About Abraham sacrificing Isaac

[TheLittleLady]

I know that all private revelations are subject to the approval of the Church. If I had such a thought, I would seek out my Pastor and Bishop (who would refer me to a medical professional).

Abraham communicated directly with God. Isaac was willing to voluntarily lay down his life, as a symbol of Christ.

 

[MPat]

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

Looks like Sea-Lioning | Know Your Meme defines it thus: " Sea-Lioning is an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims."…

 

[TheLittleLady]

I could not even find it with google! Thank you.

 

[po18guy]

Sea lioning: Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning ) is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility.[1][2][3] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

If you could provide an article with citations from someone who has studied languages, showing “Now I know” can mean “Now I have shown” then that would be proof.

Imagine you tell me you stumbled onto a sunken pirate ship. I ask for evidence. You say you have gold dubloons. I ask to see some and you show a paper bad with “Gold dubloons inside” written on it. I’m not allowed to look in the bag. I’m not sure you’ve looked in the bag. When I express doubts you turn it around by saying even if you had shown gold dubloons I’d still be a doubter. The point is present your best evidence and you’ll be more convincing.

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.

That’s a bad precedent to take. If you want to say that verse X has a meaning different from its plain reading, you’re expected to provide reasons behind this different reading. And then if it is shown to be as you say, then this secondary meaning applies to that specific verse. If you start opening about the whole Bible to the idea that any of it can mean its opposite without anything to back it up, you’ll find that people will then question the meaning of verses you think are true on their faces.

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.

Technically the article you cited was open access: It just required you to pay a fee and know German. If this idea of an alternate meaning of “Now I know” were prevalant among anicent language scholars we’d expect other papers to lay out their reasoning on the subject. Let me be clear: I am certainly not ruling out the idea of this alternate meaning, but I have not been given a good reason to do so. A solidly backed article could sway me.

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

We’re here on CAF seeking truth, to engage in a dialogue of ideas. Raising the ones that merit it and discarding the ones that don’t. Acceptance requires something more than an impassioned desire. We need facts.

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

My conclusion comes from the words in your Bible. The one your Church says is true. The only pre-determined conclusion comes from those who have to upend what words mean in hopes that fits.

If you wish to repeat yourself a 4th time could it also be the 1st time evidence is provided.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

I think that’s both good and healthy.

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.

In my three Rs of Apologetics (Retreat, Redefine, and Rationalize), retreat is used as a way completely ignore text and try to frame the discussion so its points are so vague, ungrounded, and unsubstantive that they can’t be disputed (or even rationally discussed). Mainstream believers tend to mock New Agers and the like for having no underpinning for what they believe. But when they retreat to sort of a hippy-dippy religious fluff to make A mean not A, mainstream believers fall into the same trap.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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”.

It’s been noted, but it certainly has not been proven. It hasn’t even been shown to be a reasonable possibility. If you and others say that this reading, where the phrase “now I know” has a completely different subject for some reason, is true then where did you gain this understanding? Did you read something from a scholar on languages? Do you know of a different text from at or before that time which uses the phrase in the same way? Or (more likely) is it because of a willingness to manipulate language to reach a desired outcome?

Why is that important? Let’s look here:

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.

I’ve provided legwork. I have shown analogies which demonstrate why allowing for passages/phrases to mean their opposite would cause major problems in any language.

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.

My assumption is the very crux of language – words have meaning. Everyone else is assuming that phrases can be 180 degrees from their meaning on a whim, and without an iota of proof to back it up. I understand literal and figurative language, but this conversation is like trying to argue that “raining cats and dogs” can be used to describe a bright sunny day.

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.

I am searching for truth. I’m talking to 6 or so people at once begging for proof and all I’m getting is platitudes without substance. Show me evidence and we can discuss it. Just because I disagree with you all doesn’t mean I’m not on the hunt for truth.

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

That’s a presupposition! You can’ find truth going in with a preconceived notion and bypass any integrity by manipulating that which stands in that notion’s way.

We might not know what they mean.

You don’t know what it is, but you’re sure it’s true. Talk about rigor in discussing ideas.

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.

It’s easy to brush aside contradictions when you can just make stuff up with no basis in logic, reason, or fact.

 

[MPat]

It’s been noted, but it certainly has not been proven. It hasn’t even been shown to be a reasonable possibility. If you and others say that this reading, where the phrase “now I know” has a completely different subject for some reason, is true then where did you gain this understanding?

And how did you get the understanding that “It hasn’t even been shown to be a reasonable possibility.”?

