Discussion History BrokenBase / MyLittlePonyFriendshipIsMagic

First up, please read ExampleIndentation and ConversationInTheMainPage. The short version: You should never \\\"reply\\\" to an example as if you were posting in a forum. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected or deleted; if something important is missing, it must be integrated into the example, not tacked on in a subbullet.

About the point of contention: Your post above is a repetition rather than an elucidation of the claims made in the example before I pulled it. I don\\\'t read Hebrew, Biblical or otherwise (I suspect you do neither), so I can only rely on translations and what they say is that Jephtha vowed
->\\\'\\\'\\\"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\\\"\\\'\\\' (Judges 11:31).

There is no mention of devotion to service in the temple, but there is explicit promise of a burnt offering. As I understand you, you postulate that the (assumed) facts that the promise of a burnt offering does not extend to humans, and that a human offering is demoted to lifelong service to the temple \\\"by default\\\", is to be understood as a matter of course, and therefore, does not actually need to be said.

Problem is, do you have any evidence for the truth of this assumption? Because your remarks about alternative translations of 11:40 only point out \\\'\\\'possibilities\\\'\\\'. Even if it is \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' that the intended meaning of 11:40 is \\\"give commendation\\\" or \\\"talk with\\\" etc., that still does not mean it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the intended meaning. The intended meaning \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be \\\"to mourn\\\", \\\"to commemorate\\\", after all. It is not even true that a translation as \\\"give commendation\\\" must mean that J\\\'s daughter is alive, insofar as \\\"give commendation\\\" means \\\"to praise\\\", and you can praise a dead person too.

I\\\'ve actually already \\\"dug deeper\\\" before I reverted the example. Hence I know there is no mention in the Bible that an institution of lifelong celibacy for service in the temple existed at all. You say J\\\'s daughter becomes a \\\"Nazirite\\\" (a word which, of course, does not occur in Judges 11), but a quick Wikipedia search informs me that [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite Nazirites]] are required to abstain from wine, grapes, and anything intoxicating or made from grapes, from cutting their hair, and from coming near graves and corpses. That\\\'s it. No mention of celibacy. Which leads to the question why Jephtha\\\'s vow does not mention a life of celibacy when he meant it. Because it looks like the very idea would \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' have been a matter of course to his contemporaries.

All this adds up to the impression that the \\\"life of celibacy\\\" hypothesis is not backed up with sound arguments. It\\\'s just assumptions heaped on assumptions to get the desired result.

The dominant interpretation of this Bible passage has always been that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, which is why we get [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Darmstadt_2505_11r.jpg illustrations such as this]] or adaptations as [[Music/GeorgeFredericHandel Handel\\\'s]] \\\'\\\'Jephtha\\\'\\\', in which Jephtha intends to sacrifice his daughter (but is stopped by an angel). If you look at \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' the Bible commentaries on the very page you linked (also of [[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/judges/11-31.htm Judges 11:31]]), not just the ones that support the interpretation you wish for, you will find that only a minority of them subscribe to the \\\"not really a human sacrifice\\\" interpretation.

We are not really concerned with the internal consistency or the historical truth of the Bible, but note that Jephtha sacrificing his daughter does not necessarily mean that God endorses this act. Jephtha\\\'s vow was his very own idea; God did not demand the vow, nor its fulfillment. Fact is that human sacrifice is not even an isolated occurrence in the Old Testament: Just check out [[http://biblehub.com/1_kings/16-34.htm 1 Kings 16:34]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/16-3.htm 2 Kings 16:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm 2 Kings 17:17]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/21-6.htm 2 Kings 21:6]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/28-3.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/33-6.htm 2 Chronicles 33:6]]. This is usually explained as the Israelites succumbing to the customs of their neighbors.

First up, please read ExampleIndentation and ConversationInTheMainPage. The short version: You should never \\\"reply\\\" to an example as if you were posting in a forum. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected or deleted; if something important is missing, it must be integrated into the example, not tacked on in a subbullet.

About the point of contention: Your post above is a repetition rather than an elucidation of the claims made in the example before I pulled it. I don\\\'t read Hebrew, Biblical or otherwise (I suspect you do neither), so I can only rely on translations and what they say is that Jephtha vowed
->\\\'\\\'\\\"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\\\"\\\'\\\' (Judges 11:31).

