Abraham and Isaac

[Mojo]

As a point of clarification, I don't insist that a Bible is necessary to receive salvation. Literacy is not a prerequisite for enlightenment. But it can't be minimized either.

How do I reconcile Romans 1:20 with Paul stating that he had not known sin but by the law? Hard isn't it? Can both be true? Contradiction?

Thoughts?

 

[IshChayil]

The only instance that I can find where bloodshed was acceptable was if you were the (kinsman redeemer) brother in verse 5.

Or Abraham going to war to get Lot back (another kinsman redeemer passage)

Right but you are operating from a position of assuming killing is usually not allowed and looking for verses where it is exempt.
The only human killing forbidden is murder... ie. killing not sanctioned by G-d. Of course, He sanctions killings which He has commanded.
Those would include stoning homosexuals, burning witches, stoning rapists, hanging kidnappers, stoning someone who says G-d's name as a curse... several others I don't care to look up right now, and making a smoke offering of Yitzchak by father Avraham.

It's interesting the method of death is different for different capital offenses.
Any ideas on why that is?

The burning withces and sorcerors is a nice play on words because it says "so shall you remove the evil from your midst" and the word for remove is the same word as burn.

 

[IshChayil]

As a point of clarification, I don't insist that a Bible is necessary to receive salvation. Literacy is not a prerequisite for enlightenment. But it can't be minimized either.

How do I reconcile Romans 1:20 with Paul stating that he had not known sin but by the law? Hard isn't it? Can both be true? Contradiction?

Thoughts?

Not sure if this is what you are getting at or not.
Most people could not afford a bible back in the day right?
So learning of the Law was largely in the synagogue and also as oral tradition passed from the elders to the youth.

So even someone who was illiterate still went to synagogue and learned, also by the cultural norms.

I like to think of the biblical rules which G-d created, as the Kingdom culture.
Most human cultures are the inventions of men.
The biblical culture was/is an outgrowth of G-d's Torah.

When you think about a culture there are a few very important elements which help to define it:

1. Language - captures what is important to people. Do they have several words for praise like hebrew does or just a couple like English does. Do they have 11 words for snow like the Inuits have or just 1 word like the Filipinos have. Language captures what is relevant and what is important to a society.
2. Food - when I used to travel a lot I loved to sample local cuisine of the various nations I visited; food is a wonderful expression of a culture; it draws on the geography (fish verses venison), as well as artistic expressions.
3. Clothing - surely differs from civilization to civilization and ranges from practical (rabbit hat in Russia for winter) to style or artistic expression.
4. Holidays - what days are sacred in a society? What days are important? Who are it's heros or what natural calamities were survived on that day? I'm fairly certain they don't celebrate the 4th of July in England.
5. Literature - what was important enough for them to write down? How does this writing affect and shape the culture or is it a reflection of the culture.

yes there are others, music, art, etc. The difference between Israeli culture (in times of old) and all the other cultures today, is that Israeli culture at it's core was invented by G-d. The Law of which Paul talks about is the backbone to what I call "biblical culture" or the "culture of the kingdom". The clothing, the language, the food, the holidays, the literature is from Hakadosh Barukh Hu (the Holy One blessed be He).

So when your culture is an outgrowth of biblical principles then even if you are illiterate you learn by observing others. Everyone else has these colored fringes on their garments and they don't seem to trust people who don't wear them. OK I'll wear those too. Commandment observed, sin avoided.
Hey pig farmers make good money, wait a sec, those guys just had their hogs all possessed by demons at the Messiah's command and now the pigs are dead and the farmers are broke. Maybe I won't enter the swine herding profession. Sin avoided.
Hey women never dress like men and men dont dress like women, it would never even occur to me to try on a dress... sin averted
Hey consulting with mediums and Ouija boards and tarot cards seems cool ... wait the village just burned someone alive for this last week, maybe it's a bad idea... sin averted.
So the biblical culture, as invented by G-d and extrapolated on by man (i.e. how to tie the fringes on the clothing, how to drain the blood from food so we don't eat the nefesh) etc. is a natural expression of torah so people would learn most commands by observing or asking their neighbor.
This is probably one reason we have the command "yakoch tikoch et achikha" "you shall indeed rebuke your brother" everyone taught everyone.

