God is Responsive to Human Choices

[The Archangel]

I had no idea until I looked up the verse and the contextual passage in Genesis. I expect you believe I do as you do, by interpreting scripture through your preconceived notions based on Calvinism. Sir, your apparent projection is false. I study God's word, in order to arrive at my understanding of the text.

You've demonstrated this to be false twice already in the last few hours.

The Archangel

 

[Silverhair]

Not all of them.



Again, the issue isn't so much the translation of "led." "Took" can't mean "led" in this passage, no matter how much Van wants it to. The issue with "led" is the Hiphil stem. That adds meaning that a simple translation doesn't convey. So, as an example, you can lead your dog on a walk with our without a leash. Without the leash you tend to follow the dog; with the leash the dog follows you. The Hiphil tends to be more the "leash" understanding.



Being correct is not an issue of arrogance. It is not arrogant to know things; it is not arrogant to be right. If you can't work in this medium (as you've admitted you can't) then accusing me of being arrogant because of your own shortcomings is rather small on your part.

The Archangel

Now you are just trying to deflect. I am not disagreeing with you because of what I know but what various bible scholars and those that have published Jewish bibles know.

Do you not find it strange that none of them agree with you?

Your comments do show self pride.

 

[Van]

You've demonstrated this to be false twice already in the last few hours.

The Archangel

Talk about an empty charge. You have demonstrated you make false claims then change the subject.

The Hebrew word translated "took" in Joshua 24:3 has the meaning of "led" which is substantiated by at least one published lexicon. You claim otherwise.

You claim something in the Hebrew grammar precluded "led" being a viable translation choice. However, a published lexicon attributed that meaning (led) to the Hebrew word in that verse.

 

[The Archangel]

Talk about an empty charge. You have demonstrated you make false claims then change the subject.

Ah yes... The inevitable ad hominem.

The Hebrew word translated "took" in Joshua 24:3 has the meaning of "led" which is substantiated by at least one published lexicon. You claim otherwise.

The inevitable repeating of the error.

You claim something in the Hebrew grammar precluded "led" being a viable translation choice. However, a published lexicon attributed that meaning (led) to the Hebrew word in that verse.

The doubling-down on the error while focusing on "me," not the text itself.

You are so sadly predictable.

The published lexicon you're using is Strongs. There is a saying... "Strongs isn't so strong." You should get a big-boy lexicon. But if you really want actual understanding, you'll need to learn the language. You cannot simply use a parsing tool and a lexicon. So much syntax is missed, as you demonstrate time and time again.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Now you are just trying to deflect. I am not disagreeing with you because of what I know but what various bible scholars and those that have published Jewish bibles know.

I'm not deflecting in the least. You simply have no way to evaluate these "scholars" to know whether they are in-line with the language and grammar itself. The only thing you can do is receive information second-hand. So, your "faith," so to speak, is simply blind. You happen to like what they say, so you agree with them.

Do you not find it strange that none of them agree with you?

That's not at all true. There are plenty of scholars who do, you just have a rather small and narrow sample size.

Your comments do show self pride.

Ad hominem. Of course, that's what you would have to resort to since you cannot discuss the idea as a first-hander. All you're left with is attacking the person, rather than discussing the idea.

The Archangel

 

[canadyjd]

The sad thing is that you actually believe what you are saying. You have fallen for the Calvinist philosophy hook line and sinker. The reality is that you are holding to a pagan philosophy and touting it as biblical.

You can try to runaway from the history of calvinism but the truth is the truth. The truth is that very little of what you say is true.

I have never studied “Calvinism”

I have fallen for the Truth found in God’s Word. It is very clearly stated if you will only accept God’s word without a secular man made worldview blinding you to the truth.

John 19: “My sheep hear My voice and follow Me” This is a specific call to specific people that already belong to Jesus BEFORE He calls them, not a general call to all the sheep hoping some will hear and make the right choice.

John 10: “You do not believe BECAUSE you are not of My sheep”. Jesus DOES NOT say they are not His sheep because they do not believe.

