ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[patman]

Forgive me, Nang.

I, Patman, have failed the S.V.er's of this thread.

I did not feel the necessity to read AMR's links because I felt if he didn't want to just quote the highlights with links directly on the post, it wasn't worth my time to read.

After all, I just spent hours and hours making the time line, making sure the numbers align, making sure the scriptures agreed. I saw everything work out, and align, I did extra research to make sure I was right. The word "here" just didn't compel me to read it.

But I did, and I let you guys down. I didn't realize I wasn't twisting scripture, the word of God, to your liking.

I should have realized when God said "years", he didn't realllllllly mean years.

I didn't realize that we should drop the words "serve" and "afflict" from the 400 year prophecy.

I should have know that we should uphold the verse about the fourth generation higher than the 400 years, and forget all about the service thing.

I should have ignored Isaac lived in the promise land when I counted, and not counted from Jacob, and I shouldn't have counted right (after all, he did die in Kiryat Arba, thats in Judah, but who am I).

I should have known.

Sorry for being one of those silly christians who takes 400 years to be years and not generations... after all that should have been absurd. I can't believe I was one of the fools to think when God spoke something, that he meant what he said.

This concludes my apology....

afterthought: hmmmm, maybe I misunderstood the term "apologist?"

 

[Nang]

Forgive me, Nang.

I, Patman, have failed the S.V.er's of this thread.

I did not feel the necessity to read AMR's links because I felt if he didn't want to just quote the highlights with links directly on the post, it wasn't worth my time to read.

After all, I just spent hours and hours making the time line, making sure the numbers align, making sure the scriptures agreed. I saw everything work out, and align, I did extra research to make sure I was right. The word "here" just didn't compel me to read it.

But I did, and I let you guys down. I didn't realize I wasn't twisting scripture, the word of God, to your liking.

I should have realized when God said "years", he didn't realllllllly mean years.

I didn't realize that we should drop the words "serve" and "afflict" from the 400 year prophecy.

I should have know that we should uphold the verse about the fourth generation higher than the 400 years, and forget all about the service thing.

I should have ignored Isaac lived in the promise land when I counted, and not counted from Jacob, and I shouldn't have counted right (after all, he did die in Kiryat Arba, thats in Judah, but who am I).

I should have known.

Sorry for being one of those silly christians who takes 400 years to be years and not generations... after all that should have been absurd. I can't believe I was one of the fools to think when God spoke something, that he meant what he said.

This concludes my apology....

afterthought: hmmmm, maybe I misunderstood the term "apologist?"

Patman,

I am not impressed with this reply, nor with your flippant attitude. :baby:

You have proven to be a disappointment in this whole discussion and attempt at important reconciliation of Holy Scripture.

Nang

 

[patman]

I have added a few things to this time line. Anything in bold is new. It goes all the way to the exodus. I had to use approximations a lot because my time is limited to get the exact dates out of scripture. Anyone is welcome to fix the approximations.

