Summations Only

The correspondence of similar elements is "confirmation bias?" What an odd idea, a rather too-clever way of disposing of the prophetic elements.I challenge you to find other examples of this, then, since if it's truly confirmation bias that ought to be easy to do.

i would argue it's precisely the same sense: the factually incorrect sense. just like elsewhere abraham is listed as having another son, elsewhere god is listed as having multiple sons.

Ishmael was the child of Abraham's human plotting, Isaac was the miraculous son of God's own plan and promise. God has only one BEGOTTEN Son, His other sons come through the usual human means. It is these facts that make the Genesis 22 event prophetic of Christ.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

you didn't like my response the first time, even though i provided answers that were precisely in line with the text and christian ideology, showing that the comparison of isaac to jesus was reversed. i suggest maybe you read it again; i propose at least one different and valid interpretation where you say no other interpretation can exist, and refute quite a few specifics. the stories themselves are separated by less than 1,000 years. granted, this is still a long time. but i think you're committing a fallacy i coined here many years ago: pre-hoc propter-hoc. granted, that guy was talking about time travel (he was positive the bible demonstrated examples of it), but the idea is similar. you're positing that the thing that came first was caused by the thing that came second.at best, a rational person could maybe make a case for the second thing being influenced by the first thing. and maybe we could discuss this kind of "foreshadowing" if a) the text was actually prophetical by genre (not simply assertion), and b) we actually had some kind of verification that the second event actually occurred, and c) it wasn't patently obvious that the newer authors had read the older authors. they're two stories about child sacrifice. what's not to get? okay. challenge accepted. but i'm going to go older than the bible.you've heard of baal, from the bible, yes? baal is the title of the northern semitic/canaanite storm god hadad. the highest god of the canaanite pantheon is named el. you might also recognize this name from the bible; it became the common word for "god", and is used many times in combination with various epithets to refer to yahweh, the israelite god.el's council is called the "elohim" (the other hebrew word for "god" or "gods" depending on context). the elohim are composed of el's (adoptive) sons, and even though hadad is actually dagan's son, he is still frequently referred to as the son of el -- the son of god.now, hadad fights another god named mot. "mot" being the semitic/hebrew word for "death". hadad loses this fight, dies, and descends to the underworld. some time later, hadad is resurrected, conquers mot ("death"), and ascends mount saphon ("heaven", where the gods live) to rule the canaanite panthon at the right hand of el ("god").that's the third act of the baal cycle, and pagan god that the bible decries on numerous occasions. the baal cycle was found in ugarit, which dates from approximately 1450-1200 BCE, exactly the time people incorrectly assume moses existed, and older than any text in the bible.i contend that hadad's death, resurrection, conquering of death, ascension, and rule at the right hand of god corresponds to jesus's similar narrative, and that this correspondence proves that the baal cycle and canaanite mythology is god's holy word.

"beget" is the hebrew yeled, which literally means to have a child. you can't have a child without having a child.

I'm sure you know it has a special meaning when God begets a child, don't play coy. Jesus is God and Man by being God's only begotten Son, and He was clearly not begotten in the usual way.

Faith, perhaps you could address this as it seems particularly valid.Also, I brought up Jepthah to some another example of child sacrifice.
You actually started quite a rationalization on it saying he didn't mean a person but an animal. It's clear it was to be a person.
Then I wanted you to explain why child sacrifice was approved by god sometimes and not others. You didn't.
That's all that was about.
But arachnophilia has actually a superb example here that merits a response from you given your "challenge" and all

But God didn't sacrifice his son, and neither did Abraham. Someone wrote a story about a test of faith involving a father being asked to sacrifice his son. There's no evidence that the story is true. And someone else wrote a story about God letting the Romans crucify his son. There's no evidence that story is true, either, and it was written by someone who had full knowledge of the older story of Abraham.Stories from different eras that have parallel elements mean nothing, and in this case the author of the newer story had full knowledge of the older story. Given that there is nothing new under the sun, what would be extremely unusual would be if every story in the Bible were completely unique with no similarities to older stories.No one understands why you don't see that you're doing the same thing that all deeply religious adherents do, which is to cling strongly to their deeply held beliefs because they've convinced themselves that the evidence supports those beliefs. They all believe their evidence is better than yours, just as you believe your evidence is better than theirs. You can't convince them, they can't convince you, and neither of you can convince any of us because none of you have anything that resembles genuine objective evidence. You all think your religious beliefs are special and unique but are blind to this fact. I have to agree that "7 is the same as 2 because 2 is in 7" is a real marvel, and it's a result of trying to force inerrancy on the text by making up ridiculous stories to explain away errors. We know you sincerely believe all of it and that we can't talk you out of it, but people with delusions can rarely be talked out of it. But what's also true of delusions is that they rarely convince others. No one believes anyone claiming to be Napoleon. We've actually seen you in action making this stuff up. You even admit to making it up as you go along right here: Then there was this that I quoted for you a few messages back where you're clearly in the middle of inventing new interpretations: And you seem to be experiencing some kind of amnesia as you here deny that others have been tossing plenty of alternative interpretations of various passages at you: We can and have developed other interpretations, including the one the text plainly intended. People can read the thread, Faith. They can tell whose claims don't jive with reality. Your goal is to produce evidence that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God, but so far you've only been able to tell us (in greater and greater detail) your religious beliefs, but no evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Sigh. Confirmation bias would be accepting the similar elements while rejecting as unimportant all dissimilar elements. Obviously.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Jephthah could not possibly have expected a human being to come out of his house or he would not have made such a vow, since he would know human sacrifice was a terrible sin. _Perhaps you aren't aware that houses often included animals in those days, I think on a lower floor while the family was upstairs but I'd have to look that up, some other time.Anyway, the way the vow is worded itself makes it clear that he was not talking about a human being. The word he uses is "WHATEVER" not "whoever.""Whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me"Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not obvious to me so thanks for the explanation.You won't accept it as a type because it has "dissimilar elements?"
What on earth are you asking for, an absolute perfect duplicate of the sacrifice of Christ in 1900 BC?

Well, the evidence should lead you to inspiration but since it doesn't, so much for that.

The Hebrew word for "beget" is irrelevant since the phrase
"only begotten Son: occurs in the New Testament, which is in Greek, where it clearly points to Jesus as inheriting the very nature of God through His begetting. That's what the word implies, and otherwise it wouldn't have been used. Jesus is both fully God and fully Man by his parentage.

LOLSo a duck and a Biblical Daughter went into a bar.FAITH what does the damn story actually say?

quote:

---

29 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.

​

30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

​

31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

​

32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.

​

33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

​

34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

​

35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.

​

36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

​

37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

​

38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

​

39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

---

It does not matter what Jepthah thought would come out of the door, it was his daughter that came out of his door and he did kill her as he had vowed to do.Now granted the God character in the story is pretty much an asshole but the author does not have the God character say "Slay the duck not the Biblical Daughter and Japhthah does not kill the duck but rather BBQ'd the Biblical daughter and she wasn't even used merchandise (she was still new goods to be bought or sold).

I did not say that. However I am suspicious of a process which operates only by considering similarities and dismissing differences. In this case, some of the similarities appear forced. Further, I am particularly suspicious of a prophecy which is picked out after the fact. Amusing.