lee_merrill
New member
Indeed, we do need a decision here. It can't be both ways!
Did God have an implied condition, in his threat of destruction, that God, and Jonah, and the Ninevites all understood?
Blessings,
Lee
An open challenge to all closed theists
- Thread starter 1Way
- Start date
Indeed, we do need a decision here. It can't be both ways!
Did God have an implied condition, in his threat of destruction, that God, and Jonah, and the Ninevites all understood?
Blessings,
Lee
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
It can't be both ways if you present the question in an unrealistic way. It can and is both ways, but concerning two different things.
God’s prophesy and God’s entire plan was slightly different as is often the case between communicated messages and the entire intention. Namely, it is acceptable to withhold some information especially concerning contingency plans. You deal clearly with the most certain issues up front and then if contingencies occur, just deal with them. It has been generally agreed that some contingency within God existed over harming Nineveh. I for one have agreed to this going way back. But the message of the prophesy was not conditional because of the reasons God stated through the various descriptions about it “after the fact” of Nineveh’s repentance.
But that is precisely where the closed theist cannot accept the contingency to be located, since God can not change, so the closed theist feels forced to put the supposed contingency in His spoken prophesy in order to maintain that God never changed His intended course of action. The closed theist's cart of theology is before the horse of God’s word.
The fact that God gave 40 days before destruction represents a warning, but certainly it is unclear just how conditional this warning is, until you consider the context where God describes it as something that He was going to do, but ended up not doing it. So it was not conditional. You can warn someone years in advance about your intentions, but that does not necessarily imply conditionality about your intentions, it just means you warned them in advance. God explains the truth where the conditionality resides through Jonah by giving the accurate teaching that God Himself has a reputation for repenting from doing harm, i.e. if people repent, God may repent from bringing disaster.
If you put a premium on understanding and respecting God’s word on these matters, the prophesy is described by scripture AFTER the fact of their repentance as being
God’s prophesy and God’s entire plan was slightly different as is often the case between communicated messages and the entire intention. Namely, it is acceptable to withhold some information especially concerning contingency plans. You deal clearly with the most certain issues up front and then if contingencies occur, just deal with them. It has been generally agreed that some contingency within God existed over harming Nineveh. I for one have agreed to this going way back. But the message of the prophesy was not conditional because of the reasons God stated through the various descriptions about it “after the fact” of Nineveh’s repentance.
But that is precisely where the closed theist cannot accept the contingency to be located, since God can not change, so the closed theist feels forced to put the supposed contingency in His spoken prophesy in order to maintain that God never changed His intended course of action. The closed theist's cart of theology is before the horse of God’s word.
The fact that God gave 40 days before destruction represents a warning, but certainly it is unclear just how conditional this warning is, until you consider the context where God describes it as something that He was going to do, but ended up not doing it. So it was not conditional. You can warn someone years in advance about your intentions, but that does not necessarily imply conditionality about your intentions, it just means you warned them in advance. God explains the truth where the conditionality resides through Jonah by giving the accurate teaching that God Himself has a reputation for repenting from doing harm, i.e. if people repent, God may repent from bringing disaster.
If you put a premium on understanding and respecting God’s word on these matters, the prophesy is described by scripture AFTER the fact of their repentance as being
- a national disaster
- correlated to God’s response in anger instead of lovingkindness
- correlated to God’s intention of doing harm
- Jer 18:8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
Last edited:
God_Is_Truth
New member
well put 1Way :up:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Thank you. Theology is more enjoyable when you can accept God at His word.
In my opinion, Jer 18:8 (including all divine repentance examples) is the most conclusive teaching against the closed view. It is impossible to not comply with what you thought you were going to do, without that meaning that you changed your mind about it. A change in thought, is a change of mind! The closed view is wrong, and God is right.
The open view accepts God's word as true as well as His character and ways, because He honestly said that He does repent from what He said and thought He would do. Our view is as simple and biblical as could be. :up:
But,,,
The closed view denies the literal honesty involved over the exact same teachings. And when this teaching of divine repentance is truthfully demonstrated, they discount God's explanation of what actually happened in order to support their false doctrines. They void scripture of meaning and replace it with contradiction against scripture because of their manmade traditions. :down:
In my opinion, Jer 18:8 (including all divine repentance examples) is the most conclusive teaching against the closed view. It is impossible to not comply with what you thought you were going to do, without that meaning that you changed your mind about it. A change in thought, is a change of mind! The closed view is wrong, and God is right.
