Let's Read the Bible Once

It's "Him" and not "him".
No, because I was refering to Isaac not Jesus
It's not as if God could not have given Abraham yet another son if he had actually Andrea Yatesed Isaac.
What Abraham believed that if he had to kill Isaac that he would be able to resurrect his body.
Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
We know.
Jolly's point is that the text is clearly incorrect when using a plain reading. The fact that God confirms the destitution of the penniless bastard does not change the fact that the text clearly misunderstands "only" from our understanding. The word "only" is sooooo packed with subtext that I wouldn't understand the author to communicate the plain meaning of "day" either.

Well you are thinking very much like a westerner and not like how they would have thought about sonship. The first born son had all the rights and when Isaac was born he took on the rights as the first born son of legitimacy. Once Isaac was born Ishmael then basically became a nobody and wasn't included in any recognition of being the son of Abraham from a legal view. So when God called Isaac his only son, Abraham knew exactly what God meant by that.
 
I thought the Philistines didn't show up until the story of David & Goliath... :confused:

Surprise!

It's kind of interesting that when God promised Canaan to Abraham's line in the Covenant and named 9 other nearby lands that would be theirs, Gerar and the Philistines weren't listed.

They seem destined to be close-by neighbors forever. And we know what that means eventually ;)
 
One would prefer that the word "only" also showed up in Genesis 1? It is interesting that Muslims prefer that it was Ishmael that the story was about. Wiki:

Seems to me an important fact that God refered to Isaac as the "only" son. We would not want any ambiguity here? God was not as harsh with Ishmael as he was in the next generation. The Bible clearly pointed out that he hated Esau and loved Jacob.


Very interesting that they believe that! I think that Ishmael was the father of those who later became the Arabs, so having him be on the mountain as the only son would have some appeal.

I've also heard that they believe when John the Baptist (New Testament) said that, “After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” they think he referred to Muhammad and not Jesus.
 
I'm going to link my daily posts in the 1st post so people can click on them and focus on the readings if they want.

The thread rambles around a bit :beer:
 
Well you are thinking very much like a westerner and not like how they would have thought about sonship. The first born son had all the rights and when Isaac was born he took on the rights as the first born son of legitimacy. Once Isaac was born Ishmael then basically became a nobody and wasn't included in any recognition of being the son of Abraham from a legal view. So when God called Isaac his only son, Abraham knew exactly what God meant by that.

You're clearly right, actually. It's not like the compilers of Genesis misunderstood that Abraham had more than one kid in their story. The other kid just doesn't matter, even when God is talking about him (or not)
 
What Abraham believed that if he had to kill Isaac that he would be able to resurrect his body.
Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

So add Paul to the list of those pushing Isaac as Abraham's only son nonsense.
Well you are thinking very much like a westerner and not like how they would have thought about sonship. The first born son had all the rights and when Isaac was born he took on the rights as the first born son of legitimacy. Once Isaac was born Ishmael then basically became a nobody and wasn't included in any recognition of being the son of Abraham from a legal view. So when God called Isaac his only son, Abraham knew exactly what God meant by that.
But that would mean that everyone had an "only" son since all other sons did not matter, making the word "only" meaningless. Face it, Christians trying to make this some sort of God-Jesus parallel are stretching when they emphasize "only" as significant and then tell us every "son" was either "only son" or "not a son".

There still seemed to be an obligation to impregnate a brothers widow, though I do not see how one could have a brother, since one would be an only son and the other not a son. It seems that would sever any sort of siblingship and the so-called duties that go with it.
 
Is Jesus God's only begotten son the same way Isaac was?
To be fair, JollyRoger, Abraham abandoned his other son. It might be different when it's an abandonment.
 
Abandonment is apparently gateway activity to slaughtering.

And to be fair to me, CH and others are not emphasizing abandonment - they are emphasizing inheritance.
 
I thought the Philistines didn't show up until the story of David & Goliath... :confused:
Surprise!

It's kind of interesting that when God promised Canaan to Abraham's line in the Covenant and named 9 other nearby lands that would be theirs, Gerar and the Philistines weren't listed.

They seem destined to be close-by neighbors forever. And we know what that means eventually ;)

Philistines_pentapolis.jpg


Wikipedia said:
The Philistines were a people who as part of the Sea Peoples appeared in the southern coastal area of Canaan at the beginning of the Iron Age (circa 1175 BC), most probably from the Aegean region. According to the Bible, they ruled the five city-states (the "Philistine Pentapolis") of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath, from Wadi Gaza in the south to the Yarqon River in the north, but with no fixed border to the east. The Bible paints them as the Kingdom of Israel's most dangerous enemy. Originating somewhere in the Aegean, their population was around 25,000 in the 12th century BC, rising to a peak of 30,000 in the 11th century BC, of which the Aegean element was not more than half the total, and perhaps much less.

Nothing is known for certain about the original language or languages of the Philistines, however they were not part of the Semitic Canaanite population. There is some limited evidence in favour of the assumption that the Philistines were Indo-European-speakers either from Greece and/or Luwian speakers from the coast of Asia Minor. Philistine-related words found in the Bible are not Semitic, and can in some cases, with reservations, be traced back to Proto-Indo-European roots. By the beginning of the 1st Millennium BCE they had adopted the general Canaanite language of the region.

