Abraham and Isaac

[andrew]

Shoot me later, but I just have to go there: Don't crazed, maniacal mass murderers use the "Gods Spirit" told me to do it? We don't think very highly of someone using that argument to kill obvious innocents, do we?

Sure. Bad people do stuff in the name of God all the time. Sometimes it's "the voice in my head told me to", sometimes it's "the guy in the pointy hat told me to", sometimes "it says so right here in the book". So?

The problem is that proves exactly nothing. It's sort of like saying "some polygamous families are really messed up, therefore no one should be polygamous". "Some people that did bad things (drowning children in bathtubs) said God told them to do it, therefore no one should ever try to follow the leading of God's Spirit." Is that really your best argument?

Many people that are insufferable self-righteous hypocrites have memorized a lot of scripture. Therefore no one should study their bible?...

 

[Mojo]

Sure. Bad people do stuff in the name of God all the time. Sometimes it's "the voice in my head told me to", sometimes it's "the guy in the pointy hat told me to", sometimes "it says so right here in the book". So?

The problem is that proves exactly nothing. It's sort of like saying "some polygamous families are really messed up, therefore no one should be polygamous". "Some people that did bad things (drowning children in bathtubs) said God told them to do it, therefore no one should ever try to follow the leading of God's Spirit." Is that really your best argument?

Many people that are insufferable self-righteous hypocrites have memorized a lot of scripture. Therefore no one should study their bible?...

Nah, not my best, just the quickest

Gotta do daddy time. Will be back later.

 

[IshChayil]

How about logic chopping and begging the question?

It wasn't "murder" because "God told him to do it" is the whole point.

If Abraham had decided on his own volition to sacrifice Isaac to God, he would be a child murderer. We might call him a Molech-worshipper, but we would never understand that to be an act of worship of the God who later said "thou shalt not murder". But because God told him to to do it, that makes it "not murder". And because we have been taught that he legitimately heard from God and acted in obedience to God's voice, then that makes it okay for him to do something that otherwise we would rightly categorize as premeditated murder.

I did not "beg the question" I pointed out that when you guys equivocate "murder" and "kill" in English they have different meanings in the language of revelation, namely Hebrew.
I never said it wasn't murder because G-d told him, I said it wasn't murder because he didn't say "Tirtsach et binkha"
I can't help it if folks are "Hebrew impaired"

 

[andrew]

Irrelevant. We don't need another word study, and here's why:

Where in the scriptures does God condone human sacrifice? When is that ever contemplated as a legitimate burnt offering? On the other hand, how many times are those who offer their own children up as a sacrifice to their god condemned? (Someone else can count it up if you want, for my purposes it's a rhetorical question if we can agree that it's more than zero.)

Do I have to even finish this? There is nothing in the scriptures that condones or even tolerates child sacrifice for the worship of our God. But Abraham heard God telling him to do it anyway. It doesn't matter how many words there are for killing in Hebrew (or for Zec, that can be said to indirectly include the act of killing), it doesn't change point of the story.

If it did change the story, the only thing you'd be doing is building a case to legitimate child sacrifice.....

I can't help it if some foks are "logic impaired".

 

[IshChayil]

And guys, nobody took the bait on my "string search for word of God" suggestion (typical, it's a tough nut to crack), but framing is everything. The question "whether God would ever lead us to do something that contradicts his Written Word" is a trick question built on unquestioned assumptions and dogma. It's more useful to ask whether God will ever lead us to do something that is different from something we believe He told someone else in some other place at some other time. Is your faith in your understanding of a book about other people's experiences with God or in a Resurrected Lord Who has in these last days poured out His Spirit on all flesh?

I didn't take the bait because for me, when I read the words "word of G-d" it reminds me of the memra, a deep subject in targumic (Aramaic bible) which references the "voice of G-d' or the acting-G-d-incarnate.
It's just not possible for me to read those words "word of G-d" and not think about this Aramaic Memra or as we have it clumsily in Greek "Logos".

I also don't' like being given homework assignments ... quite busy as it is

 

[IshChayil]

I won't go down that road with you Zec, but I would like to hear more from @IshChayil's example relating to distinction of kill, justifiable killing, kill for sacrifice, and murder. I think the distinctions and solutions may lie there. Not sure, though.

Thanks Mojo, yeah I'm kind of surprised that didn't finish our thread also.
Ignore my Peter example guys if you can't help reacting to "OMG he's trying to put Torah on me"
I'm not; I only mentioned the Peter thing because it was the only example which comes to mind of an "apparent" contradiction by G-d telling someone to do something which He previously commanded (perhaps just to Jews) to not do [i.e. not to other people some other time as @andrew alluded] in the new testament. Remember, at the time "scripture" generally to those guys meant "Old Testament".

