The alternative, God is man-made.

[Willum]

3 “Now since the Lord, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over? 24 Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you? Likewise, whatever the Lord our God has given us, we will possess. 25 Are you any better than Balak son of Zippor, king of Moab? Did he ever quarrel with Israel or fight with them? 26 For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn’t you retake them during that time? 27 I have not wronged you, but you are doing me wrong by waging war against me. Let the Lord, the Judge, decide the dispute this day between the Israelites and the Ammonites.�

Judges 11

Let's examine the passage.
Our leaders know that wars, not gods (notice Chemosh, another god, frequent identified AS Yahweh, paradoxically) determine land grabs.

This was more plain then, than it is today.
Jephthah well knew this: Does this naive passage demonstrate very plainly that the God of the Israelites is a contrivance, just as Zeus was a contrivance of Rome, to persuade the Jewish peoples to obey and act?

The OP is meant to focus on the artificial character of the passage.

In this light, doesn't the passage seem contrived, and obviously so? It would never work today when we can see men order wars and their results.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

JUDGES 11:23
"Now since the LORD, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over?

Can you clarify: Is your premise that Jephthah did not really believe what he said, namely that God had given the land to the Israelites? Based on what exactly should we make this assumption?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

JUDGES 11:23
"Now since the LORD, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over?

Can you clarify: Is your premise that Jephthah did not really believe what he said, namely that God had given the land to the Israelites? Based on what exactly should we make this assumption?

Certainly not any more than your own question made it plain.

But our leaders know for certain the wars they start are what is responsible for territorial changes.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

JUDGES 11:23
"Now since the LORD, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over?

Can you clarify: Is your premise that Jephthah did not really believe what he said, namely that God had given the land to the Israelites? Based on what exactly should we make this assumption?

I would suggest that any assumptions about what Jephthah may or may not have believed is fundamentally unimportant. It's not a "premise" that is important to the observation overall.

We know that men are the ones who start wars and take over other people's lands. In fact, isn't it rather absurd to think that any supposedly just and decent God would be involved in having men go to war to take over the land of another people? Especially a God who commands men, "Thou shalt not kill".

The contrivance of the religion should be obvious regardless of what Jephthah may or may not have believed. Especially when the passage quoted in the OP is addressing man-made wars.

If there is such a thing as man-made wars (which even the Bible confesses to be the case) then why should anyone think that any specific war was "God-made"?

Clearly the wars that have been proclaimed to have been "God-made" was nothing more than men using their man-made Gods to justify going to war and taking over the land of other people.

Not unlike what ISIS does in the name of Allah. So in a sense people are still using their Gods to justify their wars today. And I'm sure that Israel still holds the notion to this very day that their God has awarded them the land of Israel when we know that's baloney.

[JehovahsWitness]

I would suggest that any assumptions about what Jephthah may or may not have believed is fundamentally unimportant. It's not a "premise" that is important to the observation overall.

Then why mention him at all? much less make the statement

Jephthah well knew that [Our leaders know that wars, not gods determine land grabs.

Firstly, without being a mind reader nobody can say what another person knows or does not, much less when that conclusion comes in direct contradiction to a recorded statement made by the individual. Whatever point is being made, Jephthah is recorded as making a statement that God assigned the land to the Israelites, the OP implied Jephthah {quote} "knew well" his statement to be false. Based on what has this assumption been made? If the assumption is to quote you, "irrelevant" then why was it bought up in the first place? And if it is relevant, how is it provable?

It seems to me if we put aside the yet undemonstrated ability of the poster to read the minds of all leaders past and present (of which Jephthah is one), the "overall observation" being made is :

I don't believe in God, I don't believe any leaders do either, so Jephthah must have been lying and his God must have been invented. What say you?

To which I say, this is a feeble argument built on a logical fallacy.

No need to thank me, my pleasure.



JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

Perhaps, but you'd be going off topic.
As was exemplified in the hopes that someone wouldn't go off topic, the OP is about the artificial aspect of the passage, not the desperate attempt to make it about another person's thoughts to somehow validate the work.

"You can't show that's what he thought, therefore the Bible is true," is not an acceptable rationalization, just for clarity.

We know his thoughts from his writing, and the assumption that you believe the Bible is true - or at least supporters of the Bible believe it is true.

[JehovahsWitness]

the OP is about the artificial aspect of the passage

Fine, could you clarify what exactly you see as "artificial" about the passage?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

No, I don't want my opinion about what is artificial to bias the post. There is a very great deal to be considered.
Start anywhere.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

No, I don't want my opinion about what is artificial to bias the post. There is a very great deal to be considered.
Start anywhere.

Well I'll start by saying I see nothing "artificial" about the passage. There that was easy.

Anything else?

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]

If you don't have anything to contribute, then don't contribute. Nothing is easier than that. Your opinion is clearly design to further undermine the OP.
Like I said, daily, I suspend my sanity and believe for purposes of discussion, that an invisible man in the sky is all-powerful and hides because if he revealed himself it would ruin faith, so I can participate here. Surely you could examine a letter for contrivance. We both agree men lie, right?
Surely even someone with little perspective could have commented on the uncanny reverence of another god by an Israelite?
That is at least suspicious (though not really in line with the OP).
But to not see anything, that takes special effort, and no mean talent.