As for the argument Jesus was only referring to Jews…

John 10: “I have other sheep not of this fold: they hear My voice and follow Me”

Jesus is referring to Gentiles.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

I'm not deflecting in the least. You simply have no way to evaluate these "scholars" to know whether they are in-line with the language and grammar itself. The only thing you can do is receive information second-hand. So, your "faith," so to speak, is simply blind. You happen to like what they say, so you agree with them.

True I do have to trust all those scholars that do not agree with you but am I not to trust various these scholars? Or perhaps I should just trust you because you say you are right and you must know more than them. Where have you published a peer-reviewed articles on this subject? If you are going to claim that you are a expert you need to back it up. Other than that it is just you patting your own back.

That's not at all true. There are plenty of scholars who do, you just have a rather small and narrow sample size.

You keep talking a good game but it seems to be all talk. Where are these scholars that support your view. What have they written on this subject?

Ad hominem

. Of course, that's what you would have to resort to since you cannot discuss the idea as a first-hander. All you're left with is attacking the person, rather than discussing the idea.

The Archangel

I have discussed the subject and provided various scholars that disagree with your singular view. If this is the best you as a "first-hander" can muster for a response then I can see why you resort to deflection.

Why should I or anyone else trust what you are say?

 

[Silverhair]

I have never studied “Calvinism”

I have fallen for the Truth found in God’s Word. It is very clearly stated if you will only accept God’s word without a secular man made worldview blinding you to the truth.

John 19: “My sheep hear My voice and follow Me” This is a specific call to specific people that already belong to Jesus BEFORE He calls them, not a general call to all the sheep hoping some will hear and make the right choice.

John 10: “You do not believe BECAUSE you are not of My sheep”. Jesus DOES NOT say they are not His sheep because they do not believe.

As for the argument Jesus was only referring to Jews…

John 10: “I have other sheep not of this fold: they hear My voice and follow Me”

Jesus is referring to Gentiles.

peace to you

And there in lays the problem @canadyjd, you do not even know what the foundation of your philosophical position is. Here is a hint "paganism".

 

[canadyjd]

And there in lays the problem @canadyjd, you do not even know what the foundation of your philosophical position is. Here is a hint "paganism".

The foundation of my every belief is GOD’S WORD!!!!!!

The fact you cannot comprehend that truth speaks volumes about your own worldview which is clearly secular and man made.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

The foundation of my every belief is GOD’S WORD!!!!!!

The fact you cannot comprehend that truth speaks volumes about your own worldview which is clearly secular and man made.

peace to you

That would, in your case, seem to be read through the lens of calvinism and the TULIP/DoG. Whether you want to admit it or not your philosophy is built on pagan philosophy, Augustine, Calvin and whoever came after them in the calvinist line.

I am sure that you think you are actually trusting the bible but when your foundation is bad the whole structure is thrown out of line.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Let's be fair... you picked the seventh meaning because it fit your pre-conceived idea, which you again reference above. You simply don't like the claim that God compelled Abraham; so you're changing the text to fit your idea. That's what you've said (and done) twice now. Again, your "method" is not news, but you should call it eisegesis, as that's what it is.

The Archangel

Exegesis eh, is that what you call it? This is a double edged sword…a WAR of sorts with no quarter given to those perceived as opponents. This is an agenda to insult and degrade anyone who believes in a Doctrine of Grace theological stance…and I find it melining & pathetic

 

[The Archangel]

True I do have to trust all those scholars that do not agree with you but am I not to trust various these scholars? Or perhaps I should just trust you because you say you are right and you must know more than them. Where have you published a peer-reviewed articles on this subject? If you are going to claim that you are a expert you need to back it up. Other than that it is just you patting your own back.

You're conflating a few things here. As you admit, you have to trust the other scholars. It's clear you don't trust me. But, I'll bet you've never asked the other scholars for their CV or bona fides. You take them as correct simply because you like what they say, and you cannot tell whether they are right or wrong, just as you cannot tell whether I am right or wrong. So, you are simply left to your preferences and anyone outside of those preferences who challenges what you like receives the "liar liar pants on fire" response simply because you have neither the facility or the acumen to engage on the level of the Hebrew.

The question here is not what the text means; it is what the text says. "Took" and "Led" are the words the text says. There are some possibilities for what they mean, some, though not all, would be correct in the real of the grammar and syntax. Understanding "took" to mean "led" is beyond the scope of the grammar and syntax. One does not need to be a published scholar to recognize these things. I've studied Hebrew at the Master's degree level. But, even so, it seems that for anyone to be recognized by you as having expertise he or she would have to 1.) agree with you, and 2.) be published. That's preposterous. Many false things, many heresies have been given full treatment by "scholars" who publish their erroneous thoughts. If wearing the title of "scholar" and publishing your thoughts is the threshold for accuracy, you have a very low bar.

You keep talking a good game but it seems to be all talk. Where are these scholars that support your view. What have they written on this subject?

Why would I need to assemble scholars to discuss grammar and syntax? Because you can't evaluate my thoughts? That's on you, not me.

I have discussed the subject and provided various scholars that disagree with your singular view. If this is the best you as a "first-hander" can muster for a response then I can see why you resort to deflection.

Why should I or anyone else trust what you are say?

You really have yet to post anything that contradicts the text of "took" and "led." What you have posted gives no "why." I've pointed to the grammar and syntax... the Qal imperfect (Took) and the Hiphil stem (Led). That's pretty first hand. It is not deflection. You probably consider it deflection since I keep on returning to the text--since that is, in fact, the issue, and you cannot evaluate the text on your own, at least not in the original language.

The Archangel

 

[Silverhair]

You're conflating a few things here. As you admit, you have to trust the other scholars. It's clear you don't trust me. But, I'll bet you've never asked the other scholars for their CV or bona fides. You take them as correct simply because you like what they say, and you cannot tell whether they are right or wrong, just as you cannot tell whether I am right or wrong. So, you are simply left to your preferences and anyone outside of those preferences who challenges what you like receives the "liar liar pants on fire" response simply because you have neither the facility or the acumen to engage on the level of the Hebrew.

The question here is not what the text means; it is what the text says. "Took" and "Led" are the words the text says. There are some possibilities for what they mean, some, though not all, would be correct in the real of the grammar and syntax. Understanding "took" to mean "led" is beyond the scope of the grammar and syntax. One does not need to be a published scholar to recognize these things. I've studied Hebrew at the Master's degree level. But, even so, it seems that for anyone to be recognized by you as having expertise he or she would have to 1.) agree with you, and 2.) be published. That's preposterous. Many false things, many heresies have been given full treatment by "scholars" who publish their erroneous thoughts. If wearing the title of "scholar" and publishing your thoughts is the threshold for accuracy, you have a very low bar.

I will say one thing for you, you have no shame. You are comparing yourself to J.H. Thayer, W.E.Vine, Spiros Zodhiates etc. Please enlighten us as to what you have published that would come up to their level. You even go so far as to say you know Hebrew better than the Jews themselves.

You have given us no reason, other than your opinion, to agree with your view. Please give me one good reason I should.

Why would I need to assemble scholars to discuss grammar and syntax? Because you can't evaluate my thoughts? That's on you, not me.

You say your view is correct so it is incumbent upon you to support your view. Something that you have so far failed to do. I have provided acknowledged scholars that disagree with your view and you say they are wrong and we should just believe you.

You really have yet to post anything that contradicts the text of "took" and "led." What you have posted gives no "why." I've pointed to the grammar and syntax... the Qal imperfect (Took) and the Hiphil stem (Led). That's pretty first hand. It is not deflection. You probably consider it deflection since I keep on returning to the text--since that is, in fact, the issue, and you cannot evaluate the text on your own, at least not in the original language.

The Archangel

As I have said before I am not a Hebrew scholar so I enlisted Hebrew scholars. Your fight is not with me but rather with them. They have obviously looked at the text and have come to a different conclusion than you have. Perhaps it is time that you admitted that you could just be wrong.

Here is another scholar for you to consider

Jos_24:3-4
After his call, God conducted Abraham through all the land of Canaan (see Gen 12), protecting and shielding him, and multiplied his seed, giving him Isaac, and giving to Isaac Jacob and Esau, the ancestors of two nations. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

CONDUCTED, pp. Led; guided; directed; introduced; commanded; managed. Webster's 1828 Dictionary

 

[The Archangel]

I will say one thing for you, you have no shame. You are comparing yourself to J.H. Thayer, W.E.Vine, Spiros Zodhiates etc. Please enlighten us as to what you have published that would come up to their level. You even go so far as to say you know Hebrew better than the Jews themselves.

