About Abraham sacrificing Isaac

[Mike_from_NJ]

But the passages from Revelation you have just quoted speak solely about the book of Revelation. The passages from Deuteronomy and Proverbs you have quoted merely warn about falsely claiming some human laws to be commanded directly by God. Additionally, passages from both Deuteronomy and proverbs were speaking against adding to the laws and commandments from God, not exactly to the passages themselves (so much for “respecting the language”). Physician, in this case, heal thyself.

Heal myself? I’m the only one here weho treats language as something with rules. I’m the only one here who reads this passage without presuppostion, and take the words as they are written. I’m the only one who has looked at conflicting passages and not cast aside the ones that I don’t agree with, or even worse tried to say that the ones I don’t agree with mean the exact opposite of what they actually say. Language is not a game of MadLibs where it’s filled with blanks and we can just put in whatever words we want.

And you have just accused them of being dishonest.

If you consider self-delusion regarding language as dishonest, then I fully agree.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It’s not open source. Regardless, the summary is sufficient. Why? Because you are trying to use English rather than the ancient language involved when in fact that’s not the best way of analyzing a text in a language that’s quite different from ours. Scholars know this. That was the point of that link.
Previously, you dismissed commentary on this despite the fact they’re basing it on the complication provided by ancient Hebrew. Complicating that is who’s speaking.

It’s proper form that if you cite something that you understand it. At the very least one should have thoroughly read or watched the thing being cited. If you link to a video, watch it so that you can see why the author proposes what he or she proposes. The same with a book or article. You didn’t bother reading the article, but instead did an internet search found the summary of an article – all without determining if this author makes sense or even can back up his claims. It’s common courtesy to apply even the most scant effort, to show that one’s position derives from logic and reason. If you have anything that comes from actual research I’m more than happy to listen. Random things you find on the first page of a Google search that don’t show their underpinnings do not interest me.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It is NOT a lack of knowledge on the part of G-d. G-d speaks to Abraham by entering into the temporal state of human beings, and in such a state, testing occurs, knowledge based on testing occurs, and consequences of that knowledge based on testing occur. You might as well make the argument that the test itself indicates that G-d does not know the results, but He does although He gives Abraham the free will to choose to obey or disobey. The testing, the knowledge admitted by G-d as a result of the testing, and the positive consequences of that result all confirm that G-d has entered into the temporal dimension of human beings such as Abraham.

I’m absolutely making the argument that what is written in Scripture describes a lack of knowledge by God. This idea that God had to enter the temporal state of human beings explains why God spoke incorrectly about his knowledge just makes no sense. God would have been able to communicate to Abraham truthfully and correctly. I find believers are the very first people to limit God in order to push a particular viewpoint.

To sacrifice one’s own beloved son is indeed a SUPREME test.

I quote from the movie “God On Trial” by Elie Weisel. It’s from an aprocraphyl story about concentration camp prisoners who ask whether God has broken their covenant with the Jewish people:

God is not good. At the beginning when he repented that he had made human beings and flooded the earth. Why? What had they done to deserve annihilation? What could they have done to deserve such wholesale slaughter? What could they have done that was so bad? God is not good.

When he asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham should have said no. We should have taught our God the justice that was in our hearts. We should have stood up to him. He is not good. He has simply been strong. He has simply been on our side.

 

[Isearch]

Heal myself? I’m the only one here weho treats language as something with rules. I’m the only one here who reads this passage without presuppostion, and take the words as they are written. I’m the only one who has looked at conflicting passages and not cast aside the ones that I don’t agree with, or even worse tried to say that the ones I don’t agree with mean the exact opposite of what they actually say. Language is not a game of MadLibs where it’s filled with blanks and we can just put in whatever words we want.

Well you didn’t apply your own principles when you quoted these:

Revelation 22:18-19
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

The passage from the book of Revelation was about how one must not add to the book itself (when it was still a separate book); there was not yet what came to be known as the Bible. The passage from Deuteronomy was against adding to the laws and commands of God, not necessarily against adding to the narrative itself. Admittedly, the passage from the book of Proverbs seems to be the only one to prove your point.

