Claire wrote:Only son as in only legitimate son at the time.SEG wrote:God's Lies
Abraham humped his wife's slave who gave birth to his other son IshmaelAnd he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,
You quote a translation of Gen. 22:2 that says "only son Isaac", and just assume that means as in only child, thus claim God was lying because of Abraham's other son Ishmael. However, God recognized Ishmael as a son of Abraham and blessed him (Gen. 17:20). Ishmael and his children were Abraham's posterity as well, because he was the father Isaac and Ishmael (Gen. 21:13/The Poem of the Man-God).SEG wrote:God didn't say his only legitimate son, he said his ONLY son.
Other translations of Gen. 22:2 read "only begotten son Isaac", and the Greek word for "begotten" is "μονογενής" (monogenēs), which means "only of its kind". Such is the case with Isaac, because God chose him to establish His covenant, for a perpetual covenant, and with his seed after him (Gen. 17). Isaac was the only legitimate son of the perpetual covenant made with Abraham, meaning he alone was the son that God had promised to Abraham. So, your claim God lied is false, including your claim the word "begotten" isn't used in the KJV: Heb. 11:17
Note: In case you want to edit, I noticed you accidentally typed "Adam's Lies", rather than "Abraham's Lies".SEG wrote:Adam's Lies
He knew that Isaac would not be worshipping, he thought he would be cooking.5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship,
He knew that there would be no lamb offering and conspired with God to sacrifice his own son.8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
Now, Abraham told his servants: "after we have worshiped, will return to you" (Gen. 22:5). He said that out of trust God could and would raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19/Romans 4:18), because of the covenant (Gen. 17:19), and figuratively He did. Afterward they did worship by sacrificing the ram (Gen. 22:13), then returned to the servants (Gen. 22:19). So, Abraham did not lie as you claim.
Regarding Gen. 22:8, considering the context, the word "lamb" in your translation is meant to signify "sacrifice", just as the word "victim" in the following translation does as well: "God will provide himself a victim for an holocaust, my son." And, just as Abraham said, God did provide a sacrifice (Gen. 22:13), though he initially thought it was to be Isaac. So, Abraham did not lie as you claim.
Already answered.SEG wrote:Do you really think that a creator has the right to murder and torture what he has created? If this works for your god, it should also work for a human creator.
It wouldn't make a difference, because my question is about the initial statement itself you made, not your reason for making it. So, why did you go from stating God having prevented Isaac's death is sickening to it's not sickening?SEG wrote:Quote me in full!Claire wrote:Yet, you gave a reason as to why you think it is. So, why are you saying it's not now?SEG wrote:It's not sickening that he prevented his death...
Claire wrote:It's not about God Himself in this instance, nor if He should be trusted or not.SEG wrote:Abraham should have realised that a truly loving god that abhors human sacrifice would NEVER order such an awful crime and had the courage to refuse a supposed all powerful being or imaginary voice in his head.Claire wrote:Can you think of an act greater than sacrificing oneself, or a loved one, that would test one's trust in God to the extreme limit? If so, what?
That WOULD demonstrate true love, trust and sacrifice.
No, my question is about there's those who trust God, and that being right or wrong is irrelevant. It's about whether you can think of an act greater than sacrifice of oneself, or a loved one, that would demonstrate their trust in Him to the extreme limit, generally speaking. So, can you?SEG wrote:Yes it is...