The open view accepts God's word as true as well as His character and ways, because He honestly said that He does repent from what He said and thought He would do. Our view is as simple and biblical as could be. :up:
But,,,
The closed view denies the literal honesty involved over the exact same teachings. And when this teaching of divine repentance is truthfully demonstrated, they discount God's explanation of what actually happened in order to support their false doctrines. They void scripture of meaning and replace it with contradiction against scripture because of their manmade traditions. :down:
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
That's ok Yorzhik, life is tough to do all that we would like to do. (Boy do I know that one) One thing about Jewish belief is “I hear” (second hand info, readers beware) that they have a history of sometimes dubious interpretation, like that competing or conflicting theories of interpretation and/or doctrine is accepted. And that is somewhat understandable since some of the most notable patriarchs of the faith used to directly reason with God and then apparently alternative outcomes sometimes resulted. God makes man into an integral part of His decision making. They only accept partial revelation so it’s hard to make things very clear when you don’t have the full picture (They reject the full revelation of God’s word, NT).
So it does not surprise me that they are somewhat inclined to accept the open view because God’s word portrays an authentic contingency capable God. However, I simply try to objectively consider a teaching no matter who offers it, because, if the message is right, it is right.
Hang in there Hedgehog, God’s probably not going to “will” death upon anyone anytime soon.
So it does not surprise me that they are somewhat inclined to accept the open view because God’s word portrays an authentic contingency capable God. However, I simply try to objectively consider a teaching no matter who offers it, because, if the message is right, it is right.
Hang in there Hedgehog, God’s probably not going to “will” death upon anyone anytime soon.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Thank you for your reply, now I wonder, were Jonah and the Ninevites mistaken, when they hoped, or thought there was a contingency within God?
JNH 3:9 Who knows? God may yet relent...
JNH 4:2 That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish.
Blessings,
Lee
Thank you for your reply, now I wonder, were Jonah and the Ninevites mistaken, when they hoped, or thought there was a contingency within God?
JNH 3:9 Who knows? God may yet relent...
JNH 4:2 That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish.
Blessings,
Lee
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee – I argued that contingency exists in God, but concerning the Nineveh prophesy message, it was not contingent, the context as repeatedly shown, disallows that option.
Jonah hoped that God would not repent, Nineveh hoped He would repent. They were right for assuming that God could repent over matters of His course of action. Like I said, the contingency resides within God as demonstrated.
Jonah hoped that God would not repent, Nineveh hoped He would repent. They were right for assuming that God could repent over matters of His course of action. Like I said, the contingency resides within God as demonstrated.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi 1Way,
I think we all agree that God had contingency with the threat of destruction, and Jonah thought there was contingency, and the Ninevites hoped there was. Thus I don't think it is possible to maintain that the contingency was only within God.
So I think we may conclude that God did not lie, when he threatened destruction that was conditional, and relented when the condition was fulfilled.
Now we must address the point that "God did not do what he said." Here are some thoughts about that...
DT 9:25 So I fell down before the Lord the forty days and nights, which I did because the Lord had said he would destroy you.
Here God said "he would destroy them", and no condition is stated, then Moses prays and destruction is averted. This is a very similar situation to Jonah and the Ninevites.
But there was a condition! It is implied in Dt. 9:25, but in the account of this event in Exodus, the condition is stated:
EX 32:10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them.
So we may say here also that "God said he would destroy them," and we may also say that "God said he would destroy them if Moses did not pray." Both statements are true, and it is the version of the statement without the implied condition that is in view in Jonah 3:10. I think the NIV has a good translation:
JNH 3:10 ... [God] did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
God can be said to have threatened destruction (he did), and he did not carry out his threat.
Blessings,
Lee
I think we all agree that God had contingency with the threat of destruction, and Jonah thought there was contingency, and the Ninevites hoped there was. Thus I don't think it is possible to maintain that the contingency was only within God.
So I think we may conclude that God did not lie, when he threatened destruction that was conditional, and relented when the condition was fulfilled.
Now we must address the point that "God did not do what he said." Here are some thoughts about that...
DT 9:25 So I fell down before the Lord the forty days and nights, which I did because the Lord had said he would destroy you.
Here God said "he would destroy them", and no condition is stated, then Moses prays and destruction is averted. This is a very similar situation to Jonah and the Ninevites.
But there was a condition! It is implied in Dt. 9:25, but in the account of this event in Exodus, the condition is stated:
EX 32:10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them.