01_gn26_01.jpg
 
@El_Mach and JR. The Story of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael is a rather complex issue. This is what happens when God has a plan humans try to do it their way, things always go wrong and when we allow God to do it, things run so much more smoother.

@JR, I am more emphasising the promise.
Galatians 4:22-31 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
 
The Story of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael is a rather complex issue. This is what happens when God has a plan humans try to do it their way, things always go wrong and when we allow God to do it, things run so much more smoother.

smooth is not how I'd characterize near east history ;)

:(
 
@El_Mach and JR. The Story of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael is a rather complex issue. This is what happens when God has a plan humans try to do it their way, things always go wrong and when we allow God to do it, things run so much more smoother.

@JR, I am more emphasising the promise.
Galatians 4:22-31 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

So now Paul is conflicting himself on the number of sons Abraham had. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Day 7 - Genesis Chapter 31 to 35

Looks like Esau and Jacob again:

Spoiler :
Chapter 31 - Jacob overheard the words of Laban's sons, that he had taken away all that was their fathers for his own glory. (Guess almost all the animals born were spotted and paid to Jacob)

Laban didn't look at Jacob the way he used to before. (Angry now? haha)

In a dream, and angel of God told Jacob to return to the land he came from, and that God would be with him.

So Jacob met up with his 2 wives and told them of these things. And that he had served their father as best he could, even though Laban deceived Jacob and changed his pay numerous times.

Jacob also told them that God protected him from Laban, and that God had taken away Laban's cattle and given them to Jacob.
If Laban had paid Jacob in spotted cattle, all the newly born cattle would have been spotted.
If Laban had paid Jacob in ringstraked cattle, all the newly born cattle would have been ringstraked. (Ah, that explains it!)

So his wives told him that there was nothing left for them there, and that he should do as God told him and return home.

The next time Laban left to shear sheep, Jacob gathered up all that he owned, sons and wives and flocks and servants, and loaded them onto camels and left for Isaac his father's home.

He did not tell Laban he was leaving either :D
Rachel stole her father's images before they left. (Not sure what images are. Pictures?)


3 days later Laban found out that Jacob had left. He gathered up his brethren and pursued them and caught up to them 7 days later at Mt. Gilead. :sad:

That night, God warned Laban not to speak to Jacob either good or bad. (Huh?)

Laban confronted Jacob and demanded to know what he was doing.

Why he left without saying anything and took his daughters away like prisoners.

Jacob replied that he was afraid that Laban would take his daughters from Jacob by force.

Then Laban accused Jacob of stealing his gods. (what?)

Jacob replied that whoever was found to have stolen them, let them be killed. And that if his people found them, they would be returned to Laban.

Jacob didn't know that Rachel had stolen them. :eek: (Images are gods? maybe small statues of them)

Laban searched all through Jacob's camp, and before he arrived in Rachel's tent, she hid them in some camel's furniture and sat on them.

She told her father to not be angry that she couldn't rise to greet him, for she was having her period. :lol: :goodjob:

He didn't find the images.

Jacob was extremely angry and asked Laban what his trespass was, what sin he committed that he was pursued so hotly.

He told him he had served him faithfully for 20 years. Nothing in his camp belonged to Laban that was not promised to Jacob.

That if not for the fear of God and of Isaac, Laban would have long ago sent out Jacob with nothing at all.

Laban answered that everything in the camp that day was his, but in the face of his daughters and their children, what could he do.

So they both piled up a heap of stones which Jacob named Galeed, and forged an agreement.

Laban said that if Jacob mistreated his daughters, or took another wife beside his daughters, that God would know even if no one else witnessed it.

Laban also swore to never cross the rock to harm Jacob, and Jacob to never cross the rock to harm Laban.

Then there was a feast, and the next morning Laban hugged, kissed, and blessed his daughters and the children and then went home.


Chapter 32 - The angels of God met Jacob on his way home. He named the place Mahanaim.

He sent messengers ahead to his brother Esua into the lad of Seir in the country of Edom.

He commanded them to tell his brother that his servant Jacob was done staying with Laban and that he would like to see him again.

They returned and said that Esau wished to see him also and was coming with 400 men. :eek:

 
So now Paul is conflicting himself on the number of sons Abraham had. Thanks for pointing that out.
All you seem to hear is only an think it is referring to singleness. I have already explained the situation and you refuse to listen, so there is no point discussing this further.

@Farm Boy, when God said Esau I have hated and Jacob I have loved, that was in the prophets thus talking about the situation long after they had died and done their deeds, not before they had done anything.
 
All you seem to hear is only an think it is referring to singleness. I have already explained the situation and you refuse to listen, so there is no point discussing this further.

@Timtofly, when God said Esau I have hated and Jacob I have loved, that was in the prophets thus talking about the situation long after they had died and done their deeds, not before they had done anything.

FTFY

JR is only pointing out inconsitancy in the text, there is nothing else to comment on. Finding an explanation seems to not matter. He does not have the power to overrule or sustain your objections.
 
Indeed. Who cares about the text?

It's the rationalizations, pardon, the explanations of the inconsistencies that matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom