Idle question about Abraham and Human Sacrifice

by corpusdei 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  tec

  Tammy love and respect ya, but how much of the bible(gods inspired word) do you need to change to make your belief in god work?

  Thank you, and love ya back.

  I don't need to change anything about the bible, though. I just need to follow Christ. Guaranteed there are many things that you and I and others do not understand about OT accounts, and also NT ones. I think that's a given, considering the time span, the translations, the difference in cultures, etc. But when I, myself, do not understand something, then I simply look to Christ. I'm not saying, NO that never happened... I am just saying that there is something I do not understand, something that seems missing, and so I will look to the Truth (Christ), to carry me through these things that I don't understand.

  Understand? ;)

  Peace to you,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  I read those the other day when you posted them, Syl. They don't even have to be authentic, but they did remind me of the story of Job, and how Job's friends only thought they knew what was happening... but they and Job could not see the full picture, only a small part. Since we only get a small account of such a large moment in Abraham's and Isaac's life, I think the thing to take away is that Abraham was faithful to God even to giving up the thing (his son) he loved most (besides God); and that God did not allow him to sacrifice his son.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  Respectfully Tec, why should that be what we take away? What I mean is, why is that the appropriate idea to absorb? Perhaps we should take away that Abraham was willing to kill his son for his god---that's what the account says. Granted it's a small passage of a great moment, but don't you think that for such a pivotal decision we would be given exactly what we need to understand it? Yes Job's friends didn't know the big issue, but the scriptures did tell the fuller story. Because it was important. If something important was left out of Abraham's story--then why was it left out? This is a disturbing story to the majority of the people. Why wouldn't Jesus as the truth have clarified that for us? This isn't a minor issue like whether Adam had a naval or not, this is major heavy duty stuff. This was the base for the entire religion. This represented the covenent---that Israel would be raised from Isaac and forshadowed Jesus' sacrifice.

  What should be taken away when Lot offered his virgin daughters up to be raped by an entire town of men to protect angels? Just that Lot was faithful--he was saved afterall--or that god approved of that sacrifice too? I don't understand how people can decide to choose the lesson they wish to take away--no matter what the details are. Jesus, as the light and the truth, certainly could have clarified these disturbing issues for us. Surely in his wisdom, he could foresee that it would eventually become disturbing, even if his followers of the day were fine with it, but he didn't. He wanted to sanctify his father's name, but---well when it comes to child sacrifice and handing young women over to criminal crowds, he was strangely silent. Jesus was in total agreement with his father at all times---therefore he was in agreement with this.

  No, I can't just look for some good lesson in that and simply dismiss the details.

  NC
• 

  tec

  NewChapter, that's what I think we should take away from it - but you are certainly free to think something else. I look at the account through what Christ did and taught. That's all. God DID stop him, so I think that is important. God DID say (through prophets) that he abhorred sacrificing children or burning them in fire, and also that he was not pleased with animal sacrifices as well. So I think that is important as well. Since Christ did not ask for sacrifice, nor demand them, and since He gave His own life, then I see that as important as well.

  By these things, by what Christ taught by word AND deed, I don't think He was silent at all. Should he have gone through every single thing that the laws and teachings of old had mishandled? (maybe he did and it just wasn't recorded - not everything was, after all) Or should he just have taught us the right way to do things, set an eksample for us to follow, and left us to learn love and follow that law - now written on our hearts and consciences?

  Peace to you,

  Tammy
• 

  NewChapter

  I think he should have gone back and clarified, yes. He did so with divorce. He did so when quoting the law about murder/adultery by saying that even thinking of these things or becoming overly angry was already the sin. I think it is also reasonable for him to fill in details on upsetting accounts. Not everything was recorded--but isn't god in charge of what got recorded? Jesus was in complete agreement with his father. No, Isaac didn't kill his son, but for evermore Isaac remembers being laid on top of wood meant to burn his body knowing his father was raising a knife to plunge it through his heart. At that moment, he knew he was dead. Killed by his father. The last minute reprieve was unexpected. What is written on my heart and conscience is that I don't do that to my child, EVER. Apparently that was not written on Abraham's heart. Yet he is judged an extremely righteous man. Am I more righteous than Abraham because I would never consider plunging a knife into my child's chest? Is it possible to be more righteous than Abraham?