I admit, people usually abuse scriptures’ context in order to explain away uncomfortable passages such as the Divinely-sanctioned mass-killings that included even innocents in the OT; but, to disregard context altogether is just as bad.

 

[Vico]

If God already knows Abraham’s heart, why would He test his heart again by telling him to sacrific Isaac?

Abraham was given a great opportunity to demonstrate his great faith in God and to set an example for
others, and to gain merit.

Hebrews 11, speaking about Abraham:

19 He reasoned that God was able to raise even from the dead, and he received Isaac back as a symbol.

 

[TechieGuy]

I don’t know what that means, but Meltzer gave a fine summation of the view I subscribe to regarding the story.

Someone demands that you kill your child? You refuse.

 

[Gorgias]

I reached that conclusion by knowing basic language skills. It’s the kind of conclusion that anyone not trying to fabricate a narrative that differs 180 degrees from the words themselves would also conclude.

Really? If I said, “now I know you’re intransigent because of this thing that I can point to that you said”, does that imply that I didn’t know you were intransigent before? Are you sure that it’s not you who are the one trying to construct an “180 degree different” narrative?

The phrase literally does mean that God lacked knowledge prior to now.

Certainly not. See my example above and in the previous post. It’s merely your interpretation that this is what it means. You’re welcome to your private interpretation… but that doesn’t imply that your interpretation is correct.

The word now wouldn’t be used at all and neither would the “since” portion since they both tell the reader/listener that there is a dilenation between a time of knowing and a time of not knowing

The delineation isn’t temporal, it’s causal. The “since” here doesn’t mean “from this time”, it means “because of this action.” God knew; but now He has this completed action to point to.

So I can’t use this passage to show an inconsistency in Scripture, becuase doing so would show an inconsistency in Scripture, and you declare by fiat that there is no inconsistency in Scripture.

It’s a good argument, even if it’s a red herring.

No… the point is simply that I disagree that your claim here proves your assertion of “inconsistency”.

Both phrases mean EXACTLY the same thing.

Says you. Like I say: you’re welcome to your opinion, but that doesn’t make it correct.

I’m the only one here who reads this passage without presuppostion, and take the words as they are written.

Let’s see… you’re a self-proclaimed atheist, and your positions here are that God isn’t what He’s made out to be. You’re “the only one here without presupposition”? Really?

 

[TechieGuy]

All here who are parents, if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that God demanded that you kill your child, would you do so?

 

[fhansen]

God knows everything-we’re the ones in need of enlightenment here. This life provides a real-time opportunity to work out our salvation. By our acts, what we do or fail to do in this life, we establish our state of righteousness, we grow nearer to or farther from perfection, nearer or farther from God. Everything else is talk, what we do is what counts, and that’s how we come to shape our lives.

 

[De_Maria]

If God already knows Abraham’s heart, why would He test his heart again by telling him to sacrific Isaac?

Hi, I understand the dilemma. I could say, I’ve been there.

Ok, first, let me answer a question you haven’t asked. More like an objection that you’ve implied. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re saying to yourself, “As I read the text, it clearly says that God didn’t know something.”

The problem there is, “As I read the text”. Yes, it literally says what you have read. But does it mean what it seems to say, literally? No. We don’t believe it does.

Why do we seem to blatantly contradict the text? Because we believe that Jesus Christ appointed the Catholic Church as the interpreter of His Word.

Ok, I hope that addresses part of the dilemma. Now, let’s go to a different example. Let’s go to Genesis:

Genesis 3:8

And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

AHA! I knew it! God is actually a man. That is why there are things that He doesn’t know until someone proves it to Him!

No, no, no. That would be another “ultra literal” reading of the Word.

Here, God is depicted as a man, but He is not a man.
There, God is depicted as not knowing some aspect of Abraham’s life. But He does know.

So, although we believe the literal reading, we also understand that God inspired men to write the Scriptures for simple (not dumb), down to earth believers. Kind of like when they say that Newspapers are written for a third grade education level. God wanted His Traditions understood by the majority of men. Thus, for lack of a better term, He dumbed them down.