Looks like you did not do much to show it otherwise, thus it sure looks like your argument is this:

1. “Mike_from_NJ” says that “It hasn’t even been shown to be a reasonable possibility.”. (premise)
2. “Mike_from_NJ” is trustworthy on this matter. (premise)
3. If someone trustworthy on this matter says something, it is true. (premise)
4. Therefore, “It hasn’t even been shown to be a reasonable possibility.”. (from 1, 2, 3)

As you might suspect, we do not grant you premise 2.

By the way, that seems to be a common atheist argument: at first, let’s just assume that the atheist is very smart, and very knowledgeable, and very honest (and, perhaps, also very rich and very handsome )… And then everything follows!

And this great assumption is usually left unstated (and certainly unproved), perhaps supported by a claim that it would not be “nice” to question it, or a claim that the atheist himself believes it.

But, you see, we do not grant this assumption. We find Church and its saints far more trustworthy that a random annonymous atheist.

Yes, you probably prefer to trust yourself. Naturally, you reach other conclusions.

That’s a presupposition!

And what exactly is wrong with “presuppositions”?

This one is well supported: Church tells us so and we find the Church trustworthy. Not to mention, that we happily tell you we have it.

You, on the other hand, have your own presuppositions: that Bible is not inerrant, that you are trustworthy, that presuppositions are bad etc. The difference is that you did not state them and did not support them (and I doubt you will be able to support many of them that well now).

You don’t know what it is, but you’re sure it’s true.

I also do not understand Dirac’s equation, but am sure it is at least approximately true.

Just because I disagree with you all doesn’t mean I’m not on the hunt for truth.

As I noted, we can see you are not interested in truth not because you disagree with others, but because you have shown no interest in a piece of evidence when it was presented, instead preferring to look for a pretext to proclaim it inadmissible.

By the way, even here, what evidence do you offer for the claim that you are interested in truth? That same (implicit) demand that we would just trust you, coupled with (also implicit) claim that you think you are interested in truth?

Maybe you do think so. It would simply mean that you do not know yourself that well.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Remember that G-d is talking to Abraham, a mere human being. Thus when He says “Now I know” G-d is speaking in a way that Abraham can understand, that is, by logic, a cause-and-effect relation in a temporal context: because you did this, therefore it is clear to me that you are faithful. Otherwise, Abraham would have to wonder why G-d would have to test His faith in the first place, being that G-d already knows Abraham has faith and knows how Abraham will respond to the test. So the testing of Abraham is for the benefit of showing Abraham, not G-d, that he is a man of faith. When G-d says “Now I know,” this does not mean G-d did not know beforehand, but the words are uttered to prove to Abraham that G-d loves him for doing what Abraham had thought he could not do, namely, sacrifice his son. This is a tale of trust and obedience on the part of Abraham, not on the part of G-d.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Remember that G-d is talking to Abraham, a mere human being. Thus when He says “Now I know” G-d is speaking in a way that Abraham can understand, that is, by logic, a cause-and-effect relation in a temporal context: because you did this, therefore it is clear to me that you are faithful.
Otherwise, Abraham would have to wonder why G-d would have to test His faith in the first place, being that G-d already knows Abraham has faith and knows how Abraham will respond to the test. So the testing of Abraham is for the benefit of showing Abraham, not G-d, that he is a man of faith. When G-d says “Now I know,” this does not mean G-d did not know beforehand, but the words are uttered to prove to Abraham that G-d loves him for doing what Abraham had thought he could not do, namely, sacrifice his son.

And that’s the catch: Instead of saying “Now I know” he could have very easily said, “Now I have shown you what true devotion you have to me.” If Abraham responded that he already had this devotion to God, God could have then told him, “You may have believed it so, but only through doing does one truly know what one is capable of.” There could have been dozens of other things said, including analogies, to show that only by the act can go beyond their limits (or find their potential, etc.)

The idea of person A giving a task to person B for the purpose of enlightening person B is not a difficult one. Parents understand this. A mother may have a child do something not because she wants to see if the child can do it. She knows he can, but wants to convince the child what he can do when he sets his mind to it. People in the military understand that. They know you can do it, but it’s about convincing you that you can do it – that you’re made of stronger stuff.

It’s certainly not like God was trying to teach Abraham atomic theory. If what you say is correct, it’s God showing Abraham what he was made of. This is very easy to explain in layman’s terms and is a very basic concept to understand. The problem comes that the words in the passage tell a very different story. This idea that God (all-knowing) would not be able to explain to Abraham in a clear concise way an amazingly simple idea just doesn’t hold water

 

[meltzerboy2]

But the Bible is the stuff of dramatic narrative, of poetry, of didacticism, of dreams (like the Maltese Falcon). “Now I know” is so much more expressive, so much more instructive, so much more concise and beautiful than “Now I have shown you what true devotion you have to me.” It is for us, the reader, to fill in the blanks and interpret the meaning based on the text, the context, the language, the history, and the tradition. The Bible is similar to an archaeological dig, similar to a psychoanalytic process of discovering the content of the hidden recesses of the unconscious mind. How could it be otherwise and still be as fascinating to study and probe today as it was when it was first written?

