Did God write Genesis?

[AV1611VET]

If God inspired the books that eventually became canon, didn't he also have to inspire the process by which the books were cobbled together? Have you investigated this process to determine for yourself if it is plausible that there was divine inspiration guiding such a gradual, organic process?

Actually I don't think so.

The books were already considered inspired and accepted.

It was just a matter of separating the inspired books from those that weren't.

Suppose you put a person in a room and told him to take that stack of money and separate them into two piles: one legal tender and one non-legal tender.

Could you do it?

Sure you could.

1-dollar bill here
2-dollar bill here
3-dollar bill there
4-dollar bill there
5-dollar bill here
etc.

 

[ChetSinger]

According to Genesis, God was asking Abraham to set out to kill his son, yes. According to Genesis, Abraham was planning to kill his son because he thought it would please God. According to Genesis, it is good that Abraham set out to kill his son.

No, no, no. This is such a common misconception I feel compelled to respond to this.

The New Testament reveals that this wasn't a test of Abraham's devotion, but of his trust in God's abilities and faithfulness. Abraham trusted that God would resurrect Isaac because He had the ability to do it, and because He already promised that "through Isaac will your descendants be named". Abraham never believed he would return from that mountain alone.

Here it is:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac. He had received the promises, yet he was ready to offer up his only son.

God had told him, “Through Isaac descendants will carry on your name,”

and he reasoned that God could even raise him from the dead, and in a sense he received him back from there. - Hebrews 11

Do you agree with this?

 

[JackRT]

You h

No, no, no. This is such a common misconception I feel compelled to respond to this.

The New Testament reveals that this wasn't a test of Abraham's devotion, but of his trust in God's abilities and faithfulness. Abraham trusted that God would resurrect Isaac because He had the ability to do it, and because He already promised that "through Isaac will your descendants be named". Abraham never believed he would return from that mountain alone.

Here it is:

Do you agree with this?

You have expressed the common interpretation of this story, It does not ring true for me. I continue to regard this story as one of the ugliest of the entire bible. If a grandfather today ordered his son to sacrifice his grandson and the father complied but was interrupted by a concerned citizen I wonder how the courts would regard it. It is interesting that the Bible records no further contact between Abraham and either Sarah or Issac.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The New Testament reveals that this wasn't a test of Abraham's devotion, but of his trust in God's abilities and faithfulness. Abraham trusted that God would resurrect Isaac because He had the ability to do it, and because He already promised that "through Isaac will your descendants be named". Abraham never believed he would return from that mountain alone.

Uh, you are quoting what Hebrews says about Genesis. Genesis makes no claim that he thought Isaac would resurrect.

But even if it was true that he thought Isaac would resurrect, would it still be legal to kill his son?

Pretend you are on the jury. A man is accused of killing his son. The defendant says he did it but should not be punished, because he thought his son would rise again. You convict him anyway, yes? It would still be murder.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is interesting that the Bible records no further contact between Abraham and either Sarah or Issac.

Interesting point. No good women will have much respect for a man once he ties their son up on an alter with plans to kill that son as a sacrifice to God. It would be a real turn off, I think.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pretend you are on the jury. A man is accused of killing his son.

Um ... no one was killed.

Why are you putting God on trial for something that didn't happen?

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting point. No good women will have much respect for a man once he ties their son up on an alter with plans to kill that son as a sacrifice to God. It would be a real turn off, I think.

You sound like Moses' wife.

Exodus 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done if you were in Abraham's place?

 

[JackRT]

Um ... no one was killed.

Why are you putting God on trial for something that didn't happen?

OK, attempted murder.

As with a great many Bible stories there is a subtext that tells a different story than the literal words. The literal words are so horrible that there must be a subtext that we are missing. And, no, I don't believe that it was a test because if this actually were a test Abraham failed it badly. There is something that we are missing here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is only your opinion. It is not based upon Spiritual, Scriptural Truth.

I disagree. Once again,according to Genesis, God was asking Abraham to set out to kill his son. According to Genesis, Abraham was planning to kill his son. According to Genesis, it is good that Abraham set out to kill his son. That is what it says. If you don't believe me, read Genesis 22.

1. God's instructions to Abraham were a test of his faith.

Kinda like joining a fraternity, huh? Sorry, but if the frat boys say you need to commit murder to prove you are worthy, you should find different friends.

Note that when Abraham was about to carry out those instructions, God stayed his hand.