Is this what you had in mind or did I totally miss the point of the question..

psalm 1:1-3
1‮אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי־הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר׀ לֹ֥א הָלַךְ֮ בַּעֲצַ֪ת‮ רְשָׁ֫עִ֥ים וּבְדֶ֣רֶךְ‮ חַ֭טָּאִים לֹ֥א עָמָ֑ד וּבְמֹושַׁ֥ב לֵ֝צִ֗ים לֹ֣א יָשָֽׁב׃
2‮כִּ֤י אִ֥ם בְּתֹורַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה חֶ֫פְצֹ֥ו וּֽבְתֹורָתֹ֥ו יֶהְגֶּ֗ה יֹומָ֥ם וָלָֽיְלָה
3‮וְֽהָיָ֗ה כְּעֵץ֮ שָׁת֪וּל עַֽל־פַּלְגֵ֫י מָ֥יִם אֲשֶׁ֤ר‮ פִּרְיֹ֨ו׀ יִתֵּ֬ן בְּעִתֹּ֗ו וְעָלֵ֥הוּ לֹֽא־יִבֹּ֑ול וְכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂ֣ה יַצְלִֽיחַ׃

Happy is the man who doesn't walk in the counsel of wicked people, and in the way of sinners he doesn't remain (stand), and in the abode of the scorners he does not sit; for the Law of Adonai is his delight, and he reads it murmering daily and nightly. He shall be like a tree pllanted by the tributaries of waters who has its fruit in due season and even it's leaves do not wither and all which he does will be successful (prosper).

 

[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 need you to clarify on this because on the surface it looks really really really bad and I think you probably meant something else.
Here's what it looks like. It looks like you're reducing scripture to what "we believe He told someone else in some other place at some other time."
Since most of the bible fits this description I'm going to assume you were just tired when you wrote this and I won't refute it for now.
Just wanted to call your attention to it... I know when I'm very sleepy my thought processes are not always tip top.

peace

 

[The Revolting Man]

Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

What am I missing here?

God didn't command that. Yes Abraham thought killing might be on the agenda but he was making the same assumptions you are. God didn't command killing. God commanded a sacrifice.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

God didn't command that. Yes Abraham thought killing might be on the agenda but he was making the same assumptions you are. God didn't command killing. God commanded a sacrifice.

Zec, I'm not sure where or how you've come to this position that sacrifice doesnt equate with killing, but it is simply not supported by anything I can find. Every single account (about 5 so far) supports that Abraham's intent as well as his actions was to kill his son as a sacrifice, even going so far as to explain it to Isaac in several of the accounts that he was going to die.

Besides the written accounts, every peripheral account until the medieval period not only acknowledges that Abraham was going to kill him as a sacrifice, but accepts the idea that it was ok because God told him to do so. About the 2nd century, some historians and others began trying to spiritualize the occasion while later the gnostics and others tried to mystify it.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Right but you are operating from a position of assuming killing is usually not allowed and looking for verses where it is exempt.
The only human killing forbidden is murder... ie. killing not sanctioned by G-d. Of course, He sanctions killings which He has commanded.
Those would include stoning homosexuals, burning witches, stoning rapists, hanging kidnappers, stoning someone who says G-d's name as a curse... several others I don't care to look up right now, and making a smoke offering of Yitzchak by father Avraham.

