I think it is wonderful that you can present the Bible in a good light for nonbelievers by simply re-writing passages. The way you leave things out, add things in, and change the meaning of words right on the page... It's brilliant!
Can you please make a cartoon where you re-write the Bible taking out those nasty bits about hell? I want my Bible to be all happy-happy nice-nice and you're just the guy to do it!
I think it is moronic the way you think such la de da commentary amounts to an actual argument, as opposed to being little more than the declarative assertions of a frustrated pissant who can't answer the points made in the vid. If you ever get the testicular fortitude (or brains) to actually answer any of it, let us know.
On hell: See my vid, "Hell No, Shame on You." It'll be way over your head like this one was, so make sure your bottle is full.
@TheHogTieChimp "reveals the level of intellect you put into your discourse"
No, it reveals the level of intellect of morons like you who post inane comments here and can't argue a specific point even if you get roasted on a spit. My position is unassailed by your vague blather.
Your posts are funny? Maybe funny like a burning hotel is funny. :D
Come on, pissant -- make an argument showing one of my "changes" is unwarranted. Let's see how dumb you are.
@TheHogTieChamp Dumb as a box of rocks, I see. Those are ALL things answered in the vid. You're not showing anything I argued is wrong, you're just vomiting back the ignorant, primitive, literalist reading the vid refutes and which morons like you slather over like a rabid chihuahua.
The argument is simple, all right -- and simple is as simple does, Forrest! :D
@tektontv Dude... I love the vids, but you gotta chill on the insults. Any impact these videos may have is going to be instantly discredited by some of this hateful stuff.
As Greg Koukl says, an effective ambassador for Christ needs to be skilled in 3 key areas: Knowledge, wisdom, and character. Know what I mean?
@clm12704 Um, well, if that's true, what are you going to do when you hand someone a Bible and they read stuff like Malachi 2:3? You gonna edit that sort of thing out? Sorry, no -- targeted insults are 100% Biblical, and any idea of "discredit" is just an excuse used by those who resist truth. And BTW, that last bit could be taken as condescendingly insulting. Know what I mean? ;)
@tektontv Malachi 2:3 is the Lord rebuking the false priests who were profaning His name by leading people astray. Little bit of a different deal than you attacking people who disagree with you.
That last bit was meant to be an admonishment for you to consider the tone you take with people who disagree with you and how it is viewed by others. I didn't call you any hateful names or say you were stupid. I'm just asking you to consider how your comments come across.
@clm12704 Sorry, lame excuse. 1) The critic will just say that God is attacking people who disagree with Him -- which is what they DO say! 2) I'm destroying vicious wolves who drag people out of faith...eg, lead people astray! Last bit: Thanks heaps, but I've been at this for many years..."viewed by others" is still just an excuse...and it doesn't occur to you that your use of it is the same as saying, "You're ignorant, foolish, and/or immoral." :D Log in your eye...attend to it.
@clm12704 Uh huh. Good move anyway -- my rules say limit comments to the vid topic...so unless you have something to say about Jephthah, that'll be all.
@TheHogTieChamp Because those words are the two most common descriptors of the likes of you. Well, not like we'd expect the likes of you to know more outside of the vocabulary anyway.
The only thing amusing about your post is your logical fallacy in claiming that calling you a pig and a pissant somehow shows that JP couldn't defend his position.
Folks, we have arrived at an unfortunate era where bare assertions can be considered to be "arguments".
If you have a 1 post rule, it only backs up my assertion that my arguments can't be posted on 1 Youtube comment. Instead of asking if I would rather take it elsewhere, you insult me. Exactly what I mean. Not being very Bible-like.
@miketh2005 Here's an idea then, moron....like my rules say, meet me at TheologyWeb if you have more to say. I wouldn't have to ask you if you'd rather take it elsewhere if you'd bothered to pay attention.
Yeah, it's Bible-like -- if you don't use an edited Bible, little man. See you there with your poor excuses for an argument...or not.
@miketh2005 Tough luck, jackass -- you don't like the rules here, go elsewhere. Nobody else posting here has a problem with the rules -- obviously, all this just means that you're wrong, and you know it.
@miketh2005 No you can't say it even with 100 comments. You're just making the declarative assertion of a helpless drone with no answers...and using the pending status as an excuse to run away if you need to. I also have a one post rule...so #2 post got deleted, whiner.
Yes I have a bias -- against wasting time on idiots like you who can't answer the arguments.
@miketh2005 You failed to provide even a single problem with this video, and you had a whole lot of space to spare in your ignorant post. Obviously, that demonstrates the fact that you have nothing of value to say against this video, and the video's content is 100% true and accurate.
@ThePrinceOfMoose I don't run YT but I do run this channel, and YT allows me to delete comments, so suck it up, crybaby. Keep up the whining as a sub for real argument against the points in the vid.
I wonder why you keep reminding me that I am stupid, while you don't bring up any arguments (claiming that I did not understood the ones in the video/text isn't one, it's just an opinion and somewhat teenager behaviour).
Maybe you are just trying to convince yourself that I am. So please stop that, I read the bible often enough to know what I am talking about.
@Atanar89 I remind you that you are stupid because you keep saying things to show you are -- such as getting my arguments badly wrong, and thinking that just because you "read the bible often enough" you know what the heck you're talking about. You don't. Joyce Meyer reads the Bible more than you do -- and is more of an expert in it!
It isn't "opinion" but FACT - you got the arguments wrong, as has been shown. Deal with it.
@Atanar89 Why do you think there would be any need to bring up any new arguments when you fail to even grasp those that are already present? And why is the statement that you fail to understand the arguments in the video/text considered an "opinion"? And just a reminder, even if something isn't an argument, that does not make it an opinion. Reading the Bible often does not always lead to people knowing what they are talking about, as you have proven here.
The hebrew word used is "ola", which means a burnt sacrifice and not any substitute. Get your sources right. The original text leaves no doubt that this is a human sacrifice. Your whole argument is based on a simularity in translation, how did you think that could be valid? And your interpretation is messed up anyway, why would she need to hide 2 years and cry about her irginity if she was not sacrificed at all?
@Atanar89 My source is right, you're just stupid: I didn't say anything about a "substitute" -- try to answer the actual argument I made. The text properly read shows it isn't a sacrifice and my argument is valid and comes from a serious scholar. I say nothing about anyone "hiding" and neither does the text.
Next time try to get my arguments correctly. Might be a good idea to not smoke banana peels before watching next time.
@tektontv The source of an argument has nothing to do with it's validity, it has to be right in itself to be valid. It's like saying "the whole bible is wrong because dawkins said so and he is a serious scolar", but we both agree that this is not true I guess. Your text doesn't even name the source by the way.
The text clearly says that she takes for 2 months to spend in the mountains with her girlfriend to cry about her virginity. Read it, it's Jud. 11, 37.
@Atanar89 Source for WHAT, stupid? Ola? It can be found in any lexicon. Get a clue.
Um, where does it say HIDING in Judges 11:37? Did you forget that, or just hope I wouldn't notice you blundered so badly? Just because you go somewhere away from home doesn't mean you're "hiding" -- especially if you bring friends! DUH!
@tektontv No, I meant the source of the text you linked to. There is no name, it just says "JPH".
You have to look up "ola" in a old-hebrew-dictionary, not a lexicon. It's the same word used in Gen 8,20 and Job 42,8. It's derived from "ala" whch means "acending", which was translated into greek "holokautoma" and latin "holocaustum". It's later used in the word "holocaust"
You are just beating a strawmen if you criticize the word "hiding", it's not fundamental to my argument.
@Atanar89 1) JPH is ME, moron. 2) A lexicon IS a dictionary by function, you idiot. It includes definitions. Not that it matters, I know all that, and it doesn't change a thing and accords with what I said. 3) In other words, you made an embarrassing error by saying "hiding" was in the text, and now want to claim it wasn't "fundamental" to your argument. What a crock -- it was the CRUX of your argument!
Keep up with the reasons to designate yourself as "stupid". :D
@Atanar89 "And your interpretation is messed up anyway, why would she need to HIDE 2 years and cry about her irginity if she was not sacrificed at all?"
"it's not fundamental to my argument."
Right...
The word "olah" was also used in Ezekiel 40:26; it is translated as "lead up". The Hebrew word translated as "holokautoma" is "zebach", not "olah".
This is why it is better to refer to a Lexicon rather than a simple dictionary.
@Dante666 It should be noted that some translations read "olah" as a burnt offering in those two verses, while some read it is an "ascent" (like a staircase). I find arguments for the former reading lacking, but that it is given as an option at all speaks for itself in terms of what the word literally means.
@tektontv Are you really 43 years old? What kind of 43 year old speaks like you? You are immature, self centered, and have a huge case of unwarranted self importance. You are incredibly arrogant. Not very good when trying to get your point across.
@ThePrinceOfMoose What's wrong? Upset because your little girlfriend got so embarrassed? Arrogant little snots like you NEED a good dose of your own medication -- being too oblivious to see your own self-description in your words. :D
There's no points to get across to the likes of you and your girlfriend who don't even bother to check lexicon entries to validate your claims.
I love your work :) I've been watching since you got a youtube channel and I frequently send atheists and baby Christians to your website. You do excellent work in apologetics, one of the few I actually agree with 99% of the time! No one compares with your Old Testament interpretations. If only everyone used cultural and historical aspects when studying the stories of the OT AND actually looked up the debatable words (in this case "ascend") in the original Hebrew/Aramaic. God bless you @tektontv
@DreamsOfCottages Hey, thanks for the good word. Have you ever emailed me before? You're probably aware I get a lot of stuff from Glenn Miller too. Drop me a PM if you wish.
And finally, KK said Judges 5:11 was a wrong citation. PLEASE! Judges 5:11 IS correct; it and 11:40 use the Hebrew word in question: tanah. Quit pulling stupidity out of your skull! I use real scholars for my research and no 17 year old crap artist who can't even be bothered to do some simple checking before mouthing off deserves 24/7 attention so their moderated comments can be immediately posted. No wonder you think NoSCo is a genius!
"Neither is burnt used for 1 Kings or Ezekiel, I looked them both up and read them."
Moron, my very point IS that they don't mean "burnt" -- the literal meaning of the word used is "ascend," not "burnt". They are ASCENT OFFERINGS. Get a clue.
And you're so dumb you didn't get that the fly thing was sarcasm? What the blazes do you smoke in your spare time?
