1Way
January 28th, 2005, 08:11 PM
****THIS IS THE CHALLENGE****
ALONG WITH THE BIBLICAL PROBLEM
WHICH WARNS AGAINST DOING VIOLENCE BY
VOIDING SCRIPTURE AND REPLACING IT WITH
NOTHING BECAUSE OF MANMADE TRADITION
INSTEAD OF SIMPLYCONFORMING TO GOD’S
UNDIVIDED WORD
From God’s word on divine repentance
An open challenge to closed theists
Notice I am not interested in what you think the passage does not mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage might mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage should mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage implies.
I am not interested in if you think the passage is or is not that important.
I am not interested in if you think the passage is or is not enough to promote the open view.
I am not interested in claims that the word “relent”/”nacham” does not necessarily mean repent/change one’s intended course or mind.
(need I say more? ... ?)
I am “only” interested in what you think the passage “does” mean, specifically concerning divine repentance/”nacham” from doing what He said and or thought He would do. This is a fair inquiry and I dare say a biblical requirement for not “voiding”/”doing violence against” scripture. Scripture never returns void, and we should never violate/contradict scripture by our traditions/philosophy and “sincere” beliefs.
Question 1’s bible example
Here is my challenge to all closed theists. Any time you “void” the passage of meaning, you must replace it with a reasonable biblically provided replacement meaning. I’ll quote you verse 10 God’s version, and then I will quote you verse 10 in the closed view’s version. Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful version)
Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it. Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(Man’s meaningless closed view version)
Jon 3:10 .. ? .. God .. ? .. their works,
..?.. they turned from their evil way;
and God ? ... ... ? ... ... the disaster
... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... upon them,
and He ...?...?...?.
Question 1
If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:
Question 2’s bible example
(Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)
The Potter and the clay
The Vision, figurative speech
“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
potter’s house, and there he was, making
something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
as it seemed good to the potter to make.
God’s explanation of the vision, literal application
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
in My hand, O house of Israel!
The general principle of divine repentance, literal
didactic truism
7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.
9 "And the instant I speak concerning
a nation and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight
so that it does not obey My voice,
then I will *relent concerning the good
with which I said I would benefit it.
* nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent
“(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
the “if then” conditional arrangement.
Question 2
Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think: :confused:
From God’s word on optional outcomes
An open challenge to closed theists
Question 3’s bible example
Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, "Thus says the LORD: `Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.'"
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the LORD,
3 and said, "Remember now, O LORD, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what is good in Your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 And the word of the LORD came to Isaiah, saying,
5 "Go and tell Hezekiah, `Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will add to your days fifteen years.
If the future is unalterable according to God's exhaustive foreknowledge, therefore everything that happens must happen according to that one single version, then this teaching that God changed what was going to happen is false. Either God lied when it says that He was about to die, or He lied when He said that instead of him dying presently, he will live another 15 years. If God always throughout all of eternity knew that He would not die for another 15 years, then the truth would have been that He changed nothing about when he would die.
Question 3
Considering verse 5's honest additional 15 years, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge, how do you rescue God from lying about adding 15 years to his life, and why does God plainly demonstrate that two different outcomes could have happened, if only one outcome can possibly happen?
At the center of this bible example is that according to the closed view, there can be no change in anything that happens, there is only one unalterable destiny, you can have no optional outcomes. So if the bible shows a truly altered outcome, then that is completely incompatible with the exhaustive foreknowledge and the closed view is false.
Thanks in advance for your respectful and thoughtful consideration and direct response. :thumb:
*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****
We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.
Pr 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure; He [is] a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. God’s word never returns void. Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper for which I sent it. In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority. Mt 15:6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" Ultimately man must submit to God’s word. Ro 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."
This is the tenor of this entire debate. Demonstrated by correlating (hypothetical) example.
General overview
OV
The open view (more so) reasons by quoting God's word and rests it’s case on that. We literally accept it without violating it's contextual development.
Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).
