> So you're going to say that those verses, alone, just by themselves, justify "we know right off that child sacrifice is not intended and God is not commanding murder"?

My point #1 was about the specific grammatical construction of v. 1, revealing it was no ordinary request about an ordinary procedure, viz., child sacrifice.

My point #2 came from v. 1 and the explicit mention that it was a test.

My point #3 came from v. 2 that God's request was unlike anything in the ancient world related to child sacrifice.

My point #4 came from v. 2 that what was being asked didn't have any of the common ritual elements of child sacrifice, so Abraham would not have understood God to have been commanding that.

My point #5 came from v. 2. God words were identifying Isaac as the child of the covenant, a child he has already promised would live to bear children. Abraham would not have understood his command to be about child sacrifice.

My point #6 is about the literary structure, so doesn't pertain to this claim of yours.

My point #7 came from v. 2 and its reference to the covenant.

My point #8 came from v. 2 and the meaning of Moriah.

So, yes, I stand on solid ground that God's initial communication would speak loudly to Abraham that this was not about child sacrifice and he was not being asked to murder his son.

> Even the author of the huuuuuge unattributed argument

I was the author of that huge argument, and I attributed every comment to its source. It's an important question, so I spent quite a bit of time digging into the research of, "Is God actually commanding murder by child sacrifice?" Commentators and scholars were quite convinced that He wasn't, and here is a list of their reasoning.

> Most, if not all, of my evidences come from vv. 1-2. Since those verses are God's initial contact with Abraham and his opening command, I feel I am justified in considering them "right off" the bat.

Okay, let's look at them:

Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
2 Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

There you go. God wanted to test Abraham, but what was his initial communication? "Hey Abraham, do this thing". Not "Abraham, I'm going to test you, do this thing." So you're going to say that those verses, alone, just by themselves, justify "we know right off that child sacrifice is not intended and God is not commanding murder"? That's insane. Even the author of the huuuuuge unattributed argument you pasted from elsewhere realized he had to go a little farther down the page before he could start making claims about abraham's mind-state.

> The sarcasm doesn't help us have a dialogue about this.

It's plain that we've plumbed the depths of your knowledge on this. You sit there and say "It was completely obvious to Abraham that he would not kill his son, and that there would be a substitution", and then you follow up with "Abraham knew he might have to kill his son, but that's okay, because he would be resurrected." You refuse to acknowledge that contradiction, because it's f***ing embarrassing, but there you go. So yeah, I used sarcasm - it helps me survive the frustration of talking to someone like you.

I think your argument is cartoonishly bad, but if nothing I've said so far can make you realize that, then nothing will.

> Nobody in this conversation is arguing about whether god knew he was testing abraham

You seem to have misread what I said or meant. God obviously knew he was testing Abraham—the text is explicit about that. What's not obvious is that Abraham didn't know he was being tested. I was giving evidence to show that Abraham may have been very well aware that he was being tested, invalidating your implication that Abraham was out of the loop on this information.

> BUT, "right off", the only thing that has been established is that God knew it was a test.

Most, if not all, of my evidences come from vv. 1-2. Since those verses are God's initial contact with Abraham and his opening command, I feel I am justified in considering them "right off" the bat.

> a great prophet named Jim

The sarcasm doesn't help us have a dialogue about this. I've done quite a bit of research, and I gave it to you. You seem upset that I have that much data to support a case in contradistinction to the superficial argument that so many advance. Oh well.

> The text does NOT say that it was a test known only to God.

Dude, c'mon. Nobody in this conversation is arguing about whether god knew he was testing abraham. The only thing we are discussing is what abraham knew. And so yeah, it's a complete waste of time, perhaps deceptively so, to quote verses which only discuss the former. That's all I said in the part you just quoted. Quoting verse 1, in particular, does not contribute to this debate. That's why that one specific quote is a red herring.

> See above. We know enough of what Abraham knew to refute your claim as false.