Wow way to be condescending to whoever you are talking to here. Considering your video's performance you have no right to say to someone "Say something intelligent next time"
@ThePrinceOfMoose Wow, way to deserve condescension -- do and say stupid things, and also make asinine declarative statements as a substitute for real arguments.
Captain Kangaroo called. Your brain fell out during your ping pong ball shower.
Awwww how cute, you are trying to be insulting. Making your entire point moot. You see, insults do not get you anywhere it just shows how mad you are.
@PrinceOfMoose Nah, it shows how stupid you are and how you earn being insulted. :D
I don't see you at theologyweb. Did you get lost, or just chicken out? You can speak all you want there -- just keep away from profanity. I have rules here (like 1 post at a time -- moron) to manage my time and not waste it on ignoramuses like you. But at TWeb, there's a lot of people who will be glad to take the time to laugh at you.
@tektontv excuse me but why are all your responses to people so rude, when they are arguing that some of your points might be inaccurate or incorrect? there is really no need for it.
besides some of the facts you may have, could have been false because of misleading facts given through out history by the people in power at the time, archeologist are looking in to these kind of things all the time to see if they were true or not.
@kariookami44 Wrong. There is need for it, because the sickness of overconfident arrogance needs to be cured or else crushed, as does whiny stupidity like your comment. If the facts are wrong, SHOW they are -- that rap about "people in power" is nothing but a facade sore losers like you use because you can't argue the actual points.
@kariookami44 As a neutral third party, I can say with certainty that Tekton's comments are not rude, and none of his points are inaccurate or incorrect. You are the only one who is rude, ignorant, and incorrect here.
@1GodOnlyOne Why of course I was rude. I told fundy atheists that they were (GASP) WRONG! And then I told them they were also (horrors!) IGNORANT! And that's RUDE!
We should all be good theists and shut up, meekly accepting the rampant genius of Bible scholars like NoSCo who have carefully read the KJV and know exactly what happened.
@kariookami44 If they are arguing that some points may be inaccurate or incorrect, I fail to see any arguments; all I see are pitiful whines and meaningless bare assertions like chanting "2+2=5!" over and over again.
@ThePrinceOfMoose Pardon my interruption, but how exactly does "trying to be insulting" logically lead to making one's "entire point moot"? It does not. You are only avoiding the argument.
So you see that insults, or the lack of, do not validate or invalidate anybody's point (hypocrisy being the exception), and speaking of not getting anywhere, that's exactly the problem with your response.
Oh, wait, I take that back; your response is actually headed somewhere: the fail bin.
KK: You broke my rule against multiposting so all got deleted. Your comments show when I get on to approve them. I have a life, unlike you, which means I don't hang out here 24/7 waiting to approve posts by pissants like you.
You can repost one at a time. Follow my rules and also stop pretending you have something worthwhile to say. You don't.
You know what. I clicked on this video thinking it would be entertaining. Instead I get the same story, twice. With additions by a man who knows not of the story and when I go to comment to refute him, I can't. I can't because he's scared of the words others give him so he puts his comments on approval only. No matter what has been said to Nonstamp, DPR, or AronRa, I've never seen comment pending on any of their videos. They allow full free speech because they are not afraid. So...why are you?
@KittenKitoko Wow, what are you, some kind of retarded chimpanzee? And you want to know why I put comments on moderation? You're an example of why -- that and the fact that you morons (fans of NoSCo, etc) think profanity is an argument. :D
You couldn't refute it if you tried, because you're too ignorant -- and you would have done so right away rather than making a vacuous whine like that one.
@tektontv errr .... tektontv ... just a quick question ... clearly the above kitten comment is not the first comment she made about this vid (otherwise, how would she know it was on "comment pending". so what did she say on the comment that you are hiding?
and as for my comment?
the guy made the vow, on the eve of battle, at a place over looking the enemy. he lived VERY far away from that place, and it doesn't say the vow was public. so I think, you fail on that.
@eyallev That was the only one I found, sorry. But my rules do say comments are moderated so it can be got from there. Now, however, KK broke my rules about multi-posts -- all but one will be deleted.
Re comment: You fail on basic reading. The chronology of 29-32 puts the actual vow at Mizpeh before he went over to Ammon. This has been addressed before in comments -- pay attention.
@tektontv yes, before he went to ammon, on the eve of battle, after they called him from his home town which was FAR from Gilad (they had casted him out, because he was a son of a bitch). And how is a sacrafice, the same as "to become a holy virgin"?
and what's with the 2 months? it only makes sanse if it's the LAST 2 months of her life.
@ey 1) The "how" was explained in the vid. 2) The parallelism (29-32) indicates the vow took place at Mizpeh on the way back, as it "flashes back" his trip to Ammon, using identical words. 3) Home is EXACTLY where you'd perform a vow, where everyone knows you, holds you to account, and you can collect honor. See all below re public vows, it's been said before ignore the honor aspect. Finally, you fail to explain how his daughter knew of the vow. Triple fail.
@tektontv his home town as in the land of Tob, not Mizpeh, and the town he was called to, where he was publicly made the head captain, was not Mizpeh either (it was Gilead).
as for the "how" in your vid, sorry, it's a fail too. It just so happens that I know hebrew, and have the Hebrew bible with me (well, on-line) and the word OLA (sacrifice) is not mentioned in ezekiel 40:26 (it is mentioned however in 40:38). as for your translation of 1 kings 10, your's is faulty.
@eyallev Good night you're stupid. It says in 11:34, "Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his HOUSE". A wealthy tribal chieftain or raider would be able to have multiple residences, moron. I already pointed out the parallelism, the call in Gilead has zero to do with that. Second, you're as dumb as the kitten was: I am NOT saying ola is in those passages!!! Either pay attention or shut it -- I don't have time to correct stupid people, especially people who think "yours" is a possessive!
@tektontv nice. ignore my point, and make fun of my less than perfect english. we were not all born in english speaking countries you know.
the issue of "did jephthah" really killed his daughter is not new. and it was even discussed by the writers of the talmod. ppl much smarter than you or I. and they have concluded that he did.
btw, they were NOT atheists, or bible haters. they were the religous leaders of thier time. they were the ones that had to answer questions like these.
@eyallev I didn't ignore your point, you missed mine...and if you don't have English mastered, don't use it, little man!
YAWN. Talmud shmalmud -- that's not an argument either. I know more about it than you ever will; I use the real scholars like Vermes for my studies. You? You've just proven you're still in grade school with this stuff.
@tektontv How does Vermes settle the fact the the talmud says other wise? In the study of the old test', the talmud and the mishna are about as importent (if not more so) than the bible.
but we have pretty much said all that can be said about that. I do have a differant question. "so what". why does it matter if he killed her, or not? he did other (not so nice) things, the very next chapter. there is no question that Jephthah was a "hard" man (to say the least). so what?
@eyallev You're a real joke, you know that? I never said "Vermes" settled anything, I used him as an example of the sort of competence you lack. I used oher scholars for this vid. As for "so what" -- ask idiots like NoSCo. They seem to think it's important.
Learn to spell "different" and "important". You look like an even more ignorant yokel when you do things like that.
@eyallev Certain individuals attempt to re-write history to make it appear as if God and his people could somehow be less than morally upstanding, which is an outright lie.
It matters because people's souls are at risk if they swallow the atheistic BS so prevalent on the web, and I am very grateful for good Christians like TektonTV, who are here to set the record straight.
I for one have learned a lot from watching his videos, and it is high time that you begin the learning process as well.
When you go to write a comment there is a message which says "Comments may be held for uploader approval". That's how she knew it was on "comment pending". I don't know you missed it. It's clear enough.
@ukchristian28 I know how he missed it -- he doesn't pay attention. He missed "house" in 11:34, and he thought I was talking about the word "sacrifice" when I clearly said "burnt" in the film was the word I was talking about.
Let's face it: YT is not a brain trust when it comes to the fundy atheists and those who admire their brillyunce. :P
When you go to write a comment there is a message which appears underneath the textbox which says "Comments may be held for uploader approval." That's how she knew it was on "comment approval". I don't know how you missed it.
Retarded Chimpanzee? This coming from the guy that moderates his comment section. Scared of the truth and the hearing of the other side of the argument? The truth hurts. By the way Kitten did not insult you or use profanity yet you insult her. Complete failure on your part. I just refuted your entire statement in less than two seconds. Not to mention she also refuted you in the first comment, you just made her point even stronger with your response. Good job genus!!
@ThePrinceOfMoose Spare me the drivel....KK played thecondescending victim complex and used the idiotic "free speech" whine; the insult was thereby earned. Do you NoSCo drones even read the Constitution? Yeah, "other side" -- 1) stuff brought up before or 2) utter failure to read ("burnt" offering).
Learn to spell "genius," moron....and try making on-topic comments. That's a rule violation here too. :D
@ThePrinceOfMoose Hey Moosebrain -- bring your game to theologyweb if you have game and "facts" against my "myths" -- we wipe the floor with little nobodies like you every day!
@ndjarnag As a neutral third party, I have weighed the evidence and arguments for both positions, and I can say with absolute certainty that TektonTV's position is much, much more believable than yours.
This is because you didn't even attempt to provide any evidence or argument, whereas TektonTV's evidences and arguments are copious and compelling.
1>I begin my objections to this video starting at 4:40 ... I can see no discernible reason or evidence that suggests the vow must have been taken in public. The video does not provide any reasoning for this. The site linked in the description only states he would make it public because it would "have had no value or impact, and accrued him no honor, as a private oath". However, making a vow to the LORD would CERTAINLY have value and impact as a private oath. Infact, making it public would DEFEAT
@tsilver33 One post only -- read my rules. Your reply is a non-answer and fails to grasp the nature and importance of public honor/reputation. You are not recognizing the correct TYPE of power/impact I am referring to -- it has to do with J's public honor, which was a chief concern of every person in an agonistic society. A private oath to the Lord would not serve for that purpose in any way.
I would suggest you do some serious research on honor and shame before replying again.
@tsilver33 Your failure to see why the vow was taken in public proves nothing. TektonTV has given ample evidence and arguments to prove that the vow was public, but you offered absolutely none for your position. As a neutral and rational third party, I must reject your silly belief due to lack of evidence or argument in its favor: TektonTV is obviously right.