Sure. Suppose a man is attempting to murder his son when the police intervene and stop it. Later the man claims he is not guilty, because the police stopped him. I think the man is still guilty of attempted murder.

2. Abraham was exceptionally reluctant to carry out God's instructions.

Darn right! When somebody asks a person to commit murder, most people would be very reluctant to carry out that instruction. I would like something more than reluctance. How about refusing to attempt murder?

3. It was good that Abraham reluctantly set out to kill his son;

No, it is bad when a man sets out to kill his son. It is that simple.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You sound like Moses' wife.

Exodus 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

Just out of curiosity, what would you have done if you were in Abraham's place?

Refuse to attempt murder.

What would you do if you heard what Abraham heard? Attempt murder?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, attempted murder.

The charge would be CONSPIRACY TO ATTEMPT MURDER.

And seeing as how the Conspirator put down what He did, when He did it, why He did it, where He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were, I'd say no criminal act occurred.

In fact, Isaac had a chance to accuse God and Abraham both of conspiracy to murder him, but didn't.

So neither will I.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The charge would be CONSPIRACY TO ATTEMPT MURDER.

And seeing as how the Conspirator put down what He did, when He did it, why He did it, where He did it, and who the eyewitnesses were, I'd say no criminal act occurred.

Read up on the law. I say this is attempted murder. http://criminal.lawyers.com/crimina...e-crimes-conspiracy-attempt-solicitation.html

 

[ChetSinger]

You have expressed the common interpretation of this story, It does not ring true for me. I continue to regard this story as one of the ugliest of the entire bible. If a grandfather today ordered his son to sacrifice his grandson and the father complied but was interrupted by a concerned citizen I wonder how the courts would regard it. It is interesting that the Bible records no further contact between Abraham and either Sarah or Issac.

It is the New Testament interpretation of the story.

And think about it: As Hebrews says, God had already promised that Abraham's descendants would come through Isaac and Isaac himself was as yet childless. So if Isaac had died by any method before having his own children God's promise would've been broken.

Had the angel not stopped Abraham's hand God indeed would've resurrected Isaac in order to keep his promise. Do you agree?

 

[ChetSinger]

Uh, you are quoting what Hebrews says about Genesis. Genesis makes no claim that he thought Isaac would resurrect.

But even if it was true that he thought Isaac would resurrect, would it still be legal to kill his son?

Pretend you are on the jury. A man is accused of killing his son. The defendant says he did it but should not be punished, because he thought his son would rise again. You convict him anyway, yes? It would still be murder.

Your scenario is irrelevant: there would be no trial because there would be no dead body. If the angel hadn't stopped Abraham's hand then God would've indeed resurrected Isaac to keep his earlier promise. That was the test: not blind devotion, but whether Abraham trusted that God would keep his promises.

 

[JackRT]

At that time in Hebrew/Jewish history the concept of resurrection was completely unknown. It did not enter history until many centuries later. The concept was foreign to Abraham so as far as he was concerned God was asking him to kill his son. If this were indeed a test, Abraham failed it. That is why I suggested that there was something missing, something in the background that is missing perhaps lost.

 

[Philip_B]

#Moderators

Could we get this conversation back on topic

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why be clear about billions of years?

Well... assuming that god exists and this message is THE message from him to mankind, then I'ld think that mere accuracy is its own reward here................

I mean, if it is THAT important that it is believed, at least make it believable and don't say things that are demonstrably incorrect.

Or the better question, what makes you think there were billoins of years involved?

The facts of reality. They always win over mere words.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

History is always a matter of faith.

Really? Do you require "faith" to accept that someone walked here?

I certainly don't.

It's dumb for Science to suggest
that any theory provides anything
more Science Fiction.

Really? So germs being the cause of desease (= germ theory), is just science fiction?
Germs are harmless? They can't make you sick? Or germs don't even really exist?

The Science Fiction formula is take
what we see, then propose "what-if".

But in science (not "fiction") it is actually: gather data, construct explanatory model and then test that model, tear it inside out and see if it holds up.
If it holds up, it gets promoted from "hypothesis" to "theory.

You should learn about science, before making silly comments about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unless you feel it is complete and perfect, then it must be fiction.

$

Ow, so either something is "completely accurate and perfect" OR it is "complete fiction"?

ps: nukes explode, so cearly, atomic theory is rather accurate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atomic theory has been shown to be wrong... and an invented Science-fiction.
Got better?

And yet nukes explode, nuclear power plants provide electricity, and nuclear powered submarines get from A to B.

Not bad for a theory that is apparantly "science fiction".