  NC
• 

  Quarterback

  Hi New Chapter,

  Yes, those are good questions, and they are fully disclosed to us in the Bible. So are the mistakes of the men who wrote about them. Jesus couldn't/wouldn't tell everything to his Disciples. He told them that they were not ready for certain information. I don't think that the account in Lot's stupid decision, or the sacrifice of Isaac was on the agenda. The Hebrews already were ok with that account. It was Paul that provided the continuing thread of those details (Abraham's covenant).
• 

  NewChapter

  Yes, they were okay with that account. I find that disturbing. But was the bible then written only for those present? Perhaps it wasn't written for us, because most modern people just can't stomach such bloody stories. How could they not be ready for that info? I understood that reasoning to be applied to prophecy---they wouldn't understand because it involved the future. But this involved the past. I'm not being obtuse. Why were they ready to read about intended child sacrifice, offering virgin daughters to ravenous mobs, a father impregnating those daughters--but they couldn't handle the "why". Trust me, it does bother me that they were just fine with those details and felt no need to ask why. And Jesus in his wisdom didn't care to elaborate, just a little, for the milder humans in the future. I must conclude that it was not written for me.

  NC
• 

  tec

  Isaac doesn't seem to have had his relationship with his father damaged. Nor his relationship with God. Maybe that should tell us something?

  In either case, I don't believe we CAN compare ourselves to others - especially not others who we cannot even begin to relate to, considering the difference in time and culture. We can only possibly compare ourselves to Abraham (or anyone else) if we walked in his sandals, lived in his time, had his eksperiences, with the beliefs of the nations he dealt with and his own beliefs, and the mentality of that time and culture. We're trying to piece that all together from one book, but I don't think that's possible.

  I also think God is in charge of some things that got recorded - scripture - but that not all things recorded are scripture. Nor does 'scripture' mean that man can not tamper with it... perhaps dishonestly, or perhaps out of honest misunderstanding... or what need would there have been for Christ to rebuke the scribes, or for their to be a verse in the OT that speaks of the lying pen of the scribes, or for the warning at the end of Revelation for anyone who adds to the words of that book?

  Again, we need only to look at Christ to see the Father. If something written contradicts (or personally seems to contradict) what Christ showed us about His Father, then go with Christ. HE is the Truth. We can misunderstand. I know I certainly can, on my own.

  Peace again,

  Tammy
• 

  Quarterback

  Yes, those are disturbing accounts, and they are all recorded thousands of years ago. The history of the beginnings of the Hebrews can be taken from these accounts. But, we wouldn't be doing half the stuff that they did in those years. We are not wearing their clothes, we don't have many wives, and incest is certainly not acceptable, infact it's disgusting. Killing our children are not good too. We drive cars, we work, we retire in North America, the land of the free. But, North America had some disturbing beginnings too. The history of this land was written, and the Bible was written. Thank goodness we know the past of so many things. The Good, the bad, and the ugly.
• 

  NewChapter

  Then how do you decide which parts are true? The bible says All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, and for SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT. Forgive me, I can only quote from NWT, but I'm sure others read similarily. Certainly, under the warning not to change a word, god could prevent his word from becoming adulterated. Surely if he were loving and his son WAS the word, he would not leave us to guess. He would not allow a mere mortal to remove or change important information. If we get to read the bible and decide on our own what is true and useful, even though doing goes contrary to scripture and therefore the Word, then a person could decide that this god was out for blood and his son was good with that. And his Hebrew followers were good with that. And I am not good with that. God doesn't change, he is the same god that called for the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children, babies and just because he sent a friendlier face, Jesus, that does not erase his history, which is his present, because again, he does not change and he is never wrong.

  It is okay to pick the parts of the bible that fit how you see Jesus, but that just leaves me to question, doesn't that invalidate the authority of the bible? What if everything written about Jesus was false or tampered with, and everything written about the Hebrew god was dead on? If you are willing to accept that the nice sounding stuff is true but not the rest, then perhaps you are willing to say it could be the opposite. That the horrors and nightmares recorded are the real truth and the good stuff is wishful thinking.

  I'm glad you see the bible as you do---it makes me like you as a person. Yet that probably means you are a caring person, with or without the bible, and you are doing everything in your power to make the bible a loving book. I am not able to dismiss the rest of it though. Jesus represented the god of the OT and he quoted from the OT. He didn't even have the NT to quote from.

  Edit to say this was answering Tec's post. I didn't see quarterback's in time. yes the US had a disturbing beginning. We were wrong. We know that, and so we ammended the constitution. The bible and god are never wrong. (according to the bible) No ammendments.

  NC