I find this interpretation of the Story of Jephthah very implausible for one reason: If Jephthah's daughter really wanted to become a virgin as per the vow, she would not have lamented the fact that she would never marry in Judges 11:37. To say that she simply lamented the joys of that while she still didn't want to do the work is extremely unlikely. Also, the authors would have specified she wasn't sacrificed as per the understanding of the phrase in 11:31 that he and his readers would have had
@tektontv I don't need to take notes and it's in no way refuted. She would not lament that she would never marry. Furthermore, this interpretation in no way accounts for the fact that: 1) A person dedicated to the Lord's priestly house did not need to be celibate for life (see Samuel for example whose parents were nowhere near as sad as Jephthah or his daughter), 2) Hardly would every young woman give a grievance of 4 days per year because someone had to go celibate. 3)not enough chars
@cujo006 2) You're just repeating the refuted argument again and adding a dumber one: 1) Samuel was not subject to the Levitical vow. 3) Too bad. See me on Theologyweb if you want more chars, we find goofballs like you amusing there.
@tektontv I'll see you on theologyweb where we'll see who the goofball is. You don't practice self-criticism my friend, which is why half of your recent arguments suck, this being one of them. Let me just add that I don't see any evidence for your Levitical vow to mean what you think it means. If the author of Judges11 wanted to say Jephthah's daughter was not sacrificed he would have specified the way you do here. And noone would "celebrate" someone becoming a virgin 4 days per year
@cujo006 I do it right the first time so I don't have to self-criticize -- that's what YOUR problem is. Stupid as you are, you fail to realize that yes, people of such a society WOULD honor such a person, but it's not for her becoming a virgin....like I said, you need to pay attention better.
It never ceases to amaze me how you Christians constantly mitigate the atrocities and contradictions in the bible, (dude he murdered his daughter, there is no mistranslation or taking the story or of context it is what it is)
@CONGLOMERIDE It never ceases to amaze me how you idiots constantly repeat back refuted arguments as though that somehow amounted to a response (dude I showed he didn't murder her, either answer the arguments or shut it).
Some people assume that God tacitly approves of a certain act if there's no explicit condemnation of it, like the feminist exegesis of Judges 19.
The standard explanation I've heard is that Jephthah was rash in the wording he chose and that, at the time, the Israelites disregarded God's law and did not take the prohibitions against human sacrifice seriously. Jephthah could have repented.
A Jewish person said this about thiis video (without my typos):
"I have to say I agree with you on this. You make an excellent point in this video and you are actually dead on with Jewish interpretation. Personally, I have always wondered if the ending could also be read not only as the way you say, which was also good, but if the daughters of Israel go with her lament for 4 days because they are lamenting the fact that she was unable to fullfill the mitzvah. Do you think that is possible?"
@SoreheadFatrt Because, moron, you're appealing to him as an authority with no qualification. If you're going to say he knows better for all those reasons, it applies to ALL he says. You can't just pick and choose. But really, again, as childish as you are in your intellect, it's understandable you'd prefer a "waaah, mommy says so" answer. As it is, even the details I offer defeat his "opinion" (which has no arguments in it).
And again: Jackasses bray, not bay. Record yourself and find out.
@tektontv 1) -3) Judges 11:29-30 indicates Jepthah was advancing toward/going to/attacking the Ammonites when he made his vow after departing Mizpah. Some translations hold that he made a vow, some that he spoke the vow. No mention is made of where specifically he was when he made the vow (in his tent, on his horse, or to a crowd). Seeing as you are not required to have an audience when addressing the All Mighty it could be any of the three.
@Sorehead Wrong, It doesn't say it happened as he departed. v32 indicates it happened before he departed, which means it happened in Mizpah. ALL vows were recited publicly in this culture before witnesses so that one could receive honor from it being done (or shame if it was not.). So the text and the culture refutes you completely.
You're an idiot and you have been answered. if you're Catholic, you need to become a Jew too to be consistent with your illogical epistemology of bare authority.
@tektontv Vs29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.
Vs32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
All vows? Says who? No one in that time EVER made a vow to themselves to God, you baying jackass?
@SoreheadFart Duh....your point? As said, v32 shows he did it before he left Mizpah. Who says so? REAL scholars of honor-shame societies. Even one made to God was made publicly,because it mattered to honor AND accountability.
Sorry you're stupid. And that's "braying." Baying is what a canine does, not a jackass. So now you're demonstrating stupidity in the animal kingdom as well as in Bible scholarship. Here's a clue: "Says who" is not an argument but an indication you're in over your head.
Awesome video, quite enlightening, always wondered about it, thank u for answering. Small critique, using harsh language as a reply to atheists, doubters and critics never accomplishes anything, trust me i tried. in my personal opinion softer, more patient language tends to have better effects.
@yosef59 More mindless whining and victim complex....what a dweeb. It would only be hypocrisy if I objected to your insults...I don't. I just squash them and you too.
Ok, fair enough reply to my comment. If it is truth, then it should stand on its own in any free public forum, subject to the same standard of review as science, politics medicine, etc. The fact is there is no truth what so ever in the bible and God, every bit is plagiarized from earlier Egyptian religions. There is no not truth only lies made to enslave children and innocent people. The tale of Jepthah is just one of hundreds of examples that God is blood thirsty and barbaric murde
@AtollSurfer That wasn't any less stupid than the last comment. It's just a recitation of whines and crying without a single argument. I realize you're frustrated by encountering arguments too difficult for you to refute in this vid, but if you have to crap someplace, use the restroom, not the comments section.
Egyptian religions? Please. That's a crock. But leave it somewhere else too -- comments here ONLY on the vid featured.
Awesome analysis. I remember discussing the Jephthah account in a comparative religion class I took. I was laughed at for saying that Jephthah didn't "kill" his daughter but the sacrifice had to do with his daughter being set apart to God and remaining a virgin. Good to know im not the only one who has arrived at this conclusion.
@lilAinthamorning Thank you! You might want to get Reis' book (listed in the description) and bring it to that class if its still around. Then you can watch them all scratch their heads.
Bad boy, quwert...no profanity. And try to actually show that the claims are wrong rather than just ranting and whining and repeating them with your head up your backside.
@d007ization You didn't give any arguments, you just whined that burning livestock as a sacrifice made no sense, and that itself makes no sense, and is not an argument, just your subjective whiny opinion as an idiot looking for problems. Explain WHY it makes no sense, then VALIDATE your explanation, moron.
@d007ization Well, stupid, since you can't answer the question: It makes sense because any credible anthropologist will tell you about the importance of such rituals in symbolizing and encouraging order in ANY society. Now I know you're too dumb to grasp the symbolism inherent in the rituals, so that's all you'll get, and its enough anyway . Now answer MY question and give YOUR explanation. Note: "They make no sense because I am a bigot who thinks it makes no sense" is not an acceptable answer.
@tektontv It makes no sense because e.g. giving it to the poor( like Jesus said) woulld have been much more beneficial.
Any religious and ritualistic act encourages order and cooperation in society, theres no need to unnecesserarily lessen your chances of survival by destroying livestock. Not to mention that it does NOTHING( other than the effect you just described).
@d007 Well, duh, the edible portions were eaten by priests, that was one of their means of support; they WERE "poor" by definition, they lived on charity in return for their service. So, mega stupid fail by YOU again. It didn't reduce anyone's survival because it fed people and it DID something symbolically, and that was enough; your bigotry doesn't erase that.
It's clear you're making up problems. I doubt you cared what "the poor" had when you wrote your first whine on this.
@dummy007: Oh, just to confirm, Biblical historian Richard Friedman, in Who Wrote the Bible: "Modern readers often think that sacrifice is the unnecessary taking of animal life, or that the person offering the sacrifice was giving up something to compensate for some sin or to win God's favor. But in the biblical world, the most common type of sacrifice was for meals."
@d007 Is there some reason why you think they shouldn't??? I'm sure many other cultures at their animal sacrifices as well. Hopefully you also don't mean that as a criticism of Israel, because if you did, it would mean they can't win with you no matter what they do!!
@d007 In other words, IF you are criticizing Israel for being like Greece (are you?) then you have criticized them for BOTH eating sacrifices and NOT eating sacrifices. That would hardly be fair!
@d007 OK fine. In close: Although SOME sacrifices were wholly immolated, these people rarely ate meat, mostly ate bread/veg/fruits. So no one would be any worse off for food because some sacrifices were wholly immolated. Frankly, if you gave it to the poor back then, you'd probably make a lot of them sick because they so seldom ate meat. I'm not vegan but there are virtues in a vegan diet I can admit to!
Yeah, a fly would have totally been ridiculous as a sacrifice. Yahweh only wants burning blood of farm animals and birds. That's the stuff! Please just go ahead and re-write the bible with all the new parts you invent so it says what you think it means. I'd really enjoy reading that.
@hugesinker So basically, you have no arguments, so you just barf out a canard ("re-write the bible") in helpless, hapless frustration. Yep.
So I assume you'll be picketing McDonald's later today over their continuing burning of farm animals and birds? Or are you as grossly inconsistent and whiny as every other fundy atheist?
@tekton A consensus of Jewish Biblical scholars who have spent their entire lives gaining an intimate knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Old Testament texts, and their own culture disagree with you.
The entire basis of your speculation is that "Jephthah had been taught that God was against human sacrifice, so he wouldn't have done it." You're talking about a character who was pleading with Yaweh to help him smite 20 cities with a "very great slaughter". By "slaughter", does it really mean evangelize?
@hugesinker Deleted 2nd message -- you know better. In any event do you also agree with all the scholars on everything else they say? Doubtful. And that's not an argument, which is something you obviously lack. Your other point is stupid in context -- war is not ritual human sacrifice. Please get more intelligent before posting again.
@tektontv If your speculation is correct, these scholars are completely incompetent. They should start learning ancient Hebrew and Jewish custom from you instead. All I'm saying is that perhaps it would be a good idea to find out why they interpret the story the way that they do and argue with that.
However, the best argument against sheer speculation is just to call you out for making stuff up. Like, 'she wasn't really "bewailing her virginity", she just pretended to'. Just. Made. Up.
@hugestinker In other words, you have no answer, and hide behind unnamed "scholars" because you lack any. Reis (my source) gives far more details than any other scholar on this; so if you think others have the goods, use them to refute her thesis. I DID find out why they interpret the story the way they do, and I made comparisons. Reis had better arguments. Now show why she didn't. Just. Answer. The. Arguments. Moron. (And get it right when you do, it doesn't say she "pretended" that.)