There is no mention of devotion to service in the temple, but there is explicit promise of a burnt offering. As I understand you, you postulate that the (assumed) facts that the promise of a burnt offering does not extend to humans, and that a human offering is demoted to lifelong service to the temple \\\"by default\\\", is to be understood as a matter of course, and therefore, does not actually need to be said.

Problem is, do you have any evidence for the truth of this assumption? Because your remarks about alternative translations of 11:40 only point out \\\'\\\'possibilities\\\'\\\'. Even if it is \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' that the intended meaning of 11:40 is \\\"give commendation\\\" or \\\"talk with\\\" etc., that still does not mean it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the intended meaning. The intended meaning \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be \\\"to mourn\\\", \\\"to commemorate\\\", after all. It is not even true that a translation as \\\"give commendation\\\" must mean that J\\\'s daughter is alive, insofar as \\\"give commendation\\\" means \\\"to praise\\\", and you can praise a dead person too.

I\\\'ve actually already \\\"dug deeper\\\" before I reverted the example. Hence I know there is no mention in the Bible that an institution of lifelong celibacy for service in the temple existed at all. You say J\\\'s daughter becomes a \\\"Nazirite\\\" (a word which, of course, does not occur in Judges 11), but a quick Wikipedia search informs me that [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite Nazirites]] are required to abstain from wine, grapes, and anything intoxicating or made from grapes, from cutting their hair, and from coming near graves and corpses. That\\\'s it. No mention of celibacy. Which leads to the question why Jephtha\\\'s vow does not mention a life of celibacy when he meant it. Because it looks like the very idea would \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' have been a matter of course to his contemporaries.

All this adds up to the impression that the \\\"life of celibacy\\\" hypothesis is not backed up with sound arguments. It\\\'s just assumptions heaped on assumptions to get the desired result.

The dominant interpretation of this Bible passage has always been that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, which is why we get [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Darmstadt_2505_11r.jpg illustrations such as this]] or adaptations as [[Music/GeorgeFredericHandel Handel\\\'s]] \\\'\\\'Jephtha\\\'\\\', in which Jephtha intends to sacrifice his daughter (but is stopped by an angel). If you look at \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' the Bible commentaries on the very page you linked (also of [[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/judges/11-31.htm Judges 11:31]]), not just the ones that support the interpretation you wish for, you will find that only a minority of them subscribe to the \\\"not really a human sacrifice\\\" interpretation.

We are not really concerned with the internal consistency or the historical truth of the Bible, but note that Jephtha sacrificing his daughter does not necessarily mean that God endorses this act. Jephtha\\\'s vow was his very own idea; God did not demand the vow, nor its fulfillment. Fact is that human sacrifice is not even an isolated occurrence in the Old Testament: Just check out [[http://biblehub.com/1_kings/16-34.htm 1 Kings 16:34]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/16-3.htm 2 Kings 16:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm 2 Kings 17:17]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/21-6.htm 2 Kings 21:6]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/28-3.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/33-6.htm 2 Chronicles 33:6]]. This is usually explained as Israelites succumbing to the customs of their neighbors.

First up, please read ExampleIndentation and ConversationInTheMainPage. The short version: You should never \\\"reply\\\" to an example as if you were posting in a forum. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected or deleted; if something important is missing, it must be integrated into the example, not tacked on in a subbullet.

About the point of contention: Your post above is a repetition rather than an elucidation of the claims made in the example before I pulled it. I don\\\'t read Hebrew, Biblical or otherwise (I suspect you do neither), so I can only rely on translations and what they say is that Jephtha vowed
->\\\'\\\'\\\"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\\\"\\\'\\\' (Judges 11:31).

There is no mention of devotion to service in the temple, but there is explicit promise of a burnt offering. As I understand you, you postulate that the (assumed) facts that the promise of a burnt offering does not extend to humans, and that a human offering is demoted to lifelong service to the temple \\\"by default\\\", is to be understood as a matter of course, and therefore, does not actually need to be said.