God’s word says that He repented from it (changed His mind) and did not do what He said He would DO.
CV
The closed view (more so) reasons extra biblically and rests their case primarily on sources other than what is specifically provided by scripture. They reject (void of meaning) entire portions of scripture that deny their view and they also violate the context by doing so. And they effectively make God out to be a liar in order to maintain their views as being more authoritative. All while claiming “spiritual” correctness.
Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).
Who cares about what God said about Him changing His intended course of action by not doing what He said He would do, the closed view maintains that God can not change even if God says He does, so we are right and that is that.
Specific arguments
OV
1 God’s word is true and authoritative
It is a clear case of divine repentance against complying
with what God said and/or thought He was going to do
So what do the words mean then if they don’t literally mean what they literally say? Jonah 3:10 subsection part b
... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. CV
It does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla) and it does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla), man changed and therefore God simply did not need to punish them, so God did not change and that is that.
OV
That does not tell me what those specific words mean, it tells me that you are ignoring and perhaps violating them instead. If you do not have a suitable (specific) biblically provided replacement meaning for the text in question, then you have no standing to effectively deny it’s literal meaning.
CV
Oh, it means what it says alright, but there’s simply no Change in God.
OV
You mean where God says that He did not do what He said He would do, and He did not do it, you mean THAT means that He DID DO what He said He would DO? And He did do it?
CV
God always gets His will done, it all happened with out any change in God. Your wrong and we’re right, stop trying to confuse us with details.
:doh:
OV
2 The context denies the prophesy message was conditional
It was honestly going to be a national disaster and
it was honestly going to be brought upon them
It could not have been a conditional warning of possible destruction as in “shape up or else”. God described the prophesy with the following contextual build up. This is the truth, and you are in error for violating scripture. Please reconsider the following.
The prophesied “overthrow” was said to be: understood as lethal (3:9)
A national disaster (3:10)
that God would “bring [i](it) upon them” (3:10)
correlated with God’s anger verses His lovingkingness (4:2)
correlated with God doing harm (4:2) And remember, God recorded this account after the fact of it all happening. He would not have allowed the context to be falsifying about what actually happened. God's word is true, and if man contradicts God's word, then man is wrong and God is right.
If a nation repents from doing great wickedness, and puts their faith in God for their very lives, that is a good and righteous thing, it is not harmful nor lethal, it is not a demonstration of God’s disapproving anger, it is not a national disaster that was brought upon them. So every single contextual consideration about God’s prophesy contradicts the idea that it was conditional, including the conclusive example, that God said concerning that prophesy of intended course of action, that He did not do it, God did "not" comply with what He said He would do.
CV
No, since God sent Jonah ahead of time, the condition is only obvious, get real and read your bible, we’re right and your wrong. They repented which is what God ordained the entire time, they were overthrown, so God accomplished His intentions.
OV
You argue that God did overthrow Nineveh by their repentance. But God said that concerning what He said He would do, He did not do it, so if the prophecy was primarily or literally to get them to repent, and they did repent, then why did God lie when He said that He did not accomplish what He said He would do?
CV
God does not lie, and He does not change, your wrong, we’re right. Actually, it was a conditional prophesy, that is why we know that God never changed His mind, since it was conditional, there was no possible way for God to reverse from complying with His prophesy. It was a shape up or else conditional prophecy, why else would God send His prophet 40 days in advance if He only had in mind destroying them.
OV
The conditionality rests within God, His word was not conditional, it was honest and truthful just as is described in scripture. For God’s nature to hold "rational conditionality" necessarily means He can change His mind depending upon how (uncertain) yet future events optionally unfold.
CV
No, the condition was not in God, it was in His word. God did do what He said He would do.
:eek:
OV
3 The law of non-contradiction and moral integrity
It’s dishonest to contradict the truth
even if you use a lie to cover up a lie
to cover up a lie
Surely you can see the dishonesty in: Absolutely and perfectly knowing that you will not do something
and then
lying by saying you will do it anyway
and then
lying again (after the fact) by saying that you "repented" and did not do what you (honestly) said you would do, because the truth is that you never changed your mind at all. Both cases was an issue of "intended course of action", it is falsifying and perhaps heinous to say that what scripture says "did happen", "did not happen".