Interesting. The rating options have been disabled. Conditions have been set on how one may respond to the video. I can only surmise that such conditions are set, so that you can dismiss any future argument by simply saying to another "you didn't read all of it". Which of course, is a rule given by you, where the interpretation and execution lie solely in your subjective hands. Just like Yahweh and his followers. So...
Semantics + Rebellious Older Daughter + Public Vow = Okay to Murder?
@TheSleepingLionRoars No, stupid. Conditions are set because stupid people like you think, for example, that ratings actually mean something -- and because, as here, you are too dumb to know how to answer an argument. Ironically you just proved you didn't "read all of it" because the conclusion was the NO ONE was killed in this story -- and thus also proved why I am right to place controls on stupid people like you.
@tektontv I see now conditions are set, because people "think". How very Yahweh of you. So really what your saying is, that your so insecure and emotionally fragile, that you have to micro manage everyone's response? Gotcha. So no Ammonites were murdered and Jephtha's daughter wasn't killed because your personal interpretation trumps the accessible passages of the Bible. So..
Semantics + Rebellious Older Daughter + Public Vow + Because tektontv said so = Okay to Murder?
@TheSleepingLionRoars How hilarious that you cut off at "think" as a manipulation. So what YOU'RE saying (learn proper grammar, moron) is that you can't answer the arguments, so all you do is whine about "personal interpretation" or "said so" as though that answers anything, because displays of scholarship that are over your head make you cry like a little girl. War isn't murder BTW, nice try.
So: Contextual interpretation + Your Crybabying = Pathetic ultra FAIL by YOU. :D Deal with it.
@tektontv How is it not personal interpretation? You're telling a story according to your personal thoughts and feelings. I really wish you had more than personal interpretations, otherwise it implies that one should take your fable on faith. Whereas NSC (my hero) gives us a objective premise with accessible references, that are available to all people, not just tektontv.
So if we call murder, war, it makes it okay to kill people? Or is it okay to kill people because Yaweth tells us so? lol...
@TheSleepingLionRoars It's not personal because it relies on scholarly FACTS, which are obviously substantially over your head. Either refute the fact claims directly or stuff it. You do no more than apply the label "personal interptretation" as a sign of your ignorance and helplessness to answer. Your attempt to label war "murder" is also a spin doctoring -- and you certainly didn't have the Ammonites in mind when you first yelled "murder".
@tektontv It is personal because using the term "scholarly FACTS" has no objective value, in and of itself. Facts as you like to misuse the word, are not dependent on a label or an authority figure. You could call them "Magic Purple Unicorn FACTS" and it would mean the same thing. That was the whole point of NSC argument, showing how dangerous it is to declare murderous acts as good, just because Yahweh says so. Which is the same premise for your argument. Your asking me to take you on Faith.
@TheSleepingLionRoars Wow, you sure are stupid. How long does it take you to recycle canards like that without stating a single actual argument? Funny too -- you're using NoSCo as an "authority" for your "fact" that it is "dangerous" blah blah blah. The fact that you avoided and dodged my questions proves you're just a loudmouthed ignoramus with a showboating disorder.
Wait a minute, you're saying that the Ammonites were "murdered"? Excuse me, but Israel was at war with those people. I take it then that you are a complete pacificist and believe that it was wrong for Europe and the United States to go to war with Hitler because killing enemy soldiers was "murder"?
@ukchristian28 Ahh the old semantic argument. :) So you decided to stop harassing me via PM, and take it public, good boy.
"So if we call murder, war, it makes it okay to kill people? Or is it okay to kill people because Yaweth tells us so?"
Killing people for the SOLE reason, because Yaweh says so, yes is murder. And that is how it is being justified. Jesus, please give me something more substantial. lol
I guess if you kill someone in self-defence you would have to be charged with murder then. Otherwise it's "the old semantic argument."
Harrassment? You really do have a victim complex. All you had to do was acknowledge it or simply ignore it and you would have received no more pms, but you had to start with the self-righteous ranting.
That's stupid. In Judges they had united with Moab against Israel and posed a serious threat. It wasn't a case of killing just because God said so.
@ukchristian28 Not only so, but you could spin any war the same way: "It's murder: You're killing because Pershing says so." Reality: Lionpuss has no idea what the dynamics of the ancient world were, much less what the political and social situation in Judges was; he's just been taught like a good brainwashed slave to repeat rote mantras: "Yahweh KILL BAD personal interpretation HURT EVIL UGH."
Hey Lionpuss -- come see us at theologyweb forum, we eat morons like you for lunch.
@TSLR Since you don't understand how to actually argue, I'll teach you a lesson and also use this as a basis to interrogate any fool like you who thinks yelling "personal interpretation" is an argument.
1) Was Jephthah's vow public, yes or no?
2) If "no", explain why a) in light of the fact that vows were made publicly to accrue honor; b) and so that others could call the person to account.
3) If it was not public, where was it made, and what is your evidence for this?
@tektontv Personal interpretation is NOT an argument, that was the whole point of the inquiry. Why you can't deduce evidence, instead of claiming labels, authority figures and subjective interpretations. Self-Project much?
You make this way TOO easy. Show me how your so-called argument is evidently different than NSC's? Show me a objective premise. And show me how that objective premise and conclusion are true. Remember the objective premise has to be true, for the conclusion to be true. G'luck
@TheSleepingLionRoars In other words, you're too stupid to answer the questions by doing actual research to show why the vow was or was not public; the relevance of honor and shame to the situation, etc. This is how ignorant people dodge their burden of proof: By pretending they're not advocating a view of their own that has one. One last chance. Answer the questions or no more comments will be approved.
Great video, Brother!
I think it is wonderful that you can present the Bible in a good light for nonbelievers by simply re-writing passages. The way you leave things out, add things in, and change the meaning of words right on the page... It's brilliant!
Can you please make a cartoon where you re-write the Bible taking out those nasty bits about hell? I want my Bible to be all happy-happy nice-nice and you're just the guy to do it!
TheHogTieChamp 1 week ago
@TheHogTieChamp Dear Pig,
I think it is moronic the way you think such la de da commentary amounts to an actual argument, as opposed to being little more than the declarative assertions of a frustrated pissant who can't answer the points made in the vid. If you ever get the testicular fortitude (or brains) to actually answer any of it, let us know.
On hell: See my vid, "Hell No, Shame on You." It'll be way over your head like this one was, so make sure your bottle is full.
tektontv 1 week ago
@tektontv "I think it's moronic..."
Hey, I'm glad you think so!
The two most common words in your comments are "moron" and "idiot," which reveals the level of intellect you put into your discourse.
I welcome your choice to call me "pig" and "piss-ant," because it shows that you cannot defend your position.
You don't like what the Bible says, so you change it. My argument is straightforward and well-supported by the content of your videos.
Plus my posts are funny; yours merely rude.
TheHogTieChamp 1 week ago
@TheHogTieChimp "reveals the level of intellect you put into your discourse"
No, it reveals the level of intellect of morons like you who post inane comments here and can't argue a specific point even if you get roasted on a spit. My position is unassailed by your vague blather.
Your posts are funny? Maybe funny like a burning hotel is funny. :D
Come on, pissant -- make an argument showing one of my "changes" is unwarranted. Let's see how dumb you are.
tektontv 1 week ago
@tektontv The argument is simple: Read the Bible; don't re-write it.
In Judg. 11:29-30, Jephthah "..vowed a vow.. [to] offer it up as a burnt offering."
In 39, Jephthah "did with her according to his vow."
In 40, the daughters of Israel "lament the daughter of Jephthah.."
In verse 39, Jephthah did WHAT with her? "Burnt offering," as outlined in Lev 1: Slaughter, spread blood, burn.
There is no indication in the text that use of the specific term "burnt offering" was metaphorical.
TheHogTieChamp 1 week ago
@TheHogTieChamp Dumb as a box of rocks, I see. Those are ALL things answered in the vid. You're not showing anything I argued is wrong, you're just vomiting back the ignorant, primitive, literalist reading the vid refutes and which morons like you slather over like a rabid chihuahua.
The argument is simple, all right -- and simple is as simple does, Forrest! :D
tektontv 1 week ago
@tektontv Dude... I love the vids, but you gotta chill on the insults. Any impact these videos may have is going to be instantly discredited by some of this hateful stuff.
As Greg Koukl says, an effective ambassador for Christ needs to be skilled in 3 key areas: Knowledge, wisdom, and character. Know what I mean?
clm12704 1 week ago
@clm12704 Um, well, if that's true, what are you going to do when you hand someone a Bible and they read stuff like Malachi 2:3? You gonna edit that sort of thing out? Sorry, no -- targeted insults are 100% Biblical, and any idea of "discredit" is just an excuse used by those who resist truth. And BTW, that last bit could be taken as condescendingly insulting. Know what I mean? ;)
tektontv 6 days ago
@tektontv Malachi 2:3 is the Lord rebuking the false priests who were profaning His name by leading people astray. Little bit of a different deal than you attacking people who disagree with you.
That last bit was meant to be an admonishment for you to consider the tone you take with people who disagree with you and how it is viewed by others. I didn't call you any hateful names or say you were stupid. I'm just asking you to consider how your comments come across.
clm12704 6 days ago
@clm12704 Sorry, lame excuse. 1) The critic will just say that God is attacking people who disagree with Him -- which is what they DO say! 2) I'm destroying vicious wolves who drag people out of faith...eg, lead people astray! Last bit: Thanks heaps, but I've been at this for many years..."viewed by others" is still just an excuse...and it doesn't occur to you that your use of it is the same as saying, "You're ignorant, foolish, and/or immoral." :D Log in your eye...attend to it.
tektontv 6 days ago
@tektontv Yep....
clm12704 6 days ago
@clm12704 Uh huh. Good move anyway -- my rules say limit comments to the vid topic...so unless you have something to say about Jephthah, that'll be all.
tektontv 6 days ago
@TheHogTieChamp What. Nobody argued about the term being "metaphorical". Translation issues, stupid.
Dante666 1 week ago
@TheHogTieChamp Because those words are the two most common descriptors of the likes of you. Well, not like we'd expect the likes of you to know more outside of the vocabulary anyway.
The only thing amusing about your post is your logical fallacy in claiming that calling you a pig and a pissant somehow shows that JP couldn't defend his position.
Folks, we have arrived at an unfortunate era where bare assertions can be considered to be "arguments".