Problem is, do you have any evidence for the truth of this assumption? Because your remarks about alternative translations of 11:40 only point out \\\'\\\'possibilities\\\'\\\'. Even if it is \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' that the intended meaning of 11:40 is \\\"give commendation\\\" or \\\"talk with\\\" etc., that still does not mean it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the intended meaning. The intended meaning \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be \\\"to mourn\\\", \\\"to commemorate\\\", after all. It is not even true that a translation as \\\"give commendation\\\" must mean that J\\\'s daughter is alive, insofar as \\\"give commendation\\\" means \\\"to praise\\\", and you can praise a dead person too.

I\\\'ve actually already \\\"dug deeper\\\" before I reverted the example. Hence I know there is no mention in the Bible that an institution of lifelong celibacy for service in the temple existed at all. You say J\\\'s daughter becomes a \\\"Nazirite\\\" (a word which, of course, does not occur in Judges 11), but a quick Wikipedia search informs me that [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite Nazirites]] are required to abstain from wine, grapes, and anything intoxicating or made from grapes, from cutting their hair, and from coming near graves and corpses. That\\\'s it. No mention of celibacy. Which leads to the question why Jephtha\\\'s vow does not mention a life of celibacy when he meant it. Because it looks like the very idea would \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' have been a matter of course to his contemporaries.

All this adds up to the impression that the \\\"life of celibacy\\\" hypothesis is not backed up with sound arguments. It\\\'s just assumptions heaped on assumptions to get the desired result.

The dominant interpretation of this Bible passage has always been that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, which is why we get [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Darmstadt_2505_11r.jpg illustrations such as this]] or adaptations as [[Music/GeorgeFredericHandel Handel\\\'s]] \\\'\\\'Jephtha\\\'\\\', in which Jephtha intends to sacrifice his daughter (but is stopped by an angel). If you look at \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' the Bible commentaries on the very page you linked (also of [[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/judges/11-31.htm Judges 11:31]]), not just the ones that support the interpretation you wish for, you will find that only a minority of them subscribe to the \\\"not really a human sacrifice\\\" interpretation.

We are not really concerned with the internal consistency or the historical truth of the Bible, but note that Jephtha sacrificing his daughter does not necessarily mean that God endorses this act. Jephtha\\\'s vow was his very own idea; God did not demand the vow, nor its fulfillment. Fact is that human sacrifice is not even an isolated occurrence in the Old Testament: Just check out [[http://biblehub.com/1_kings/16-34.htm 1 Kings 16:34]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/16-3.htm 2 Kings 16:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm 2 Kings 17:17]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/21-6.htm 2 Kings 21:6]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/28-3.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/33-6.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]]. This is usually explained as Israelites succumbing to the customs of their neighbors.

First up, please read ExampleIndentation and ConversationInTheMainPage. The short version: You should never \\\"reply\\\" to an example as if you were posting in a forum. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected or deleted; if something important is missing, it must be integrated into the example, not tacked on in a subbullet.

About the point of contention: Your post above is a repetition rather than an elucidation of the claims made in the example before I pulled it. I don\\\'t read Hebrew, Biblical or otherwise (I suspect you do neither), so I can only rely on translations and what they say is that Jephtha vowed
->\\\'\\\'\\\"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\\\"\\\'\\\' (Judges 11:31).

There is no mention of devotion to service in the temple, but there is explicit promise of a burnt offering. As I understand you, you postulate that the (assumed) facts that the promise of a burnt offering does not extend to humans, and that a human offering is demoted to lifelong service to the temple \\\"by default\\\", is to be understood as a matter of course, and therefore, does not actually need to be said.

Problem is, do you have any evidence for the truth of this assumption? Because your remarks about alternative translations of 11:40 only point out \\\'\\\'possibilities\\\'\\\'. Even if it is \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' that the intended meaning of 11:40 is \\\"give commendation\\\" or \\\"talk with\\\" etc., that still does not mean it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the intended meaning. The intended meaning \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be \\\"to mourn\\\", \\\"to commemorate\\\", after all. It is not even true that a translation as \\\"give commendation\\\" must mean that J\\\'s daughter is alive, insofar as \\\"give commendation\\\" means \\\"to praise\\\", and you can praise a dead person too.