I hope that helps.

 

[De_Maria]

Your reading adds to scripture, which believers are not supposed to do. God all-wise and all-powerful, would know what to say to convey to Abraham how good it is to be willing to sacrifice that which they love for God is a good thing without outright stating he wasn’t all-knowing. He could have said, “Stop! By your willingness to obey you have shown yourself that which is right and good, etc etc etc.” But because of what’s written, now believers have to make up things to try to convince non-believers that sometimes when God says X he really means not X.

That’s confusing. So, do you believe that God is all knowing, or not?

 

[ATraveller]

It’s proper form that if you cite something that you understand it. At the very least one should have thoroughly read or watched the thing being cited. If you link to a video, watch it so that you can see why the author proposes what he or she proposes. The same with a book or article. You didn’t bother reading the article, but instead did an internet search found the summary of an article – all without determining if this author makes sense or even can back up his claims. It’s common courtesy to apply even the most scant effort, to show that one’s position derives from logic and reason. If you have anything that comes from actual research I’m more than happy to listen. Random things you find on the first page of a Google search that don’t show their underpinnings do not interest me.

The point was there’s ambiguity. Do I need to repeat myself a third time? Had I raised that point, you would have demanded proof if this were the case with scholars and etc. This isn’t the only verse with ambiguity. There are ambiguities with other non-consequential verses too like objects. (Do I need to cite that so it can be dismissed too ?) It looks like evidence isn’t even enough. Or maybe the evidence doesn’t fit with your pre-determined conclusion.

And no, it’s not a first page Google search. That took more time to find contrary to your presumptions.

If any open access article were to be found, you’d likely dispute it even if you have no background in such languages. Neither of us are experts in ancient languages. Until then, this ambiguity remains and we’ll just be dancing around our speculations. And things will be circular as they already are.

Normally, people who are unconvinced or there’s an impasse will just state it and leave it at that out of courtesy.

None of this will interest you simply because it doesn’t work with your pre-determined conclusion.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I’m aware of the Elie Wiesel account. This is actually part of the Jewish tradition of questioning G-d’s morality, done especially on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur. Jews are a feisty group (a stereotype, I know), and they question everything and everyone, even G-d Himself.

So what do we have in the Abraham-Isaac tale? One interpretation shared by many, Jew and Christian, is a test of faith, and Abraham passed the test with flying colors, because he believed G-d had a plan and he should trust G-d, just as G-d delivered to him and Sarah a child in their old age, a miracle in itself. Another, as I posted, is that Abraham failed the test because he was blindly obedient, did not question G-d enough, and also did not inform his wife. A third interpretation is that this was not a test for Abraham so much as a test for Isaac, who was not a child but a grown man at the time, and should have refused to obey his father, because his father was committing an immoral act by trying to kill him. A fourth interpretation is that this story shows the reform within Judaism by the declaration of G-d that killing one’s child is wrong, and separates the Jewish culture from other cultures which did practice child sacrifice. Finally, there are Muslim interpretations of the story involving Ishmael and the ram sacrifice, which I won’t get into, but if any knowledgeable Muslim member wants to explain, I would appreciate that.

You might say that all of these interpretations are futile attempts at distorting the face value of the text, which, on the surface seems to be immoral, horrible, and unworthy of G-d. But the thing is, the Bible cannot be read only at face value; that is, there are different levels of interpretation, differing styles, and layer upon layer of meaning. That is typical of a literature rich and complex, and is found in great poetry, plays, and novels as well, in which there is often a superficial meaning as well as more profound meanings and lessons. Thus the Bible is not a cover-up, but rather a document rich in wisdom for the purpose of making us aware of our human potential to behave in a more moral and ethical manner.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Well you didn’t apply your own principles when you quoted these:

The passage from the book of Revelation was about how one must not add to the book itself (when it was still a separate book); there was not yet what came to be known as the Bible. The passage from Deuteronomy was against adding to the laws and commands of God, not necessarily against adding to the narrative itself. Admittedly, the passage from the book of Proverbs seems to be the only one to prove your point.

You are quite correct. In Revelations John is talking about that book. Deuteronomy is talking about God’s word (although I would say he wasn’t limiting himself to that which he spoke at the time, and that future of God’s word would also be restricted in being added or subtracted). I also agree about Proverbs.

I admit, people usually abuse scriptures’ context in order to explain away uncomfortable passages such as the Divinely-sanctioned mass-killings that included even innocents in the OT; but, to disregard context altogether is just as bad.

And I think that’s exactly what’s happening with this passage. Conext is not a magic word that allows the reader to apply whatever he or she wants to match a presupposition. It doesn’t turn Exodus 21 into Song of the South and it doesn’t turn the killing of the Moabites into The Seven Samurai. The context of the passage in question show a God acquiring knowledge after seeing Abraham was willing to kill Isaac. Pulling back to a larger context doesn’t explain away what it says but presents a conflict in the story. This contradiction can be solved if either the passages that show God has all-knowing are brushed aside or the ones where he is not all-knowing are brushed aside. The only other way is to show that what the passage we’ve been discussed said really means it’s opposite. So far I haven’t seen any evidence for that latter solution, but I’m more than willing to say I’m wrong if solid evidence is presented.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Really? If I said, “now I know you’re intransigent because of this thing that I can point to that you said”, does that imply that I didn’t know you were intransigent before? Are you sure that it’s not you who are the one trying to construct an “180 degree different” narrative?

Putting aside what you think of me, that statement in fact shows less than a complete lack of knowledge prior to an event. You can have suspicions about the object in question. You can be 99% sure about the object, but by that statement you state the confirmation only came at a particular point in time. It’s exactly the same with the Biblical passage. If it’s to be taken on its face, then God was not 100% sure about whether Abraham was willing to go through with the sacrifice and whether Abraham truly loved God.

Certainly not. See my example above and in the previous post. It’s merely your interpretation that this is what it means. You’re welcome to your private interpretation… but that doesn’t imply that your interpretation is correct.

You mean the example you gave which shows an inconclusiveness and unknowing before a certain point and a conclusiveness and knowing after that same point? I thought it was a great example to prove my point!

I know the burden of integrity means you can’t just choose any meaning for words, and that’s why I’m here explaining it to you.

The delineation isn’t temporal, it’s causal. The “since” here doesn’t mean “from this time”, it means “because of this action.” God knew; but now He has this completed action to point to.

I agree it’s about the action – which happened at that point in time. “Since” is a temporal word. In this case it means a change occurring at that event so as to distinguish the time before that event and after that event. In God’s own words he did not know before the event and did know after the event. Only those fitfully trying to square diametrically opposing passages would say that didn’t know means knew.

It’s a good argument, even if it’s a red herring.

No… the point is simply that I disagree that your claim here proves your assertion of “inconsistency”.

It’s a good argument because it’s a sound one. It’s one used by apologists (to attempt) to render their holy texts bulletproof. By default they claim their books without error, and any attempt to point out the many errors just forces them to lean even harder on the unprovable notion that they are without error.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with my claims. I’m just waiting patiently for evidence to show my alleged error.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Gorgias, part II

Says you. Like I say: you’re welcome to your opinion, but that doesn’t make it correct.

It’s not an opinion. It’s how language works at its most basic level. It’s the same way “He was baptized at a week old” and “He wasn’t baptized until he was a week old.” mean the same thing.

Let’s see… you’re a self-proclaimed atheist, and your positions here are that God isn’t what He’s made out to be. You’re “the only one here without presupposition”? Really?

I’m certainly the only one who has presented a line of thinking that doesn’t require blowing up the rules of language. If you were to take the barest elements of the story that being A told being B to do something, and before being B did it being A stopped him. He then said something like “Now I know you are willing to do what ask.” Take that and put it into an SAT question. The one and only correct answer to “If being A was being truthful what can we say about his knowledge prior to being B attempting to do the task?” would be “Being A did not know for certain if being B was willing to do the task.”