Dante666 1 week ago
If you have a 1 post rule, it only backs up my assertion that my arguments can't be posted on 1 Youtube comment. Instead of asking if I would rather take it elsewhere, you insult me. Exactly what I mean. Not being very Bible-like.
miketh2005 1 week ago
@miketh2005 Here's an idea then, moron....like my rules say, meet me at TheologyWeb if you have more to say. I wouldn't have to ask you if you'd rather take it elsewhere if you'd bothered to pay attention.
Yeah, it's Bible-like -- if you don't use an edited Bible, little man. See you there with your poor excuses for an argument...or not.
tektontv 1 week ago
@miketh2005 Tough luck, jackass -- you don't like the rules here, go elsewhere. Nobody else posting here has a problem with the rules -- obviously, all this just means that you're wrong, and you know it.
1GodOnlyOne 1 week ago
There are so many things wrong with this video, I cant say it all in a YT comment...
miketh2005 1 week ago
@miketh2005 No you can't say it even with 100 comments. You're just making the declarative assertion of a helpless drone with no answers...and using the pending status as an excuse to run away if you need to. I also have a one post rule...so #2 post got deleted, whiner.
Yes I have a bias -- against wasting time on idiots like you who can't answer the arguments.
tektontv 1 week ago
@miketh2005 You failed to provide even a single problem with this video, and you had a whole lot of space to spare in your ignorant post. Obviously, that demonstrates the fact that you have nothing of value to say against this video, and the video's content is 100% true and accurate.
1GodOnlyOne 1 week ago
@ThePrinceOfMoose I don't run YT but I do run this channel, and YT allows me to delete comments, so suck it up, crybaby. Keep up the whining as a sub for real argument against the points in the vid.
tektontv 2 weeks ago
I wonder why you keep reminding me that I am stupid, while you don't bring up any arguments (claiming that I did not understood the ones in the video/text isn't one, it's just an opinion and somewhat teenager behaviour).
Maybe you are just trying to convince yourself that I am. So please stop that, I read the bible often enough to know what I am talking about.
Atanar89 2 weeks ago
@Atanar89 I remind you that you are stupid because you keep saying things to show you are -- such as getting my arguments badly wrong, and thinking that just because you "read the bible often enough" you know what the heck you're talking about. You don't. Joyce Meyer reads the Bible more than you do -- and is more of an expert in it!
It isn't "opinion" but FACT - you got the arguments wrong, as has been shown. Deal with it.
tektontv 2 weeks ago
@Atanar89 Why do you think there would be any need to bring up any new arguments when you fail to even grasp those that are already present? And why is the statement that you fail to understand the arguments in the video/text considered an "opinion"? And just a reminder, even if something isn't an argument, that does not make it an opinion. Reading the Bible often does not always lead to people knowing what they are talking about, as you have proven here.
Dante666 2 weeks ago
@Dante666 Yep. Jim Jones read the Bible a lot too.
tektontv 2 weeks ago
The hebrew word used is "ola", which means a burnt sacrifice and not any substitute. Get your sources right. The original text leaves no doubt that this is a human sacrifice. Your whole argument is based on a simularity in translation, how did you think that could be valid? And your interpretation is messed up anyway, why would she need to hide 2 years and cry about her irginity if she was not sacrificed at all?
Atanar89 2 weeks ago
@Atanar89 My source is right, you're just stupid: I didn't say anything about a "substitute" -- try to answer the actual argument I made. The text properly read shows it isn't a sacrifice and my argument is valid and comes from a serious scholar. I say nothing about anyone "hiding" and neither does the text.
Next time try to get my arguments correctly. Might be a good idea to not smoke banana peels before watching next time.
tektontv 2 weeks ago
@tektontv The source of an argument has nothing to do with it's validity, it has to be right in itself to be valid. It's like saying "the whole bible is wrong because dawkins said so and he is a serious scolar", but we both agree that this is not true I guess. Your text doesn't even name the source by the way.
The text clearly says that she takes for 2 months to spend in the mountains with her girlfriend to cry about her virginity. Read it, it's Jud. 11, 37.
Atanar89 2 weeks ago
@Atanar89 Source for WHAT, stupid? Ola? It can be found in any lexicon. Get a clue.
Um, where does it say HIDING in Judges 11:37? Did you forget that, or just hope I wouldn't notice you blundered so badly? Just because you go somewhere away from home doesn't mean you're "hiding" -- especially if you bring friends! DUH!
tektontv 2 weeks ago
@tektontv No, I meant the source of the text you linked to. There is no name, it just says "JPH".
You have to look up "ola" in a old-hebrew-dictionary, not a lexicon. It's the same word used in Gen 8,20 and Job 42,8. It's derived from "ala" whch means "acending", which was translated into greek "holokautoma" and latin "holocaustum". It's later used in the word "holocaust"
You are just beating a strawmen if you criticize the word "hiding", it's not fundamental to my argument.
Atanar89 2 weeks ago
@Atanar89 1) JPH is ME, moron. 2) A lexicon IS a dictionary by function, you idiot. It includes definitions. Not that it matters, I know all that, and it doesn't change a thing and accords with what I said. 3) In other words, you made an embarrassing error by saying "hiding" was in the text, and now want to claim it wasn't "fundamental" to your argument. What a crock -- it was the CRUX of your argument!
Keep up with the reasons to designate yourself as "stupid". :D
tektontv 2 weeks ago
@Atanar89 "And your interpretation is messed up anyway, why would she need to HIDE 2 years and cry about her irginity if she was not sacrificed at all?"
"it's not fundamental to my argument."
Right...
The word "olah" was also used in Ezekiel 40:26; it is translated as "lead up". The Hebrew word translated as "holokautoma" is "zebach", not "olah".
This is why it is better to refer to a Lexicon rather than a simple dictionary.
Dante666 2 weeks ago
@Atanar89 Oops, sorry, please disregard my previous post, the word translated into Greek "holokautoma" is indeed "olah".
Dante666 2 weeks ago
@Dante666 It should be noted that some translations read "olah" as a burnt offering in those two verses, while some read it is an "ascent" (like a staircase). I find arguments for the former reading lacking, but that it is given as an option at all speaks for itself in terms of what the word literally means.
tektontv 2 weeks ago
@tektontv Are you really 43 years old? What kind of 43 year old speaks like you? You are immature, self centered, and have a huge case of unwarranted self importance. You are incredibly arrogant. Not very good when trying to get your point across.
ThePrinceOfMoose 2 weeks ago
@ThePrinceOfMoose What's wrong? Upset because your little girlfriend got so embarrassed? Arrogant little snots like you NEED a good dose of your own medication -- being too oblivious to see your own self-description in your words. :D
There's no points to get across to the likes of you and your girlfriend who don't even bother to check lexicon entries to validate your claims.
tektontv 2 weeks ago
wow great video, it was a blessing for me, didn't know about this, interesting and entertaining. God bless!!
Nobleeagle100 1 month ago
@Nobleeagle100 Thanks for the good word. :)
tektontv 4 weeks ago
I love your work :) I've been watching since you got a youtube channel and I frequently send atheists and baby Christians to your website. You do excellent work in apologetics, one of the few I actually agree with 99% of the time! No one compares with your Old Testament interpretations. If only everyone used cultural and historical aspects when studying the stories of the OT AND actually looked up the debatable words (in this case "ascend") in the original Hebrew/Aramaic. God bless you @tektontv
DreamsOfCottages 1 month ago
@DreamsOfCottages Hey, thanks for the good word. Have you ever emailed me before? You're probably aware I get a lot of stuff from Glenn Miller too. Drop me a PM if you wish.
tektontv 4 weeks ago
@tektontv Awesome. thank you for the invite. I may just do that :)
DreamsOfCottages 4 weeks ago
And finally, KK said Judges 5:11 was a wrong citation. PLEASE! Judges 5:11 IS correct; it and 11:40 use the Hebrew word in question: tanah. Quit pulling stupidity out of your skull! I use real scholars for my research and no 17 year old crap artist who can't even be bothered to do some simple checking before mouthing off deserves 24/7 attention so their moderated comments can be immediately posted. No wonder you think NoSCo is a genius!
tektontv 1 month ago
And to show how stupid you are, you said:
"Neither is burnt used for 1 Kings or Ezekiel, I looked them both up and read them."
Moron, my very point IS that they don't mean "burnt" -- the literal meaning of the word used is "ascend," not "burnt". They are ASCENT OFFERINGS. Get a clue.
And you're so dumb you didn't get that the fly thing was sarcasm? What the blazes do you smoke in your spare time?
Try to say something intelligent next time.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tektontv
Wow way to be condescending to whoever you are talking to here. Considering your video's performance you have no right to say to someone "Say something intelligent next time"
ThePrinceOfMoose 4 weeks ago
@ThePrinceOfMoose Wow, way to deserve condescension -- do and say stupid things, and also make asinine declarative statements as a substitute for real arguments.
Captain Kangaroo called. Your brain fell out during your ping pong ball shower.
tektontv 4 weeks ago
@tektontv
Awwww how cute, you are trying to be insulting. Making your entire point moot. You see, insults do not get you anywhere it just shows how mad you are.
ThePrinceOfMoose 3 weeks ago
@PrinceOfMoose Nah, it shows how stupid you are and how you earn being insulted. :D
I don't see you at theologyweb. Did you get lost, or just chicken out? You can speak all you want there -- just keep away from profanity. I have rules here (like 1 post at a time -- moron) to manage my time and not waste it on ignoramuses like you. But at TWeb, there's a lot of people who will be glad to take the time to laugh at you.
Or is "Prince of Moose" actually just a moo cow?
tektontv 3 weeks ago
@tektontv excuse me but why are all your responses to people so rude, when they are arguing that some of your points might be inaccurate or incorrect? there is really no need for it.
besides some of the facts you may have, could have been false because of misleading facts given through out history by the people in power at the time, archeologist are looking in to these kind of things all the time to see if they were true or not.
kariookami44 3 weeks ago
@kariookami44 Wrong. There is need for it, because the sickness of overconfident arrogance needs to be cured or else crushed, as does whiny stupidity like your comment. If the facts are wrong, SHOW they are -- that rap about "people in power" is nothing but a facade sore losers like you use because you can't argue the actual points.