So we may say here also that "God said he would destroy them," and we may also say that "God said he would destroy them if Moses did not pray." Both statements are true, and it is the version of the statement without the implied condition that is in view in Jonah 3:10. I think the NIV has a good translation:
JNH 3:10 ... [God] did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
God can be said to have threatened destruction (he did), and he did not carry out his threat.
Blessings,
Lee
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee – Your not dealing with the objective refutation and correction your opposition has served your viewpoint. If you do not correct/refute these arguments, they deny yours for contradicting scripture.
Instead of dismissing my “claim” only, that the prophesy could not have been conditional, how about you actually deal with my claim along with the support argumentation, along with their biblical examples and critical reasoning and conclusions, ALL IN ONE!
You see Lee, what I just exposed in you, is exactly your problem, you are contextually and meaningfully weak because you do not take in a sufficient amount of information in order to have it properly shape your understanding prior to making a judgment/decision. “Selective listening” has the same effect in selective reading and theology. Anyone can “generally” dismiss something without bringing the particulars and support reasoning into sharp focus, but once something is well understood, it’s a whole different ball game.
You are really overlooking a huge amount of ground that has already been covered. Click here to see my post that serves to highlight the main arguments against the CV in a theoretical mock discussion. I’ll present these arguments one at a time, so please try not to jump into another type of argument until each one is covered, but feel free to answer with the best you have to offer each time. But remember, just because I do not constantly charge you with lying, doesn’t mean I have forgotten about you two recent occurrences. May God, through personal humility towards conformity of His teachings direct you to stop working against the truth just because you want to.
It was not reverses psychology
The context disallows a conditional prophesy
Quote:
God’s word is true, there is no good reason to contradict what God’s explanation about what honestly happened.
One doable step at a time.
Instead of dismissing my “claim” only, that the prophesy could not have been conditional, how about you actually deal with my claim along with the support argumentation, along with their biblical examples and critical reasoning and conclusions, ALL IN ONE!
You see Lee, what I just exposed in you, is exactly your problem, you are contextually and meaningfully weak because you do not take in a sufficient amount of information in order to have it properly shape your understanding prior to making a judgment/decision. “Selective listening” has the same effect in selective reading and theology. Anyone can “generally” dismiss something without bringing the particulars and support reasoning into sharp focus, but once something is well understood, it’s a whole different ball game.
You are really overlooking a huge amount of ground that has already been covered. Click here to see my post that serves to highlight the main arguments against the CV in a theoretical mock discussion. I’ll present these arguments one at a time, so please try not to jump into another type of argument until each one is covered, but feel free to answer with the best you have to offer each time.
But remember, just because I do not constantly charge you with lying, doesn’t mean I have forgotten about you two recent occurrences. May God, through personal humility towards conformity of His teachings direct you to stop working against the truth just because you want to.It was not reverses psychology
The context disallows a conditional prophesy
Quote:
- ... why did God contradict you (closed theist)] by saying that after the fact of Nineveh repenting, that His intentions towards Nineveh was to
- bring national disaster (3:10)
- from His anger verses lovingkindness (4:2)
- and from His intention to do harm (4:2)
Or do you think that Nineveh’s godly, righteous, and truthful repentance was really a “national disaster” and correlates to God’s “opposing anger” instead of His loving-kindness and represents “harm”?
After God “got His way” with Nineveh and they trusted in Him, the reason to continue the fibbing (reverse truth telling) had been eliminated, He could have simply correlated what happened as being completely in accordance to what He planned the entire time and that the harsh words worked great as a warning that actually did come to pass.
The conditionality was within God, not His prophetic word, God’s word makes that perfectly clear.
God’s word is true, there is no good reason to contradict what God’s explanation about what honestly happened.
One doable step at a time.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee – You said
(2) No “but” may apply. No one is excepting conditionality from this issue, therefore your contrary exception, “but” does not apply.
“There was a condition, it is implied ...” – we all agree on that phraseology.
(3) False. There is no stated condition what so ever. The text implies through logical reasoning, not states, that in God resides the option to avert His wrath. This is tantamount to your “lies” from before. But, since you do not stand correct by such an approach, I’ll just have to state the facts as they relate to the truth of the matter with no personal focus on your open and continued dishonesty against God’s word.
(4) I just looked up the Ex passage, and in that passage there are several accounts of pleading with God such that God altered His judgments, and when I considered the context from the one passage, and I looked at the cross references, it did not link these two passage together that you say is the same event.
I did more study for you and found that the following is more accurately the associated text.
(Original response assuming your correlation is accurate.)
