In order to avoid any confusion, I'd like to make it clear that I have no major problems with religious people who recognize that their holy books were written by people, and to also appreciate the importance of logic, reason and science. The people I am critical of are those who we might call the literalists, the fundamentalists and young-ath creationists. Those who shun actual knowledge in favour of blind faith. Those who insist that their holy books are the inherent word of God. If that's what they are, then when we look at the Bible, there should be no ambiguity about whether Jesus was born in a house or a manger, or whether he died on a tree or a cross. Then there are the 12 disciples. I'd like to see a biblical literalist write down a list of the names of all 12 on the back of an envelope, not forgetting the other Judas and Thadius, and then counting them. Either God can't count, or the Bible is a collection of the writings of numerous men, including errors. There's nothing wrong with honest mistakes. Just don't go claiming that that book is the inherent word of God. There are parallel accounts in the Old Testament too, such as between the books of kings and chronicles, but the four gospels and poorline writings of the New Testament are a lot harder to reconcile. For those of you who are not familiar with the story of Jeffress daughter, it is told in chapter 11 of the Book of Judges. For me, this is one of the most disturbing and sad stories in the Bible, partly so because it seems more plausible than many of the more fantastical stories of miracles and divine intervention. By this point in the biblical narrative, the Hebrews were still settling into the land which God had promised them, after Moses apparently led them out of their Egyptian captivity, through the wilderness for 40 years, before he left them at the Jordan River and died. The settling in process was ongoing, and the native people didn't have God's favor, so they were pretty much annihilated by the settlers. It goes without saying that these stories are told from the point of view of Yahweh's chosen people. Jeffder enters the story between Joshua and Samuel, both of whom got their own volumes in the Bible. The leaders at that time were called judges, which I suppose equates with what we'd call generals, captains or even priests. The judges ruled in the years before Israel appointed kings. Jeffder was a valiant warrior, a son of Gideon, but he happened to have a harlot as his mother, which his half-brothers weren't happy about and ostracized him for. There's no mention of Gideon's infidelity being a bad thing. In those days the marriage pattern was polygamy, and using prostitutes seemed to be the norm. They didn't have our modern appreciation of faithfulness towards our wives and girlfriends, their faith seemed to be entirely reserved for God. So Jeffder spent some time hanging around with less reputable or vain men in the land of Tob. After a time, the elders of Israel decided that he'd be a suitable military leader for their territorial battles with the Ammonites and called him back. It was a bit meft because they treated him like an outcast before, but they promised him that if he defeated the Ammonites they'd make him the next judge. So he said, righto, and set off with an army. At about this time the spirit of God descended on him. Exactly what this means I'm not sure, but it sounds a bit like he had something of an intense prayer. Just like in modern times it doesn't appear that God responded to him. Jeffder vowed to God that if his conquest was successful he'd offer whatever first came through the doors of his house as a burnt offering when he returned home victorious. His battles were a resounding success. They massacred the Ammonites. The subject of massacres carried out at God's request is one I plan to return to. Jeffder conquered no less than 20 cities. I'm guessing we'd probably call them towns or villages nowadays. So he did return home victorious, but to his dismay who should come dancing out of his house to greet him but his beloved only daughter? As was the custom in those days he rent his garments, he ripped his clothing and told his daughter, whose name no one bothered to record, that she had brought a great sadness on him because he'd made a vow unto the Lord which he couldn't back out of. These days we'd say, oops, I made a mistake. I shouldn't have said that, but vow seemed to be terribly important back then. They're described by King Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes in the following way. When they're vows to vow unto God, defer not to pay it for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. His daughter, who was probably about 13, seemed to be quite understanding and told her old man that if he had made a vow to God he must stick to it. But she asked if she could go into the mountains for a couple of months to be whale her virginity, to lament the fact that she would never have children. Jeff'd her let her go and she did exactly that with her friends for two months and then returned to her father who did with her what he'd vowed. Now this story is problematic for believers because it goes against God's very specific commandments regarding burnt offerings. Humans were not supposed to be sacrificed according to the laws given to Moses. If we recall the story of Abraham, the one in which God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering, the angel of God intervened the last minute and told Abraham not to burn Isaac. Apparently God was testing his faith, which by the way he passed. Unfortunately for Jeff'd his poor daughter, no such intervention took place, which suggests that God was happy to accept a human sacrifice on that occasion. Some apologists argue that burnt offering is a mis-translation in this context and that the daughter was offered into God's service and became a nun. I've heard arguments for and against the translation which Jews and Christians have believed for so long, but I don't know enough to be able to figure out exactly what the original author intended to convey. My own take on this rather bizarre account is that if it actually happened, then Jeff'd had the same kind of faith as the strongest modern believers and would have presumed that God would choose who or what came out of his house because everything happened for a reason. The idea that it was down to pure chance that his daughter came out to greet him first would have been completely alien to him. So in that respect, this could be an example of something randomly shit happening and being recorded in an honest way, even if it did make God seem like a bit of a nasty bastard. In which case how tragic that a young life was needlessly cut short like that? Wouldn't it be a pity if human delusions led to unnecessary pain and suffering? Thanks for watching and see you in the next video.