Either address a point directly or hit the road.
tektontv 3 weeks ago
@kariookami44 As a neutral third party, I can say with certainty that Tekton's comments are not rude, and none of his points are inaccurate or incorrect. You are the only one who is rude, ignorant, and incorrect here.
1GodOnlyOne 3 weeks ago
@1GodOnlyOne Why of course I was rude. I told fundy atheists that they were (GASP) WRONG! And then I told them they were also (horrors!) IGNORANT! And that's RUDE!
We should all be good theists and shut up, meekly accepting the rampant genius of Bible scholars like NoSCo who have carefully read the KJV and know exactly what happened.
Get with the program, 1GOO!
tektontv 3 weeks ago
@kariookami44 If they are arguing that some points may be inaccurate or incorrect, I fail to see any arguments; all I see are pitiful whines and meaningless bare assertions like chanting "2+2=5!" over and over again.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
@ThePrinceOfMoose At least he has a point, and you have failed to refute it, so you lose.
1GodOnlyOne 3 weeks ago
@ThePrinceOfMoose Pardon my interruption, but how exactly does "trying to be insulting" logically lead to making one's "entire point moot"? It does not. You are only avoiding the argument.
So you see that insults, or the lack of, do not validate or invalidate anybody's point (hypocrisy being the exception), and speaking of not getting anywhere, that's exactly the problem with your response.
Oh, wait, I take that back; your response is actually headed somewhere: the fail bin.
Dante666 3 weeks ago
KK: You broke my rule against multiposting so all got deleted. Your comments show when I get on to approve them. I have a life, unlike you, which means I don't hang out here 24/7 waiting to approve posts by pissants like you.
You can repost one at a time. Follow my rules and also stop pretending you have something worthwhile to say. You don't.
tektontv 1 month ago
You know what. I clicked on this video thinking it would be entertaining. Instead I get the same story, twice. With additions by a man who knows not of the story and when I go to comment to refute him, I can't. I can't because he's scared of the words others give him so he puts his comments on approval only. No matter what has been said to Nonstamp, DPR, or AronRa, I've never seen comment pending on any of their videos. They allow full free speech because they are not afraid. So...why are you?
KittenKitoko 1 month ago
@KittenKitoko Wow, what are you, some kind of retarded chimpanzee? And you want to know why I put comments on moderation? You're an example of why -- that and the fact that you morons (fans of NoSCo, etc) think profanity is an argument. :D
You couldn't refute it if you tried, because you're too ignorant -- and you would have done so right away rather than making a vacuous whine like that one.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tektontv errr .... tektontv ... just a quick question ... clearly the above kitten comment is not the first comment she made about this vid (otherwise, how would she know it was on "comment pending". so what did she say on the comment that you are hiding?
and as for my comment?
the guy made the vow, on the eve of battle, at a place over looking the enemy. he lived VERY far away from that place, and it doesn't say the vow was public. so I think, you fail on that.
eyallev 1 month ago
@eyallev That was the only one I found, sorry. But my rules do say comments are moderated so it can be got from there. Now, however, KK broke my rules about multi-posts -- all but one will be deleted.
Re comment: You fail on basic reading. The chronology of 29-32 puts the actual vow at Mizpeh before he went over to Ammon. This has been addressed before in comments -- pay attention.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tektontv Amend: Deleted them all instead to teach someone obnoxious a lesson....now follow my rules, fools.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tektontv yes, before he went to ammon, on the eve of battle, after they called him from his home town which was FAR from Gilad (they had casted him out, because he was a son of a bitch). And how is a sacrafice, the same as "to become a holy virgin"?
and what's with the 2 months? it only makes sanse if it's the LAST 2 months of her life.
eyallev 1 month ago
@ey 1) The "how" was explained in the vid. 2) The parallelism (29-32) indicates the vow took place at Mizpeh on the way back, as it "flashes back" his trip to Ammon, using identical words. 3) Home is EXACTLY where you'd perform a vow, where everyone knows you, holds you to account, and you can collect honor. See all below re public vows, it's been said before ignore the honor aspect. Finally, you fail to explain how his daughter knew of the vow. Triple fail.
tektontv 4 weeks ago
@tektontv his home town as in the land of Tob, not Mizpeh, and the town he was called to, where he was publicly made the head captain, was not Mizpeh either (it was Gilead).
as for the "how" in your vid, sorry, it's a fail too. It just so happens that I know hebrew, and have the Hebrew bible with me (well, on-line) and the word OLA (sacrifice) is not mentioned in ezekiel 40:26 (it is mentioned however in 40:38). as for your translation of 1 kings 10, your's is faulty.
eyallev 4 weeks ago
@eyallev Good night you're stupid. It says in 11:34, "Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his HOUSE". A wealthy tribal chieftain or raider would be able to have multiple residences, moron. I already pointed out the parallelism, the call in Gilead has zero to do with that. Second, you're as dumb as the kitten was: I am NOT saying ola is in those passages!!! Either pay attention or shut it -- I don't have time to correct stupid people, especially people who think "yours" is a possessive!
tektontv 4 weeks ago
@tektontv nice. ignore my point, and make fun of my less than perfect english. we were not all born in english speaking countries you know.
the issue of "did jephthah" really killed his daughter is not new. and it was even discussed by the writers of the talmod. ppl much smarter than you or I. and they have concluded that he did.
btw, they were NOT atheists, or bible haters. they were the religous leaders of thier time. they were the ones that had to answer questions like these.
eyallev 4 weeks ago
@eyallev I didn't ignore your point, you missed mine...and if you don't have English mastered, don't use it, little man!
YAWN. Talmud shmalmud -- that's not an argument either. I know more about it than you ever will; I use the real scholars like Vermes for my studies. You? You've just proven you're still in grade school with this stuff.
tektontv 4 weeks ago
@tektontv How does Vermes settle the fact the the talmud says other wise? In the study of the old test', the talmud and the mishna are about as importent (if not more so) than the bible.
but we have pretty much said all that can be said about that. I do have a differant question. "so what". why does it matter if he killed her, or not? he did other (not so nice) things, the very next chapter. there is no question that Jephthah was a "hard" man (to say the least). so what?
eyallev 4 weeks ago
@eyallev You're a real joke, you know that? I never said "Vermes" settled anything, I used him as an example of the sort of competence you lack. I used oher scholars for this vid. As for "so what" -- ask idiots like NoSCo. They seem to think it's important.
Learn to spell "different" and "important". You look like an even more ignorant yokel when you do things like that.
tektontv 4 weeks ago
@eyallev Certain individuals attempt to re-write history to make it appear as if God and his people could somehow be less than morally upstanding, which is an outright lie.
It matters because people's souls are at risk if they swallow the atheistic BS so prevalent on the web, and I am very grateful for good Christians like TektonTV, who are here to set the record straight.
I for one have learned a lot from watching his videos, and it is high time that you begin the learning process as well.
1GodOnlyOne 3 weeks ago
@eyallev
When you go to write a comment there is a message which says "Comments may be held for uploader approval". That's how she knew it was on "comment pending". I don't know you missed it. It's clear enough.
ukchristian28 4 weeks ago
@ukchristian28 I know how he missed it -- he doesn't pay attention. He missed "house" in 11:34, and he thought I was talking about the word "sacrifice" when I clearly said "burnt" in the film was the word I was talking about.
Let's face it: YT is not a brain trust when it comes to the fundy atheists and those who admire their brillyunce. :P
tektontv 4 weeks ago
@eyallev
Version two without the typo:).
When you go to write a comment there is a message which appears underneath the textbox which says "Comments may be held for uploader approval." That's how she knew it was on "comment approval". I don't know how you missed it.
ukchristian28 4 weeks ago
@tektontv
Retarded Chimpanzee? This coming from the guy that moderates his comment section. Scared of the truth and the hearing of the other side of the argument? The truth hurts. By the way Kitten did not insult you or use profanity yet you insult her. Complete failure on your part. I just refuted your entire statement in less than two seconds. Not to mention she also refuted you in the first comment, you just made her point even stronger with your response. Good job genus!!
ThePrinceOfMoose 1 month ago
@ThePrinceOfMoose Spare me the drivel....KK played thecondescending victim complex and used the idiotic "free speech" whine; the insult was thereby earned. Do you NoSCo drones even read the Constitution? Yeah, "other side" -- 1) stuff brought up before or 2) utter failure to read ("burnt" offering).
Learn to spell "genius," moron....and try making on-topic comments. That's a rule violation here too. :D
tektontv 1 month ago
@ThePrinceOfMoose Hey Moosebrain -- bring your game to theologyweb if you have game and "facts" against my "myths" -- we wipe the floor with little nobodies like you every day!
tektontv 4 weeks ago
@KittenKitoko This video is awesome. It's actually two different stories, and your low intelligence prevents you from discerning that clear fact.
Your comment is posted, dumbass, so he's obviously allowing you to comment.
You have FAILED to refute him by dint of your low intelligence and lack of education.
atheist total fail
1GodOnlyOne 3 weeks ago
@1GodOnlyOne To be fair, after that comment I did start deleting some of hers because she broke my rules. But ONLY after that.
But, "lack of education" sure hits the mark. :D
tektontv 3 weeks ago
nah, Jepthah burned his daughter alive.
ndjarnag 1 month ago
@ndjarnag Nah, you're a moron with no arguments, just declarative statements.
tektontv 1 month ago
@ndjarnag As a neutral third party, I have weighed the evidence and arguments for both positions, and I can say with absolute certainty that TektonTV's position is much, much more believable than yours.
This is because you didn't even attempt to provide any evidence or argument, whereas TektonTV's evidences and arguments are copious and compelling.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@ndjarnag
What are you doing? Going for worthless fundy atheist comment of the year?
ukchristian28 1 month ago
1>I begin my objections to this video starting at 4:40 ... I can see no discernible reason or evidence that suggests the vow must have been taken in public. The video does not provide any reasoning for this. The site linked in the description only states he would make it public because it would "have had no value or impact, and accrued him no honor, as a private oath". However, making a vow to the LORD would CERTAINLY have value and impact as a private oath. Infact, making it public would DEFEAT
tsilver33 1 month ago
@tsilver33 One post only -- read my rules. Your reply is a non-answer and fails to grasp the nature and importance of public honor/reputation. You are not recognizing the correct TYPE of power/impact I am referring to -- it has to do with J's public honor, which was a chief concern of every person in an agonistic society. A private oath to the Lord would not serve for that purpose in any way.