The text “says” nothing of any condition at all. Because of the wider context, we logically understand that there is an implied condition, but the location of that conditionality is only assumed to be within God, not in His message of judgment. He says, leave “ME” alone, let “MY” anger kindle, that “I” may destroy them. Since “God” did not follow through with His judgment, which is not here stated as what He will do, but what He “may do”
For the text to indicate that the contingency existed in God’s word of destruction, God would have said something like,
I will destroy them if they do not repent, so leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them in case I should destroy them.
That is stating the conditionality in His prophetic word, and there is no godly righteous scenario where God would repent from following through with that sort of conditional warning.
So this is similar as the Nineveh situation,
except for one very important detail (of opposite difference!), in Nineveh, God never qualifies His intended course of action as being conditional, in fact the opposite is true, God qualifies His spoken word as being unconditional and that He did not do what He said He would do. The condition is only implied within Himself and the allowance for a warning period prior to executing His judgment. Again, giving an advance notice of your intended course of action by itself means no conditionality, it only means you warned them in advance of what you say you will do, so the fact is that the only assumption of conditionality is clearly understood to reside in God.
In your example with Moses, after the fact of it happening, God “said” that it was a matter of what He MAY do, not WOULD do. However in the case of Nineveh, God STATED that it was a matter of what He WOULD do and yet DID NOT do. So your analogy is incongruent/false/wrong/not fitting. Also, God further qualified the nature of what He said He would do, as being
(5) That is a completely false claim with no basis in truth. The conditionality is only implied, and it is assumed to reside within the person of God, not His word of judgment that He later did not comply with “doing” (=changed course of action).
(6) That is not a “translation” of the original words, that is a grossly bad paraphrase of only some of the words plus a new word added that does not exist(!!!), the text does not have a word like threatened in it.
Selective listening and selective reasoning and theology is a gross thing to promote. Better is to deal uprightly with the truth of a matter.
(7) False, God did not communicate a threat, the conditionality is implied within Himself to repent from complying with His previous intended course of action concerning what He said He would do, and what He thought He would do (see Jer 18).
At every reason for your view, you invoke false pretenses, and show that you do not deal rightly with simple matters of
what someone says compared to what is implied
what is said “may” happen and what is said “will” happen
and these matters are on the scale of post elementar school grade level. By the time a home schooled student gets to junior high, they should know the difference between what is said “may” (or may not) happen, and what is said “will” happen. Also same with being able to distinguish between an implied condition, and a stated condition.
Instead of presenting so many false assumptions, much better is, stand on the solid ground of the truth which supports you, instead of condemns you for going against it.
(1) True, no condition was “stated”. Too bad this honest observation marks your point of departure from the truth from here on out.
(2) No “but” may apply. No one is excepting conditionality from this issue, therefore your contrary exception, “but” does not apply.
“There was a condition, it is implied ...” – we all agree on that phraseology.
(3) False. There is no stated condition what so ever. The text implies through logical reasoning, not states, that in God resides the option to avert His wrath. This is tantamount to your “lies” from before. But, since you do not stand correct by such an approach, I’ll just have to state the facts as they relate to the truth of the matter with no personal focus on your open and continued dishonesty against God’s word.
(4) I just looked up the Ex passage, and in that passage there are several accounts of pleading with God such that God altered His judgments, and when I considered the context from the one passage, and I looked at the cross references, it did not link these two passage together that you say is the same event.
I did more study for you and found that the following is more accurately the associated text.
- De 9:14 ‘Let Me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they.’ 15 "So I turned and came down from the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire; and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands. 16 "And I looked, and behold, you had sinned against the LORD your God—had made for yourselves a molded calf! You had turned aside quickly from the way which the LORD had commanded you. 17 "Then I took the two tablets and threw them out of my two hands and broke them before your eyes. 18 "And I fell down before the LORD, as at the first, forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all your sin which you committed in doing wickedly in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger. 19 "For I was afraid of the anger and hot displeasure with which the LORD was angry with you, to destroy you. But the LORD listened to me at that time also. 20 "And the LORD was very angry with Aaron and would have destroyed him; so I prayed for Aaron also at the same time.
- De 9:22 "Also at Taberah and Massah and Kibroth Hattaavah you provoked the LORD to wrath. 23 "Likewise, when the LORD sent you from Kadesh Barnea, saying, ‘Go up and possess the land which I have given you,’ then you rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and you did not believe Him nor obey His voice. 24 "You have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you. 25 "Thus I prostrated myself before the LORD; forty days and forty nights I kept prostrating myself, because the LORD had said He would destroy you.
(Original response assuming your correlation is accurate.)
The text “says” nothing of any condition at all. Because of the wider context, we logically understand that there is an implied condition, but the location of that conditionality is only assumed to be within God, not in His message of judgment. He says, leave “ME” alone, let “MY” anger kindle, that “I” may destroy them. Since “God” did not follow through with His judgment, which is not here stated as what He will do, but what He “may do”
For the text to indicate that the contingency existed in God’s word of destruction, God would have said something like,
I will destroy them if they do not repent, so leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them in case I should destroy them.
That is stating the conditionality in His prophetic word, and there is no godly righteous scenario where God would repent from following through with that sort of conditional warning.
So this is similar as the Nineveh situation,
except for one very important detail (of opposite difference!), in Nineveh, God never qualifies His intended course of action as being conditional, in fact the opposite is true, God qualifies His spoken word as being unconditional and that He did not do what He said He would do. The condition is only implied within Himself and the allowance for a warning period prior to executing His judgment. Again, giving an advance notice of your intended course of action by itself means no conditionality, it only means you warned them in advance of what you say you will do, so the fact is that the only assumption of conditionality is clearly understood to reside in God.
In your example with Moses, after the fact of it happening, God “said” that it was a matter of what He MAY do, not WOULD do. However in the case of Nineveh, God STATED that it was a matter of what He WOULD do and yet DID NOT do. So your analogy is incongruent/false/wrong/not fitting. Also, God further qualified the nature of what He said He would do, as being
- a national disaster (3:10)
- brought upon them by God’s anger instead of lovingkindness (4:2)
- with the intention of doing them harm (4:2)
(5) That is a completely false claim with no basis in truth. The conditionality is only implied, and it is assumed to reside within the person of God, not His word of judgment that He later did not comply with “doing” (=changed course of action).
(6) That is not a “translation” of the original words, that is a grossly bad paraphrase of only some of the words plus a new word added that does not exist(!!!), the text does not have a word like threatened in it.
Selective listening and selective reasoning and theology is a gross thing to promote. Better is to deal uprightly with the truth of a matter.
(7) False, God did not communicate a threat, the conditionality is implied within Himself to repent from complying with His previous intended course of action concerning what He said He would do, and what He thought He would do (see Jer 18).
At every reason for your view, you invoke false pretenses, and show that you do not deal rightly with simple matters of
what someone says compared to what is implied
what is said “may” happen and what is said “will” happen
and these matters are on the scale of post elementar school grade level. By the time a home schooled student gets to junior high, they should know the difference between what is said “may” (or may not) happen, and what is said “will” happen. Also same with being able to distinguish between an implied condition, and a stated condition.
Instead of presenting so many false assumptions, much better is, stand on the solid ground of the truth which supports you, instead of condemns you for going against it.
lee_merrill
New member
Hi 1Way:
Well, it can't be both ways! How can a prophecy be both conditional (within God, and with Jonah considering it conditional), and unconditional? God didn't say the condition, but it didn't need to be said. It was understood, like the example of saying you will meet your friend for lunch tomorrow. Lots of implied conditions! And none of them needed to be said, because they were understood. Just because you didn't mention one condition, doesn't mean that "I'll meet you for lunch tomorrow" was therefore unconditional.
Well, it can't be both ways! How can a prophecy be both conditional (within God, and with Jonah considering it conditional), and unconditional? God didn't say the condition, but it didn't need to be said. It was understood, like the example of saying you will meet your friend for lunch tomorrow. Lots of implied conditions! And none of them needed to be said, because they were understood. Just because you didn't mention one condition, doesn't mean that "I'll meet you for lunch tomorrow" was therefore unconditional.
I did respond to this. Yes, he did threaten destruction, but his intent was for mercy (4:11), and that was his overall plan, to do them good:
JNH 4:2 He prayed to the Lord, "O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish."
Jonah knew that his mission was one of mercy, he thought that was God's overall plan, and he even told God that. And he was correct. As part of God's overall plan, God threatened destruction, but that was in order to get them to repent. Again, this was not a lie on God's part, because the threat had a condition, that was understood.
No, I think overthrow can have different meanings here, but I don't think repentance can have different meanings here. What I meant previously was that overthrow could possibly mean either destruction or repentance. But I'm willing to skip that point!
Are you saying God lied? God himself will end up in the lake of fire if that is true:
REV 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving ... and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.
And the conditionality was not just within God! Jonah told the Lord before he set out that he thought he was been sent for a purpose of mercy. And the Ninevites understood that there might be a condition. They were both correct! So how was the word given not conditional? Again, "I'll meet you for lunch tomorrow" is stated unconditionally, but it is still a conditional statement, nonetheless.
Lee (from a previous post): Now we must address the point that "God did not do what he said." Here are some thoughts about that...
EX 32:10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them.
DT 9:25 So I fell down before the Lord the forty days and nights, which I did because the Lord had said he would destroy you.
The first two points we agree on, glad for the agreement!
"Leave me alone" is indeed a condition, though. It implies that if Moses does not leave God alone, the destruction will be averted.
But this does refer to the events described in Ex. 32:10:
DT 10:1 At that time the Lord said to me, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones and come up to me on the mountain."
At what time? At the time of Moses' prayer, in Dt. 9:25.
How is it that a condition may only be stated "If X then Y", though? If you say "give me the hammer, so I can drive the nail," I may now insist that this is unconditional, and that you should be able to drive the nail without the hammer, because you didn't say "If you give me the hammer, I can drive the nail." No, there is an implied condition in either statement.
But God said he would do it, though:
DT 9:25 I lay prostrate before the Lord those forty days and forty nights because the Lord had said he would destroy you.
Those are the words he used. But again, there was a condition present, stated in Exodus, and unstated in Deuteronomy.
What word has been inserted, though? The Hebrew word "dabar" has been translated as threatened, I think that is appropriate, it has a wide range of meanings. There is no Hebrew word for "threatened," that I know of, so if you want to say "threatened" in Hebrew, you have to use one of the broad-brush words, such as "dabar." Here are all the meanings that the NASB used in translating this word:
Again (2), assert (1), boast (1), commanded (1), counseled (2), declare (2), declared (5), declared (1), directed (2), discuss (1), made (1), meant (1), named (1), passed sentence (3), preached (1), proclaimed (2), promised (34), promising (1), pronounce (3), pronounced (6), proposal (1), repeated (2), said (50), say (18), saying (1), saying (1), says (4), sing (1), speak (297), speaking (61), speaks (34), speaks fluently (1), spoke (333), spoken (188), state (2), statements (2), subdues (2), talk (7), talked (7), talking (9), tell (18), telling (4), tells (2), threatened (1), told (16), utter (1), uttered (1), utters (1).
The other alternative words that have been translated as "threatened" are "bo" and "ad" (lots of meanings for these words, too!). "Bo" means basically "to come", and "ad" means basically "to". So there is no Hebrew word I can find that means just "threatened", thus again I think the NIV translation is proper. Also, the NASB translates "dabar" as "threatened" in Psalm 38:12, so this is indeed a possible translation, where appropriate. And I think it is appropriate in Jonah 3:10.
Well, Jonah understood the condition, so it wasn't all within God.
Why does an implied condition not make a statement conditional? "I'll meet you tomorrow for lunch," the conditions are all implied, therefore the statement is not conditional?!
And if you say (or imply!) "I will do X if Y", then that also means "I may do Y."
Blessings,
Lee
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee – Finally, full circle. You said
Yet despite this reversal of your own false statements, agreeing with me that the message was not conditional, you still do not agree where the condition resides. I have shared with you God’s word and you are not convinced. I can do no better than God can with such a one as you. So all I can say is thanks for taking the time to show yourself in contradiction to yourself and God’s word in order to argue against me for simply trusting in it.
The following perfectly denies your view, just in case you forgot.
You finally admit that God did not say the condition, it is understood beyond the message given. Thank you for contradicting and thus correcting your earlier statements saying that God spoke the condition.
Yet despite this reversal of your own false statements, agreeing with me that the message was not conditional, you still do not agree where the condition resides. I have shared with you God’s word and you are not convinced. I can do no better than God can with such a one as you. So all I can say is thanks for taking the time to show yourself in contradiction to yourself and God’s word in order to argue against me for simply trusting in it.
The following perfectly denies your view, just in case you forgot.
- national disaster (3:10)
- prophesy of national disaster is correlated with God’s anger instead of His lovingkindness (4:2)
- prophesy of national disaster is correlated with God’s intent to do harm (4:2)
lee_merrill
New member
Hi 1Way,
I agree that God did not speak the condition, though this does not imply that the message was not conditional. "I will meet you for lunch tomorrow" has all kinds of unspoken and implied conditions which are all understood. I agree that the condition is in God, I also would mention that Jonah thought there was a condition, and the Ninevites hoped there was, so it wasn't a secret!
I just finished addressing this, very carefully, I thought, for the second time, even. I shall not repeat myself, though, but I would point out that this is not the way to make progress. You need to address my responses...
This is your view, certainly, we were discussing this, so let's advance the discussion, and I would ask that you respond to my latest comments on this, in my previous post. Please and thank you...
I'm not saying God intended harm, you are saying that, and that, again, was what we were just discussing. As for your last point, no, I do not hold that repentance meant disaster, the other way around, that overthrow might mean repentance.
Blessings,
Lee
I agree that God did not speak the condition, though this does not imply that the message was not conditional. "I will meet you for lunch tomorrow" has all kinds of unspoken and implied conditions which are all understood. I agree that the condition is in God, I also would mention that Jonah thought there was a condition, and the Ninevites hoped there was, so it wasn't a secret!
I just finished addressing this, very carefully, I thought, for the second time, even. I shall not repeat myself, though, but I would point out that this is not the way to make progress. You need to address my responses...
This is your view, certainly, we were discussing this, so let's advance the discussion, and I would ask that you respond to my latest comments on this, in my previous post. Please and thank you...
I'm not saying God intended harm, you are saying that, and that, again, was what we were just discussing. As for your last point, no, I do not hold that repentance meant disaster, the other way around, that overthrow might mean repentance.
Blessings,
Lee
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee – You said
A spoken message that is truly not conditional, is truly not conditional. You can not have A and non-A, at the same time and in the same relationship, that is contradictory nonsense. The only way you can introduce a condition upon this “situation”, is through some other avenue that in fact may be conditional, like unknown yet future events for example.
Evaluating the meaning conveyed is the only way to evaluate if a spoken message is conditional or not. The fact that other elements may come to bare to effectively alter our yet future plans does nothing to alter the message’s conditionality, it only shows a lack of sufficient knowledge over all yet future uncertainties.
I do not wish to continue to ignore what God says on this issue. I have presented God’s word on it, and you reject it. You have seriously lost your way, and if you can’t humble yourself by standing corrected by God, then it would be foolishness for me to think you would stand corrected by me. You have lied by falsifying God’s word and you have yet to apologize for doing so, so forgive me for not trusting and respecting you.
Ok, this is your last chance Lee. You remain way out of line. In my next post I will examine your response, not as a favor to you, but because you suggest you have previously answered me and I have neglected to respond. I sincerely hope you are not falsifying the truth again.
Before I examine your previous post which I partially overlooked, you said
It is these sorts of 100% contradictions against the truth of a matter that demonstrates your personal willingness to promote the opposite of the truth of a matter that effectively makes you a liar for speaking so many contradictions against the truth. You are a very untruthful individual. I simply do not accept such behavior and treatment of God’s word.
The spoken message was not conditional, God was conditional
The discussion is over, you admitted as true the exact ingredients for my view so there is no further need to continue, you have contradicted yourself by supporting my view, your view has been self refuted. You may not agree with my conclusion about these facts, but I care little how logical and upright you and your personal integrity are, what matters is the truth of the matter.
So in summary, we both agree that the message was not conditional, God was conditional, however you are apparently unwilling to remain consistent with those facts, and I am more than willing to not violate God’s word by contradicting it in order to lift your own manmade views as more authoritative than God’s word. God plainly says that He was going to bring a national disaster upon Nineveh, that was His spoken message to them that He repented over and ended up not doing.
You work vigorously against the truth so I care little if you disagree with me as I care greatly about the truth even if it contradicts your manmade tradition that you hold so dearly, even above God’s word. And bless God, even this exact change of events, that I was honestly going to respond to your arguments, and now I am not, even this substantiates the truth of the matter. I still say that I at the first, I was going to answer your post, but then, after something outside of that message changed, therefore I changed my mind over what I thought I was going to do, while at the same time, the message that I originally gave, is still just as unconditional and true as it was before or after I changed my mind. I’m the one that changed, not my previous intention to respond. God is right and you are a fool for contradicting Him and the truth of the matter.
When I first read your post, I did not at first catch your agreement that “the condition is in God”. Since I already spent my time arguing this post without considering that statement, please read the following with that in mind and then at the bottom of this post, I will address this point directly.
A spoken message that is truly not conditional, is truly not conditional. You can not have A and non-A, at the same time and in the same relationship, that is contradictory nonsense. The only way you can introduce a condition upon this “situation”, is through some other avenue that in fact may be conditional, like unknown yet future events for example.
Evaluating the meaning conveyed is the only way to evaluate if a spoken message is conditional or not. The fact that other elements may come to bare to effectively alter our yet future plans does nothing to alter the message’s conditionality, it only shows a lack of sufficient knowledge over all yet future uncertainties.
I do not wish to continue to ignore what God says on this issue. I have presented God’s word on it, and you reject it. You have seriously lost your way, and if you can’t humble yourself by standing corrected by God, then it would be foolishness for me to think you would stand corrected by me. You have lied by falsifying God’s word and you have yet to apologize for doing so, so forgive me for not trusting and respecting you.
Ok, this is your last chance Lee. You remain way out of line. In my next post I will examine your response, not as a favor to you, but because you suggest you have previously answered me and I have neglected to respond. I sincerely hope you are not falsifying the truth again.
Before I examine your previous post which I partially overlooked, you said
Your response, if it is to be assumed fitting to my statements (which it is not!), implies that I suggested that you said that the "overthrow prophecy" meant a "national disaster", I did NOT suggeste that you said that God intended harm, so trying to invalidate me by saying such a slanderous statement is more falsification that I do not accept. You seem to like to swim in falsifications. God said that the overthrow mentioned in His prophesy to Nineveh was to be a national disaster, it can not mean repentance.
It is these sorts of 100% contradictions against the truth of a matter that demonstrates your personal willingness to promote the opposite of the truth of a matter that effectively makes you a liar for speaking so many contradictions against the truth. You are a very untruthful individual. I simply do not accept such behavior and treatment of God’s word.
The spoken message was not conditional, God was conditional
The discussion is over, you admitted as true the exact ingredients for my view so there is no further need to continue, you have contradicted yourself by supporting my view, your view has been self refuted. You may not agree with my conclusion about these facts, but I care little how logical and upright you and your personal integrity are, what matters is the truth of the matter.
So in summary, we both agree that the message was not conditional, God was conditional, however you are apparently unwilling to remain consistent with those facts, and I am more than willing to not violate God’s word by contradicting it in order to lift your own manmade views as more authoritative than God’s word. God plainly says that He was going to bring a national disaster upon Nineveh, that was His spoken message to them that He repented over and ended up not doing.
You work vigorously against the truth so I care little if you disagree with me as I care greatly about the truth even if it contradicts your manmade tradition that you hold so dearly, even above God’s word. And bless God, even this exact change of events, that I was honestly going to respond to your arguments, and now I am not, even this substantiates the truth of the matter. I still say that I at the first, I was going to answer your post, but then, after something outside of that message changed, therefore I changed my mind over what I thought I was going to do, while at the same time, the message that I originally gave, is still just as unconditional and true as it was before or after I changed my mind. I’m the one that changed, not my previous intention to respond. God is right and you are a fool for contradicting Him and the truth of the matter.
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Lee, a closed viewer just agreed that conditionality is in God, confessing plainly that “the condition is in God”.
You just can’t get any better than that! God is (to some significant extent) conditional, God is not completely unconditional (without change).
:up:
You just can’t get any better than that! God is (to some significant extent) conditional, God is not completely unconditional (without change).
:up:
LightSon
New member
I believe it is possible for 2 mature, honest men of God to disagree, even on doctrinal matters. Disagreement may indicate an incorrect position or line of reasoning, but it doesn't require that one of them is lying.
My sense is that the Lord would have us to be respectful and gracious towards each other.
My sense is that the Lord would have us to be respectful and gracious towards each other.
God_Is_Truth
New member
i agree. we can debate open theism, calvinism, armininism and whatever other 'isms' there are till we are blue in the face but we need to still understand that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Jesus died for every one of us and even though we believe the other person is wrong in their theological position, they still have accepted the gospel and are a new creation in Christ.
let us debate peacefully and in love.
lee_merrill
New member
Conditionality does not imply change in God's nature, though. If you jump off a ledge, the law of gravity will take you down, if you stay on the ledge, the law of gravity will hold you down. Two different responses, but the law of gravity hasn't changed.
No, I am saying you can say "A" and mean "if X then A" and have it be understood that way, too. Like when you say to your friend, "I'll meet you for lunch tomorrow." That is a conditional statement, though the conditions are not stated.
Anyway! I am kind of getting a blue face :noway:, I think we are sort of stuck here. So I shall cease and desist...
Best wishes to all, and to all a good night...
Blessings,
Lee