An open challenge to all closed theists

[1Way]

Everyone - this is a carry over thread prompted by Rolf about my condemning remarks toward Z Man. Rolf’s thread is about 2Pet 3:9, and my interaction with Z Man is in Does Calvinism Limit God, both of which are on this forum. I think this is a fascinating study of the inner workings of how the closed view actually treats God’s word when it comes to scripture that goes directly against their view.

Godrulz made an especially insightful observation when he said something to the effect of the following with my added emphasis, that;

• Open theism does not necessarily contradict the closed view’s “God does not change” proof text passages, although we disagree with the closed view’s interpretations especially to the extent that God does not change, but the fact is that we accept all these teachings in a way that does NOT violate the “God does change” passages.
  
  But
  
• The closed view does contradict the Open View passages that teach that “God does indeed change”, and their “supposed” harmonization involves some very bad interpretational methods.

Thanks godrulz for that core idea comparison.

I call that bad interpretational method

“voiding God’s word and replacing it with nothing specific”

and only generally suggesting that their manmade traditions(*) should suffice the better understanding, even though they never say what the text actually means then.

(*) classic immutability=God (Himself) does not change at all, He exists outside of time, He never learns anything, etc.


So I hope you enjoy this exercise which I think may prove interesting and enlightening on several levels.

Lastly, please see my posts 2 and 3 to for what I am getting at with the open, closed view challenge. Thanks in advance for your time and interest.



Rolf – post 1 of 3 General response

You said

I believe that the real issue concerns your refusal to acknowledge the fact that those scriptures which say God repents or repented do not at all contradict the scriptures which clearly teach that God neither repents nor changes.

and is so saying you display the level of misunderstanding you bring to the table. In no way fashion or form do I suppose, let alone teach or believe that divine repentance contradicts other scriptures which clearly teach that God does not repent nor changes.

So as I respond to such remarks, I must consider where you are coming from and simply hope for better from you.

To that regard you also said.

I am 67--old enough to remember a time in this country when men were too honorable to define someone who had taken a position contrary to theirs. They would say instead, "if you want to know that, you will have to ask him. I have no right to speak for him, and I will not do so because I might misrepresent him."

I am respectful of your advance age compared to me and others. But with all due respect, our social times and concerns should not focused on anything less than God’s revealed word. The great men of the bible never said what you are proposing, instead, they did right, and risked the consequences. Standing up for the truth of God and His word is a timeless pursuit. The bible teaches us to share good report and bad, and if necessary to even reject from fellowship those who are unrepentantly heretical and sexually immoral, also, you who is spiritual judges all things, and all the many examples of godly men and women judging against someone else and if necessary, proclaiming that reality to others. I agree about your view in terms of idle gospel and such, but no further than that. My charges against Z man are on public record for all to see, nothing is hidden, all is in my opinion fully substantiated and verifiable.

To the point, you are arguing in the negative, anyone can do that, how about you stop making charges against me by providing the reasonable evidence that what I have said is not so. I don’t think you will be able to do that, and perhaps more importantly, I think you are in the same boat as he! But don’t take my word for it, since you are taking this issue off topic and it is your thread, then I presume you are doing so of your own free accordance, please answer the following to demonstrate your position as being not afraid of the text.

I rightly maintain that Z Man is afraid of the text, that is from the observation as stated that he does not come near it other than to quote it and then always do either one or both of the following two things

• First he voids it of meaning
  
  Then he replaces the meaning he just voided with nothing.

And I’ve been very clear that I do not hold this position of condemnation of doing so based upon anything less than God’s revealed word (see the third post in this 3 post installment), all of which you are not directly responding to, but instead you are simply changing me with impropriety, which is a cheap shot.

Continued next post

 

[1Way]

Rolf – post 2 of 3 specific response w/examles

So lets see if you will fare any better than the Z.

Answer the following directly and without whole scale aversion (= fear) and then you may have room to speak. Until then I think you are in the same boat as Z Man. I would start with the last post I give as an example, it is my open challenge to all closed theists, entitled;

“From God’s word on divine repentance - An open challenge to closed theists”



Quote from the following post http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=480524#post480524

Z Man – We understand your frustrations with not being able to rightly handle scripture over one of dozens of examples of God changing via divine repentance via

demonstrations of God not doing what He said and thought He would do,

but your unwillingness to stop voiding some aspects of scripture from meaning, along you’re your violating it with manmade traditions which contradict the message given, represents a violence against God and His word that we respectable and biblically consistent people can not condone, and of course we feel that God plainly condemns those who do as you do, as previously revealed from God’s word about not voiding scripture of meaning and contradicting it with man’s traditions.

So we consider the source of your remark, your a person who is so educated and biblically trained that you can not even deal with the following half of a verse (Jonah 3:10 subsection “b”) without

contradicting it

and without providing a cogent bible based alternative meaning that does not contradict what the text plainly says,

so frankly Mr. Z, who cares if you can’t tell that smaller’s statements that God does “murder” and (immoral) lying are purely moronic claims, your willfull blindness to such matters speaks louder than all your self (deluded) sense of self righteousness. Your thoughts are here for all to see, as well as my consistent reminder of them. You forgot about that? Ok, here it is again, Z Man, the willfully self condemned bible voider and contradictor.

This is the Z in his typical willfully blind splendor.
__________________Jon 3:10b
God repented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring
upon them, and He did not do it.
_________:darwinsm: Z Man = :dunce: duh, says
__God repented from the disaster that He
__had said He would bring. That actually means
__that He did not repent (from doing what He said He
__would do).
________________________. :kookoo:
__Obviously God did not repent and change
__His previous intended course of action. :chuckle:

__Here’s why, it’s because He did do what He
__always was going to do, yep, it’s really simple, so
__that “is” what those words “actually” mean.
_______________ :dunce: :readthis: :freak:
___________God is true :cloud9: and
__________Z Man :freak: is false :dunce:

End quote (Actually, that was a slightly improved and abrevieated version.)



Also, I realize that this approach involves ridicule, so here is the earlier fully respectful version of the same request.

The following is from this post http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=473461#post473461 dated 2-28
Also, an even earlier post will be re-posted on the next post to show you how far this whole thing goes back and how evasive Z Man has really been.



Quote

Question 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:

Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy
(God’s meaningful open view 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
..?.. He .?.. ..?.. He ...?.... ..?.. upon them,
and He .?. .?.. do .?.


It’s amazing and sad how some people void scripture of meaning and replace it with nothing and think nothing of doing so.


End quote

Continued next post

 

[1Way]

THIS IS THIS THREADS CHALLENGE FOCUS AND TOPIC

THIS IS THIS THREADS CHALLENGE FOCUS AND TOPIC

****THIS IS THE FORMAL 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



Rolf – post 3of3

Here is the former challenge that no closed theist has yet to answer without violating the question. And this post is dated 2-21 with about a dozen “responses” from Z Man in which he never answers the challenge without violating the question or without violating God’s word, usually both.


From God’s word on divine repentance
An open challenge to closed theists


Quote


Z Man – Swordsman – closed theists - Consider the following, and please respond by answering the question below each example of God’s word provided.

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.

[size=3.5]Question 1’s bible example[/size]

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.

[size=4.5]Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy[/size]
(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.

[size=4.5]Jonah’s Nineveh prophesy[/size]
(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 ...?...?...?.

[size=3.5]Question 1[/size]


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:




[size=3.5]Question 2’s bible example[/size]

• (Jer 18:1-10 NKJV)
  
  [size=4.5]The Potter and the clay[/size]
  
  
  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.

[size=3.5]Question 2[/size]

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:


Thanks in advance for your respectful and thoughtful consideration and direct response. :thumb:



End quote



Actually, I gave this same argument using Jer 18:1-10 to Swordsman back on 2-18 at this post, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=465487#post465487 and the same argument to Z Man using Jonah 3:10 on post 312 dated 2-19, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=466336#post466336
from what I have since combined to make the fuller version previously displayed.


As to your challenging my authority and reasoning for stating the violence that has been perpetrated against God and His word on this issue, I sight the following.


*******NOTICE*******
THIS IS THE BIBLE’S
“VOIDING OF SCRIPTURE”
***CONDEMNATIONS****


Quote



Z Man – I will keep reflecting God’s word to you or whoever I please, because praise God His word never returns void, let alone goes out void, you are frustrated and (arguably) self condemned for voiding scripture of meaning and replacing that meaning with nothing. Here’s more of God’s authoritative word.

• 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 [in the thing] 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."

You don’t have to listen to me, but you do have to obey God if you want to please Him. Maybe you reject these as not being literal also.



End quote



So please reckon with what has actually transpired since all this has been placed before Z Man (on repeated occasions) and he has completely failed to respond without violating scripture as mentioned. I am not misrepresenting him, he is simply not dealing which what has been presented to him, and I greatly suspect, you will do the same, so heads up advanced warning, watch the hypocrisy, moral hypocrisy is a sin you know.

 

[1Way]

******FAIR NOTICE******


I will not accept attempts to show how Z Man or anyone else has already answered this challenge, he has not. We can take up that issue in the thread of origination. This is not specifically about Z Man, this is specifically about the observation that closed theists do not treat these passages with the integrity and respect what God specifically requires as mentioned in the last part of post 3.


I will only accept attempts of directly answering the closed view challenge as presented in my third post with the title

“From God’s word on divine repentance - An open challenge to closed theists”

without violating the question nor the scripture at hand.

Any (unreasonable) deviation from closed theists from answering the challenge may be viewed as being off topic, I do not want more and more obfuscation going on. With the exception of Rolf dealing with my charges of Z Man’s fear of the divine repentance passages, the topic is specifically a request for closed theists to respond to this very simple bible conformity challenge.


***END OF FAIR NOTICE***


Sounds simple enough...

 

[God_Is_Truth]

1 Way,

Good stuff :up:

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--There you go again. I believe that you just have problem with understanding people's meaning. I spoke of being 67 not to evoke some compassion or consideration from you. It does not matter how young or how old someone may be, all are due the same consideration. A young whippersnapper like you is due as much consideration from me as I might expect from you. I said I was 67 only to indicate to you how long ago that minimal courtesy toward others might have passed into oblivion. You forget me being 67. My mind is as young (in a sense) and as sharp as yours, plus I have the advantage of years of study--Whippersnapper! Let 'er rip!
Also, I am beginning to believe that there is between us the obstacle of a divide between our cultural heritages. That may very well be the largest obstacle.
Also--you have not yet demonstrated HOW your belief that God both changes and repents does not conflict with those scriptures which clearly teach that God does neither. You have done nothing more than say it doesn't conflict.
I demonstrated to you that the few occasions upon which the words indicating repentance or change in God do not conflict with
those verses which clearly show God's immutability because they are either only figurative or anthropomorhic. I have defended my stance that God is immutable.
Your responsibility, since you maintain that God is mutable, is to show how that stance does not conflict with those verses which speak of God being immutable; but you have done nothing more than say, they don't conflict. OH? Excuse me, sir. They clearly do conflict.
How can your stance not conflict with "Known unto god are all His works from the beginning of the world" Acts 15:18 or this--"The LORD of hosts has sworn, saying, "surely as I have thought so shall it come to pass, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand." Isa. 14:24

Can you really believe that your just saying "they don't conflict" will be sufficient? How IS it that they do not conflict?

Again, I remind you of differences in our cultural heritages. I believe you must be from a different part of the country than i am.
Roll up yer sleeves an' put up yer dukes, youngster!

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--again, I have already demonstrated how those verses do not conflict with verses which clearly states God's immutability.

Again, you claim that God is not immutable. I have answered the challenge already. You are the one who has not shown how your stance does not conflict. Can you show cause? I believe you switched the thread because you cannot pick up the gauntlet I cast down in the earlier thread. Go ahead. Pick it up. Pick it up, whippersnap. I reckon as how I'll show you yongsters a thang 'er two.!

 

[Berean Todd]

Re: THIS IS THIS THREADS CHALLENGE FOCUS AND TOPIC

Re: THIS IS THIS THREADS CHALLENGE FOCUS AND TOPIC

I have to get to class shortly, so unfortunately I don't have time to go too in depth here, but allow me to address some of your "questions" in brief.

Originally posted by 1Way
[size=3.5]Question 1[/size]


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:

God is going to smite people group X for doing abomination Y. They stop from doing abomination Y and call out for God's mercy. Now who has changed, the people or God?? They changed, and that change brought about God's mercy. Incidentally, God's prediction to destroy them would ultimately be fulfilled only roughly 150 years later, but that has no bearing on the case here. The fact is that the people changed, not God. That change in the people brought about another circumstance, in which God was able to display His mercy. As simple as that. And that word there is much better translated relented than repented.

[size=3.5]Question 2[/size]
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:

Again, it is as simple as the answer to the above. God's response to our behavior does not mean that He has changed. He will bring destruction and judgment ultimately upon the unrepentent, but if we turn to Him and seek His face, then His mercy may be shown. That does not mean God has changed, it means that WE have changed and God then is responding to a new situation - that of a repentent person/people as opposed to an unrepentent.

Remember, God is longsuffering, gracious and loving. He will judge all people, and His anger may well be displayed against the unrighteous, but if those people were to turn and repent God would forgive and relent. That is not a change in God, it is God reacting to a change in us.

I need to get to class now, but I don't see the above answer as being either the "mental gymnastics" you claim is required for the closed view, nor is it that hard to grasp, understand, comprehend, or find in Scripture.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Thanks, Berean Todd. Well said. I have decided I will not post again my answers to 1Way on the same verses he keeps posting. He has not bothered to justify his stance that God changes and repents even though God has said clearly that he does not. Man's inability to comprehend God's using words in a figurative or anthropomorphic sense does NOT justify their charging Him with being mutable. Our presentation of Scripture's meaning is much clearer than any presentation they can give of THEIR position. The burden is upon them to clear their understanding of scripture from contradictions.

 

[1Way]

Rolf – I would gladly respond to your questions as I often have done for others about this same issue, so don’t think that I am "unwilling" or "unable" to do so. Just point me to the location where you already asked me of this sort of thing and I’d be glad to respond in short order. I will not go off topic in this thread. I'm sure you can understand that much. Thanks for your time and thoughtful consideration.

 

[1Way]

I anticipated this might happen.

I did not post the second portion of post three for no good reason. I posted that portion to try to keep you closed theists from violating God’s word according to God’s word as highlighted. Please re-read that in order to better understand where my observation of biblical violence is coming from. And I am NOT saying that people violate and void God’s word of meaning and replace it with nothing on purpose. Ignorance is not condemnable, willful ignorance may be.

Everyone, please re-read the top of post 3 where I go to great pains to be as clear as possible what I am seeking in terms of your response. It should help to remember the problem before you answer so that the solution will fit the problem.

The problem is

• Don’t void scripture of meaning without replacing it with an appropriately biblically derived meaning.

And that is not to say that you closed theists must agree with me as I have been falsely accused of my Z Man and others like him, it is simply to say that the biblical nature of a view must be readily demonstrated or else by necessity it is to be placed in doubt.

Because I realize that such a requirement, although very simple and easy for most free willer’s and open viewer’s to comply with, represents a significant obstacle for those of the “closed view”. So I will do everything possible to alleviate this problem by giving an example that particularly demonstrates the solution for

• Voiding the passage of it’s literal meaning
  and
• Replacing it with a biblically derived meaning

Please consider the following post (w/a footnote after-post) as an “example” and “general guide” to what I am seeking as a response to this challenge.

 

[1Way]

******NOTICE THIS POST #12******

AN EXAMPLE AND GENERAL GUIDE
TO REPLACING THE VOIDED MEANING


All closed theists – This post was originally for Z Man, but is now for you.

Z Man – post 1 of 2
Thanks for your patience and respectful cooperation, this can be confusing. I am “only” interested in how this verse should be specifically interpreted/read=exegesis (a) the entire verse. Please consider the following as an example of the type of response I am looking for.


[size=3.5]1 - “Hating” loved ones in order to be Christ’s disciple[/size]

Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Is this verse literally teaching that we are required to hate our family and our own life in order to allow anyone to be a disciple of Jesus Christ? Consider the following.

1) Is this a simple direct teaching, or one that involves competing relationships? Jesus contrasts Himself against other normally loving preferential relationships. So there is a deliberate contrast being drawn between Himself and others. 2) Since the literal use for the word hate presents an interpretation problem, consider other uses of the word “hate” w/the various forms to see if God uses this word in figurative ways. If this is not to be taken literally, then we need to show reasonable cause and biblical support for so doing. (b)

The following is the fourth use in the bible of the word hate/hatred, and more importantly, it is the first use in a non-literal sense.


[size=3.5]2 - (Jacob) he “also loved” Rachel more than “Leah”[/size]

Ge 29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.

God did not simply say that Leah was hated, at first He said she was loved. It was Leah who naturally felt somewhat scorned because of her not being Jacob’s specific choice and desired love, it wasn’t that he didn’t love Leah, it was that in comparison, he loved Rachel more because Rachel was his chosen love and first wife to be, not Leah. Remember, God first said that Jacob “also” loved Leah in that he “loved Rachel more”. (c)


So the figure of speech of using the word “hate/hated” in conjunction with contrasting subjects actually means

“To love or prefer less then the other(s) in comparison.”


[size=3.5]3 - The answer to what this particular “hating” means[/size]

[size=3.5]The text should be interpreted as follows[/size]

Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not in comparison to Jesus, love/prefer less his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

Or more simply, restate the same idea in a positive sense, eliminating the double negative.

Lu 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not love/prefer Jesus more than his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

That is the meaning of this passage of text, that is what this text is communicating. It is not about a literal hatred, it’s about preferring or loving Jesus more than others.

:up:

Thank you for your time and effort, I am looking forward to your response, but in particular, and I can’t seem to stress this enough, it must include your suggested replacement meaning of the text that you maintain it does not mean what it literally says, “The text should be interpreted as follows” portion is required.

(a) (b) (c) (Note, for more info and support reasoning, see the 3 additional comments in the following post.)

 

[1Way]

All closed theists – This post was originally for Z Man, but is now for you.


Z Man – post 2 of 2


(a)
As Jesus said

Lu 10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading [of it]?"

There is a difference between simple recognition of words = “reading”, and understanding what the words mean, “interpretation”. What is written, and what is your “reading” of it? We open and closed theists each “read” the same “written text” of Jonah 3.10 for example, but our “reading/interpretation” of it is very different, Jesus did not want to simply know what text applies, more importantly, He wanted to know what was the interpretation of the text. Thus we have two very different kinds of “reads” and arguably, the more important issue is that of interpretation (granting you have the appropriate text in mind).


(b)
I searched for “hate” along with it’s various forms and found the following uses

Gen 24.60 8130 saw-nay
Gen 26.27 8130 saw-nay
Gen 27.41 7852 saw-tam

All of which treat the word hate in a literal sense.


(c)
So when Rachel says that God heard that I was hated, she was over exaggerating her “affliction” which would be natural if you agreed to marry Rachel, your love, and then instead you are tricked into marrying Leah, the one you had not desired! So naturally she was afflicted in the cause of love and desire, but her admission that she evidently protested to God that she was hated, is obviously not accurate according to the entire contextual development, she was loved, but not desired as Rachel was both loved and desired.

Ge 29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. 33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.

I think that God was wise by adopting a very special use of the word hate, instead of simply rejecting Leah’s affliction. Also, there is a strange twist to Leah’s affliction in that it seems all indications are that she was a willing partner in Jacob’s deception. She certainly did not have to go along with her father’s treachery, thereby she imposed her own problems upon herself! So knowing all this, it is also easier to see why her resolution to gain Jacob’s love, was of her own devising, namely that she bare him children, which although is a common blessing and normally serves well to bond the family in love, it again was not God’s idea, but her’s.

Thus, there is a bit of back and forth between verses 30, 31, 32, and 33. It seems the thought progression is revealed backwards from 33, to 31 where verse 32 is the general idea of the problem explaining this figurative use, she was afflicted because of the treachery, therefore v.33 says that from her view, God heard that she was “hated”, as a result, that explains verse 31 where God says that she was hated. In reality, she was loved, but not with a first choice preference, and not without deceit and treachery forcing their union. Thus in v.30 Leah is loved simply less than Rachel, and v.31 she is said to be hated.

 

[1Way]

Berean Todd – Among your other non-answers to my question, you said

And that word there is much better translated relented than repented.

I agree. :thumb: Relenting donates the added inter-relational aspect that is richly provided by the contextual development, the idea of one party giving in to another.

Like the common use of two wrestlers for example, where one pins the other and then requests that the pinned party relent and say “uncle”, or “I give” (up the struggle). Or, after petition and repeated petition, the judge or husband or whoever finally relents because of the constant struggle that he or she no longer desires to engage. Relenting is a wonderful word choice!

As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

 

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by 1Way
As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

And I did exactly what you asked. For example, among your scriptures is:

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.

And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.

There's a reason that open theism is the black sheep of theology, and near every theological society is denouncing it, and declaring it heresy. It is un-Biblical. Period.

 

[1Way]

Berean Todd – You quoted me and then responded by saying

As to your misapplied response, the challenge is not as you assumed in your response, I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say (and of course that the replacement meaning should be rightly derived from scripture).

And I did exactly what you asked. For example, among your scriptures is:

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.

And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.

Not true.

Like I said, and you again did not pay attention to,

I am asking what the words mean that you effectively maintain that they do not mean what they plainly (or literally) say.

You did not even mention the concept, let alone give it’s replacement meaning in your supposed answer.

The idea that you were supposed to replace presented by the text in question (according to your example) is

• God sometimes does not do what He “thought” He was going to do

You “claim” that you explained what that concept should instead mean, but the fact is that you have not done that. In fact, since you have presented God’s word without replacing any voided meanings (as you "claim" to have done, but did not do), happily God’s version remains meaningfully intact and still accurately expresses what it plainly says, namely that God does not always do what He previously thought He would do.

So by your repeated non-corresponding responses, apparently your understanding of what this passage means is exactly what it plainly says, which is what we open theists maintain it means. You little devil you.

Say one thing and then do another.

Looks like yet another closed theist crumbles at arguably one of the simplest bible conformity challenges possible.

Just replace the one single idea

that is literally expressed by God’s word

with a biblically provided replacement meaning,

and they don’t even try.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

And I told you plainly what it means. Those people above were doing evil, and God was intending to destroy them. They turn from the evil, causing a new set of circumstances. These are now repentent people, calling on God. God's mercy then is allowed to kick in, in response to their repentence. He has not changed. They did. Simple. Easy. Plain to see.

so, when the people were doing evil, God intended to destroy them. now that they have repented, God no longer has any intention to destroy them.

in other words, since God was thinking "a" and is now thinking "~a" wouldn't you agree that he changed his mind? if not, can you ever really say he was thinking "a"?

 

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

so, when the people were doing evil, God intended to destroy them. now that they have repented, God no longer has any intention to destroy them.

in other words, since God was thinking "a" and is now thinking "~a" wouldn't you agree that he changed his mind? if not, can you ever really say he was thinking "a"?

He was thinking "a" in response to situation "x". He will likewise almost always or always think "a" in response to situation "x". Situation "x" disapeared though, and was replaced by situation "y". Situation "y" does not require response "a" from God, bur rather it engenders response "b".

 

[1Way]

Bearan Todd – In both of these examples Jonah and Jer, God says that He did not do, or may not do what He thought(*) He would do (i.e. previously thought He would do).

(*) or said He would do, God honestly speaks what He thinks

If those scriptures do not literally mean that, then you must replace that meaning with a biblically provided meaning.

 

[Berean Todd]

Originally posted by 1Way
If those scriptures do not literally mean that, then you must replace that meaning with a biblically provided meaning.

I don't know who taught you your voodoo hermeneutics, but I've never heard something that screwy in my life. Hermeneutical principles are simple. You start with what the original author was saying, in context, to the original audience. From that you can then find the theological principle that applies to all people and all times. From there you can go to homiletics, which would be to apply it to your culture and your time.

What you don't have to do, and what I've never seen any homiletical system purport, is that you must find some scripture that you can stick in there to make your meaning more clear. You do judge scripture and theology systematically, in light of other scriptures, and in that sense the Bible is clear - there is no shadow of turning in God.

The one going through mental gymnastics in this exercise 1Way is you, sir.