So ... for this response let's just look at the language. (see my post with the various Hebrew words employed, but for us RaTSaCH murder, is important now).
I'll use English equivalents here:

Are we all in agreement that murder is different from manslaughter is different from a soldier snipe shot, is different from ....
these are where the weaknesses of translations like King James (usually not bad) show themselves when they incorrectly translate "thou shalt not kill".
The commandment is *not* don't kill. How many leftists have embarrassed how many Christians with this (present company excluded I'm sure).

Kill all you like as long as it's legal killings: rapists, 1st degree murderers, men caught in the act with each other, etc.
in fact, you MUST kill in those cases; there are several positive commands to kill of the "just do it" Nike variety.

Any unsanctioned killing is RaTSaCH, murder.

The heart of the matter I believe, is that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽח׃‶  "
(do not murder)
as ‶ Οὐ φονεύσεις ″ "don't kill" and the King James translators leaned heavily on Greek Septuagint as that's what's quoted in the Greek New Testament.
So we get this down to modern times the notion of killing a human being a sin ... when it's not always a sin.

The issue with the Abraham/Isaac is not G-d commanding someone to countermand His established moral code; there is just no need to make that leap.
The text tells us in Genesis 22 והאלקים נסה את-אברהם and G-d tested Avraham...
then as @ZecAustin pointed out, the command given to Avraham is והעלהו שם לעלה "and make him go up in a smoke offering there.
The torah is very legal in it's terms. There is a reason G-d did not say ורצחתיו שם למנחה "and murder him there as a tribute"
language matters, and words matter. Solid exegesis can not and does not ignore original languages as they are key to the world view and revelation to the prophets.

The issue at hand is in fact a legal issue and in legal matters terms matter greatly. If G-d had asked Avraham to RaTSaCH his son, there would be an issue because it's an obvious contradiction to His moral code; Kain was punished for this.

Was this what you had in mind @Mojo or did you want a breakdown of the various Hebrew terms for taking a life?

 

[IshChayil]

Irrelevant. We don't need another word study, and here's why:

Where in the scriptures does God condone human sacrifice? When is that ever contemplated as a legitimate burnt offering? On the other hand, how many times are those who offer their own children up as a sacrifice to their god condemned? (Someone else can count it up if you want, for my purposes it's a rhetorical question if we can agree that it's more than zero.)

Do I have to even finish this? There is nothing in the scriptures that condones or even tolerates child sacrifice for the worship of our God. But Abraham heard God telling him to do it anyway. It doesn't matter how many words there are for killing in Hebrew (or for Zec, that can be said to indirectly include the act of killing), it doesn't change point of the story.

If it did change the story, the only thing you'd be doing is building a case to legitimate child sacrifice.....

I can't help it if some foks are "logic impaired".

Language is absolutely necessary to understand much of the bible including the Akeida (binding of Isaac).
I didn't provide a word study, if I did I'd give you various portrayels from such and such a lexicon. I'm just telling you what the original recipe says.
I have these verses memorized in Hebrew so when I see them quoted in English I just think "that's not what it says" or check my bible if they aren't something common like binding of Isaac.

Others have expressed they appreciate the Hebrew insight; I think Hebrew and Greek is where I can contribute the most to these forums so I'll keep doing that.

It doesn't say murder him and when you know the language then you also know that these other points you are making in this response are also invalid.

Adjusting for original language your comments can be adjusted this way:
Sure, let's see where it says "do not offer up your children as a burnt offering to the G-d of Israel". (we aren't talking about Molech here or other "detestable practices of the inhabitants of the land")

Feel free to look it up.

Sure, let's count the number of times someone tries to sacrifice their children to the G-d of Israel, that can be your assignment

************ Philippines currently blocked or blocking this website*****
By the way, BiblicalFamilies.org is not working for IP addresses in the Philippines today. I had to use a proxy server to reach you guys (after cycling my IP address several times to see if I just had a lucky blocked IP).
Maybe an overzealous admin program is blocking 3rd world countries? You don't want to do that especially as there is a great need for polygamy in the Philippines as the number of religious women to men is a large out of balance.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@IshChayil Thanks for the last post, clears things up a lot on the killing. The only thing that wasn't clear to me from your post was the smoke offering or burnt offering. You mentioned that it wasn't murder, my question would be do you equate the command to offer Isaac as a burnt offering as another form of killing that was acceptable?

 

[IshChayil]

Sure. Bad people do stuff in the name of God all the time. Sometimes it's "the voice in my head told me to", sometimes it's "the guy in the pointy hat told me to", sometimes "it says so right here in the book". So?

