John Smithson wrote:
>And why do you present this last idea? If you are going
>to answer with more supposition, take a pass.
>I am not interested in suppositional considerations.
I say this because we know the passages that Abraham had a covenant with
God. Surely I do not have to give you the passages on this point. We also
know from the text that Abraham loved his wife Sarah and wanted no other
women. So Abraham was in league with God (in covenant with God), and the
result was that they stopped men from sleeping with Abraham's wife.
Sorry, David. What we "know" is the intellectual process used to arrive at your conclusion.
David Miller wrote: ... the text tells us that Abraham in league with God
>> was able to stop men from sleeping with his wife.
There is nothing, as in "not a word" in the biblical text that tells us that Abraham stopped Abimelech from sleeping with his wife -- not a word, David. The problem with your argument is that it is addressed to people who can actually read. The suppositional argument you use is just that, David. I hope you see the bias on your part that drives you to assert soemthing in the "text" that is clearly not there. In the above, you exclaim " Surely I do not have to give you the passages on this point." What you have to give are the very words that say Abraham stopped Abimelech.
David says: I haven't changed anything about what I said.� I caution you about surmising
evil motives on the part of Abraham that are not established by the text.
Making false charges against a man who is in covenant with God is dangerous.
John replies: we are all in covenant with God and all are self-serving to one degree or another. Surmising? Since when is the quoting of scripture (Gen 20:11 in this case) surmising?
David continues "No, my argument is that there are so many opposite ideas to yours that are not contradicted by Scripture that you ought to have pause when accusing
Abraham of being WILLING for men to sleep with this wife.� Being willing to
share your wife and being willing to tell men that your wife is your sister
are two different things."
John responds: Many ???? You have offered one contrary notion based upon supposition and your personal brand of logic. What other choices are there? Many??
four or five opposing ideas would be good. I do not mind considering other ideas. I would be interested to hear of these ideas.
David says: "In context, I was illustrating to you how an opposite philosophical position
was not contradicted by the text."
John responds: David, if the philosophical position is in line with the biblical text, we really don' t need any lessons taught to us by your phiosophical positioning, do we. In closing, I want to quote for the forum, the words of the text that seem to be in dispute:
"The God said to him [Abimelech] ......, Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you froim sinning against Me, therefore I did not let you touch her, now, therefore, restore the man's wife for he is a prohet and he will pray and you will live ............. " (Gen 20:6,7)
God and God alone caused Abimelech to not sin. Abraham indeed was in partnership with God, as we all are. And in this particular circumstance, Abraham was given the assignment of praying for the continued life of Abimelech -- "and Abraham prayed to God and God healed Abimelech and his wife, and his maids, so that they bore children, for the Lord had closed fast all the wombs of the household of abimelechbecause of Sarah, Abraham's wife" (20:17,18).
Case closed.
John
