Post: #26

(05-21-2015 01:54 PM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:31 AM)SunW Wrote:  It's been a while since I read the Bible, but I've read it a few times, so here's an answer based on what I recall:

Sarah is Abraham's sister, partially. I think Genesis 19 or 20 confirms this when Abraham tells another individual that Sarah is his sister, being the offspring of the same dad. I may be wrong, but I don't recall the story you're talking about actually stating that Abraham lied, just that he suggested to Sarah that she emphasize that she was his sister (which was true).

Pharaoh also sent Abraham and Sarah away in the end, which caused Abraham to miss the opportunity for protection from famine (which was why he was in Egypt), so he was punished for the way he treated Pharaoh.

They were not siblings. The genealogy from Adam to Abraham and his family is listed in Genesis 11.

Yes they were partial siblings, as I said:

Genesis 20:12 KJV

Quote:And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Genesis 20:12 NIV

Quote:Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.

Post: #27

Dupe

Post: #28

(05-20-2015 01:46 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  First, get rid of the KJV and get a better translation. The best commonly available one is the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version). There are other good ones, but they're either a) expensive or b) difficult to find.

Let me preface my answer to Roosh's question by saying that I don't know a ton about the OT. I know far more about the NT, but that's mainly because I've studied it more. Abraham knows that he'll be killed if Pharaoh finds out that Sarah is his wife. He also knows that the Egyptians will trade far better with him if he tells them that Sarah is his sister. It doesn't seem like God really rewards him for this- God rewards Abraham for other reasons.

On another level, this passage relates rather well to form criticism. It seems as though the whole pericope of Abram (Abraham) and Sarah in Egypt relates very well to the later Exodus, where the Egyptians are again afflicted with plagues.

By better you mean easier for you to understand? What's great about the KJV it doesn't use a lot of interpretation it translates and let's you decide what to make of the text.

You should do some research about the KJV it's by far the most widely used and distributed in the world. Most copies when translated from English are translated using KJV as well, which I found interesting.

I've done a lot of research on different versions and KJV is head and shoulders above others I've read. If you want to read something funny read The Good News Bible.

Post: #29

(05-20-2015 10:46 AM)Roosh Wrote:  I started reading the Old Testament (KJV primarily) and thought I'd get a thread going for some questions and observations.

One comment is on Abraham and how willing he is to "lie" about his wife being his sister and pass her on to different rulers just to save his own skin. Why would god reward this?

I have a question Roosh. Why do you say he was rewarded?

Post: #30

Roosh's recent 'turn', so to speak, towards religion (based on his tweets and so on - particularly his reading of 'Darwinian Fairytales') fascinates me. I bought the book actually, although I haven't read it yet.

Roosh - have you become religious, and if that's the case...presuming your parents are secular/cultural Muslims, is there any reason why you've looked toward Christianity rather than Islam?

I'm looking forward to a post in the future, where he explains his thoughts on religion/evolution etc...as there's a definite feeling that something has changed in his outlook. I'm particularly interested, as being an atheist myself - it's been somewhat poisoned by SJWs. Guys like Hitchens and Dawkins are brilliant when they fearlessly criticise Islam (as well as other monotheistic religions), as most people are scared, but I'm intrigued to learn how Roosh and others are seeing it.

Post: #31

(05-21-2015 02:36 PM)SunW Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 01:54 PM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 10:31 AM)SunW Wrote:  It's been a while since I read the Bible, but I've read it a few times, so here's an answer based on what I recall:

Sarah is Abraham's sister, partially. I think Genesis 19 or 20 confirms this when Abraham tells another individual that Sarah is his sister, being the offspring of the same dad. I may be wrong, but I don't recall the story you're talking about actually stating that Abraham lied, just that he suggested to Sarah that she emphasize that she was his sister (which was true).

Pharaoh also sent Abraham and Sarah away in the end, which caused Abraham to miss the opportunity for protection from famine (which was why he was in Egypt), so he was punished for the way he treated Pharaoh.

They were not siblings. The genealogy from Adam to Abraham and his family is listed in Genesis 11.

Yes they were partial siblings, as I said:

Genesis 20:12 KJV

Quote:And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Genesis 20:12 NIV

Quote:Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.