No, look, read carefully this time, because you completely missed the point—you can make your case however you want, but some of your argument does not apply to this debate. You wrote "so we know right off that child sacrifice is not intended". BUT, "right off", the only thing that has been established is that God knew it was a test. Maybe using later verses you can make the larger case, but you wrote "right off", as in "by verse 1". But, see above. Verse 1 does not discuss Abraham's knowledge, so it's not relevant.
Get it now?

> "This is a test, and God is not asking me to kill my son. But if I do kill him, God will resurrect him immediately so it won't have been a sacrifice at all."

"God's definitely not going to kill my son. After all, a great prophet named Jim will one day copy/paste the argument that I knew from the outset that I would not have to kill Isaac, but that a substitute would be provided."

"But f***, that great prophet Jim is confusing, because he also says that I knew maybe I could wind up killing him, and then God would resurrect him. So I don't know why he'd discuss that at all, if it's so f***ing obvious to me that a substitute will be provided."

But hey, I have faith. Maybe I will have to go through with it, but if so, the kid will be resurrected. And then, because I have more imagination than Jim, I also think that maybe if he's not resurrected, I'll find out that he knocked up a series of maidservants, so the covenant will be fulfilled through those descendants. And because he also argued that I'm aware of miraculous interventions re: pregnancy, even if Isaac never knocked up a maid, maybe he'll allow Isaac's seed to impregnate a virgin even after he dies, just like that guy Jesus I'm foreshadowing. So really, I guess what I'm saying is it's a waste of time to think about logical chains which prove that Isaac couldn't be killed, since I've already established that I'm aware that miracles can do anything, and that rule-breaking interventions are often used to fulfill prophecy."

> The text explicitly says God knew it was a test.

The text does NOT say that it was a test known only to God. It says, "Some time later God tested Abraham." You're drawing a conclusion not drawn by the text. As I have already explained, the nature of the "command" would have been clear to Abraham that this was not a child sacrifice situation, the name of Moriah would have been a clue that God had intention to provide, and the nature of the covenant would have assured Abraham that Isaac would not die that day or any day in the near future. My observation is not a red herring in the least, but based on the evidence explicit in the text.

> Right, but that has nothing to do with Abraham's knowledge. So your observation is a red herring.

See above. We know enough of what Abraham knew to refute your claim as false.

> See how easy it is to just make claims?

It is easy to make rash and unsubstantiated claims, and that's why I support mine with textual evidence.

> Are you claiming that the author of Hebrews had some secret and new knowledge about the internal mental state of Abraham during the time of the trial?

I absolutely am. Christians believe in the Holy Spirit, God who lives inside of us, who can inspire people with knowledge of the truth not attainable by normal means.

> So now you think he WAS intending to perform human sacrifice? C'mon, dude, leave me something to work with, don't do both sides of the debate all by yourself.

I'm not contradicting myself. Look at Daniel 3.16-18. *God can save us, and he will. But if he doesn't, we still won't serve you.* The same thing is going on here. "This is a test, and God is not asking me to kill my son. But if I do kill him, God will resurrect him immediately so it won't have been a sacrifice at all." He knew God wasn't commanding him to sacrifice his son.

> The text explicitly says it was a test

The text explicitly says God knew it was a test. So your observation is a red herring.

> so we know right off that child sacrifice is not intended and God is not commanding murder

Right, but that has nothing to do with Abraham's knowledge. So your observation is a red herring.

> The best explanation of the plural pronouns and verbs is that the author is highlighting Abraham's faith that Isaac was the child of the covenant

That's a naked claim. No, I say the best explanation is that Abraham was horrified at what he was about to do and didn't want to reveal it to his servants or son. See how easy it is to just make claims?

> Hebrews 11.17-19 also tell us that Abraham believed in resurrection

Are you claiming that the author of Hebrews had some secret and new knowledge about the internal mental state of Abraham during the time of the trial?

> then it was also possible in his mind that Isaac could come back from the dead.