The problem is that proves exactly nothing. It's sort of like saying "some polygamous families are really messed up, therefore no one should be polygamous". "Some people that did bad things (drowning children in bathtubs) said God told them to do it, therefore no one should ever try to follow the leading of God's Spirit." Is that really your best argument?

Many people that are insufferable self-righteous hypocrites have memorized a lot of scripture. Therefore no one should study their bible?...

Good people also misinterpret their own desires or inner voice for "G-d told me to do it".
It's something we must all be careful to check and keep in check.

This is precisely why Peter delayed; This is taught in Jewish culture that even if a "voice from heaven" tells you to do something in violation to the commandments you must not do it. The understanding from the millenia is ... the satan can also speak "from heaven"

Don't all you guys check yourself? When I feel the spirit of G-d is telling me to do something, especially if it's something I want to do anyway, I always double, triple check "are you sure L-rd?" "are you really telling me to do this weird thing?"

This is why there must be weight given to the written word. It's not just for "other people at another time" that is a dangerous slippery slope (fallacy
It is the standard by which we must weigh when a spiritual entity (or our own psychosis or indigestion) speaks to us.

The written word is in a greater position for instruction than most peoples' recognition of the Holy Spirit's commands.
I won't talk about mass murderers, I'll talk about people "barking like dogs in the spirit" and other such acts.
He is a G-d of order who does not need to contradict Himself in His infinite wisdom and foresight.

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil Thanks for the last post, clears things up a lot on the killing. The only thing that wasn't clear to me from your post was the smoke offering or burnt offering. You mentioned that it wasn't murder, my question would be do you equate the command to offer Isaac as a burnt offering as another form of killing that was acceptable?

Since you are just restating @andrew's comment, please see my response to that above

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Not meaning to restate Andrew's comment, that wasn't my intent, nor did I want to put words in your mouth.

If I am understanding you correctly, the command to offer Isaac as an 'olah was a command to kill but that doesnt qualify as murder because God commanded it.

If I am misunderstanding what you are saying, please clarify. This is not a gotcha, I'm just trying to make sure I understand.

 

[IshChayil]

Greetings Ish, glad to see you are back. I enjoyed your breakdown of the Hebrew for kill/murder.



I don't have much time tonight but the few logic errors/fallacies that spring to mind are inconsistent comparison, presenting out of context (the Peter episode), intentionality fallacy, post hoc, there are a few others but these will suffice.
...

Thanks @Verify I'm testing the waters we'll see ...

"inconsistent comparison" I didn't' compare anything to qualify even for this fallacy.
Unless you mean my breakdown of "G-d didn't tell Abraham to murder his son... and we also see G-d didn't tell Peter to eat real unclean food" as the inconsitency? The problem if that's your mode is I clearly stated my case is made on the linguistics of G-d's commands regarding murder and to Avraham. I then added the Peter bit as an interesting additional example of G-d not pushing someone to go through with a violation of even a minor command. Since you said you "got the light and heavy thing" I'm assuming this is not where you think my inconsistent comparison is?

"presenting out of context" is not a logical fallacy classification; it may be a false advertising technique though.
intentionallity fallacy-this also is not a logic classification. I think it's a literary criticism term

It's been years since I took a logic class so I could be off at least we didn't learn those classifications.

Glad you liked the Hebrew breakdown, I thought you might as you like to get your hands dirty in Hebrew
I think I probably just touched nerves with the Peter example with everyone thinking I'm trying to make them keep kosher ...
prophetic fallacy!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Oh for crying out loud! There was no killing! There was never any intention for there to be killing. It doesn't matter what legal modes of killing were available to Abraham because he wasn't told to kill anyone and he wasn't going to kill anyone. It this was a Hollywood movie it would be a psychological drama and Abraham would have been played by Ben Kingsley. You guys make it sound like Quentin Tarantino was directing a Hong Long action flick. Kill Isaac parts one and two.

This is why adhering strictly to God's Word is so important. By filling what you see as the gaps and adding "missing" details you've managed to create a situation where you claim God contradicted Himself so you're free to do what you think He wants rather than what He said. Very dangerous. Especially because 1) He had not given any written commands yet anyway so nothing He said would contradict a Word He hadn't written yet and 2) what He said wouldn't have violated any of the commands He was going to write down later. This is a completely absurd argument. There is no contradiction if you take it literally. There never is.

I realize that this means nothing. This bloodletting is in full throated roar and if we can't have Isaac's blood then we'll have someone else's but it sure seems a shame to make any argument that is centered around God contradicting Himself. If you won that argument you would lose so much else.

 

[Mojo]

The question "whether God would ever lead us to do something that contradicts his Written Word" is a trick question....It's more useful to ask whether God will ever lead us to do something that is different from something we believe He told someone else in some other place at some other time.