I\\\'ve actually already \\\"dug deeper\\\" before I reverted the example. Hence I know there is no mention in the Bible that an institution of lifelong celibacy for service in the temple existed at all. You say J\\\'s daughter becomes a \\\"Nazirite\\\" (a word which, of course, does not occur in Judges 11), but a quick Wikipedia search informs me that [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite Nazirites]] are required to abstain from wine, grapes, and anything intoxicating or made from grapes, from cutting their hair, and from coming near graves and corpses. That\\\'s it. No mention of celibacy. Which leads to the question why Jephtha\\\'s vow does not mention a life of celibacy when he meant it. Because it looks like the very idea would \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' have been a matter of course to his contemporaries.

All this adds up to the impression that the \\\"life of celibacy\\\" hypothesis is not backed up with sound arguments. It\\\'s just assumptions heaped on assumptions to get the desired result.

The dominant interpretation of this Bible passage has always been that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, which is why we get [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Darmstadt_2505_11r.jpg illustrations such as this]] or adaptations as [[Music/GeorgeFredericHandel Handel\\\'s]] \\\'\\\'Jephtha\\\'\\\', in which Jephtha intends to sacrifice his daughter (but is stopped by an angel). If you look at \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' the Bible comments on the very page you linked (also of [[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/judges/11-31.htm Judges 11:31]]), not just the ones that support the interpretation you wish for, you will find that only a minority of them subscribe to the \\\"not really a human sacrifice\\\" interpretation.

We are not really concerned with the internal consistency or the historical truth of the Bible, but note that Jephtha sacrificing his daughter does not necessarily mean that God endorses this act. Jephtha\\\'s vow was his very own idea; God did not demand the vow, nor its fulfillment. Fact is that human sacrifice is not even an isolated occurrence in the Old Testament: Just check out [[http://biblehub.com/1_kings/16-34.htm 1 Kings 16:34]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/16-3.htm 2 Kings 16:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm 2 Kings 17:17]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/21-6.htm 2 Kings 21:6]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/28-3.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/33-6.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]]. This is usually explained as Israelites succumbing to the customs of their neighbors.

First up, please read ExampleIndentation and ConversationInTheMainPage. The short version: You should never \\\"reply\\\" to an example as if you were posting in a forum. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected or deleted; if something important is missing, it must be integrated into the example, not tacked on in a subbullet.

About the point of contention: Your post above is a repetition rather than an elucidation of the claims made in the example before I pulled it. I don\\\'t read Hebrew, Biblical or otherwise (I suspect you do neither), so I can only rely on translations and what they say is that Jephtha vowed
->\\\'\\\'\\\"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\\\"\\\'\\\' (Judges 11:31).

There is no mention of devotion to service in the temple, but there is explicit promise of a burnt offering. As I understand you, you postulate that the (assumed) facts that the promise of a burnt offering does not extend to humans, and that a human offering is demoted to lifelong service to the temple \\\"by default\\\", is to be understood as a matter of course, and therefore, does not actually need to be said.

Problem is, do you have any evidence for the truth of this assumption? Because your remarks about alternative translations of 11:40 only point out \\\'\\\'possibilities\\\'\\\'. Even if it is \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' that the intended meaning of 11:40 is \\\"give commendation\\\" or \\\"talk with\\\" etc., that still does not mean it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the intended meaning. The intended meaning \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be \\\"to mourn\\\", \\\"to commemorate\\\", after all. It is not even true that a translation as \\\"give commendation\\\" must mean that J\\\'s daughter is alive, insofar as \\\"give commendation\\\" means \\\"to praise\\\", and you can praise a dead person too.

I\\\'ve actually already \\\"dug deeper\\\" before I reverted the example. Hence I know there is no mention in the Bible that an institution of lifelong celibacy for service in the temple existed at all. You say J\\\'s daughter becomes a \\\"Nazirite\\\" (a word which, of course, does not occur in Judges 11), but a quick Wikipedia search informs me that [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite Nazirites]] are required to abstain from wine, grapes, and anything intoxicating or made from grapes, from cutting their hair, and from coming near graves and corpses. That\\\'s it. No mention of celibacy. Which leads to the question why Jephtha\\\'s vow does not mention a life of celibacy when he meant it. Because it looks like the very idea would \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' have been a matter of course to his contemporaries.

All this adds up to the impression that the \\\"life of celibacy\\\" hypothesis is not backed up with sound arguments. It\\\'s just assumptions heaped on assumptions to get the desired result.

