benjamin being the smallest tribe) that they "ran out" of women - and then they found a simple solution - they married their neighbors.

The point that you missed is that the male oppression never existed in the first place. Thus nobody would have celebrated someone "seizing their own destiny" (simply by entering their father's vow) because nobody would have ever felt like men were absolutely controlling due to Deborah having been judge.

Stupid Rating: 10

There is not a single scholar in the world, whether Biblical or social science, who would deny that the Biblical world was heavily patriarchal and that men controlled the lives, sexuality, and freedom of young women. In addition, there is additional ignorance with respect to the case of Deborah, as older and more respected women in such societies were permitted to become functionally and socially “male”.

What I meant was that the oppression wasn't as if it was a prison. Highly patriarchal societies also, like Sparta, tend to make the women more powerful than average sometimes - not sure about Rome, but I know this for Sparta: women could own property (sometimes) and in general enjoyed a higher status. So what I was saying is that your idea of an oppression that would bring out a desire to celebrate 4 days a year every year a young girl "seizing her own destiny" by entering her father's vow would have never existed. Especially with the example of Deborah (older woman or not - she was a woman so for her to achieve male-like status means the male oppression apparently did not exist. Would be like saying Sparta had a female general).

Exactly: you only pig out just before you go on a strict diet. Why would she pig out (iow cry about not being married) before the vow, which wasted 2 months of everyone's time, if she could do it afterwards?

Stupid Rating: 6

Apart from the fact that no one’s time is being “wasted” by this process, other than that of readers who are enduring the subject’s drivel, it is manifestly obvious, as has been stated, that it is just as well to say she could cry before as well as after.

No, my foolish friend. If you would actually read the argument and compute it in your devoid of critical thinking ideas, you'd see that there is no point for Jephthah to wait for 2 months while his daughter is lamenting and then have the vow completed.

However, “before” is the most obvious time to do so, given that it would commemorate the matter before the actual event (the redemption) which formed a dividing line between the two stages of life.

Only in your struggle to save this ludicrous reading of Judges 11 would anyone be commemorating this in that way.

Charam is very often used with respect to the Canaanites, Amalekites, and other enemies, but Leviticus 27 is clear in that it is not exclusively applied only to them.

Stupid Rating: 10

A very poor attempt to contrive an explanation to get out of a very serious blunder. The bottom line is that charam means accursed, and J’s daughter was not accursed. This was the main point, which was ignored.

Where does charam mean one had to be "accursed" and that Jephthah's daughter wasn't accursed? She clearly fell under Jephthah's vow to perform an 'olah' for God. It doesn't even need to be under Leviticus 27.

By the way, special vows are cleared mentioned in Leviticus so no one is getting out of a tight corner. One could make a simple vow such as: "I vow to break every Ammonite/Amalekite silverware in my house tomorrow." and under Deuteronomy 23:21-23 they would have to do it, or else it's a sin, as far as I understand the text.

Stupid Rating: 5

All the vows in Leviticus are “special” but all are specific. There is no general, all purpose vow as was attempted to claim. Deuteronomy intelligibly refers to these specific vows and there is no reason, other than needing to get out of an embarrassing set of blunders, to create a new all purpose category of vows.

Deuteronomy....23......21-23......you make a vow..... you have to fulfill.... it..... Also the same with every ancient such as the Greeks - you make a vow, you have to fulfill it, as Herodotus notes.

Stupid Rating: 10

Merely another nanny nanny boo boo is not is not. Samuel was clearly not under a Lev. 27 vow but under a Numbers 6 vow. The offering made was not that of the Lev. 27 vow (silver) but rather matches that of Numbers 8, an offering for consecration of Levites.

Uhh, wrong again. Samuel is clearly under a Nazirite as well as Leviticus 27:1-8 vow: the Levites in Numbers 8 start work from ages 25-50. Furthermore, the vow to consecrate Samuel is clearly intended for him to be given as an offering in Leviticus 27:1-8. Moreover, this still shows that one who is dedicated to God doesn't need to be celibate even if Samuel is under Numbers 8 where they are presented as a wave offering.

Stupid Rating: 10

Serving the rest of his life is not a “payment”. Lev. 27 specifies a payment in shekels, which is conspicuously and embarrassingly missing from 1 Samuel 1.

I wasn't saying Samuel's lifetime servitude was payment. Simply that he is a clear example of someone dedicated to God. If you expect the author to write out absolutely every detail, including the journey Samuel's mother took from her house with Samuel and who she met along the way, then one has to wonder why it is that Jephthah being consecrated at ALL is conspicuously and embarrassingly missing in Judges 11 - instead we have the implication that she became an olah. For the readers who like common sense unlike JP Holding - refer to Genesis 22:2 for what "olah" means (also you can check Exodus 18:12).