1. The sanctioned killings listed above were in a different era Post Sinai so unless you can produce something showing that they were given from Noah to Sinai, they have no bearing on Abraham's predicament. This is why I didnt list them, not because of a predisposed position.
2. The only sanctioned killings of man during this time were as I listed above - kinsman redeemer type actions. In fact war is not even sanctioned by God during this time (that I can find) except the rescue of Lot which was a kinsman redeemer scenario. Even blasphemers weren't killed (at least on record) and supposedly this was one of the commandments given to Noah

Which brings us back to the fact that the sacrifice commanded by God is a command to shed a man's blood for no justifiable reason, (Isaac did nothing wrong) to a descendant of Noah who was commanded not to shed a mans blood without specific reason, thus God commanded an action contrary to a commandment.

The only justification you've given is that it was a sanctioned action by God. (Which only reveals a Divine Bias not justification) While I'm ok with the command because I believe that God is not bound by laws given to the Creation, you should not be ok with it because you believe that God would not command something contrary to another command. This particular event is the perfect example to prove that theory or premise incorrect.

You have yet to produce a command violated. G-d doesn't violate His commands or ask others to do so and we find no examples in scriptures of this happening.

Command produced Gen. 9:6
Said command commanded by God to be violated. Gen 22:2

Your turn

 

[Mojo]

Not sure if this is what you are getting at or not.
Most people could not afford a bible back in the day right?
So learning of the Law was largely in the synagogue and also as oral tradition passed from the elders to the youth.

So even someone who was illiterate still went to synagogue and learned, also by the cultural norms.

I like to think of the biblical rules which G-d created, as the Kingdom culture.
Most human cultures are the inventions of men.
The biblical culture was/is an outgrowth of G-d's Torah.

When you think about a culture there are a few very important elements which help to define it:

1. Language - captures what is important to people. Do they have several words for praise like hebrew does or just a couple like English does. Do they have 11 words for snow like the Inuits have or just 1 word like the Filipinos have. Language captures what is relevant and what is important to a society.
2. Food - when I used to travel a lot I loved to sample local cuisine of the various nations I visited; food is a wonderful expression of a culture; it draws on the geography (fish verses venison), as well as artistic expressions.
3. Clothing - surely differs from civilization to civilization and ranges from practical (rabbit hat in Russia for winter) to style or artistic expression.
4. Holidays - what days are sacred in a society? What days are important? Who are it's heros or what natural calamities were survived on that day? I'm fairly certain they don't celebrate the 4th of July in England.
5. Literature - what was important enough for them to write down? How does this writing affect and shape the culture or is it a reflection of the culture.

yes there are others, music, art, etc. The difference between Israeli culture (in times of old) and all the other cultures today, is that Israeli culture at it's core was invented by G-d. The Law of which Paul talks about is the backbone to what I call "biblical culture" or the "culture of the kingdom". The clothing, the language, the food, the holidays, the literature is from Hakadosh Barukh Hu (the Holy One blessed be He).

So when your culture is an outgrowth of biblical principles then even if you are illiterate you learn by observing others. Everyone else has these colored fringes on their garments and they don't seem to trust people who don't wear them. OK I'll wear those too. Commandment observed, sin avoided.
Hey pig farmers make good money, wait a sec, those guys just had their hogs all possessed by demons at the Messiah's command and now the pigs are dead and the farmers are broke. Maybe I won't enter the swine herding profession. Sin avoided.
Hey women never dress like men and men dont dress like women, it would never even occur to me to try on a dress... sin averted
Hey consulting with mediums and Ouija boards and tarot cards seems cool ... wait the village just burned someone alive for this last week, maybe it's a bad idea... sin averted.
So the biblical culture, as invented by G-d and extrapolated on by man (i.e. how to tie the fringes on the clothing, how to drain the blood from food so we don't eat the nefesh) etc. is a natural expression of torah so people would learn most commands by observing or asking their neighbor.
This is probably one reason we have the command "yakoch tikoch et achikha" "you shall indeed rebuke your brother" everyone taught everyone.

Is this what you had in mind or did I totally miss the point of the question..

psalm 1:1-3
1‮אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי־הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר׀ לֹ֥א הָלַךְ֮ בַּעֲצַ֪ת‮ רְשָׁ֫עִ֥ים וּבְדֶ֣רֶךְ‮ חַ֭טָּאִים לֹ֥א עָמָ֑ד וּבְמֹושַׁ֥ב לֵ֝צִ֗ים לֹ֣א יָשָֽׁב׃
2‮כִּ֤י אִ֥ם בְּתֹורַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה חֶ֫פְצֹ֥ו וּֽבְתֹורָתֹ֥ו יֶהְגֶּ֗ה יֹומָ֥ם וָלָֽיְלָה
3‮וְֽהָיָ֗ה כְּעֵץ֮ שָׁת֪וּל עַֽל־פַּלְגֵ֫י מָ֥יִם אֲשֶׁ֤ר‮ פִּרְיֹ֨ו׀ יִתֵּ֬ן בְּעִתֹּ֗ו וְעָלֵ֥הוּ לֹֽא־יִבֹּ֑ול וְכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂ֣ה יַצְלִֽיחַ׃

Happy is the man who doesn't walk in the counsel of wicked people, and in the way of sinners he doesn't remain (stand), and in the abode of the scorners he does not sit; for the Law of Adonai is his delight, and he reads it murmering daily and nightly. He shall be like a tree pllanted by the tributaries of waters who has its fruit in due season and even it's leaves do not wither and all which he does will be successful (prosper).

Love the reply, and some of it was what I had in mind (oral traditions passed down).
I was tired when posting that, but what I meant was that we sometimes tie ourselves up in knots over jots and tittles (and that's not always bad) over defining what we are trying to define here using scripture, but in the end, whether we can read His law or not, God will find a way to convict us of sin....none have an excuse!.....whether we can read or not.

Maybe I'm still tired. Let me refine this later.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I

Sure. He also said Sarai was his sister. Abraham wasn't above a little deception to avoid a lot of hassle.

My point was Zec had said Abraham wasn't going to kill anyone.

The narrator says that Abraham took the knife to slay his son..

What Abraham said to Isaac was of extreme importance for the layers of prophetic insight that it bears witness to, for whatever reason he said it,

but when Abraham took up the knife it was to slay his son.

and God testifies that because Abraham would not withhold Isaac, his only son, from Him, He knew Abraham feared Him.

If he had taken up the knife with any other intent than the narrator had already stated, it wouldn't be so.

I'm sorry. What I was trying to say was that there wasn't going to be a killing. Abraham may very well have thought there was going to be. That's irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

That's irrelevant to the topic.

Well, I was going to use the fact that the word that God used "olah" means 'burnt offering' everywhere else; and the fact that Abraham understood that to mean he was going to need a knife to slay his son as evidence to show that the words God used to command Abraham to sacrifice his son were the exact words you would use if you wanted someone to cut someone up and then light them on fire.

And I'm not gonna lie. I think I've got a good case going here.

So what makes you think that the word for sacrifice here, 'olah' is not related to killing, when it literally always involves killing?

 

[andrew]

So what makes you think that the word for sacrifice here, 'olah' is not related to killing, when it literally always involves killing?

Zec, if I tell you to take a pistol and point it at a person's head and pull the trigger, are you going to do it and then argue that there's no law against firing a weapon, and since I didn't specifically use the words 'kill' or 'murder' in my instruction you're off the hook? I honestly don't understand what you're hung up on, here. Love ya, bro, but I don't get this at all. If I tell you to do something that requires that you take a life to accomplish, then I am telling you to take a life; it's baked in the cake, and all the logic chopping in the world doesn't change that.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well, I was going to use the fact that the word that God used "olah" means 'burnt offering' everywhere else; and the fact that Abraham understood that to mean he was going to need a knife to slay his son as evidence to show that the words God used to command Abraham to sacrifice his son were the exact words you would use if you wanted someone to cut someone up and then light them on fire.

And I'm not gonna lie. I think I've got a good case going here.

So what makes you think that the word for sacrifice here, 'olah' is not related to killing, when it literally always involves killing?

Very weak. Building boats always requires water. Was God contradicting His future Word to build your house on a firm foundation when he told Noah to build a ship nowhere near the ocean? Noah didn't know the end of that command. He had to assume that "boat" was really a funny house with no foundation. Every other structure he knew of was. Abraham didn't know the end of his command. They had faith it would work out right and they were right. This is literally talked about in the New Testament.

We don't and can't understand God. This is why He gave us a book and told us anything that contradicts is false teaching.

 

[andrew]

I need to address the "wasting time" issue, for Ish's sake as well as for everyone else's.

I mean no criticism or condescension. On reflection, I get that one could get that out of it (kinda reminds me of the JimTheApostle/Mojo interaction around "a child could understand it" on another thread), but that's not what I meant, directly or indirectly.

IC has been away awhile (I looked it up, and it's been about three months), and I'm guessing is not up to speed on some of the recent activity on the board (or maybe he is; I said 'guessing'...). Bottom line is that the leadership of this ministry is working to move this discussion board more in the direction of practical, helpful focus on the things that unite us—the raison d'etre for this ministry—the biblical and practical aspects of biblical marriage and family. And given that the biblical arguments are pretty much beat to death in the minds of most of the people posting here, that really means a focus on practical problems as they come up.

To a certain extent we can indulge in off-topic conversations, but it will always be that: a sideline, an indulgence. Somewhere here on the board (I think, or maybe it was in private conversation) I compared it to firemen sitting around the station playing poker or watching TV. If we really don't have anything practical to focus on, then it doesn't hurt for us to noodle around with other matters, but for the purposes of this ministry, our doctrinal confession is the Apostles Creed and everything else is your private opinion, working out your salvation with fear and trembling, without 'judging another man's servant'.

I am the only senior leader who posts on this board on any regular basis, and I'm often surfing the edge of what I consider to be a good use of my time. In fact, I'm often here against my better judgment, because I believe this is where God wants me to be, and I trust Him implicitly. But I'm here to help people with their marriages. Everything else has to be evaluated for its contribution to the mission of this ministry.

In my opinion, this thread has exhausted its utility (viewed through the lens of mission and purpose of this group) and destined to eventually be closed if we don't either converge or find something else to do and drift off pretty soon. That's my opinion; some of you may look at it differently. Meanwhile, some of our side threads die a natural death once everyone has had their say, and some have to be put out of their misery—we'll see which way this one goes.

Meanwhile, if I say something is wasting my time, I mean it is wasting my time, as I value my time and as I consider other options and the usual bandwidth issues. I do not mean to say that it is generally a waste of time, or that my time is more valuable than anyone else's (although it's certainly more valuable to me, as yours is more valuable to you). No offense intended, just a hazard of written communication.

 

[andrew]

Was God contradicting His future Word to build your house on a firm foundation when he told Noah to build a ship nowhere near the ocean? Noah didn't know the end of that command. He had to assume that "boat" was really a funny house with no foundation. Every other structure he knew of was.

Zec, are you really saying that no one knew what a boat was until Noah built an ark?...

Not that it really matters; it just seems to me you're losing coherence. In fact, you may be proving the opposite point. God told Noah to build a floating box, so He did. Straight obedience to the voice of the Lord without any reference to any previous writings that didn't exist. Doesn't have anything to do with Christ's future teaching re building houses (which were only a metaphor for a life lived in obedience to the words of Christ). So what?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, are you really saying that no one knew what a boat was until Noah built an ark?...

Not that it really matters; it just seems to me you're losing coherence. In fact, you may be proving the opposite point. God told Noah to build a floating box, so He did. Straight obedience to the voice of the Lord without any reference to any previous writings that didn't exist. Doesn't have anything to do with Christ's future teaching re building houses (which were only a metaphor for a life lived in obedience to the words of Christ). So what?

And that's what Abraham did. Abraham obeyed God's commands without any reference to writings that didn't exist. It's no more ridiculous to say that Noah built his "box" on an infirm foundation than it is to say Abraham was commanded to kill Isaac.

The laws you're claiming were contradicted weren't written yet. You said it yourself that it's ridiculous to apply it to Noah. Why would it make sense to apply it to Abraham?

This whole argument is sophomoric. And what of you're right? What if God does contradict Himself? What if the Bible isn't authoritative? What if we can be called to disobey it to achieve a goal more important to God?

Suddenly every woman who wants a divorce can have one because God called her to it, and we've all heard that one. Anyone can do whatever they want because they have a word from God.

 

[andrew]

Zec, at some point we're just going to have to wind this down, either by all acknowledging that we've said everything we have to say, or at some point just closing the thread.

And that's what Abraham did. Abraham obeyed God's commands without any reference to writings that didn't exist. It's no more ridiculous to say that Noah built his "box" on an infirm foundation than it is to say Abraham was commanded to kill Isaac.

This is a strange conflation on a couple of levels. First, you're the one who wanted to compare building boats with building houses. I still don't understand that one, and am thinking that "boats and houses" could replace "apples and oranges" as an expression for comparing two things that aren't really comparable. Second, why are you comparing what Noah did or didn't do with what Abraham was or wasn't told?

Noah was commanded to build an ark. He built the ark. Good thing he did. Nothing about that really has anything to do with Abraham, because there is nothing outrageous about Noah's obedience to being warned by God to build a boat 'cause it's gonna rain. But props to Noah for his obedience in the face of persecution on the ground. God said it, Noah did it, that settles it.

Meanwhile, Abraham was commanded to offer his son as a burnt offering—that's outrageous on its face. And Abraham would have done it, was in the act of doing it, but an angel stopped him at the last second. And we are told in Hebrews that the key element of Abraham's trust in God was his faith in resurrection of the dead, which is more evidence of what was happening in the mind of Abraham when he raised the knife. (Consider: When the writer of Hebrews says that Abraham did receive Isaac back from the dead "in a figure" (i.e., metaphorically speaking), that is more evidence of what was going on in Abraham's head. He had already considered Isaac a 'dead man walking' when God stopped his hand.)

And the thing about 'laws that haven't been written yet' has from my pov been dealt with by VV76. God made a covenant with Noah "and his seed after him" that included a provision that anyone who sheds man's blood would have his own blood shed. Abraham knew or should have known that slaying Isaac was wrong.

You see it differently. IshChayil sees it differently. Others may see it differently. At some point we have to let it go. We all gotta do what we gotta do, but unless someone has something new to add that isn't just a rehash of something out of the previous 100+ posts, we need to start thinking about getting back on task.

 

[Mojo]

Zec, at some point we're just going to have to wind this down, either by all acknowledging that we've said everything we have to say, or at some point just closing the thread.


This is a strange conflation on a couple of levels. First, you're the one who wanted to compare building boats with building houses. I still don't understand that one, and am thinking that "boats and houses" could replace "apples and oranges" as an expression for comparing two things that aren't really comparable. Second, why are you comparing what Noah did or didn't do with what Abraham was or wasn't told?

Noah was commanded to build an ark. He built the ark. Good thing he did. Nothing about that really has anything to do with Abraham, because there is nothing outrageous about Noah's obedience to being warned by God to build a boat 'cause it's gonna rain. But props to Noah for his obedience in the face of persecution on the ground. God said it, Noah did it, that settles it.

