Wait, so I don't know the bible,
Notice the comma, this is not meant to be addressed as a part, but as a larger part of a sentence, hence how sentences work.
Also, I suppose you could argue that I don't know the entirety of the bible, but from our conversation so far, you could not conclude my knowledge on the other books justifiably.
It was not supposedly. You did not know.
Incorrect, as I showed later in my refutation, which you were wrong about.
The importance of the Abraham and Isaac story cannot be overstated. I don't wish to make this about what you don't know, but what am I to do when you don't know?
As compared to any of the new testament? No, it is not important, its a general claim that would have happened anyways. It is most likely true that man such as Abraham who is more than willing to reproduce with his slaves/servants (depends on the version), and slaves/servants who do so, would have many children. Or at the very least many descendants, its really not that important in the narrative of Jesus as god's son here to do so and so.
and yet you also didn't know it? So then wouldn't you also not know your bible?
I did know it. You apparently still don't know it.
#429 "This is what I mean when I say you do not know the bible. God's promises were specifically to Isaac. In fact, Sarah thought God was taking too long and got her maid to have a baby with Abraham. God rejected that baby as the conduit for His promised and insisted it would be Isaac only to whom the promises came through. I did not know this."
God's promise was not just that the child would have many offspring, but that the promised Messiah would come through that line.
Genesis 21:12, the verse directly before, God says Abraham should allow Sarah to sack Ishmael, because "In Isaac shall thy seed be called". It is difficult to debate a person who doesn't know what he's talking about, especially if he views it as an insult when he is shown not to know what he's talking about.
None of the verses in the chapter, nor does the actual verse itself imply anything about a messiah being born through Isaac's line:
Genesis 21:11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring[
b] will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”
...but he also promised that to his slave son, and then they went and become the literal enemies, kinda.
Ishmael did not have the same promise. You are totally unaware of the covenant and what it means. You think the promise was only about having a lot of children.
They will both have nations risen in there name, that's all you can get without making assumptions.
OK. I don't think you can reasonably get that conclusion from THIS story, but even if you are correct, (and you aren't) that doesn't show that God Himself would ask for human sacrifice, it only would show that a few thought He would. The historical fact is that Israel was unique at the time among nations of that region in that it did not practise human sacrifice, and had written law that prohibited it.
That is not the conclusion you get, as in not the main idea, but it is a conclusion you can get. I will agree that certain portions of the bible (specifically the Molech part) prohibited offering your children to Molech specifically. Also, if I am right, which I am, then Abraham, the guy literally leading it believes that. I'd say thats pretty important. Not to mention, as I said last time, this is only a side point to God's commanding to kill people, there are the way more blatant examples
Genesis 19:
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
So because god thought them bad they just were? That's pretty lose for a genocide, and is even looser for some of the god of the old testament, not to mention the salt thing.
The Abraham story is vital to God's plan of salvation. I do not believe you are less honest or less intelligent because you didn't know. But the fact that you don't know makes you interpret the story incorrectly. Taking verses out of context always results in error.
(Referring to the verses too)
First of all this isn't decreed from god as far as my understanding leads, but a work of Paul and his writings, second the only thing they speak of is being god's children or not, yet later god claims all people who accept him are his children. I find these verses propagating contradictions
We have reached agreement on that one point! Which means that in THIS case, God was not telling someone to go kill another, He was telling someone to offer someone.
I agree that Abraham thought Isaac might die, but knew that God could/would remedy that situation because of what he said to others at the time and what God had promised through Isaac. But God Himself never wanted the death of Isaac. Thus God was not asking for a human sacrifice.
Indeed we have, but that was not my point here, my point is that its not out of the realm of believability for god to ask such a thing.