You have given us no reason, other than your opinion, to agree with your view. Please give me one good reason I should.

Of course I have said nothing of the sort. You're assuming I think that. Again, one does not need to publish to have or prove expertise in a particular area. But, even so, you would still have no basis to adjudicate what I say.

You say your view is correct so it is incumbent upon you to support your view. Something that you have so far failed to do. I have provided acknowledged scholars that disagree with your view and you say they are wrong and we should just believe you.

I don't have to support facts. The word "took" is... well, "took." God is doing the action; Abraham is not. God led Abraham (again, a different verb from "took"). Again, God is doing the action here, Abraham is not. These are facts of grammar; there is no need to "show my work." But, even if I did, you would have no way to evaluate it.

As I have said before I am not a Hebrew scholar so I enlisted Hebrew scholars. Your fight is not with me but rather with them. They have obviously looked at the text and have come to a different conclusion than you have. Perhaps it is time that you admitted that you could just be wrong.

You enlisted Hebrew scholars... How can you know whether they are right or not? You can't. So, it's merely a preference for what they say. Perhaps you're following a blind guide? You'd have no way to know.

Here is another scholar for you to consider

Jos_24:3-4
After his call, God conducted Abraham through all the land of Canaan (see Gen 12), protecting and shielding him, and multiplied his seed, giving him Isaac, and giving to Isaac Jacob and Esau, the ancestors of two nations. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

CONDUCTED, pp. Led; guided; directed; introduced; commanded; managed. Webster's 1828 Dictionary

You're using an English dictionary where you need a Hebrew lexicon. Notice, though, in your quote above (which is a paraphrase of the text) that God conducted Abraham. That's God's doing; Abraham is not acting. Abraham is being acted upon by God. The grammar here--even in English--is quite plain and simple: God (Subject) "took" (verb, from the Hebrew) Abraham (direct object). Abraham is not acting. He's not following God here because he feels like it. He's following God because God is doing the work. That's the grammar.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I will say one thing for you, you have no shame. You are comparing yourself to J.H. Thayer, W.E.Vine, Spiros Zodhiates etc. Please enlighten us as to what you have published that would come up to their level. You even go so far as to say you know Hebrew better than the Jews themselves.

JH Thayer was a New Testament guy, dealing mostly with Greek. He also denied the inerrancy of Scripture. WE Vine was also a New Testament guy, dealing mostly with Greek. Zodhiates was also a Greek guy... who was actually Greek. He did publish a Hebrew-Greek word study Bible, but he was involved mostly in the New Testament part. As for Keil & Delitzsch... their work was published in the late 1800s. We have over a century of linguistic study in Hebrew since they wrote their work. Neither Keil nor Delitzsch were Jews.

To humor you... here is a scholarly take on the word "took"

לָקַח (lāqaḥ) take (get, fetch), lay hold of (seize), receive, acquire (buy), bring, marry (take a wife), snatch (take away).

Source: Walter C. Kaiser, “1124 לָקַח,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 481.

לָקַח

—1. take, lay hold of, seize: qaḥ beyādekā Ex 17:5, take (s.one) by (the hair) Ez 8:3; = keep Gn 14:21;—2. take (person or animal) w. one Gn 12:5; take words Ho 14:3;—3. take = receive miyyad- 2 K 5:20; acquire, buy Pr 31:16; metaph. = obey: commandments Pr 10:8; (God) receives (& accepts) (prayer) Ps 6:10;—4. take up = shelter (subj. bird, obj. its young) Dt 32:11;—5. fetch, bring: qaḥ lî Gn 27:13; have s.one brought 1 S 17:31; take = take an interest in (s.one) Je 40:2; lequḥîm lammāwet those dragged to death Pr 24:11; lāqaḥ ʿal take (& load) on Ju 19:28, take (& spread) on 2 S 13:19;—6. take (on as a slave) 2 K 4:1, take (in as a daughter) Est 2:7;—7. lāqaḥ ʾiššâ take a wife Gn 25:1, for onesf. Gn 4:19, for s.one else Gn 24:4, lāqaḥ ʾōtāh lô leʾiššâ Gn 12:19;—8. take away: s.one’s garment Pr 27:13, blessing Gn 27:35;—9. (God) carries off s.one Gn 5:24;—10. var.: obj. nāqām Is 47:3 (neqāmâ Je 22:10) vengeance, ḥerpâ disgrace Ez 36:30; obj. dābār, take = receive & understand Je 9:19; subj. heart (sweeps away s.one) Jb 15:12.​