Nope. Read Gen 11:31:

Quote: Gen 11:31
And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

Sarah was Terah's daughter in law. If she was Abraham's half sister it would have been called out in this verse, instead it clearly states she is his daughter in law, not daughter or step daughter.

Post: #32

I was just reading Titus today and thought I'd drop this here despite it being new testament.

Quote:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

It blew my mind how literal it was with thing we see today that make women 'risky' as partners. Getting too drunk (too much mine), false rape accusations (false accusers), obnoxious (not discrete or chaste) and cat ladies hating on younger women (teach young women to be sober, husband and children lovers as opposed to that there are no genders).

If there was ever a woman that was like "why can't I find a man!" I am now going to ask...well are you following the instructions in Titus 2:3-5 and not being a fat?

Post: #33

(05-21-2015 04:05 PM)Teedub Wrote:  Roosh - have you become religious, and if that's the case...presuming your parents are secular/cultural Muslims, is there any reason why you've looked toward Christianity rather than Islam?

My mother is Armenian. She baptized me in an Christian Armenian apostolic church, which is considered Oriental Orthodox. It's close to Eastern Orthodox.

I haven't become "religious". I just have read serious holes on evolution in the book you mentioned, and want to see what is taught in the bible.

Post: #34

(05-21-2015 02:56 PM)PainPositive Wrote:  By better you mean easier for you to understand? What's great about the KJV it doesn't use a lot of interpretation it translates and let's you decide what to make of the text.

You should do some research about the KJV it's by far the most widely used and distributed in the world. Most copies when translated from English are translated using KJV as well, which I found interesting.

I've done a lot of research on different versions and KJV is head and shoulders above others I've read. If you want to read something funny read The Good News Bible.

No, by "better," I mean more faithful to the original meaning/intent of the text. The KJV, despite being so popular, is questionably faithful to the original Hebrew in several locations. The best example comes from Genesis 1:1. Unlike KJV says, "Bereshis," the first word of the OT, does not mean "in the beginning." Genesis 1:1 is best translated as "When YHWH God first began to create heaven and earth," or "In the beginning of God's creating heaven and earth..."

I really don't care how popular a translation is. Very few still use the Vulgate as the Bible, but it's actually not a bad translation. The best commonly available translation is either the NRSV or the NASB (New American Standard Bible). The Good News Bible is awful. I've taken a look at a few passages in it.

However, if you really want to read the "true" (as in uninterpreted) Bible, you should read it in its original languages: Hebrew for the OT, Koine Greek for the NT.

Post: #35

When I was a churchgoer, I picked up "Essential Guide To Bible Versions" which is a short book describing the history of and philosophy behind each translation:

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Guide-Ve...084233484X

Also "choosing a bible"

http://www.amazon.com/Choosing-Bible-Und...581347308/

It's good to know where your version stands on the "word by word" vs "phrase by phrase" and "literal" vs "interpretive" spectrum.

The KJV has an interesting history because it was bought and paid for by King James. For instance, there was no apostle named James, that was a vanity name given (to the brother of Jesus, no less) the way rich guys today get hospitals named after them.

I've heard the same thing about NASB, my problem with NASB is that it's dead boring. Mohammed had a great point when he insisted the Koran be read in the original language. I'm sure he saw what happened with the Christian bible and wanted to avoid that at any cost.

I'm going to have to go back and read the Abraham story. Basically the explanation I remember hearing is that the OT patriarchs were the best of a bad lot. Every one had major failings, but God stood behind them because they at least believed in him and tried to follow his teaching, as opposed to everyone else worshipping false idols and being overall degenerates.

Post: #36

Frankly the God of the Old Testament resembles Satan of the New Testament.

The jump in consciousness is so stark to what Jesus taught or Paul who created the church later on, that one would wonder what the two books had in common at all - except a joint origin.

They should literally not be mentioned together at all.

Post: #37

(05-22-2015 09:28 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Frankly the God of the Old Testament resembles Satan of the New Testament.

The jump in consciousness is so stark to what Jesus taught or Paul who created the church later on, that one would wonder what the two books had in common at all - except a joint origin.

They should literally not be mentioned together at all.

Christ and God were together in the Old Testament and it was Christ who spoke to Abraham, then later to Moses to for the Ten Commandments.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:1–3).

"Word" is "logos" in Greek and has a different meaning.

The Greek word for spokesman is Logos. Jesus was the Logos of God.

A better translation might be:

"In the beginning was the spokesman, and the spokesman was with God, and the spokesman was a god."

Post: #38

(05-20-2015 10:46 AM)Roosh Wrote:  One comment is on Abraham and how willing he is to "lie" about his wife being his sister and pass her on to different rulers just to save his own skin. Why would god reward this?

Quote:During his stay in Egypt, Abraham gave evidence that he was not free from human weakness and imperfection. In concealing the fact that Sarah was his wife, he betrayed a distrust of the divine care, a lack of that lofty faith and courage so often and nobly exemplified in his life. Sarah was fair to look upon, and he doubted not that the dusky Egyptians would covet the beautiful stranger, and that in order to secure her, they would not scruple to slay her husband. He reasoned that he was not guilty of falsehood in representing Sarah as his sister, for she was the daughter of his father, though not of his mother. But this concealment of the real relation between them was deception. No deviation from strict integrity can meet God's approval. Through Abraham's lack of faith, Sarah was placed in great peril. The king of Egypt, being informed of her beauty, caused her to be taken to his palace, intending to make her his wife. But the Lord, in His great mercy, protected Sarah by sending judgments upon the royal household. By this means the monarch learned the truth in the matter, and, indignant at the deception practiced upon him, he reproved Abraham and restored to him his wife, saying, "What is this that thou hast done unto me? . . . Why saidst thou, She is my sister? So I might have taken her to me to wife. Now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way."

Abraham had been greatly favored by the king; even now Pharaoh would permit no harm to be done him or his company, but ordered a guard to conduct them in safety out of his dominions. At this time laws were made prohibiting the Egyptians from intercourse with foreign shepherds in any such familiarity as eating or drinking with them. Pharaoh's dismissal of Abraham was kind and generous; but he bade him leave Egypt, for he dared not permit him to remain. He had ignorantly been about to do him a serious injury, but God had interposed, and [p. 131] saved the monarch from committing so great a sin. Pharaoh saw in this stranger a man whom the God of heaven honored, and he feared to have in his kingdom one who was so evidently under divine favor. Should Abraham remain in Egypt, his increasing wealth and honor would be likely to excite the envy or covetousness of the Egyptians, and some injury might be done him, for which the monarch would be held responsible, and which might again bring judgments upon the royal house.

The warning that had been given to Pharaoh proved a protection to Abraham in his after-intercourse with heathen peoples; for the matter could not be kept secret, and it was seen that the God whom Abraham worshiped would protect His servant, and that any injury done him would be avenged. It is a dangerous thing to wrong one of the children of the King of heaven. The psalmist refers to this chapter in Abraham's experience when he says, in speaking of the chosen people, that God "reproved kings for their sakes; saying, Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm." Psalm 105:14, 15.

There is an interesting similarity between Abraham's experience in Egypt and that of his posterity, centuries later. Both went down into Egypt on account of a famine, and both sojourned there. Through the manifestation of divine judgments in their behalf, the fear of them fell upon the Egyptians; and, enriched by the gifts of the heathen, they went out with great substance.

http://www.ellenwhite.info/books/ellen-g...-pp-11.htm

When I was into the bible I also read a lot of Ellen G Whites writing. She has several books that breaks down the logic of both testaments and give a fuller picture. Along with that she has some great health books and other intelligent writings. She was strongly against women having leadership roles within the church and any sort of watering down of what the bible teaches. The Seventh Day Adventist church is based of her writings alongside the bible. If you want to understand the old testament her writings will put a lot of the stories in excellent context.

If people are interested I can expand on it more but she is an interesting character to look into and there is huge parallels between what we talk about on here and her writings. Obviously she isn't promoting a notch a day but she foreseen feminism, the rise of perverseness in society, a decline in general health and many other things we talk about here daily. She also laid some excellent 'smack downs' on the feminists of her day in entertaining letters.

Post: #39

Very interesting thread.

I prefer the NKJ version as it removes the archaic lingo but keeps as close to the original as possible. The KJV was massive undertaking that included something like 50 of the top language scholars of the day with strict rules to remove bias.

I avoid the modern translations because if you observe the modern churches that use them, you will see they are sick.

Post: #40

(05-22-2015 10:23 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  The Seventh Day Adventist church is based of her writings alongside the bible. If you want to understand the old testament her writings will put a lot of the stories in excellent context.

If you want a quick way to filter through 95% of all the different sects of Christianity and get to the good stuff, you should look at Church's that preach Saturday as the Sabbath day.

It boils down to a simple math question that even a toddler could figure out.

Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. (John 11:9 )

Keep in mind back then they didn't go by 24 hour clocks like we do today. A day started when the sun rose and set. 12 hours.

Jesus said he would be in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. How many hours is that?

Answer - 72 hours.

What do most religions teach? Oh, Jesus died Friday and rose Sunday Morning.

You can't squeeze 72 hours into Friday - Sunday. Therefore, these religions that go to church on Sunday have it wrong. Wed - Saturday is the only thing that fits, and is what the early Christians worshiped on. (it was Changed to Sunday in 321 A.D by the Emperor Constantine to accommodate pagans). Jews still have this day right also.

I could go deeper and why it's important, but this post is too long already.

Post: #41

(05-22-2015 11:44 PM)memcpy Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 10:23 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  The Seventh Day Adventist church is based of her writings alongside the bible. If you want to understand the old testament her writings will put a lot of the stories in excellent context.

If you want a quick way to filter through 95% of all the different sects of Christianity and get to the good stuff, you should look at Church's that preach Saturday as the Sabbath day.

It boils down to a simple math question that even a toddler could figure out.

Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. (John 11:9 )

Keep in mind back then they didn't go by 24 hour clocks like we do today. A day started when the sun rose and set. 12 hours.

Jesus said he would be in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. How many hours is that?

Answer - 72 hours.

What do most religions teach? Oh, Jesus died Friday and rose Sunday Morning.

You can't squeeze 72 hours into Friday - Sunday. Therefore, these religions that go to church on Sunday have it wrong. Wed - Saturday is the only thing that fits, and is what the early Christians worshiped on. (it was Changed to Sunday in 321 A.D by the Emperor Constantine to accommodate pagans). Jews still have this day right also.

I could go deeper and why it's important, but this post is too long already.

Thurs - Sun also makes sense... but also Sunday was the sabbath day so holding services on a day when people already weren't working was the most practical solution.

Post: #42

(05-22-2015 10:23 PM)Atlantic Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 10:46 AM)Roosh Wrote:  One comment is on Abraham and how willing he is to "lie" about his wife being his sister and pass her on to different rulers just to save his own skin. Why would god reward this?

Quote:During his stay in Egypt, Abraham gave evidence that he was not free from human weakness and imperfection. In concealing the fact that Sarah was his wife, he betrayed a distrust of the divine care, a lack of that lofty faith and courage so often and nobly exemplified in his life. Sarah was fair to look upon, and he doubted not that the dusky Egyptians would covet the beautiful stranger, and that in order to secure her, they would not scruple to slay her husband. He reasoned that he was not guilty of falsehood in representing Sarah as his sister, for she was the daughter of his father, though not of his mother. But this concealment of the real relation between them was deception. No deviation from strict integrity can meet God's approval. Through Abraham's lack of faith, Sarah was placed in great peril. The king of Egypt, being informed of her beauty, caused her to be taken to his palace, intending to make her his wife. But the Lord, in His great mercy, protected Sarah by sending judgments upon the royal household. By this means the monarch learned the truth in the matter, and, indignant at the deception practiced upon him, he reproved Abraham and restored to him his wife, saying, "What is this that thou hast done unto me? . . . Why saidst thou, She is my sister? So I might have taken her to me to wife. Now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way."

Abraham had been greatly favored by the king; even now Pharaoh would permit no harm to be done him or his company, but ordered a guard to conduct them in safety out of his dominions. At this time laws were made prohibiting the Egyptians from intercourse with foreign shepherds in any such familiarity as eating or drinking with them. Pharaoh's dismissal of Abraham was kind and generous; but he bade him leave Egypt, for he dared not permit him to remain. He had ignorantly been about to do him a serious injury, but God had interposed, and [p. 131] saved the monarch from committing so great a sin. Pharaoh saw in this stranger a man whom the God of heaven honored, and he feared to have in his kingdom one who was so evidently under divine favor. Should Abraham remain in Egypt, his increasing wealth and honor would be likely to excite the envy or covetousness of the Egyptians, and some injury might be done him, for which the monarch would be held responsible, and which might again bring judgments upon the royal house.

The warning that had been given to Pharaoh proved a protection to Abraham in his after-intercourse with heathen peoples; for the matter could not be kept secret, and it was seen that the God whom Abraham worshiped would protect His servant, and that any injury done him would be avenged. It is a dangerous thing to wrong one of the children of the King of heaven. The psalmist refers to this chapter in Abraham's experience when he says, in speaking of the chosen people, that God "reproved kings for their sakes; saying, Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm." Psalm 105:14, 15.

There is an interesting similarity between Abraham's experience in Egypt and that of his posterity, centuries later. Both went down into Egypt on account of a famine, and both sojourned there. Through the manifestation of divine judgments in their behalf, the fear of them fell upon the Egyptians; and, enriched by the gifts of the heathen, they went out with great substance.

http://www.ellenwhite.info/books/ellen-g...-pp-11.htm

When I was into the bible I also read a lot of Ellen G Whites writing. She has several books that breaks down the logic of both testaments and give a fuller picture. Along with that she has some great health books and other intelligent writings. She was strongly against women having leadership roles within the church and any sort of watering down of what the bible teaches. The Seventh Day Adventist church is based of her writings alongside the bible. If you want to understand the old testament her writings will put a lot of the stories in excellent context.

If people are interested I can expand on it more but she is an interesting character to look into and there is huge parallels between what we talk about on here and her writings. Obviously she isn't promoting a notch a day but she foreseen feminism, the rise of perverseness in society, a decline in general health and many other things we talk about here daily. She also laid some excellent 'smack downs' on the feminists of her day in entertaining letters.

Damn, thanks for showing us this. Roosh, you can lock the thread now.

Post: #43

The Seventh Day Adventists are interesting. They adhere to a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible, when it's fairly clear that it's not supposed to be taken literally.

Post: #44

(05-23-2015 10:33 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The Seventh Day Adventists are interesting. They adhere to a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible, when it's fairly clear that it's not supposed to be taken literally.

Which part isn't to taken literally?

Quote:Exodus 20:8
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 20:9
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

Exodus 20:10
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, ...

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Post: #45

(05-23-2015 02:10 PM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 10:33 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  The Seventh Day Adventists are interesting. They adhere to a dogmatically literal interpretation of the Bible, when it's fairly clear that it's not supposed to be taken literally.

Which part isn't to taken literally?

Quote:Exodus 20:8
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Exodus 20:9
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

Exodus 20:10
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, ...

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I'm talking about Genesis 1. Genesis 1, contrary to what many believe, does not specify six 24-hour days. The original Hebrew states "a first day, a second day, a third day." This is one of KJV's biggest issues, by the way. It doesn't take into account how different Hebrew can be from English.

There's also the issue that Genesis 1 is largely a polemic against the Enuma Elish, a Babylonian creation myth.

Post: #46

Did we ever get an answer to the original question?

Post: #47

(05-23-2015 11:26 PM)h3ltrsk3ltr Wrote:  Did we ever get an answer to the original question?

I answered it. In the OT and NT, God's opinion towards any person or group depends on whether the person or group is in covenant with him. God and Abraham are in blood covenant.

The blood covenant between God and Abraham is recorded in Genesis 15. It involved the cutting of animals length-wise and a walk through the blood and mess by the lesser party or the contract administrator. This was Hittite custom whereby a weaker king would enter blood covenant with the greater. In this case God took the lesser role by passing through the carnage with a burning torch (v.17). This gave Abraham a lot of rights and benefits with the forgiveness of his shortcomings being just one of them. Other benefits included land, riches, military prowess and of course a lineage that would rival the multitude of the stars. In return, through blood covenants, God gets access to the physical world which he had lost owing to the fall of Adam.

Post: #48

Genesis 39:11-20 describes a false rape accusation to Joseph. He was put into a dungeon.

Modern English version: http://biblehub.com/nlt/genesis/39.htm

Quote:11 And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. 12 And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.

13 And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, 14 That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice: 15 And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out. 16 And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home. 17 And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me: 18 And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out.

19 And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. 20 And Joseph's master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.

And thousands of years later, we're dealing with the exact same problem on a massive scale.

Post: #49

(05-20-2015 10:46 AM)Roosh Wrote:  I started reading the Old Testament (KJV primarily) and thought I'd get a thread going for some questions and observations.

One comment is on Abraham and how willing he is to "lie" about his wife being his sister and pass her on to different rulers just to save his own skin. Why would god reward this?

Roosh,

I'm a big fan of the Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible. Research him if you'd like. This commentary always serves me well. While the syntactical structure of his prose can take several readings to absorb, the effort pays dividends.

Here's the link to the commentary online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.i.html

(If you create an account, you can make highlights and notes throughout.)

With regards to what you're talking about, here's what MH wrote about the matter:

"A great fault which Abram was guilty of, in denying his wife, and pretending that she was his sister. The scripture is impartial in relating the misdeeds of the most celebrated saints, which are recorded, not for our imitation, but for our admonition, that he who thinks he stands may take heed lest he fall.

1. His fault was dissembling his relation to Sarai, equivocating concerning it, and teaching his wife, and probably all his attendants, to do so too. What he said was, in a sense, true (ch. xx. 12), but with a purpose to deceive; he so concealed a further truth as in effect to deny it, and to expose thereby both his wife and the Egyptians to sin.

2. That which was at the bottom of it was a jealous timorous fancy he had that some of the Egyptians would be so charmed with the beauty of Sarai (Egypt producing few such beauties) that, if they should know he was her husband, they would find some way or other to take him off, that they might marry her. He presumes they would rather be guilty of murder than adultery, such a heinous crime was it then accounted and such a sacred regard was paid to the marriage bond; hence he infers, without any good reason, They will kill me.

Note, The fear of man brings a snare, and many are driven to sin by the dread of death, Luke xii. 4, 5. The grace Abram was most eminent for was faith; and yet he thus fell through unbelief and distrust of the divine Providence, even after God had appeared to him twice. Alas! what will become of the willows, when the cedars are thus shaken?"

What I got from that author's note, was that even though God saw that Abraham was good, Abraham still had his faults--i.e. he was human.

Post: #50

So much off topic in the comments now to drop some wisdom and answer the question:

Women in Sacred texts are never actually women. Who cares about such passing and boring things as women? Certainly not those who write sacred books that last for millenniums.

Women in sacred texts are always desires.

Abraham = the righteous man within you, the part of you that belongs to the Lord and will survive the death of body.
Sarah = the desire of the righteous man, the desire to know the Lord.
Pharaoh = your egoism, his kingdom, the Egypt, is your material body and this material world in general that houses but also traps your spirit.

A fledgeling spiritual consciousness enters in a body. The body is antagonistic to spirit. Body wants to eat, sleep and reproduce. It hates the spirit that drives it to seek God, learn about the world or do other things above securing a comfortable feral existence, because the animal views these things an unnecessary waste of energy. The egoism is also greedy and lusty and it wants to take any desire into itself. So the divine you in order to survive hides it's intents hidden and and masks it's desire as just another shiny thing with no hooks attached for the egoism to swallow in it's consumerist fashion.

Alas the egoism cannot satisfy a desire of a higher level. It tries to do so but it merely exhausts itself and becomes sick and all the plagues attack it. So it begs for the higher self to take it back. It is willing to make an investment to create a separate faculty for these higher questions somewhere in the corner of itself so they wouldn't bother his casual animalistic existence. This is similar to how a person who feels the uneasy ache that there might be God stops it's search for complete intimacy with him and instead moves this new found desire for God to shoulders of some religion or cult, who often were the ones that created this desire in him in the first place. The higher self is permitted to exist in bargain for being separated from the overall dominating egoism and getting the nagging desire away.

Thus in the end egoism remains relieved of this new troubling tingling thing about seeking God and similar non-material bullshit, but it has been already touched, the first contact has been made and spiritual self ends this phase strengthened and has survived another encounter with the gross force trying to shut it down.

This is what this text is roughly about.