He had kids however, which is the opposite of your interpretation of Jephthah's daughter's fate if she fell under Leviticus 27:1-8.

Circular Reasoning Rating: 10

Which thus is actually further proof that Samuel was not under a Lev. 27 vow.

Not really because you haven't proven anything of the sort, which is the true circular reasoning.

Well according to you she went to "fake lament" not being able to marry for 2 months in the hills. How does that square with all of Israel finding out?

Stupid Rating: 8

People who think they don’t need to read books would be unaware of the standard “gossip” network in this type of culture which would spread news of this event throughout the nation.

People who don't know how to read context shouldn't try reading books in the first place. If she was fake-lamenting, then she was trying to fool people which clearly didn't work (according to you). But since the author of Judges portrays her lament as genuine, then according to you, she fooled him! I certainly know the word would spread fast which is how we got the story in Judges 11.

In addition, such people would be too ignorant to know that the public display of emotion would be expected (and the honorable thing to do) regardless.

The height of lunacy to interpret her lament that way. Not to mention you're arbitrarily assigning public displays of emotion (highly questionable to exist in these circumstances - for not being able to marry).

If someone found out her displays of emotion didn't necessarily reflect the actual feelings, she probably would have been stoned before she could return from the hills.

Stupid Rating: 10, plus a Bigoted Ignoramus Rating of 10

This is simply untrue, and again the sort of ignorance displayed by those who say they don’t need to read books.

It's common sense. For those who don't like common sense, it would make sense to think this is ignorance. The true ignorance is 60% of what you've said so far. The other is 30% incorrect mixed with 10% imagination and delusion.

For someone who doesn't like common sense, it would certainly make sense to think I said I don't need to read books. Here was my comment where I said "I didn't need to read books":

The examples from Japan are not comparable to the extent you wish them to be. You simply invent things out of thin air. The "shame" the Arameans chose (a whole army) is in no way equatable to someone having the pain of cancer, I'm sorry to say. For many people to live with having lost a battle is a pretty good way to live and apparently so for the ancients as well. If every one of the Canaanites chose the supposed pain of shame then obviously this wasn't the pain your honor-shame society has in the ancient world. I don't need to read any books. You simply need to actually learn to criticize your own logic. Nothing you've said here has refuted anything.

If you honestly think this means that I said I don't need to read books, then:

1) You're more deluded than I thought
2) You have even less comprehension than your absurd theories as you have them on youtube suggest
3) You don't realize that your absence of knowledge can't be replaced by misquoting people especially when it's obvious you have no critical thinking and no ability to criticize what you come up with.

This is not a “self-invented” concept but brute fact, to wit: Pilch and Malina in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values [50ff, 56ff] note the emphasis in the Biblical world on dramatic orientation as a point of honor. To be expressive in word and deed was to "gain, maintain, and enhance personal and group honor." Expressions of eloquence, which involve exaggeration and over-assertion, may at times "not [be] intended to be taken seriously but are made solely for effect and are heartily appreciated and applauded by an audience that enjoys such eloquence when it hears it."

This would be true in situations where one died, or some other significant event, but certainly not for someone to not have the ability to marry (by their own choice), and a fake-lament is not intended by Pilch and Malina. You can't exaggerate acceptably an emotion that isn't genuine, any ancient will tell you that. But then again how can we expect someone who doesn't like common sense to understand this? By the way, since we're misquoting, didn't Malina or Rohrbaugh publicly (or privately in someone's email) finally rebuke your behavior and absurd theories?

What was advantageous about simply demonstrating that a woman could seize her own destiny?

Stupid Rating: 7

Someone who read books on honor-based societies, which were dominated by patriarchalism, would already know the answer to this.

Zero common sense to think someone entering their father's vow was seizing their own destiny. And the patriarchalism claim has already been refuted.

How is it not insincere for you to enter deceptively as a dedication to God?

Stupid Rating: 6

There was no “deception” involved whatsoever. The vow was open for anyone to fulfill.

This could have only been said by someone who is academically ignorant. The vow was open for anyone to fulfill, but surely one wouldn't be seen very "dedicated" in defiling something by entering the vow simply to "seize their own destiny". But I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't like common sense to understand this.