So now let’s put all the Biblical elements back into the story. And who’s changing their answer: believers. Why? Because they have a presupposition as to what God knows, and they are willing to chuck what the Bible says about God because it goes against that presupposition. Now they don’t see it that way. They try to make A mean not A so as to both keep their presuppositions about God and the Bible intact, but it’s at the expense of being honest what the text actually says.

If you want to discredit me simply for being an atheist, you may do so. It certainly doesn’t negate the many, many valid points I’ve made.

That’s confusing. So, do you believe that God is all knowing, or not?

I don’t believe in God at all. I agree with what others are saying that in other parts of the Bible that God is presented as all-knowing. Our disagreement stems from this passage. I believe that it presents God as less than all-knowing. Others, via what in my opinion is an abuse of the fundamentals of language, claim that the passage doesn’t prevent God from being all-knowing. I see a contradiction where others don’t.

---

ATraveller and meltzerboy2, I have responses for you as well. I just have to wait unti someone else posts.

 

[EXdrinker]

“New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” - St. Augustine

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only-begotten son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead (Heb 11:17-19).

He will be great … and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end (Lk 1:32-33).

tanding at the foot of the Cross, Mary is the witness, humanly speaking, of the complete negation of these words. On the wood of the Cross her Son hangs in agony as one condemned. “He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows … he was despised, and we esteemed him not”: as one destroyed (cf. Is 53:3-5). How great, how heroic then is the obedience of faith shown by Mary in the face of God’s “unsearchable judgments”! How completely she “abandons herself to God” without reserve, “offering the full assent of the intellect and the will” to him whose “ways are inscrutable” (cf. Rom 11:33)! And how powerful too is the action of grace in her soul, how all-pervading is the influence of the Holy Spirit and of his light and power!22 St. Pope John Paul II quote, from 33 Days to Merciful Love by Fr. Michael Gaitley

“Blessed is she who believed that what was spoken to her by the Lord would be fulfilled” (Lk 1:45)

Our father and mother in faith. The old is unveiled in the new.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

If God already knows Abraham’s heart, why would He test his heart again by telling him to sacrific Isaac?

Before Abraham slayed his “only beloved” son he already knew God would raise him from the dead (Hebrews 11). I believe the primary reason for this test was as a type of Mary being ready to offer her only beloved Son as a holocaust as Abraham was willing to offer Isaac. So God was pretelling and hiding His plan.

 

[MPat]

“And he said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me,”

The text clearly states God lacked knowledge until Abraham showed he was willing to kill his son.

As it has already been noted, “now I know” does not literally mean “now I have found out”. It might usually have such an implicature, but literally it says nothing about what was known previously.

And if we read it a bit less literally, it can easily be read as “now it has been formally (legally) established”.

Why is that important? Let’s look here:

I’m not being a smart aleck. I’m showing respect to language.

Heal myself? I’m the only one here weho treats language as something with rules. I’m the only one here who reads this passage without presuppostion, and take the words as they are written.

Now those are facts that have not been formally established.

And because of that, the rest of your posts, resting on those assumptions, fall down.

No, you have not been granted an assumption that you are being honest. No, you have not been granted an assumption that you are highly competent at pragmatics. No, you have not been granted an assumption that you are seriously looking for truth. If you need them for any argument (and, by the way, usually a good argument should not rely on such assumptions), formally establish, prove them.

For that matter:

You didn’t bother reading the article, but instead did an internet search found the summary of an article – all without determining if this author makes sense or even can back up his claims.

Random things you find on the first page of a Google search that don’t show their underpinnings do not interest me.

I’d say it has been formally established that you are not interested in truth on this matter. Otherwise you would show at least some interest here.

It’s interesting to me that when Biblical passages conflict (as they are sometimes wont to do) that at no point is it considered that maybe one or both of the passages are wrong.

That’s because we already know that they are not wrong.

We might not know what they mean.

By the way, you might note that our arguments demonstrate that texts have interpretations that do not contradict without actually relying on an assumption that they are true.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I’ve never heard that term, 'splain please?