I would suggest you do some serious research on honor and shame before replying again.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tsilver33 Your failure to see why the vow was taken in public proves nothing. TektonTV has given ample evidence and arguments to prove that the vow was public, but you offered absolutely none for your position. As a neutral and rational third party, I must reject your silly belief due to lack of evidence or argument in its favor: TektonTV is obviously right.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
I find this interpretation of the Story of Jephthah very implausible for one reason: If Jephthah's daughter really wanted to become a virgin as per the vow, she would not have lamented the fact that she would never marry in Judges 11:37. To say that she simply lamented the joys of that while she still didn't want to do the work is extremely unlikely. Also, the authors would have specified she wasn't sacrificed as per the understanding of the phrase in 11:31 that he and his readers would have had
cujo006 1 month ago
@cujo006 That's not a rebuttal, but a restatement of an argument already refuted in the vid. Try to pay attention when watching. Maybe take notes.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tektontv I don't need to take notes and it's in no way refuted. She would not lament that she would never marry. Furthermore, this interpretation in no way accounts for the fact that: 1) A person dedicated to the Lord's priestly house did not need to be celibate for life (see Samuel for example whose parents were nowhere near as sad as Jephthah or his daughter), 2) Hardly would every young woman give a grievance of 4 days per year because someone had to go celibate. 3)not enough chars
cujo006 1 month ago
@cujo006 2) You're just repeating the refuted argument again and adding a dumber one: 1) Samuel was not subject to the Levitical vow. 3) Too bad. See me on Theologyweb if you want more chars, we find goofballs like you amusing there.
tektontv 1 month ago
@tektontv I'll see you on theologyweb where we'll see who the goofball is. You don't practice self-criticism my friend, which is why half of your recent arguments suck, this being one of them. Let me just add that I don't see any evidence for your Levitical vow to mean what you think it means. If the author of Judges11 wanted to say Jephthah's daughter was not sacrificed he would have specified the way you do here. And noone would "celebrate" someone becoming a virgin 4 days per year
cujo006 1 month ago
@cujo006 I do it right the first time so I don't have to self-criticize -- that's what YOUR problem is. Stupid as you are, you fail to realize that yes, people of such a society WOULD honor such a person, but it's not for her becoming a virgin....like I said, you need to pay attention better.
See ya there, chump. :D
tektontv 1 month ago
It never ceases to amaze me how you Christians constantly mitigate the atrocities and contradictions in the bible, (dude he murdered his daughter, there is no mistranslation or taking the story or of context it is what it is)
CONGLOMERIDE 2 months ago
@CONGLOMERIDE It never ceases to amaze me how you idiots constantly repeat back refuted arguments as though that somehow amounted to a response (dude I showed he didn't murder her, either answer the arguments or shut it).
That's how you sound, too. :D
tektontv 2 months ago
@ukchristian28 Be careful -- the atheist is so dumb that he might actually take your obvious parody and run with it! LOL
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
Irish narrator guy is back -- LOL I LOVE IT!!!
PS -- the lighter was a classic touch.
=)
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
Some people assume that God tacitly approves of a certain act if there's no explicit condemnation of it, like the feminist exegesis of Judges 19.
The standard explanation I've heard is that Jephthah was rash in the wording he chose and that, at the time, the Israelites disregarded God's law and did not take the prohibitions against human sacrifice seriously. Jephthah could have repented.
uj888n 2 months ago
@uj888n Yes, I've seen that as a view. I find it fails to account for all the data.
tektontv 2 months ago
Judges 21:25 The those days Israel had no king. So every man did what was right in their own eyes.
NaftaliRa 3 months ago
A Jewish person said this about thiis video (without my typos):
"I have to say I agree with you on this. You make an excellent point in this video and you are actually dead on with Jewish interpretation. Personally, I have always wondered if the ending could also be read not only as the way you say, which was also good, but if the daughters of Israel go with her lament for 4 days because they are lamenting the fact that she was unable to fullfill the mitzvah. Do you think that is possible?"
ukchristian28 3 months ago
@SoreheadFatrt Because, moron, you're appealing to him as an authority with no qualification. If you're going to say he knows better for all those reasons, it applies to ALL he says. You can't just pick and choose. But really, again, as childish as you are in your intellect, it's understandable you'd prefer a "waaah, mommy says so" answer. As it is, even the details I offer defeat his "opinion" (which has no arguments in it).
And again: Jackasses bray, not bay. Record yourself and find out.
tektontv 3 months ago
@SoreheadFart Arguments/evidence in the vid -- answer them directly or shut up. To start::
1) Was Jephthah's vow public, yes or no?
2) If "no", explain why a) in light of the fact that vows were made publicly to accrue honor; b) and so that others could call the person to account.
3) If it was not public, where was it made, and what is your evidence for this?
I answered your dumb point re Jews/Catholics -- by asking when you plan to become one of them. Have you?
tektontv 3 months ago
@tektontv 1) -3) Judges 11:29-30 indicates Jepthah was advancing toward/going to/attacking the Ammonites when he made his vow after departing Mizpah. Some translations hold that he made a vow, some that he spoke the vow. No mention is made of where specifically he was when he made the vow (in his tent, on his horse, or to a crowd). Seeing as you are not required to have an audience when addressing the All Mighty it could be any of the three.
I'm a Catholic and you still haven't answered.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@Sorehead Wrong, It doesn't say it happened as he departed. v32 indicates it happened before he departed, which means it happened in Mizpah. ALL vows were recited publicly in this culture before witnesses so that one could receive honor from it being done (or shame if it was not.). So the text and the culture refutes you completely.
You're an idiot and you have been answered. if you're Catholic, you need to become a Jew too to be consistent with your illogical epistemology of bare authority.
tektontv 3 months ago
@tektontv Vs29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.
Vs32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.
All vows? Says who? No one in that time EVER made a vow to themselves to God, you baying jackass?
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SoreheadFart Duh....your point? As said, v32 shows he did it before he left Mizpah. Who says so? REAL scholars of honor-shame societies. Even one made to God was made publicly,because it mattered to honor AND accountability.
Sorry you're stupid. And that's "braying." Baying is what a canine does, not a jackass. So now you're demonstrating stupidity in the animal kingdom as well as in Bible scholarship. Here's a clue: "Says who" is not an argument but an indication you're in over your head.
tektontv 3 months ago
Awesome video, quite enlightening, always wondered about it, thank u for answering. Small critique, using harsh language as a reply to atheists, doubters and critics never accomplishes anything, trust me i tried. in my personal opinion softer, more patient language tends to have better effects.
nevertheless, good video, keep it up!
-Fellow Apologist
steevymathew 3 months ago
@steevymathew Thank you...I've tried it, though, with very good results...it depends on what you're trying to get done. ;)
tektontv 3 months ago
@steevymathew
I have found that a lot of Bible Skeptics are arrogant, rude, condescending and closed minded no matter how I treat them.
ukchristian28 3 months ago
disable rating, cause it sucks...
yosef59 3 months ago
@yosef59 No, because you suck. See vid here, Why Ratings are Disabled, mindless thumbot.
tektontv 3 months ago
@tektontv more xtian love.. what a hypocritical jerk..
yosef59 3 months ago
@yosef59 More mindless whining and victim complex....what a dweeb. It would only be hypocrisy if I objected to your insults...I don't. I just squash them and you too.
tektontv 3 months ago
Ok, fair enough reply to my comment. If it is truth, then it should stand on its own in any free public forum, subject to the same standard of review as science, politics medicine, etc. The fact is there is no truth what so ever in the bible and God, every bit is plagiarized from earlier Egyptian religions. There is no not truth only lies made to enslave children and innocent people. The tale of Jepthah is just one of hundreds of examples that God is blood thirsty and barbaric murde
AtollSurfer 3 months ago
@AtollSurfer That wasn't any less stupid than the last comment. It's just a recitation of whines and crying without a single argument. I realize you're frustrated by encountering arguments too difficult for you to refute in this vid, but if you have to crap someplace, use the restroom, not the comments section.
Egyptian religions? Please. That's a crock. But leave it somewhere else too -- comments here ONLY on the vid featured.
tektontv 3 months ago
The Greatest Lie Ever Sold.
AtollSurfer 4 months ago
@AtollSurfer That was The Stupidest Comment Ever Made.
tektontv 3 months ago
Awesome analysis. I remember discussing the Jephthah account in a comparative religion class I took. I was laughed at for saying that Jephthah didn't "kill" his daughter but the sacrifice had to do with his daughter being set apart to God and remaining a virgin. Good to know im not the only one who has arrived at this conclusion.
lilAinthamorning 4 months ago
@lilAinthamorning Thank you! You might want to get Reis' book (listed in the description) and bring it to that class if its still around. Then you can watch them all scratch their heads.
tektontv 4 months ago
Bad boy, quwert...no profanity. And try to actually show that the claims are wrong rather than just ranting and whining and repeating them with your head up your backside.
tektontv 4 months ago
I doubt youll approve this but whatever:
All your answers are
1. Youre avoiding the questions( that I dont state)
2. You have no arguments
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007ization Approved -- I love approving incoherent messages by ignorant people.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv Why am I ignorant? You repeat yourself, thats a fact
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007ization You're ignorant because you can't answer arguments. Try it for a change.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv You didnt answer mine either
neither did i say i would answer any of your interpretations
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007ization You didn't give any arguments, you just whined that burning livestock as a sacrifice made no sense, and that itself makes no sense, and is not an argument, just your subjective whiny opinion as an idiot looking for problems. Explain WHY it makes no sense, then VALIDATE your explanation, moron.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv Explain WHY you think that burning cows makes sense and
WHY all your comments are nothing more than rants with the assumptions that someone doesent state arguments or anwer question( what questions??)
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007ization Well, stupid, since you can't answer the question: It makes sense because any credible anthropologist will tell you about the importance of such rituals in symbolizing and encouraging order in ANY society. Now I know you're too dumb to grasp the symbolism inherent in the rituals, so that's all you'll get, and its enough anyway . Now answer MY question and give YOUR explanation. Note: "They make no sense because I am a bigot who thinks it makes no sense" is not an acceptable answer.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv It makes no sense because e.g. giving it to the poor( like Jesus said) woulld have been much more beneficial.
Any religious and ritualistic act encourages order and cooperation in society, theres no need to unnecesserarily lessen your chances of survival by destroying livestock. Not to mention that it does NOTHING( other than the effect you just described).
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007 Well, duh, the edible portions were eaten by priests, that was one of their means of support; they WERE "poor" by definition, they lived on charity in return for their service. So, mega stupid fail by YOU again. It didn't reduce anyone's survival because it fed people and it DID something symbolically, and that was enough; your bigotry doesn't erase that.
It's clear you're making up problems. I doubt you cared what "the poor" had when you wrote your first whine on this.
tektontv 4 months ago
@dummy007: Oh, just to confirm, Biblical historian Richard Friedman, in Who Wrote the Bible: "Modern readers often think that sacrifice is the unnecessary taking of animal life, or that the person offering the sacrifice was giving up something to compensate for some sin or to win God's favor. But in the biblical world, the most common type of sacrifice was for meals."
Make sense of THAT, moron.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv I didnt know the Israelites had the same traditions as the ancient Greeks, sorry.
I admit that I was wrong on that subject.
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007 Is there some reason why you think they shouldn't??? I'm sure many other cultures at their animal sacrifices as well. Hopefully you also don't mean that as a criticism of Israel, because if you did, it would mean they can't win with you no matter what they do!!
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv WTH is the last sentence supposed to mean?
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007 In other words, IF you are criticizing Israel for being like Greece (are you?) then you have criticized them for BOTH eating sacrifices and NOT eating sacrifices. That would hardly be fair!
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv I'm not, I'm just sayin'.
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007 OK fine. In close: Although SOME sacrifices were wholly immolated, these people rarely ate meat, mostly ate bread/veg/fruits. So no one would be any worse off for food because some sacrifices were wholly immolated. Frankly, if you gave it to the poor back then, you'd probably make a lot of them sick because they so seldom ate meat. I'm not vegan but there are virtues in a vegan diet I can admit to!
Thank you for being willing to learn.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv Sure thing^^
Now lets proceed to arguing on your other video
d007ization 4 months ago
Yeah, a fly would have totally been ridiculous as a sacrifice. Yahweh only wants burning blood of farm animals and birds. That's the stuff! Please just go ahead and re-write the bible with all the new parts you invent so it says what you think it means. I'd really enjoy reading that.
hugesinker 4 months ago in playlist More videos from tektontv
@hugesinker So basically, you have no arguments, so you just barf out a canard ("re-write the bible") in helpless, hapless frustration. Yep.
So I assume you'll be picketing McDonald's later today over their continuing burning of farm animals and birds? Or are you as grossly inconsistent and whiny as every other fundy atheist?
tektontv 4 months ago
@tekton A consensus of Jewish Biblical scholars who have spent their entire lives gaining an intimate knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Old Testament texts, and their own culture disagree with you.
The entire basis of your speculation is that "Jephthah had been taught that God was against human sacrifice, so he wouldn't have done it." You're talking about a character who was pleading with Yaweh to help him smite 20 cities with a "very great slaughter". By "slaughter", does it really mean evangelize?
hugesinker 4 months ago
@hugesinker Deleted 2nd message -- you know better. In any event do you also agree with all the scholars on everything else they say? Doubtful. And that's not an argument, which is something you obviously lack. Your other point is stupid in context -- war is not ritual human sacrifice. Please get more intelligent before posting again.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv If your speculation is correct, these scholars are completely incompetent. They should start learning ancient Hebrew and Jewish custom from you instead. All I'm saying is that perhaps it would be a good idea to find out why they interpret the story the way that they do and argue with that.
However, the best argument against sheer speculation is just to call you out for making stuff up. Like, 'she wasn't really "bewailing her virginity", she just pretended to'. Just. Made. Up.
hugesinker 4 months ago
@hugestinker In other words, you have no answer, and hide behind unnamed "scholars" because you lack any. Reis (my source) gives far more details than any other scholar on this; so if you think others have the goods, use them to refute her thesis. I DID find out why they interpret the story the way they do, and I made comparisons. Reis had better arguments. Now show why she didn't. Just. Answer. The. Arguments. Moron. (And get it right when you do, it doesn't say she "pretended" that.)
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv Burning livestock as a sacrifice makes no sense
Thats the argument
d007ization 4 months ago
@d007ization That's a really stupid point that makes no sense and isn't an argument.
tektontv 4 months ago
Interesting. The rating options have been disabled. Conditions have been set on how one may respond to the video. I can only surmise that such conditions are set, so that you can dismiss any future argument by simply saying to another "you didn't read all of it". Which of course, is a rule given by you, where the interpretation and execution lie solely in your subjective hands. Just like Yahweh and his followers. So...
Semantics + Rebellious Older Daughter + Public Vow = Okay to Murder?
Fail.
TheSleepingLionRoars 4 months ago
@TheSleepingLionRoars No, stupid. Conditions are set because stupid people like you think, for example, that ratings actually mean something -- and because, as here, you are too dumb to know how to answer an argument. Ironically you just proved you didn't "read all of it" because the conclusion was the NO ONE was killed in this story -- and thus also proved why I am right to place controls on stupid people like you.
MEGA Fail. :D
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv I see now conditions are set, because people "think". How very Yahweh of you. So really what your saying is, that your so insecure and emotionally fragile, that you have to micro manage everyone's response? Gotcha. So no Ammonites were murdered and Jephtha's daughter wasn't killed because your personal interpretation trumps the accessible passages of the Bible. So..
Semantics + Rebellious Older Daughter + Public Vow + Because tektontv said so = Okay to Murder?
Fail again. (Sigh)
TheSleepingLionRoars 4 months ago
@TheSleepingLionRoars How hilarious that you cut off at "think" as a manipulation. So what YOU'RE saying (learn proper grammar, moron) is that you can't answer the arguments, so all you do is whine about "personal interpretation" or "said so" as though that answers anything, because displays of scholarship that are over your head make you cry like a little girl. War isn't murder BTW, nice try.
So: Contextual interpretation + Your Crybabying = Pathetic ultra FAIL by YOU. :D Deal with it.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv How is it not personal interpretation? You're telling a story according to your personal thoughts and feelings. I really wish you had more than personal interpretations, otherwise it implies that one should take your fable on faith. Whereas NSC (my hero) gives us a objective premise with accessible references, that are available to all people, not just tektontv.
So if we call murder, war, it makes it okay to kill people? Or is it okay to kill people because Yaweth tells us so? lol...
TheSleepingLionRoars 4 months ago
@TheSleepingLionRoars It's not personal because it relies on scholarly FACTS, which are obviously substantially over your head. Either refute the fact claims directly or stuff it. You do no more than apply the label "personal interptretation" as a sign of your ignorance and helplessness to answer. Your attempt to label war "murder" is also a spin doctoring -- and you certainly didn't have the Ammonites in mind when you first yelled "murder".
NoSCo your hero? The man has no scholarship.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv It is personal because using the term "scholarly FACTS" has no objective value, in and of itself. Facts as you like to misuse the word, are not dependent on a label or an authority figure. You could call them "Magic Purple Unicorn FACTS" and it would mean the same thing. That was the whole point of NSC argument, showing how dangerous it is to declare murderous acts as good, just because Yahweh says so. Which is the same premise for your argument. Your asking me to take you on Faith.
TheSleepingLionRoars 4 months ago
@TheSleepingLionRoars Wow, you sure are stupid. How long does it take you to recycle canards like that without stating a single actual argument? Funny too -- you're using NoSCo as an "authority" for your "fact" that it is "dangerous" blah blah blah. The fact that you avoided and dodged my questions proves you're just a loudmouthed ignoramus with a showboating disorder.
tektontv 4 months ago
@TheSleepingLionRoars NSC's arguments are not based on facts. At all. Now how do you explain that?
Dante666 4 months ago
@TheSleepingLionRoars
Wait a minute, you're saying that the Ammonites were "murdered"? Excuse me, but Israel was at war with those people. I take it then that you are a complete pacificist and believe that it was wrong for Europe and the United States to go to war with Hitler because killing enemy soldiers was "murder"?
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@ukchristian28 Ahh the old semantic argument. :) So you decided to stop harassing me via PM, and take it public, good boy.
"So if we call murder, war, it makes it okay to kill people? Or is it okay to kill people because Yaweth tells us so?"
Killing people for the SOLE reason, because Yaweh says so, yes is murder. And that is how it is being justified. Jesus, please give me something more substantial. lol
TheSleepingLionRoars 4 months ago
@TSLR
I guess if you kill someone in self-defence you would have to be charged with murder then. Otherwise it's "the old semantic argument."
Harrassment? You really do have a victim complex. All you had to do was acknowledge it or simply ignore it and you would have received no more pms, but you had to start with the self-righteous ranting.
That's stupid. In Judges they had united with Moab against Israel and posed a serious threat. It wasn't a case of killing just because God said so.
ukchristian28 4 months ago
@ukchristian28 Not only so, but you could spin any war the same way: "It's murder: You're killing because Pershing says so." Reality: Lionpuss has no idea what the dynamics of the ancient world were, much less what the political and social situation in Judges was; he's just been taught like a good brainwashed slave to repeat rote mantras: "Yahweh KILL BAD personal interpretation HURT EVIL UGH."
Hey Lionpuss -- come see us at theologyweb forum, we eat morons like you for lunch.
tektontv 4 months ago
@TSLR Since you don't understand how to actually argue, I'll teach you a lesson and also use this as a basis to interrogate any fool like you who thinks yelling "personal interpretation" is an argument.
1) Was Jephthah's vow public, yes or no?
2) If "no", explain why a) in light of the fact that vows were made publicly to accrue honor; b) and so that others could call the person to account.
3) If it was not public, where was it made, and what is your evidence for this?
Good luck, stupid.
tektontv 4 months ago
@tektontv Personal interpretation is NOT an argument, that was the whole point of the inquiry. Why you can't deduce evidence, instead of claiming labels, authority figures and subjective interpretations. Self-Project much?
You make this way TOO easy. Show me how your so-called argument is evidently different than NSC's? Show me a objective premise. And show me how that objective premise and conclusion are true. Remember the objective premise has to be true, for the conclusion to be true. G'luck
TheSleepingLionRoars 4 months ago
@TheSleepingLionRoars In other words, you're too stupid to answer the questions by doing actual research to show why the vow was or was not public; the relevance of honor and shame to the situation, etc. This is how ignorant people dodge their burden of proof: By pretending they're not advocating a view of their own that has one. One last chance. Answer the questions or no more comments will be approved.
tektontv 4 months ago