| = 10 years....
I = approximate for years, give or take a few

000_ Abraham Born - Genesis 11:26
010|
020|
030|
040|
050|
060|
070|
- 75 + Abraham is 75 and leaves Haran - Genesis 12:4
- 76 + Abraham is 76 and God tells him about the Slavery and the Exodus - Genesis 15
080|
- 86 + Abraham is 86 and Ishmael is born - Genesis 15
090|
100|
- 100 + Abraham is 100 and Isaac is born - Genesis 21:5
110|
120|
130|
140|
-140+ Isaac is 40 and marries Rebekah - Genesis 25:20
150|
160|
-160+ Isaac is 60 and Esau and Jacob are born - Genesis 25:28
170|
-175+ Abraham is 175 and dies - Genesis 25:7
180|
190|
200|
-200+ Isacc is 100 and Esau marries, Jacob flees. - Gen 26:34 ;Genesis 28:1
210|
220|
-220+ Jacob is 60 leaves his home to go to his father.
230|
240|
250|
-251+Joseph is born - Jacob is 91 - Gen 41:46, Gen 45:6,Gen 47:28 (147-17-(7*2-5[i.e.9])-30)
260|
270|
280|
-280+ Isaac is 180 dies - Genesis 35:28
-281+ Joseph is 30 and put over Egypt - Gen 41:46
290|
-290+ Jacob is 130 enters Egypt with the rest of Israel - Genesis 47:28 (147y-17y)
-290+ Kohath newly born as he enters into Egypt with Jacob's people-Genesis 46
300|
-307+ Jacob is 147 and dies - Genesis 47:28
310|
320|
330|
340|
350|
360|
-361+ Joseph is 110 and dies - Genesis 50:26
370|
380|
390|
-390+Amram is born to Kohath. Exodus 6:18
-390+ Kohath is 133 and dies. Exodus 6:18
400|
410|
420|
430|
440|
450|
460|
470|
480|
490|
500|
510|
520|
-527+ Moses is born to Amram - Exodus 6:20
-527+ Amram dies at 137 - Exodus 6:20
530|
540|
550|
560|
570|
580|
590|
600|
-607+ The Exodus (80 years after Moses' birth.). - Exodus 7:7

Even though it isn't relevant to my original point, 430 years prior to the exodus puts us close to Abraham's death(with in 2 years.). If Kohath was 2 years old when he went to Egypt with his family, this could account for the difference.

30 years after Abraham's death brings us to the approximate departure of Jacob from his family( which means 400ish years passed between Jacob's fleeing Esau and the Exodus).

This is all technical and irrelivant to my original point that God said Israel would serve in a land that is not theirs. In reality, while they did serve, it was for only 246 (max).

Getting the exact details doesn't matter in regards to my main point. We can still tell the maximum amount of time they served and were afflicted by Egypt. It wasn't 400.

Gen 15:13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.

 

[patman]

Patman,

I am not impressed with this reply, nor with your flippant attitude. :baby:

You have proven to be a disappointment in this whole discussion and attempt at important reconciliation of Holy Scripture.

Nang

My attitude depends on yours. If you smart off to me or to someone I respect, I do not feel the need to speak to you respectfully. I find it interesting that you would look down your nose at my attitude when your attitude is what inspired it.

Nang, you might shrug it off as a bad attitude, but that is being a hypocrite. Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but when it comes to your discussions with me, you are.

 

[patman]

Oh, trying to get me to twist the words of God don't help....

If you could simply address me with your own words about how I am wrong, I wish you would.

 

[lee_merrill]

maybe because the 'most who will not' refers to the Old Testament Israel (leaving a remnant) and the 'all will' refers to the New Israel in Christ (neither Jew nor Gentile). Just a thought. Why don't you tell us what you think it means?

Israel in both cases, clearly, I would say:

Romans 11:26-28 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs ...

This must then be Jewish people.

And pending points for Muz:

It most absolutely could [be known that all the disciples would forsake him]. Given the present state of their hearts, it wouldn't even require God's knowledge to know that.

This you know, exactly, how?

Romans 5:20 Now the law came in so that the transgression might increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more...

This does NOT say that God causes sin. As we saw in Romans 2, knowledge of the law is required for sin to be sin. Thus, with law, all know right from wrong, and we choose to sin even more as a result of knowing the law...

And how are we to read "the law came in so that transgression might increase"? For I know of your conclusions.

... as you note: "Assyria was punished for the sins they committed while they we're doing the overall will of God, which was to conquer Israel."

I'm surprised that you cannot distinguish the two, but want to make God the cause of evil.

How then are we to read "he who wields the axe"? And my view is that God causes sin without being the source of evil, as in the life of Joseph, for he brings about a good result, that is in fact his purpose--as in the cross.

"The cup which the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?"

Peter's choice was already made.

I think I see the procedure here. So then what decisions may we say are free, and how can we tell when a decision cannot be revoked?

P.S. I still need to know if God seeks to save all men...

 

[Lon]

Lon, why does everyone try to reword the prophecy in their explanations?