So now you think he WAS intending to perform human sacrifice? C'mon, dude, leave me something to work with, don't do both sides of the debate all by yourself. You just finished arguing that it was obvious to Abraham that a substitution would be provided.

You sound like the guy who argues in court that he shouldn't be liable for damage to his neighbor's teapot that he borrowed, because the teapot was undamaged at the time he returned it, and it was already damaged at the time he borrowed it. Sure, those claims are contradictory, but if a jury accepts either claim, then the guy successfully defends himself against the lawsuit.

> The purpose of the test was so that Abraham could grow in his faith and see that he had a firm trust in God's plan.

So God made Abraham agree to sacrifice Isaac, so that Abraham could realize how much he already trusted God's plans for Isaac's future? By not trusting what God actually immediately said?

> This is so sloppy...you pretend there are no other explanations

Of course there are other explanations. Was he concealing his purposes to his servants? Did he secretly plan to disobey? But that's where we have to let Scripture interpret Scripture instead of us making up interpretations. The text explicitly says it was a test (v. 1), so we know right off that child sacrifice is not intended and God is not commanding murder. The best explanation of the plural pronouns and verbs is that the author is highlighting Abraham's faith that Isaac was the child of the covenant and he would live to have children of his own (Gen. 21.12). Abraham believed that the covenant was not going to be nullified by the untimely death of Isaac. Hebrews 11.17-19 also tell us that Abraham believed in resurrection. Since his son was miraculously born to a barren wife, then it was also possible in his mind that Isaac could come back from the dead.

> And this enormous amount of text that you copy-pasted in here

I copied and pasted for three reasons: (1) I've done a tremendous amount of study in this text, so why should I type it all out again? (2) I've answered this question many times, so why should I type it all out again? (3) If I give a partial answer, readers don't feel the weight of the evidence against the "God is immoral" misconclusion.

> Why did God ask for Isaac in the first place? What was the purpose of the deception?

Isaac was the child of promise, the miraculously-born son of the covenant. Abraham had other children, but this is the child through whom Abraham's line of a promised people would be born. The purpose of the test was so that Abraham could grow in his faith and see that he had a firm trust in God's plan.

The book of Genesis is about the covenant, and page after page is filled with obstacles to that covenant, threats to it, and outright ruinous events that would bring it crashing to an irreversible halt. There are wars, famines, competitors, etc. that all create obstacles to God carrying through with his promises. But this time the purpose is not to teach us God can overcome obstacles. Genesis 22.12 tells us the purpose: it is a test of his relationship with YHWH, and whether his trust is really in God and not simply in what God has promised.

> In refutation is that Abraham expected the child to return with him (Gn. 22.5)

This is so sloppy. Either Abraham expected the child to return with him, or he didn't want to tell his servants what he planned, or he didn't want to tell Isaac who was standing right beside him. Many possible explanations, all but one of which contradict your theory—but you pretend there are no other explanations.

And this enormous amount of text that you copy-pasted in here fails to explain the most obvious hole in your argument—Why did God ask for Isaac in the first place? What was the purpose of the deception?

Ah, but it is a 3rd option. God doesn't command them because they are good commands. That creates a situation where there is a good standard somewhere to which God conforms. My contention is that the standard is God himself, not something separate from him. Here are the choices:

1. It becomes good because God commands it.
2. There is a separate standard of good to which God must or chooses to conform.
3. God himself (his nature) is the standard of good.

The latter fork must be rejected as well, in the Christian worldview. Instead, goodness is one of God's immutable attributes. Pertaining to the original post, then, God is not commanding Abraham to murder his own son. Such a command would be contrary to his nature.

1. Murder doesn't become good because God commands it. God doesn't command murder because it is against his nature.
2. God doesn't look to a law somewhere that says "Murder is wrong" for guidance on how he should act.
3. Since God is good, commanding murder is impossible. It would be self-contradictory.

> The Eurypthro dilemma is between "acts are good or bad because of the commands of God" and "God's makes these commands because they are good commands".

You've picked the latter fork, not some third option.