Why is it a trick? Isn't that one of our main arguments here on BF?

Wait, are you arguing relativism?

I seem to hear this argument from proponents of sodomites. "God is love, we can't judge according to how they lived back then. Jesus cares about who loves, not something written to men 3,000 years ago."

"We don't live according to the Law. God's perfect will is that monogamy is right. God only tolerated polygyny and changed his mind after Jesus for his perfect design of one man to one woman. That was for them in the OT, not for us."

How is your argument different? Did I misinterpret you?

 

[Mojo]

Oh for crying out loud! There was no killing! There was never any intention for there to be killing. It doesn't matter what legal modes of killing were available to Abraham because he wasn't told to kill anyone and he wasn't going to kill anyone. It this was a Hollywood movie it would be a psychological drama and Abraham would have been played by Ben Kingsley. You guys make it sound like Quentin Tarantino was directing a Hong Long action flick. Kill Isaac parts one and two.

This is why adhering strictly to God's Word is so important. By filling what you see as the gaps and adding "missing" details you've managed to create a situation where you claim God contradicted Himself so you're free to do what you think He wants rather than what He said. Very dangerous. Especially because 1) He had not given any written commands yet anyway so nothing He said would contradict a Word He hadn't written yet and 2) what He said wouldn't have violated any of the commands He was going to write down later. This is a completely absurd argument. There is no contradiction if you take it literally. There never is.

I realize that this means nothing. This bloodletting is in full throated roar and if we can't have Isaac's blood then we'll have someone else's but it sure seems a shame to make any argument that is centered around God contradicting Himself. If you won that argument you would lose so much else.

Why do I visualize a beet red face right now?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why is it a trick? Isn't that one of our main arguments here on BF?

Wait, are you arguing relativism?

I seem to hear this argument from proponents of sodomites. "God is love, we can't judge according to how they lived back then. Jesus cares about who loves, not something written to men 3,000 years ago."

"We don't live according to the Law. God's perfect will is that monogamy is right. God only tolerated polygyny and changed his mind after Jesus for his perfect design of one man to one woman. That was for them in the OT, not for us."

How is your argument different? Did I misinterpret you?

Yes. This is yes and amen. This is the crux of it all. The very existence of this ministry is predicated on the belief the God's Words are true and we don't get to ignore or change them.

Even the ones that don't let us have multiple wives.

 

[Mojo]

@IshChayil , you bring up a great point. If sin is a transgression of a specified law....there was never a specific law NOT to sacrifice to the Tetragrammaton. Even if he did sacrifice, would it have been a "SIN"?

Whoa! This is getting weird!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why do I visualize a beet red face right now?

It's more of a wild eyed, crazy hand waving cry of disbelief and amused frustration and knowing resignation.

 

[Mojo]

It's more of a wild eyed, crazy hand waving cry of disbelief and amused frustration and knowing resignation.

Got it!

 

[IshChayil]

So many issues just within the one post.

If God, as Maker of Heaven and Earth, can order Abraham to kill his own son righteously, why could He not, as Maker of Heaven and Earth, command Peter to eat of the same foods that Noah was permitted to eat of?

Many many responses exist to your question.
I'll select this one:
Peter was part of a different covenant than Noah; even though Noah had knowledge of "unclean" animals in his days...

Why did Uziah , a righteous man as we can infer by David's reaction (vayichar David al Elokiym-"and David kindled angry against G-d") have to die when he touched the Ark of the Covenant?
The other guys were carrying it?

Not all people are allowed to do the same things and Peter who had sat at the feet of the Messiah for years learning had never violated this command which was part of his covenant, Israel, with G-d.

A Nazarite is not allowed to drink wine ... but but but this was Yeshua's first miracle? Can't he do it? No, because it's not permitted ... for him.
But can't Yeshua tell him to do it?

Peter as an Israelite was not allowed to eat and this was consistent with how he saw Yeshua live and teach. He therefore reacted righteously by verifying the command. Perhaps we can presume if G-d had told him a 4th time "Can't I do whatever I want I'm G-d just do it you slow learner" he may have eaten. Instead G-d was finished with the test and revealed that not all Gentiles are under the pagan rules of not eating with them even.
There is no longer a concern that all Gentile food is sacrificed to idols. Peter of course continued to observe the dietary laws his entire life as he was an Israelite and that applied to him, as did Paul and all the other Israelite Sh'lachim.

How they related to Gentile believers is another issue which I am not addressing here. For Israelites, they always kept the commands even to the point of taking a vow of rededication for Paul to prove He never violated these things; that it was slander against him.

Remember, for most of these guys' writings when they referred to grafey (writings) "scripture"
they meant "Old Testament" as their stuff was not canon yet.

(sorry for my English spellings)