There's nothing real about using God's Law to achieve your ridiculous purpose of "seizing your own destiny in a man's world". You've completely changed the meaning Jephthah and his daughter has in Judges 11. She certainly disobeys him if Jephthah didn't intend the vow for her, and there's no need for a literal command from Jephthah - or else that means he somehow expected his daughter might do this, which would have led him to say "I will offer the first thing that greets me from my house, except for my daughter." The daughter's actions are clearly disobedient to the whole society if not her father and that would have been seen offensive anyway. And I don't see how Jephthah dishonored himself - his oath was made, as far as I read Judges 11, with a clear conscience and the oath was simply a righteous one that unfortunately had tragic consequences - God wanted to test Jephthah and I know he must have strengthened many not just with Jephthah's resolve, but with his daughter's courage.

Stupid Rating: 6

Yes, actually, there would be need for a literal command from Jephthah. This is merely a contrivance to get out of a tight corner. Jephthah no doubt did not expect his daughter to choose to fill the vow, and like many parents, assumed wrongly about what his child would do. It remains that there is no disobedience either to him or the “whole society” as is so bigotedly claimed.

I don't know, but for those who prefer common sense, she was disrespecting her whole society including her father and God by entering the vow under such pretenses with such intentions (female power?). But I wouldn't expect you to understand what integrity is anyway.

And I don't see how Jephthah dishonored himself - his oath was made, as far as I read Judges 11, with a clear conscience and the oath was simply a righteous one that unfortunately

Stupid Rating: 6

Jephthah clearly dishonored himself with a poorly circumscribed vow. To be careless with oaths and vows was exceptionally shameful.

Not at all the meaning of Judges 11 if one actually had the common sense to know how to read context (which you clearly don't when you cite sentences out of context). He may have had the misfortune, but God fulfilled the vow where he defeated the Amonites. Furthermore, Judges 11 clearly praises Jephthah's victory and memory along with it, and does not at all hint at any carelessness but only the misfortune of his daughter having greeted him first.

God wanted to test Jephthah and I know he must have strengthened many not just with Jephthah's resolve, but with his daughter's courage.

Stupid Rating: 4

Importation of modern Joyce Meyer/Charles Stanley homiletics.

If you honestly don't think that others wouldn't have been strengthened by Jephthah's righteousness and his daughter's faithfulness in being courageous and also returning (not running away!), then you certainly have missed the message of Judges 11 in order to fulfill your personal agenda of your version of how things are even if they don't agree with the facts.

But I clearly remember how a 16 year old never even thought about trying to fool others by fake-lamenting over the parents she'd killed. How much more would Jephthah's daughter do this when she didn't have to (she was already in the vow). She has no reason to do it, and she probably wouldn't have really thought about doing it (much less for 2 entire months).

Stupid Rating: 9

Reasons have already been given. The parallel is moronic as she did not kill her father.

It's clearly the same example, but hey, how is someone who shuns common sense like you supposed to be convinced?

She doesn't need to, nor would she want to for 2 entire months if it was a vow that: 1) She wanted, 2) simply meant celibacy for life.

Stupid Rating: 8

The subject now presumes to declare to know what someone would “want”. The “want” however would be clearly present, in order to honorably fulfill public emotional display requirements.

The subject actually has common sense to know what any other person would do given that 1) They wanted the vow, 2) They privately "fake-lamented" (according to you) with friends (not a public display of emotion of any kind), 3) would only be celibate and would not have been allowed for 2 months before the vow would be done. The only requirements exhibited here are your endless attempts to salvage a lost theory.

Why would he let her go for 2 months and not just have her dedicated which wouldn't take more than 1-2 days?

Stupid Rating: 4

Doesn’t explain why not, merely states that he would not.

Oh wait, I should have specified that this explains why he wouldn't do it if one actually uses common sense. Sorry, I'll mention that next time pal.

I never said you said paying the 10 shekels would have taken 2 months. It simply was to say that Jephthah had no reason to wait for 2 months, and money wasn't one of those reasons due to those factors.

Honesty Rating: 0. It was clearly indicated that it would take 2 months to pay in the quoted material.

Learn to read context. I would never suggest it would take Jephthah 2 months to pay something he had (money), and could have done right away (walked to the priest in Gilead or perhaps elsewhere). Here's the quoted material:

Not really. Paying the 10 shekels for her (Leviticus 27:5) wouldn't have taken 2 months.

The above quote explains it: Jephthah would have never waited for 2 months for his daughter to be lamenting, which according to you was fake and apparently fooled the author of Judges, to pay 10 shekels.

My youth has no bearing on my logic and these ad hominem arguments should be well known to you. I'm positive I've read more than you, and if I haven't you certainly haven't shown that with your ability to criticize your own logic and improve your arguments

Arrogance and Egomania Rating: 1,000,000

This concludes our ratings session for this round. We’ll likely have more next time as out subject continues to display manifest stupidity in its most profound incarnations.

Your ideas are very devoid of any real facts or logic beyond the pagan copycat articles. And what's worse is that you seem to be getting worse.