Abraham/Isaac sacrifice - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

PaloAltoCougar · 02-13-2008, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

The Abraham/Isaac sacrifice is one of the most damaging and stupid stories in all scripture, IMO.

Job also ranks right up there.

Fascinating. Really. I love the story of Job. Not so much the end, which seems to have been the work of Hollywood screenwriters trying to come up with an ending that will send the crowd home satisfied. But the first 90% contains, for me at least, some great and deeply profound truths.

JohnnyLingo · 02-13-2008, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelagius

The idea the Isaac was raised from the dead is found is some rabbinic midrash. I assume he is drawing on those sources.

Most likely.

Here are some of his points:

1. In the first part of Genesis 22, the verbs used when Abraham and Isaac go up to the mountain, the plural forms are used. However, in verse 19, Abraham returns alone, and the verb used for "returned" is definitely singular. "Abraham (singular) returned (singular)."

2. In verse 19, Abraham lives in Beer-sheba. In the first part of Genesis 23, Sarah dies and Abraham has to journey to Kirjath-arba to bury her, which is 30 miles from Beer-sheba. Is is possible that Sarah knew what Abraham was going to do and gave him a "if you return without my son, don't come back at all," ultimatum?

3. In Hebrew, the word we get "to offer" from (if I remember right) is "obla." "Obla" is the same word as "to go up," as when burnt offerings are made, the entire offering is consumed and goes up to God. Essentially, the word "to offer" implies a lot more in Hebrew than it does in English. To us, there is no implication of giving. We can offer things and have them rejected or choose to take them back. To a Jew, "to offer" means to go all the way... give it to God, entirely.

3a. Every time an apostle (Paul) or prophet (Nephi) references Abraham and Isaac, they use the word "offer." In Gen 22:16 it reads:

And said, By myself have I sworn saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

One way to look at it is that God accepted Abraham's "offering" (English understanding) and Isaac was not sacrificed. But the Hebrew understanding of "offering" is a very final one.

That's essentially it. My teacher was very clear about how this isn't doctrine; there are two ways to interpret the scriptures, and either story has the same doctrine behind it. And frankly, it doesn't matter. It's just something interesting.

woot · 02-13-2008, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Fascinating. Really. I love the story of Job. Not so much the end, which seems to have been the work of Hollywood screenwriters trying to come up with an ending that will send the crowd home satisfied. But the first 90% contains, for me at least, some great and deeply profound truths.

The "pain is but an instant" and "trials lead to growth" aspects are fine, but the "God is a dick who likes to punish people for his own amusement" isn't quite as honorable. I'm pretty sure even the fundies consider Job to be a parable, though, so the former aspects are probably the point of the story. With that understood, Job doesn't really bother me.

Jeff Lebowski · 02-13-2008, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Fascinating. Really. I love the story of Job. Not so much the end, which seems to have been the work of Hollywood screenwriters trying to come up with an ending that will send the crowd home satisfied. But the first 90% contains, for me at least, some great and deeply profound truths.

God chatting with Satan and deciding to lay down a wager seems a bit odd to me.

ute4ever · 02-13-2008, 02:15 AM

I've read the accounts of Old Testament scholars who point out that chronologically speaking, Isaac would have been in his late 20's at the time of the sacrifice, which means Abraham would have been pushing 130. So that brings up a whole new point: that Isaac was willing to be sacrificed, for certainly he could have overpowered his old man.

SoonerCoug · 02-13-2008, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Fascinating. Really. I love the story of Job. Not so much the end, which seems to have been the work of Hollywood screenwriters trying to come up with an ending that will send the crowd home satisfied. But the first 90% contains, for me at least, some great and deeply profound truths.

Job might be an inspiring allegory to me if it wasn't about God torturing Job to win a bet with Satan. If God had lost the bet, it wouldn't be in our scriptures, and that makes me wish that God had lost the bet.

Jeff Lebowski · 02-13-2008, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Job might be an inspiring allegory to me if it wasn't about God torturing Job to win a bet with Satan. If God had lost the bet, it wouldn't be in our scriptures, and that makes me wish that God had lost the bet.

OK, that was funny.

pelagius · 02-13-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Most likely.

Here are some of his points:

1. In the first part of Genesis 22, the verbs used when Abraham and Isaac go up to the mountain, the plural forms are used. However, in verse 19, Abraham returns alone, and the verb used for "returned" is definitely singular. "Abraham (singular) returned (singular)."
.

Yes, he is drawing on jewish midrash of the story. These midrash usually expand on Genesis 22:19 in about the way you just describe (they attach great singificance to the fact the it only refers explicitly to Abraham returning and not Isaac). My understanding is that this was a very common view in the middle ages.

Taq Man · 02-13-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

God chatting with Satan and deciding to lay down a wager seems a bit odd to me.

God murdering all of Jobs family seems a bit out of character as well.

PaloAltoCougar · 02-13-2008, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

God chatting with Satan and deciding to lay down a wager seems a bit odd to me.

I find it more amusing than troubling, a mortal author's attempt at explaining why bad things happen to us. I don't regard it as doctrine, although it's useful when defending an occasional trip to the tables. I assume it goes without saying I do not believe in the literal truth of the book.

One of my favorite parts is when the friends/home teachers visit Job and take turns at trying to figure out why Job got on God's craplist.

02-13-2008, 02:15 AM	#15
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	I've read the accounts of Old Testament scholars who point out that chronologically speaking, Isaac would have been in his late 20's at the time of the sacrifice, which means Abraham would have been pushing 130. So that brings up a whole new point: that Isaac was willing to be sacrificed, for certainly he could have overpowered his old man.