Meanwhile, Abraham was commanded to offer his son as a burnt offering—that's outrageous on its face. And Abraham would have done it, was in the act of doing it, but an angel stopped him at the last second. And we are told in Hebrews that the key element of Abraham's trust in God was his faith in resurrection of the dead, which is more evidence of what was happening in the mind of Abraham when he raised the knife. (Consider: When the writer of Hebrews says that Abraham did receive Isaac back from the dead "in a figure" (i.e., metaphorically speaking), that is more evidence of what was going on in Abraham's head. He had already considered Isaac a 'dead man walking' when God stopped his hand.)

And the thing about 'laws that haven't been written yet' has from my pov been dealt with by VV76. God made a covenant with Noah "and his seed after him" that included a provision that anyone who sheds man's blood would have his own blood shed. Abraham knew or should have known that slaying Isaac was wrong.

You see it differently. IshChayil sees it differently. Others may see it differently. At some point we have to let it go. We all gotta do what we gotta do, but unless someone has something new to add that isn't just a rehash of something out of the previous 100+ posts, we need to start thinking about getting back on task.

Okay, just to make myself feel good and to cleanse myself after all the hullabaloo...I DID try to tie it back to plural marriage in most of my posts. The overall discussion about God's commands, his direct instructions, commanding to do that which breaks a law.....all that...does need to be addressed when we seek to better explain polygyny to others. We have to decide by which authority we speak, or how we get our authority and marching orders.

Tapping out. I is dunn.

 

[IshChayil]

1. The sanctioned killings listed above were in a different era Post Sinai so unless you can produce something showing that they were given from Noah to Sinai, they have no bearing on Abraham's predicament. This is why I didnt list them, not because of a predisposed position.
2. The only sanctioned killings of man during this time were as I listed above - kinsman redeemer type actions. In fact war is not even sanctioned by God during this time (that I can find) except the rescue of Lot which was a kinsman redeemer scenario. Even blasphemers weren't killed (at least on record) and supposedly this was one of the commandments given to Noah

Which brings us back to the fact that the sacrifice commanded by God is a command to shed a man's blood for no justifiable reason, (Isaac did nothing wrong) to a descendant of Noah who was commanded not to shed a mans blood without specific reason, thus God commanded an action contrary to a commandment.

The only justification you've given is that it was a sanctioned action by God. (Which only reveals a Divine Bias not justification) While I'm ok with the command because I believe that God is not bound by laws given to the Creation, you should not be ok with it because you believe that God would not command something contrary to another command. This particular event is the perfect example to prove that theory or premise incorrect.

Otherwise case closed.

I'd say your turn but there really is no need to continue it's just ... so .. simple


Command produced Gen. 9:6
Said command commanded by God to be violated. Gen 22:2

Your turn

well the only issue here is you seem to keep ignoring the common meaning of the Hebrew which I explained already.
You can keep ignoring it if you like but we won't resolve anything that way.
I'll repeat the essence for brevity sake. RaTSaCH is to murder, and it means to do a prohibited style of killing.

That's it. Case closed.
Unless you can produce a place where there is a prohibition. (since you put the scope on Abraham's era and prior that's even better for our case)

Since you and Andrew are impuning G-d as testing Abraham to violate a command, the burden is on you guys to produce said command.

@ZecAustin @Mojo @Mark C @frederick (sorry if I left anyone out) and myself are assuming G-d is true to his own commands and capable of creating cogent commands which he doesn''t need to make people violate.

Show me a prohibition from Abraham's time or sooner against offering up children to the Koneh Hashamayim vaaretz. It's your burden.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Show me a prohibition from Abraham's time or sooner against offering up children to the Koneh Hashamayim vaaretz. It's your burden.

The burden doesnt have to go as far as offering children. The commandment I already listed is for shedding the blood of an innocent man which is what Abraham would have done when he offered his child if God hadnt stopped him.

Offering his innocent son as sacrifice still falls under shedding the blood of an innocent man no matter who it is offered to

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well Andrew right that this has gotten counterproductive. I honestly don't remember what kicked this all off or that I was involved in it.