Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
What am I missing here?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Abraham and Isaac
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
- Status
Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
What am I missing here?
This is argument ad absurdem fallacy
I would say, "sure do whatever you think G-d is telling you" but if it is a contradiction to His written teaching as revealed by prophets who are a little more discerning regarding His voice than we are, check, double check, triple check as Peter did because maybe it's indigestion and not G-d speaking
Yes. Thank you.
Perhaps missing the part previously where he says to his son "G-d will provide the lamb"
Interesting.
Very interesting.
Just read your response to my question about Peter. The question was to ask if God as Maker of Heaven and Earth
could have legitimately commanded Peter to eat something unclean, not to beat around the bush with every scenario under the sun of how it might have been intended etc.
Peter knew it was at the least Jesus speaking to him if not God himself. (I know, I know they are both God, but in my mind Peter would probably be more familiar with calling Jesus kyrios not theos. Just my opinion)
As to the logic fallacies, I couldn't remember the exact names for them so double checked them as I was posting.
Most of those fall under informal fallacies.
The inconsistent comparison to me was between the abilities of God in Abrahams case that were restricted in Peters case.
The presenting (quoting) out of context is also known as contextomy.
The intentionality fallacy is a listed logic fallacy and basically means that someone is asserting that the intention in instance A must be the same as the intention in instance B because the same individual was present in both.
Post hoc basically means after A, B happens so because B happens after A, B must be governed by A
And yet he's about to stick 'im wit da shiv! Not waiting or looking around for the lamb. Sounds like he was either telling Isaac in a roundabout way that he's it or perhaps he really thought that there would be a lamb waiting or something. Either way, hard to get around the knife and the angel stopping him.
Also, in verse 13 it says that Abraham offered the ram up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. Pretty sure that ram died.
thanks
you wrote a lot actually (as did I) so I have to cherry pic sometimes or we'll both post novels.Just read your response to my question about Peter. The question was to ask if God as Maker of Heaven and Earth
could have legitimately commanded Peter to eat something unclean, not to beat around the bush with every scenario under the sun of how it might have been intended etc.
No, I do not think the creator of the universe can ask someone to sin. He is unable to do that. This should start some more fires
yet you said you got my kal v'chomer reasoning...this was the only logic I employed to connect the 2 biblical stories of the akeidah and Keyfa
Kurios is used in every case where we would expect the Tetragrammaton, the unpronouncable 4 letter word of G-d to appear. The New Testament writers dutifuly wrote Kyrios to which you reference. It's the Greek equivalent to Jews practice of saying "Adonai" in Hebrew when we see the unpronouncable name of G-d; faithfully executed in the Greek new testament manuscripts and Septuagint renderings.
actually the Hebrew says he "shalach" sent out his hand... quite a dramatic unneeded verb, no doubt with intent to delay in hopes of intervention.
The cantillation marks grammatically suggest a delay as well as well as Jewish tradition.
So ... yeah...it is that
(sorry for any English mispellings)
Last edited:
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.
if by "hassle" you mean "death" then yes, that is accurate... and regarding the little deception ... she was actually his sister so ...
It's easy to forget that biblical characters were real people; I don't think we need to imagine Abraham is stewing on deep prophecy when he is going through the worst trial/test of his life. I think it's most likely he said "G-d will provide a lamb" either out of his deep hope and faith that G-d would, or to keep his son calm and not fill him with fear in his possibly last moments. It's a useful verse for Christianity but we need not always inject New Testament into Old; Old often has plenty of good meaning on it's own.
Yes indeed, He was ready to kill his son by G-d's command; his hope was he would not have to hence the slight pause when "sending out his hand", hope lasts till the very last instant.
I agree with you, Abraham would have done it otherwise where is the test.
Jewish tradition teaches the shock of learning that Avraham had left with his son to sacrifice him is what caused Sarah to pass in the next chapters.
I think I'm with you on most of that Ish, or at least I understand where you're coming from.
On the Abraham issue, maybe he was delaying and maybe not. I tend to think not because God would have known the intent and to delay would have meant failure of the test, not passing the test.
Also, everything else I've read on the subject is even more definitive that Abraham was set to kill him. Especially Josephus, using phrases like Abraham concealed the command of God from everyone so that no one would hinder him from his obedience to God. . . . It was by Gods will that I became thy father, and it is now His will that I relinquish thee . . . Accordingly thou, my son, will die, . . . But so that He (God) will receive thy soul . . . .And the deed had been done if God had not opposed it . . . And forbade him to slay his son; etc. Antiquities of the Jews 1.13.3&4
Jasher and Jubilees also has an account corroborating as does what I have found in Mishnah and Talmudic writings. It wasn't until medieval times that people began having issues with God requiring this from Abraham as best I can tell.
The address of the Tetragrammaton in Peter's case to me makes the case even better that he was disobeying God.
I agree with you that God would not command anyone to sin. Thus, it was not a sin for Peter to eat unclean animals. If Peter had obeyed it would not have been sin whether they'd been cleansed or not provided it was done in obedience to that command. The issue of the old covenant that Peter was physically born into I think would have been superseded by the new covenant that he was spiritually born into though that's probably fodder for another thread.
On the topic of God being able to do or command as He sees fit, I havent seen any references to support that God has bound himself to the commands given at Sinai, only assumptions usually based on faulty logic. I do agree that there are things that He won't do, but that He's bound to the same laws He gave the Israelites, I cannot find scriptural support for. I'm cautiously open to it, I just havent found it and havent had anyone present me with it yet.