The dominant interpretation of this Bible passage has always been that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, which is why we get [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Darmstadt_2505_11r.jpg illustrations such as this]] or adaptations as Handel\\\'s \\\'\\\'Jephtha\\\'\\\', in which Jephtha intends to sacrifice his daughter (but is stopped by an angel). If you look at \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' the Bible comments on the very page you linked (also of [[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/judges/11-31.htm Judges 11:31]]), not just the ones that support the interpretation you wish for, you will find that only a minority of them subscribe to the \\\"not really a human sacrifice\\\" interpretation.

We are not really concerned with the internal consistency or the historical truth of the Bible, but note that Jephtha sacrificing his daughter does not necessarily mean that God endorses this act. Jephtha\\\'s vow was his very own idea; God did not demand the vow, nor its fulfillment. Fact is that human sacrifice is not even an isolated occurrence in the Old Testament: Just check out [[http://biblehub.com/1_kings/16-34.htm 1 Kings 16:34]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/16-3.htm 2 Kings 16:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm 2 Kings 17:17]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/21-6.htm 2 Kings 21:6]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/28-3.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/33-6.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]]. This is usually explained as Israelites succumbing to the customs of their neighbors.

First up, please read ExampleIndentation and ConversationInTheMainPage. The short version: You should never \\\"reply\\\" to an example as if you were posting in a forum. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected or deleted; if something important is missing, it must be integrated into the example, not tacked on in a subbullet.

About the point of contention: Your post above is a repetition rather than an elucidation of the claims made in the example before I pulled it. I don\\\'t read Hebrew, Biblical or otherwise (I suspect you do neither), so I can only rely on translations and what they say is that Jephtha vowed
->\\\'\\\'\\\"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\\\"\\\'\\\' (Judges 11:31).

There is no mention of devotion to service in the temple, but there is explicit promise of a burnt offering. There is not really much room for interpretation here. As I understand you, you postulate that the (assumed) facts that the promise of a burnt offering does not extend to humans, and that a human offering is demoted to lifelong service to the temple \\\"by default\\\", is to be understood as a matter of course, and therefore, does not actually need to be said.

Do you have any evidence for the truth of this assumption? Because your remarks about alternative translations of 11:40 only point out \\\'\\\'possibilities\\\'\\\'. Even given it is \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' that the intended meaning of 11:40 is \\\"give commendation\\\" or \\\"talk with\\\" etc., that still does not mean it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the intended meaning. The intended meaning \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be \\\"to mourn\\\", \\\"to commemorate\\\", after all. It is not even true that a translation as \\\"give commendation\\\" must mean that J\\\'s daughter is alive, insofar as \\\"give commendation\\\" means \\\"to praise\\\", and you can praise a dead person too.

I\\\'ve actually already \\\"dug deeper\\\" before I reverted the example. Hence I know there is no mention in the Bible that an institution of lifelong celibacy for service in the temple existed at all. You say J\\\'s daughter becomes a \\\"Nazirite\\\" (a word which, of course, does not occur in Judges 11), but a quick Wikipedia search informs me that [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite Nazirites]] are required to abstain from wine, grapes, and anything intoxicating or made from grapes, from cutting their hair, and from coming near graves and corpses. That\\\'s it. No mention of celibacy. Which leads to the question why Jephtha\\\'s vow does not mention a life of celibacy when he meant it. Because it looks like the very idea would \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' have been a matter of course to his contemporaries.

All this adds up to the impression that the \\\"life of celibacy\\\" hypothesis is not backed up with sound arguments. It\\\'s just assumptions heaped on assumptions to get the desired result.

The dominant interpretation of this Bible passage has always been that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, which is why we get [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Darmstadt_2505_11r.jpg illustrations such as this]] or adaptations as Handel\\\'s \\\'\\\'Jephtha\\\'\\\', in which Jephtha intends to sacrifice his daughter (but is stopped by an angel). If you look at \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' the Bible comments on the very page you linked (also of [[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/judges/11-31.htm Judges 11:31]]), not just the ones that support the interpretation you wish for, you will find that only a minority of them subscribe to the \\\"not really a human sacrifice\\\" interpretation.

We are not really concerned with the internal consistency or the historical truth of the Bible, but note that Jephtha sacrificing his daughter does not necessarily mean that God endorses this act. Jephtha\\\'s vow was his very own idea; God did not demand the vow, nor its fulfillment. Fact is that human sacrifice is not even an isolated occurrence in the Old Testament: Just check out [[http://biblehub.com/1_kings/16-34.htm 1 Kings 16:34]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/16-3.htm 2 Kings 16:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm 2 Kings 17:17]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/21-6.htm 2 Kings 21:6]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/28-3.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/33-6.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]]. This is usually explained as Israelites succumbing to the customs of their neighbors.

First up, please read ExampleIndentation and ConversationInTheMainPage. The short version: You should never \\\"reply\\\" to an example as if you were posting in a forum. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected or deleted; if something important is missing, it must be integrated into the example, not tacked on in a subbullet.

About the point of contention: Your post above is a repetition rather than an elucidation of the claims made in the example before I pulled it. I don\\\'t read Hebrew, Biblical or otherwise (I suspect you do neither), so I can only rely on translations and what they say is that Jephtha vowed

->\\\'\\\'\\\"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\\\"\\\'\\\' (Judges 11:31).

There is no mention of devotion to service in the temple, but there is explicit promise of a burnt offering. There is not really much room for interpretation here. As I understand you, you postulate that the (assumed) facts that the promise of a burnt offering does not extend to humans, and that a human offering is demoted to lifelong service to the temple \\\"by default\\\", is to be understood as a matter of course, and therefore, does not actually need to be said.

Do you have any evidence for the truth of this assumption? Because your remarks about alternative translations of 11:40 only point out \\\'\\\'possibilities\\\'\\\'. Even given it is \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' that the intended meaning of 11:40 is \\\"give commendation\\\" or \\\"talk with\\\" etc., that still does not mean it \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the intended meaning. The intended meaning \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be \\\"to mourn\\\", \\\"to commemorate\\\", after all. It is not even true that a translation as \\\"give commendation\\\" must mean that J\\\'s daughter is alive, insofar as \\\"give commendation\\\" means \\\"to praise\\\", and you can praise a dead person too.

I\\\'ve actually already \\\"dug deeper\\\" before I reverted the example. Hence I know there is no mention in the Bible that an institution of lifelong celibacy for service in the temple existed at all. You say J\\\'s daughter becomes a \\\"Nazirite\\\" (a word which, of course, does not occur in Judges 11), but a quick Wikipedia search informs me that [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite Nazirites]] are required to abstain from wine, grapes, and anything intoxicating or made from grapes, from cutting their hair, and from coming near graves and corpses. That\\\'s it. No mention of celibacy. Which leads to the question why Jephtha\\\'s vow does not mention a life of celibacy when he meant it. Because it looks like the very idea would \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' have been a matter of course to his contemporaries.

All this adds up to the impression that the \\\"life of celibacy\\\" hypothesis is not backed up with sound arguments. It\\\'s just assumptions heaped on assumptions to get the desired result.

The dominant interpretation of this Bible passage has always been that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, which is why we get [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Speculum_Darmstadt_2505_11r.jpg illustrations such as this]] or adaptations as Handel\\\'s \\\'\\\'Jephtha\\\'\\\', in which Jephtha intends to sacrifice his daughter (but is stopped by an angel). If you look at \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' the Bible comments on the very page you linked (also of [[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/judges/11-31.htm Judges 11:31]]), not just the ones that support the interpretation you wish for, you will find that only a minority of them subscribe to the \\\"not really a human sacrifice\\\" interpretation.

We are not really concerned with the internal consistency or the historical truth of the Bible, but note that Jephtha sacrificing his daughter does not necessarily mean that God endorses this act. Jephtha\\\'s vow was his very own idea; God did not demand the vow, nor its fulfillment. Fact is that human sacrifice is not even an isolated occurrence in the Old Testament: Just check out [[http://biblehub.com/1_kings/16-34.htm 1 Kings 16:34]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/16-3.htm 2 Kings 16:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/17-17.htm 2 Kings 17:17]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_kings/21-6.htm 2 Kings 21:6]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/28-3.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]], [[http://biblehub.com/2_chronicles/33-6.htm 2 Chronicles 28:3]]. This is usually explained as Israelites succumbing to the customs of their neighbors.