Summations Only

I'm afraid I still do not understand your point.

This is the best I could do Faith.
There is a story similar to Abraham/Isaac.
It is in Judges and perhaps we're familiar, if not I'll recap.
Judges 11:29--The spirit of the Lord enters Jephthah. One would think that would be a good thing but alas, many times it isn't.
-If god helps kill the Ammonites, Jephthah will perform a human sacrifice on whoever comes out first from his house. ( Kind of a nice thought)
-Well god comes through on his end and a "very great slaughter" occurs. Thanks god.
-Who comes out of Jephthah's house. His bouncing daughter.
- After the daughter spends a couple months wailing about her virginity. Jephthah offers her as a burnt offering to the lord as promised, keeping his end of the bargainSo we have some similarity in that a human sacrifice is to be performed on behalf of god. God has in his power to stop it, substitute a lamb or (as I now learn by some fantastical bible rewriting by Faith) resurrect the daughter.
But the daughter is killed. No lamb is substituted. No resurrection occurs. Oops.So when phat says "could you even surmise that God had no intention of rescuing Isaac"?Well, indeed, after reading the whole bible. Seeing god murder all over the place, for no reason given, for immoral reasons, for absurd reasons... then have an example of actual human sacrifice...the answer is it is surprising that Isaac doesn't get his neck slit by his father and never to be heard from again.So the short answer to your post is apologists made up every single
word of your post. There is no bible support for it. It's classic quote mining. There is no reason that any person reading the bible could come to that conclusion. There is no rational way to come the conclusion you summarized. Thus there is no rational answer that can be provided except apologists make up shit, the poor followers believe it.

There is absolutely no similarity between Abraham's offering of Isaac and the tragic mistake a man made in making a rash promise.abe: I didn't consult a single "apologist" in writing that post, by the way, it was all from my own reading of Genesis 22 and a couple of other related scriptures, which an HONEST person would have to agree demonstrate an uncanny series of "coincidences" that do indeed show that an overarching intelligence is at work arranging the events described. . Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Explain why they are different.
Why did god save one child and not the other child? Remember this is not a rash decision at all "the spirit of the Lord entered him".
The same act was done ( human sacrifice) , why is god not acting consistently?Edited by Golffly, : No reason given.

God CALLED Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Jepthah simply made a rash vow to God that he then felt obligated to perform. There is no similarity at all. Also, I read the passage and it is clear Jepthah had an animal in mind, not a person, which would of course be against God's condemnation of human sacrifice. At least one commentator says that since it would be such a violation it was wrong of Jepthah to sacrifice his daughter if he did so, and some think he didn't. In any case the idea is that applying the vow to his daughter was overzealousness and he was not obligated to perform it since it would have been a terrible sin to do so.Also, the upshot of God's stopping the sacrifice of Isaac included the lesson that there is only one human sacrifice that God would ever allow and that is the sacrifice of Jesus to pay for our sins. Human sacrifice was performed in the nations around Abraham at the time so this would be a condemnation of those practices.By the way I realized there is another part of the story that is emblematic or prophetic and that is the fact that a threshingfloor was on Mt. Moriah when David bought it from the Jebusite. A threshingfloor is often a symbol in scripture of God's separating the HUMAN wheat from the chaff in the final harvest, which looks forward to the second coming of Christ.

God "felt obligated to perform". This is god here Faith, not the neighbor hood bratty child. God's not obligated to allow a child to be sacrificed, on his behalf.
And come on, it's clearly human sacrifice intended. Stop the habitual lying for god stuff. It makes you look disingenuously stupid.

Please, please Faith. You make shit up. Come on, this is absurdity you spew.
When Jephthah had the spirit of the Lord enter. He realized maybe his wife or daughter would likely walk out of the house. Hence he would sacrifice one of them. But he thought god would resurrect the human sacrifice victim. This is a prophesy of the daughter of Jairus resurrection in Luke, Matthew, Mark.
See anybody can make shit up as prophecy or symbolism.

You are so full of yourself that you believe that if people just "THINK", they will see that you were right all along. How well does that tactic work for you when you aren't on the internet?We've considered your remarks and found them wanting. In some cases we've provided our reasons for so doing, and you've summarily dismissed them. Instructions to think aren't going to advance your argument.

O hivvenstobitsy far be it from me to expect anyone here to think, that's why I appealed to some who haven't responded. No you didn't really consider the evidence-- well, you personally at least took a little time before you responded so irrelevantly and without any discussion whatever -- but everybody else tossed off their "answer" within moments, not bothering to try to show how they arrived at their conclusion or any such logical thing, obviously having taken no time to think about the post.Gosh I don't know how that tactic would work on or off the internet since I haven't tried it in either place.

When something is actually IN the text, how can you accuse me of "making it up?"Sorry, you are WAY off base in ALL this stuff you've been saying.

It is your silly idea that the Abe story is a prophecy of Jesus that YOU are making up. No one denies the words are actually there but to go from acknowledging the existence of the words to thinking they refer to Jesus is just ludicrous.What you are doing simply shows that once again you have no clue what prophecy means and no ability to actually read what is written without adding your own peculiar spin.What you are doing is prophesying after the fact. You, like all apologists, are just making shit up to support your position.Don't worry, marketing folk have always done that.

That is your opinion, which you have also struggled to communicate in a rational manner. Suffice to say, I have read the bible a number of times. I read it without somebody telling me what it said. That is bias. I can read English well enough and have ample familiarity with the bible.Faith something " in the text", refers to something a reasonable person would rightly see. It doesn't require anything more than that. It's reading what has been written, generally in plain English. I don't say sometimes there isn't meaning other than what it appears to say. But not every time. Not most times. Not times that are convenient for you, but invisible to others except those in your religious group. Further, there is argument within that group, about the invisible stuff, other completely logical people can't see."It is partly cloudy out today". Everybody reads that similarly.
It doesn't mean to say that in two thousand years there will be a partly cloudy day as well and thus it's a prophecy.
It doesn't mean the two clouds visible are seven clouds because two is part of seven, or two equal seven or maybe two thousand years ago two was seven or visa versa depending on who wants to read what, from some religious group.It's partly cloudy out.. is just what it is. What its says, can be read as it's printed.
Reading what you like into biblical statements, isn't going to convince anyone they can't THINK like you can. Rather I will submit, it very much likely will convince them, the last thing they want to do is think like you.Edited by Golffly, : No reason given.

How are you missing how obvious it is to everyone that you are just making it up as you go along? We're watching you go through the same process in real time that all apologists go through as they make up explanations in an effort to resolve error.--Percy

i don't think faith is making it up, no. it's a pretty common reading, and i've definitely heard it in other places. actually... there's an interesting consequence of the documentary hypothesis. if you happen to go about identifying the sources in genesis, the melek-yahweh (angel of the lord) business is a redaction. abraham returns to his servants (singularly!) with no mention of his son isaac, and isaac never again appears in the E source. the next thing mentioned in E is abraham having another child. prior to the redaction, it sure seems like abraham actually killed isaac.but i suspect E is a variant of a slightly older story. yahweh making irrational, unfair demands of his patriarchs is a theme in J, and so i suspect this story initially came from J. only here abraham was likely to do as he did for lot, and argue with god. i think part of the confusion is that christianity employs a number of typological reworkings of older stories in its mythology. and it does this is fairly obvious ways. for instance, jesus specifically mentions jonah; jonah is obviously not prophetical of jesus, but the parallel to at least one part of the story is somewhat clear.fundamentalist christians tend to eschew abstract symbolic comparisons in favor of literal simplicity, so you get a shift from typology to pseudo-prophecy. perhaps they lack a proper concept of it, perhaps it's just simpler and doesn't seem like they're taking the text non-literally.Edited by arachnophilia, : i accidentally a word

Oh sure, when a day is like a thousand years, why not?