On the Abraham issue, maybe he was delaying and maybe not. I tend to think not because God would have known the intent and to delay would have meant failure of the test, not passing the test.
Also, everything else I've read on the subject is even more definitive that Abraham was set to kill him. Especially Josephus, using phrases like Abraham concealed the command of God from everyone so that no one would hinder him from his obedience to God. . . . It was by Gods will that I became thy father, and it is now His will that I relinquish thee . . . Accordingly thou, my son, will die, . . . But so that He (God) will receive thy soul . . . .And the deed had been done if God had not opposed it . . . And forbade him to slay his son; etc. Antiquities of the Jews 1.13.3&4
Jasher and Jubilees also has an account corroborating as does what I have found in Mishnah and Talmudic writings. It wasn't until medieval times that people began having issues with God requiring this from Abraham as best I can tell.
The address of the Tetragrammaton in Peter's case to me makes the case even better that he was disobeying God.
I agree with you that God would not command anyone to sin. Thus, it was not a sin for Peter to eat unclean animals. If Peter had obeyed it would not have been sin whether they'd been cleansed or not provided it was done in obedience to that command. The issue of the old covenant that Peter was physically born into I think would have been superseded by the new covenant that he was spiritually born into though that's probably fodder for another thread.
On the topic of God being able to do or command as He sees fit, I havent seen any references to support that God has bound himself to the commands given at Sinai, only assumptions usually based on faulty logic. I do agree that there are things that He won't do, but that He's bound to the same laws He gave the Israelites, I cannot find scriptural support for. I'm cautiously open to it, I just havent found it and havent had anyone present me with it yet.
Think from Peter's perspective.
He lived and learned from the Messiah who never ate forbidden foods and never taught him to do it.
Naturally he's gonna question it, and rightfully so. He never ate, and G-d never chastised him for not eating. It seems G-d knew Peter would remain a righteous Israelite and not eat. What would be the point of swallowing a lizard to so G-d could then say "see Gentiles are OK now"?
If it was important for the author to convey that it was ok for Peter to have a BLT, that would present itself somewhere.
Peter as an Israelite was unable to eat BLT his entire life same as Paul and all the Israeli followers of Yeshua.
The only question is regarding new baby Gentile believers ... which comes up in Paul's mail.
Yeshua certainly was bound to the laws given the Israelites otherwise what is the point of offering him up as sinless... sin was defined by the torah and derivative reasoning from it.
----
summary ... I think we agree on the subject of the thread.
Abraham was prepared to kill his son .... this would not be considered murder ... G-d doesn't ask people to sin ... at the moment (or prior) to the angel of Hashem calling out to Avraham, Avraham was determined in his heart to obediently kill his son.
I think the instant had just fired in his brain when he was about to move the knife from the "up" position to the "plunge" position but it really doesn't matter. the point is he was willing, obedient, and my extra point was that this was not a violation of any prohibition. There is no command "do not offer your children up to me when I ask"
We agree right?
So maybe we can avoid the stickiness of the "did G-d need Peter to have a bowl of clam chowder" for another day
***** recipe for cooked, unclean vision animals--spirit spider and spirit pork alle carte****
One interesting side point; how exactly does one "kill and eat" a vision?
Do I use my "air-knife" and my "air-rifle" and my "spirit-fire" to slay clean and cook it?
What exactly does air food taste like?
Is it a sin if I "air kill" a vision of my "air mother in law"?
Can I then BBQ her air-calf?
Does BBQ mother-in-law taste like spirit-chicken?
Last edited:
Yes. You're not even trying to interpret what I said.
Ish, you are wasting my time. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument, not a fallacy. Mojo's argument is the fallacious one.
BTW I was mistaken about the cantillation marks providing support for my notion of Avraham holding his hand in delay... they do *not* add support for that actions.
I was confusing the part where Josef get's his towel pulled off by Potifar's wife and he delays ... there is a special accent indicating delay there (shalshelet) just before he runs. I thought the same one is here.
my bad
I was confusing the part where Josef get's his towel pulled off by Potifar's wife and he delays ... there is a special accent indicating delay there (shalshelet) just before he runs. I thought the same one is here.
my bad
How is it wasting your time to force you to respond lol.
argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") wikipedia
Nice to feel the love just back 1 day!
seriously my bad for forcing you to waste your time @andrew.
I think we can chill from posting for a bit if we realize we are mostly on the same page.
Everyone agrees Abraham intended to obey G-d right?
nobody here was able to produce a command which Abraham would have broken.
The Peter bit I didn't know was gonna cause so much reactionism from fear of "Judaizing" it was just the only example I could think of other than the Abraham one where G-d asks someone to sin (or do what they thought is a sin if you prefer).
Fallacies, and philosophies aside all resolved?
Rest it's late by you. Good night sleep will remove the grumpiness
Last edited:
Why are you spelling out the name?
I've never seen you do that in these forums.
I did a search and didn't find you using it ever here.
Is it specially for me? Please don't feel you need to write out G-d's name for the 1st time in these forums just for me.
Last edited:
Just an addendum to my earlier post FWIW.
I also found a reference to the aborted sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q252-254a. It also confirms that Abraham was in the final moments to kill Isaac. "And Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son."
I also found a reference to the aborted sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q252-254a. It also confirms that Abraham was in the final moments to kill Isaac. "And Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to kill his son."
Oh that's cool.
- Status