CV
No, it just was not, we don’t care what you think it means, your wrong, we’re right, God never intended on destroying them.
OV
No, your wrong for violating what God’s word plainly says, along with violating the entire context involved, and for promoting your manmade traditions that contradict scripture, voiding scripture and replacing it’s meaning with nothing (scripturally and contextually) fitting.
CV
We’ve already answered all your questions, just because you don’t like them does not mean their wrong.
OV
You have? Then what does Jonah 3:10 subsection part b specifically mean?
CV
(go back to the beginning and replay the same story without ever answering the question about what those words mean.)
:doh:
Conclusion
What a state of affairs! I love it that this is going on in the thread who’s entire quest is over one single bible conformity challenge (with three examples to choose from), and yet not one single closed theist has even come close to answering it. :) They are absolutely terrified of the text because it is in direct contradiction against their beliefs and thus it perfectly denies their viewpoint, so they just ignore and violate scripture because there is no middle ground on this issue. As long as they believe they are right (i.e. their false manmade presupposition of classic divine immutability), then they can not agree with God repenting or that the future holds at least some optional outcomes as is literally and repeatedly described in scripture.
Conform your faith to the bible!!! :up:
Don’t violate against the bible
because of manmade tradition! :down:
ALONG WITH THE BIBLICAL PROBLEM
WHICH WARNS AGAINST DOING VIOLENCE BY
VOIDING SCRIPTURE AND REPLACING IT WITH
NOTHING BECAUSE OF MANMADE TRADITION
INSTEAD OF SIMPLYCONFORMING TO GOD’S
UNDIVIDED WORD
From God’s word on divine repentance
An open challenge to closed theists
Notice I am not interested in what you think the passage does not mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage might mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage should mean.
I am not interested in what you think the passage implies.
I am not interested in if you think the passage is or is not that important.
I am not interested in if you think the passage is or is not enough to promote the open view.
I am not interested in claims that the word “relent”/”nacham” does not necessarily mean repent/change one’s intended course or mind.
(need I say more? ... ?)
I am “only” interested in what you think the passage “does” mean, specifically concerning divine repentance/”nacham” from doing what He said and or thought He would do. This is a fair inquiry and I dare say a biblical requirement for not “voiding”/”doing violence against” scripture. Scripture never returns void, and we should never violate/contradict scripture by our traditions/philosophy and “sincere” beliefs.
Question 1’s bible example
Here is my challenge to all closed theists. Any time you “void” the passage of meaning, you must replace it with a reasonable biblically provided replacement meaning. I’ll quote you verse 10 God’s version, and then I will quote you verse 10 in the closed view’s version. Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful version)
Jon 3:10 Then God saw their works,
that they turned from their evil way;
and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them,
and He did not do it. Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(Man’s meaningless closed view version)
Jon 3:10 .. ? .. God .. ? .. their works,
..?.. they turned from their evil way;
and God ? ... ... ? ... ... the disaster
... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... ? ... upon them,
and He ...?...?...?.
Question 1
If God is not saying that He repented from what He said He would do, then, what “is He saying When He says” that He repented from doing what He said He would do? (Restated more simply.) What does that verse mean if you deny that God can repent and change His mind?
:think: :confused:
Question 2’s bible example
(Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)
The Potter and the clay
The Vision, figurative speech
“1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the
LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the
potter’s house, and there I will cause you to
hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the
potter’s house, and there he was, making
something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that
he made of clay was marred in the hand of the
potter; so he made it again into another vessel,
as it seemed good to the potter to make.
God’s explanation of the vision, literal application
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me,
saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with
you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look,
as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you
in My hand, O house of Israel!
The general principle of divine repentance, literal
didactic truism
7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up,
to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken
turns from its evil,
(then) I will *relent of the disaster
that I thought to bring upon it.
9 "And the instant I speak concerning
a nation and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight
so that it does not obey My voice,
then I will *relent concerning the good
with which I said I would benefit it.
* nacham = Strongs #5162 = repent
“(then)” supplied in verse 8 for emphasis on
the “if then” conditional arrangement.
Question 2
Considering verses 7-10, if God is not saying that God will relent/repent/”nacham” from doing what He said “and” thought He would do, then, what is He saying When He says that He repents from doing what He said and thought He would do?
:think: :confused:
From God’s word on optional outcomes
An open challenge to closed theists
Question 3’s bible example
Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, "Thus says the LORD: `Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.'"
2 Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the LORD,
3 and said, "Remember now, O LORD, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what is good in Your sight." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4 And the word of the LORD came to Isaiah, saying,
5 "Go and tell Hezekiah, `Thus says the LORD, the God of David your father: "I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will add to your days fifteen years.
If the future is unalterable according to God's exhaustive foreknowledge, therefore everything that happens must happen according to that one single version, then this teaching that God changed what was going to happen is false. Either God lied when it says that He was about to die, or He lied when He said that instead of him dying presently, he will live another 15 years. If God always throughout all of eternity knew that He would not die for another 15 years, then the truth would have been that He changed nothing about when he would die.
Question 3
Considering verse 5's honest additional 15 years, if God has exhaustive foreknowledge, how do you rescue God from lying about adding 15 years to his life, and why does God plainly demonstrate that two different outcomes could have happened, if only one outcome can possibly happen?
At the center of this bible example is that according to the closed view, there can be no change in anything that happens, there is only one unalterable destiny, you can have no optional outcomes. So if the bible shows a truly altered outcome, then that is completely incompatible with the exhaustive foreknowledge and the closed view is false.
Thanks in advance for your respectful and thoughtful consideration and direct response. :thumb:
*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****
We should always trust, not correct/overturn God’s word.
Pr 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure; He [is] a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. God’s word never returns void. Isa 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper for which I sent it. In vain worship and incredulous hypocrisy, men void God’s word of it’s divinely given meaning and authority. Mt 15:6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’" Ultimately man must submit to God’s word. Ro 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."
This is the tenor of this entire debate. Demonstrated by correlating (hypothetical) example.
General overview
OV
The open view (more so) reasons by quoting God's word and rests it’s case on that. We literally accept it without violating it's contextual development.
Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).
God’s word says that He repented from it (changed His mind) and did not do what He said He would DO.
CV
The closed view (more so) reasons extra biblically and rests their case primarily on sources other than what is specifically provided by scripture. They reject (void of meaning) entire portions of scripture that deny their view and they also violate the context by doing so. And they effectively make God out to be a liar in order to maintain their views as being more authoritative. All while claiming “spiritual” correctness.
Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).
Who cares about what God said about Him changing His intended course of action by not doing what He said He would do, the closed view maintains that God can not change even if God says He does, so we are right and that is that.
Specific arguments
OV
1 God’s word is true and authoritative
It is a clear case of divine repentance against complying
with what God said and/or thought He was going to do
So what do the words mean then if they don’t literally mean what they literally say? Jonah 3:10 subsection part b
... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. CV
It does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla) and it does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla), man changed and therefore God simply did not need to punish them, so God did not change and that is that.
OV
That does not tell me what those specific words mean, it tells me that you are ignoring and perhaps violating them instead. If you do not have a suitable (specific) biblically provided replacement meaning for the text in question, then you have no standing to effectively deny it’s literal meaning.
CV
Oh, it means what it says alright, but there’s simply no Change in God.
OV
You mean where God says that He did not do what He said He would do, and He did not do it, you mean THAT means that He DID DO what He said He would DO? And He did do it?
CV
God always gets His will done, it all happened with out any change in God. Your wrong and we’re right, stop trying to confuse us with details.
:doh:
OV
2 The context denies the prophesy message was conditional
It was honestly going to be a national disaster and
it was honestly going to be brought upon them
It could not have been a conditional warning of possible destruction as in “shape up or else”. God described the prophesy with the following contextual build up. This is the truth, and you are in error for violating scripture. Please reconsider the following.
The prophesied “overthrow” was said to be: understood as lethal (3:9)
A national disaster (3:10)
that God would “bring [i](it) upon them” (3:10)
correlated with God’s anger verses His lovingkingness (4:2)
correlated with God doing harm (4:2) And remember, God recorded this account after the fact of it all happening. He would not have allowed the context to be falsifying about what actually happened. God's word is true, and if man contradicts God's word, then man is wrong and God is right.
If a nation repents from doing great wickedness, and puts their faith in God for their very lives, that is a good and righteous thing, it is not harmful nor lethal, it is not a demonstration of God’s disapproving anger, it is not a national disaster that was brought upon them. So every single contextual consideration about God’s prophesy contradicts the idea that it was conditional, including the conclusive example, that God said concerning that prophesy of intended course of action, that He did not do it, God did "not" comply with what He said He would do.
CV
No, since God sent Jonah ahead of time, the condition is only obvious, get real and read your bible, we’re right and your wrong. They repented which is what God ordained the entire time, they were overthrown, so God accomplished His intentions.
OV
You argue that God did overthrow Nineveh by their repentance. But God said that concerning what He said He would do, He did not do it, so if the prophecy was primarily or literally to get them to repent, and they did repent, then why did God lie when He said that He did not accomplish what He said He would do?
CV
God does not lie, and He does not change, your wrong, we’re right. Actually, it was a conditional prophesy, that is why we know that God never changed His mind, since it was conditional, there was no possible way for God to reverse from complying with His prophesy. It was a shape up or else conditional prophecy, why else would God send His prophet 40 days in advance if He only had in mind destroying them.
OV
The conditionality rests within God, His word was not conditional, it was honest and truthful just as is described in scripture. For God’s nature to hold "rational conditionality" necessarily means He can change His mind depending upon how (uncertain) yet future events optionally unfold.
CV
No, the condition was not in God, it was in His word. God did do what He said He would do.
:eek:
OV
3 The law of non-contradiction and moral integrity
It’s dishonest to contradict the truth
even if you use a lie to cover up a lie
to cover up a lie
Surely you can see the dishonesty in: Absolutely and perfectly knowing that you will not do something
and then
lying by saying you will do it anyway
and then
lying again (after the fact) by saying that you "repented" and did not do what you (honestly) said you would do, because the truth is that you never changed your mind at all. Both cases was an issue of "intended course of action", it is falsifying and perhaps heinous to say that what scripture says "did happen", "did not happen".
CV
No, it just was not, we don’t care what you think it means, your wrong, we’re right, God never intended on destroying them.
OV
No, your wrong for violating what God’s word plainly says, along with violating the entire context involved, and for promoting your manmade traditions that contradict scripture, voiding scripture and replacing it’s meaning with nothing (scripturally and contextually) fitting.
CV
We’ve already answered all your questions, just because you don’t like them does not mean their wrong.
OV
You have? Then what does Jonah 3:10 subsection part b specifically mean?
CV
(go back to the beginning and replay the same story without ever answering the question about what those words mean.)
:doh:
Conclusion
What a state of affairs! I love it that this is going on in the thread who’s entire quest is over one single bible conformity challenge (with three examples to choose from), and yet not one single closed theist has even come close to answering it. :) They are absolutely terrified of the text because it is in direct contradiction against their beliefs and thus it perfectly denies their viewpoint, so they just ignore and violate scripture because there is no middle ground on this issue. As long as they believe they are right (i.e. their false manmade presupposition of classic divine immutability), then they can not agree with God repenting or that the future holds at least some optional outcomes as is literally and repeatedly described in scripture.
Conform your faith to the bible!!! :up:
Don’t violate against the bible
because of manmade tradition! :down: