Under the Rules of Catholicism, the Vast Majority of People Are Going to Hell

[Drich]

I said I gave up on you but... One more time: "He did to her as he had vowed". Did. As in past tense. As in it's already over by that verse. It didn't say "he went to do to her as he had vowed" or "he decided to do to her as he had vowed" or "he took her to the priest to do to her as he had vowed". he did it. The deed was already done.

If you intenwith her [according] to his vow
In the Hebrew that whole section of scripture in which you wish to argue boils down to two words. In the english it reads: [with her [according] to his vow] which is derived from:

(נדר/ neder)
Which means to make a Votive offering (not a burnt offering) If your not familiar with the term wiki provides an acceptable defination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Votive_offering

and in the english:
[which he had vowed]
In the Hebrew: ( נדר nadar) which means to vow.

The Idea here is that Jep full filled his vow, and which could have been accomplished simply by leaving his daughter at the temple as a slave. The Hebrew suggests it in that the word for burnt offering was not used here, but the word that has the same meaning of offering leaving a penny to a wishing well, was used to described how Jep full filled his obligation to God.

Again, the problem with your arguement is that the Jewish religion is not set up to process human sacerfice, and in order for your interpertation of this passage to work one has to over look a 1/2 a dozen barriers in their religious practice and the orginal language in which the story was recorded to force this foolish interpertation.

all of that said i say again this does not mean that Jep did not try to have his daughter killed and burned. But in the end the religious establishment would not have allowed it. If Jep did kill his daughter it was not in compliance with how God mandates acceptable sacerfice.