Summations Only

I'm afraid all you've succeeded in doing is making me aware that this subject can't be discussed with people who have such utterly different assumptions. You have to at least take your example from the Biblical text if you want to accuse me of making a false correspondence between Biblical texts.And there are many false religions that play on the prophecy from Eden and have their "god" die and resurrect, this is just another of them, but it lacks the essentials to connect it with Christ, since there's nothing about sin in the story, no sacrifice for sin etc. Not at all similar in the points that matter between the sacrifice of Isaac and Christ's death to atone for our sins.I reject your revisionist re-dating of the Biblical events. The Flood was about 2300 BC, Abraham about 1900 BC, Moses about 1500 BC, David about 1000 BC etc.There is really nothing more to say.I hope someone comes along who will read the post simply and correctly, since it's really all there in the facts described, but if not then that's the end of my attempts to try to prove inerrancy. Can't be done when people have diehard assumptions that rule it out at the getgo.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I appreciate that you gathered yourself together to make another attempt at this. Kudos.

False. Abraham lived around 1900 BC. No, I'm saying that God arranged both events and arranged the Abraham story to provide a type or prophecy of the sacrifice of Christ. But of course if you won't even take what is written in the Bible as any kind of authority whatever, even that it simply was written as it was written, we have no grounds for having any kind of discussion at all.The idea that the Abraham story contains prophetic elements that point to the sacrifice of Christ is simply in the events of the story as I described them in my post. It's all there, nothing else is required, that's the evidence, and it is good evidence for the claim that God oversaw -- planned, arranged -- the entire history that the Bible covers. The evidence is all there, nothing else is required.

Thank you very much. I prayed a lot. If I keep praying I may avoid having meltdowns. And by the way, I apologize for that.Must keep praying, only God can keep me from coming unglued under pressure. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That earlier use of the term "sons of God" refers to angels. The only begotten Son of God is unique.

quote:

---

First, please recall that I demoted that part of the story to the second list because it isn't as clear as those in the first list

---

But the problem isn't that it wasn't clear. The problem is that it isn't evidence of inspiration. You've had plenty of opportunity to argue otherwise and evaded the question twice. When I shouldn't even have had to ask.

quote:

---

The correspondence of widely separated events is what I'm arguing is the evidence of inspiration.

---

Actually this is a good example of confirmation bias at work. You start by arguing that Isaac corresponds to Jesus. But at the crucial moment the story diverges quite drastically - the son is not sacrificed and a substitute, of lesser value is, introduced. You ignore this and start saying that the substitute is now Jesus.I really can't see why anyone would take such weak and imperfect correspondences as evidence of inspiration. The strongest correspondence is the sacrifice of the beloved son, but as I point out above that is interrupted in a way that breaks the correspondence.The rest are mostly negligible to the point where I have to consider it more of an argument against inspiration. The use of hopelessly weak points always looks to me like an act of desperation, an implicit admission that the stronger points aren't sufficient - but that there is nothing more. Padding your case with points that only detract from it is unwise at best.

Books cannot prove themselves. The evidence we have says the Bible is a book like any other book, written by men with the types of attendant errors made by men.We also know that there is a very common type of person who insists that their religious texts contain no errors and that their religious beliefs are the only ones in the world that are completely correct. Logic demands that they can't all be right, and evidence from the real world tells us they are all wrong.--Percy

But the only party in this discussion who isn't taking the Bible "written as it was written" is you. Whenever the Bible's clear meaning is wrong or contradictory, you insist that it is saying something different than what was "written as it was written." Let's compare two possibilities:

• There's an impossible God for whom there is no evidence who orchestrated impossible events for which there is also no evidence.
  ​
• The Bible is just stories written by men that reflect awareness of older stories, something men do all the time.

--Percy

I will attempt another explanation.
The unknown writer of John is the only one that says this " lamb of god" thing. He also has Jesus killed on the day of Preparation of the lamb that is slaughtered. This day is one day earlier than other gospels.
Why the discrepancy?From Exodus: Okay, the Passover lamb represents the lamb whose blood was used to mark the Israelite homes. This was to distinguish Israelite homes from Egyptian homes, when god really got mad and decided to kill the innocent first born Egyptian children ( and the animals interestingly enough). Using blood from a slaughtered lamb on Israelite homes as a marker, so they could be distinguished from Egyptian homes, so god can kill the correct innocent kids. (Forget about why an all knowing god can't tell the difference without the blood markers). Okay death comes and " passes over" the blood marked homes of the Israelites but killed the intended Egyptian kids. The Jews celebrate this feat in Jerusalem in Passover. And Jerusalem is the most holy place for this traditional slaughter of the lamb. The lamb is slaughtered by a special Jewish priest.Okay back to whoever is writing John. John has Jesus killed the same day as the celebratory lamb is killed in Jerusalem for the start of Passover. This is one day before and a bible discrepancy on Jesus' death.
- John is the only one saying Jesus is the lamb of god
- John has Jesus killed a day earlier on the day of the lambs slaughter
- To John, Jesus is the lamb and he makes his death coincide with the same day the lamb is traditionally slaughtered in Jerusalem
-So John is making Jesus die the same day the lamb is slaughtered for Jewish celebration. In the same place where the celebration occurs- Jerusalem. At the hands of the same people (special Jews slaughter the lamb for Passover) so by Jewish leaders.
- John is making Jesus follow slaughter of the Passover lamb tradition.So the " lamb of god" thing was made to fit by John. This is just an example of how a bible writer, after the fact, can easily present a similarity. It's not foreshadowing in Exodus. It's writing with after the fact knowledge of reading the OT and making a new story fit. Perhaps you get your own " inspiration" for this type of sneaky, hood winking from the bible.Edited by Golffly, : No reason given.

If angels are sons of God, and if Galatians says we are all sons of God through faith, then Jesus cannot be God's only son. Of course, Isaac wasn't Abraham's only son either, so maybe it's a better fit if neither God nor Abraham had only one son.You may now descend into a Talmudic dissection of the Greek word monogenes (μονογενὴς) and its use and interpretation in various contexts. If you insist on begotten as part of it's meaning then since anyone begotten must have a beginning Jesus can't be eternal.--Percy

There are lots of sons of god. I think arach mentioned this already.
One can weave a tale out of the sons to get them to fit a lot of things depending on a person's "need".-Christians are all sons of god. John1;12
- satan is god's son. Job 1:6, 2;1
-Adam was. Luke 3:38
-Some angels screw women producing giants. They are son's as well Gen 6:2-4So god is pretty liberal about the sons.

So now if I look at Faith's argument.
We have Isaac who is god's only son
Jesus is god's only begotten son. 1John 4:9
I take " only" as meaning one. One person. Here we have two. Unless we use the argument that one is part of two like the 2/7 thing.
Also, we have a long list of other "sons" of god.- Jesus apparently has no human father.
-Isaac has a human father and presumably god did helped Abe accomplish the task to impregnate his sister.
- angels impregnate women to produce giants with no human father.So the no human father is similar to both giants and JesusIf we are going to look for similarities from an old book, where the writers of a new book have read the old book and use it.... It's not surprising to have some similarities. The interesting part for me was the similarity between Jesus and Giants.
So it's possible to argue giants are a prophecy of Jesus?Edited by Golffly, : No reason given.Edited by Golffly, : Edit: Re; Faith

I think the phrase "to meet me" makes it clear that he did expect a human being. You don't expect the cows to come and meet you. You expect your wife and children.And your interpretation trivializes the whole story. It's the equiivalent of Jephthah saying to God, "Hey, if you help me out I'll give you a nickel." His intent was clearly to give a special offering, not just a run-of-the-mill animal offering that he would have given anyway.

You should at least try to get the facts right, and for anyone who would like to do just that I refer them back to Message 1593.For instance I did not call Isaac "God's only begotten son" ANYWHERE.

Jepthah could not possibly have promised the God of Israel a human sacrifice, since God condemns human sacrifice, unless he was completely out of his mind.