 

[ATraveller]

If you could provide an article with citations from someone who has studied languages, showing “Now I know” can mean “Now I have shown” then that would be proof.

Sure. Just pay my subscription to a vast database and this will be resolved much faster than me finding things by chance.

Technically the article you cited was open access: It just required you to pay a fee and know German.

I don’t think you know what “open access” means.

We’re here on CAF seeking truth, to engage in a dialogue of ideas. Raising the ones that merit it and discarding the ones that don’t. Acceptance requires something more than an impassioned desire. We need facts.

This dialogue is going nowhere because we’re at an impasse.
We know ancient Hebrew didn’t have tenses in the same way as we do in English or any European language or even modern Hebrew. There’s not much to go on.

 

[ATraveller]

As I noted, we can see you are not interested in truth not because you disagree with others, but because you have shown no interest in a piece of evidence when it was presented, instead preferring to look for a pretext to proclaim it inadmissible.

I think it’s called sealioning. It’s becoming tiresome. There are better things to do on a long weekend or any day.

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t believe in God at all.

Oh. Well, what are you doing reading the Bible? It’s only for the faithful. As a former atheist, I can tell you that the Bible was complete gibberish to me, until I accepted the fact that God exists and began to rely upon Him.

If you want to be convinced about God’s existence, the best Scripture you will find, is yourself. You are a revelation of God. You are wonderfully made. You could not have come about as a mere accident.

Nature, also, reveals God. Just look at a leaf or any creature and see how they are perfectly made.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

No, you’re reading into it again. It’s a very human way of looking at it, so congratulations – you really are picking up on the way that the inspired writer chose to frame up his story! There are sections of the OT – especially in Genesis – in which God is highly anthropomorphized. Not that we believe that God has hands, feet, or a mouth… but it makes it easier to approach an understanding of a God if he’s characterized as having similar traits as yours. It’s a good literary device.

Don’t get so caught up in the literary device that you slavishly interpret the passage in a literalistic way, though…

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?

Nope. But hey… nice try to re-characterize what I wrote!

“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.

No. Here, it means “because”, not “from this point in time.”

I’m certainly the only one who has presented a line of thinking that doesn’t require blowing up the rules of language.

You’re certainly the one who has presented a line of thinking that agrees with his preconceived notions… while claiming that he’s the only one without preconceived notions coloring his interpretation.

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.”

That’s because A is a being who is constrained by the temporal framework. If he wasn’t, a whole different interpretation would be possible. When you apply our limitations to God, you end up with invalid conclusions.

 

[phiphero]

I don’t know what you mean

 

[TechieGuy]

Meltzer described the associated school of thought quite well upthread

 

[phiphero]

God knew Abraham’ s heart but He gave us freedom, so we can change our thought whenever we want without God’s permission.

 

[Justin_Mary]

God knew Abraham’ s heart but He gave us freedom, so we can change our thought whenever we want without God’s permission.

Interesting.

God knew Abraham’s heart & knew Abraham would choose obedience to God above all things, even the life of his only son. Abraham is free to decide whatever he wishes. But since he loved God above all, his decision would be the same.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But the Bible is the stuff of dramatic narrative, of poetry, of didacticism, of dreams (like the Maltese Falcon). “Now I know” is so much more expressive, so much more instructive, so much more concise and beautiful than “Now I have shown you what true devotion you have to me.” It is for us, the reader, to fill in the blanks and interpret the meaning based on the text, the context, the language, the history, and the tradition. The Bible is similar to an archaeological dig, similar to a psychoanalytic process of discovering the content of the hidden recesses of the unconscious mind. How could it be otherwise and still be as fascinating to study and probe today as it was when it was first written?

I must admit this is the oddest of responses I’ve gotten so far on this matter. Originally you said that the concept of God having Abraham reveal that he is willing to go through killing his son was a concept a simple human would not have understood. I replied by saying that in very basic terms that God could easily have made that clear to Abraham. You now say in response to that the real reason God obfuscated his meaning – let me correct that, he stated an untruth – was because of the need for the Bible/Torah to use poetic language.

Let’s boil that train of thought down: The reason why God used language that made things unclear was because it was necessary that the language God used had to be unclear.

The fact is if what is written is historically true, that by itself is fascinating enough. It’s supposedly the story of the Almighty.

By the way I’ll respond to the other people’s posts when I get the chance.