Source: William Lee Holladay and Ludwig Köhler, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 178–179.
​

The Archangel

 

[canadyjd]

That would, in your case, seem to be read through the lens of calvinism and the TULIP/DoG. Whether you want to admit it or not your philosophy is built on pagan philosophy, Augustine, Calvin and whoever came after them in the calvinist line.

I am sure that you think you are actually trusting the bible but when your foundation is bad the whole structure is thrown out of line.

Only in your biased mind would you accuse someone of paganism that has laid the foundation of everything he believes upon scripture.

And, once again, I don’t need a lecture on theology from someone that believes, “many are saved having never heard the gospel”.

Instead of addressing the many passages of scripture that have been repeatedly referenced that demonstrate mankind responds to God, the best you can do is claim it sounds like “Calvinism do it must be based on paganism.

I do understand you believe you are making sound, reasonable arguments. That only demonstrates how thoroughly blinded you are to the Truth of God’s Word.

peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

Of course I have said nothing of the sort. You're assuming I think that. Again, one does not need to publish to have or prove expertise in a particular area. But, even so, you would still have no basis to adjudicate what I say.

It is not I that is adjudicating what you say it is the various scholars that I have presented

I don't have to support facts. The word "took" is... well, "took." God is doing the action; Abraham is not. God led Abraham (again, a different verb from "took"). Again, God is doing the action here, Abraham is not. These are facts of grammar; there is no need to "show my work." But, even if I did, you would have no way to evaluate it.

Your "facts" are not supported by the scholars that I presented so in reality it is just your opinion

[QUOTE="The Archangel, post: 2892297, member: 834"You enlisted Hebrew scholars... How can you know whether they are right or not? You can't. So, it's merely a preference for what they say. Perhaps you're following a blind guide? You'd have no way to know.[/QUOTE]

Why would I trust what several scholars that are in agreement over you that disagrees with them. If I were comparing you with one other scholar then your argument might have some weight but when several stand in opposition to you then it is not bias but rather trusting in the scholarship of a number of scholars.

[QUOTE="The Archangel, post: 2892297, member: 834"You're using an English dictionary where you need a Hebrew lexicon. Notice, though, in your quote above (which is a paraphrase of the text) that God conducted Abraham. That's God's doing; Abraham is not acting. Abraham is being acted upon by God. The grammar here--even in English--is quite plain and simple: God (Subject) "took" (verb, from the Hebrew) Abraham (direct object). Abraham is not acting. He's not following God here because he feels like it. He's following God because God is doing the work. That's the grammar.

The Archangel[/QUOTE]

I do not need a Hebrew lexicon to tell me what an English word means.

I have not questioned whether God took Abraham from the other side of the River, it states that clearly. And God can even lead but Abraham still has to choose to follow, that is unless you think God forced him to follow Him. Is that what you are saying.

 

[Silverhair]

Only in your biased mind would you accuse someone of paganism that has laid the foundation of everything he believes upon scripture.

And, once again, I don’t need a lecture on theology from someone that believes, “many are saved having never heard the gospel”.

Instead of addressing the many passages of scripture that have been repeatedly referenced that demonstrate mankind responds to God, the best you can do is claim it sounds like “Calvinism do it must be based on paganism.

I do understand you believe you are making sound, reasonable arguments. That only demonstrates how thoroughly blinded you are to the Truth of God’s Word.

peace to you

Whether you want to admit it or not the foundation of calvinism is pagan philosophy. Get your head out of the sand and actually do the research for yourself. When your read scripture through the lens of calvinism it distorts the word of God.

I did not accuse you of paganism but you do have the habit of being a bit melodramatic in your comments. Even your comments prove you have a low view of the sovereignty of God.

I have pointed out numerous times man has to respond to the various means God has provided for knowing Him. But you have failed to respond to any of the scripture that proves man has to make real choices in regard to his salvation.

The TULIP/DoG reflect pagan philosophy and you have yet to show where it does not. The best you can do is wave your hands and say I am wrong about the foundation of your theology.

 

[Van]

A small but vocal group of Christians have been mislead into believing God has predetermined whatsoever comes to pass, thus humans make no actual choices, we are like actors on a stage, just performing our predetermined lines. However scripture says we are given choices to make. We make the choice between life and death.

The sadly mistaken group says God gives the choice of life only to those He chose as foreseen individuals before creation, and the choice of death only to all the rest of humanity. However, this redefines choice to be the non-choice of one option only.

Acts of the Apostles 6:5
The announcement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.

Here scripture does not say "they exercised the illusion of choice and chose Stephen."

Deuteronomy 30:19
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

Here again, scripture does not say, so exercise the predetermined non-choice of life only, if you were chosen individually before creation, and as far as the rest, I really want you to exercise the illusion of choice, and choose the predetermined non-choice of death.

 

[The Archangel]

It is not I that is adjudicating what you say it is the various scholars that I have presented

Actually, they're not. The scholars you reference are of days gone by (probably because their work is in the public domain). And so they do not have the advantage of the last century or more of linguistic research.

Your "facts" are not supported by the scholars that I presented so in reality it is just your opinion

As I said here:

You're using an English dictionary where you need a Hebrew lexicon. Notice, though, in your quote above (which is a paraphrase of the text) that God conducted Abraham. That's God's doing; Abraham is not acting. Abraham is being acted upon by God. The grammar here--even in English--is quite plain and simple: God (Subject) "took" (verb, from the Hebrew) Abraham (direct object). Abraham is not acting. He's not following God here because he feels like it. He's following God because God is doing the work. That's the grammar.

We are in the realm of grammar, not theology. Grammatical fact are facts: Subject, verb, etc. That's what we're dealing with here. I'm saying the equivalent of 2+2=4 and you're asking what mathematicians agree with me. Rarely, if ever, will a mathematician write a defense of 2+2=4 because it is so stunningly basic that it should be common knowledge... like subject, verb, direct object....

Why would I trust what several scholars that are in agreement over you that disagrees with them. If I were comparing you with one other scholar then your argument might have some weight but when several stand in opposition to you then it is not bias but rather trusting in the scholarship of a number of scholars.

So, for you, it's the preponderance of evidence? The one with the most published stuff wins? That's just silly.

I do not need a Hebrew lexicon to tell me what an English word means.

Actually, you do. You see, English is a translation of the Hebrew. So, the original word is Hebrew and so, therefore, you need a Hebrew lexicon. What you're doing in using an English dictionary is to take the translator(s) as the divinely-inspired author, not the biblical author--Joshua, in this case. What is more, it's as if you're using the handbook of NFL rules to adjudicate an NHL game.

I have not questioned whether God took Abraham from the other side of the River, it states that clearly. And God can even lead but Abraham still has to choose to follow, that is unless you think God forced him to follow Him. Is that what you are saying.

The text here does not say that. The combination of the verbs "took" and "led" and the grammar of each (again, the Qal and the Hiphil) along with what is called the "Vav consecutive." The Vav consecutive carries the force of the first verb through the whole string of verbs. The verbs (along with the subjects) are God speaking, through Joshua, about what He's done. God says: "I took"... "I led"... "I increased" (his offspring)... "I gave" (Issac.)... And, that consecutive of verbs goes on. But the point is that the text is telling us what God did. Abraham or his choice is not at all in view here. Just as Abraham did not give himself Isaac, He did not take himself, nor lead himself. He is responding to God's (imperative) command in Genesis 12. Nothing in this passage discusses Abraham's actions; the discussion is Joshua (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) what God has done for Israel.

Now, you might discuss Abraham's willingness or lack thereof from another text, but it can't be this one.

The Archangel