The verse said in Gen 15:13 ...“Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years

Can you admit to me that Settled theology forces you to reword scripture?

I tend to be a little less interested in the numbers. I usually run numbers if somebody asks me, but it isn't something I look to prove or disprove. The Hebrew writers, as far as I have observed, did ball-park figures (at least I've seen a few that do not add up). At the same time, I try not presume upon those figures. Ideas like this need serious study by careful scholars and despite the fact that most do not like commentaries, I think at times like this we should really rely on them. I don't think you can just do the math.

If I go fishing with two Christian friends and we come back with a bunch of fish between us and the one guy says we caught a truck load. The other guys does the math and says we caught 45. There is a discrepancy between their figures but my other friend didn't mean truckload literally. His pickup wasn't literally filled, but what he was saying is we caught our limit. He is quite accurate if truckload means 'limit.' Heaven help the poor sap 2000 years from now if English is no longer spoken.

 

[patman]

I tend to be a little less interested in the numbers. I usually run numbers if somebody asks me, but it isn't something I look to prove or disprove. The Hebrew writers, as far as I have observed, did ball-park figures (at least I've seen a few that do not add up). At the same time, I try not presume upon those figures. Ideas like this need serious study by careful scholars and despite the fact that most do not like commentaries, I think at times like this we should really rely on them. I don't think you can just do the math.

If I go fishing with two Christian friends and we come back with a bunch of fish between us and the one guy says we caught a truck load. The other guys does the math and says we caught 45. There is a discrepancy between their figures but my other friend didn't mean truckload literally. His pickup wasn't literally filled, but what he was saying is we caught our limit. He is quite accurate if truckload means 'limit.' Heaven help the poor sap 2000 years from now if English is no longer spoken.

Lon, AMR and Rob again and again accused me of being imprecise. I wonder if they would say the same for you? That made me push my time and study deeper. I found the timeline useful because you can use it to line up the dates that things happened. Unfortunately, it is impossible to be 100% certain at this point as to the exact year for a few events.... But ball park figures are possible. In my latest update to the timeline, I am confident that the details are accurate with in a very few years(+-10 maybe).

It is certain that Israel served as slaves in Egypt for much less than 300 years. 200 is looking better and better.

If I have a highly accurate history book, and read that in 1980, I was born, nothing could change that. The past is utterly settled.

Now lets say this book is "magical." Not only is it a history book of the past, it is a history book of the future.

If my dad was to have this book, and read the part about me being born in 1980, he could bank on it, because in this anology, the future is just as settled as the past.

Settled Theist, in essence, say that God has just such a book. The future, present, and past are all settled to God. He can read it, look at it, and be in all three at once. That is what is said.

If God looked at the book, and knew exactly what was going to happen, he could proclaim it before it happened, and it should happen exactly the way he said it would happen. Sure, he could use ball park figures. Maybe he could read the book, see that in 103 years such and such would happen, yet say "In 100 years..."

But don't you agree 400 and 200 are not ball park? 200 is half of 400. If he has this book, he wouldn't be that far off. No way.

Even AMR said the captivity was 215!

Lon, please, I beg you, open your eyes and look at the facts. Don't pretend they aren't there, don't wish them away. Don't let ignorance fool you into not seeing the truth. Please Lon.

You have always been my favorite person to talk to in this thread. Don't let me down. If you disagree, then tell me why. Don't shrug it off.

Do you know atheist know the Bible better than some christians? They have lists and lists of supposed bible contradictions. Don't think this will never come up again, because they know it, and they deserve a good answer. They will not take the "ignorance is bliss" answer. Instead they will think "Here is another christian who believes in something that I am more familiar with than he."

Lon, if you are willing to ignore this, it tells me that some part of you thinks this could cause problems for what you believe.

Realize this is only the tip of the iceberg. I will post more problems like this. Please, rise above the problems and deal with them, don't ignore them.

 

[Lon]

Lon, please, I beg you, open your eyes and look at the facts. Don't pretend they aren't there, don't wish them away. Don't let ignorance fool you into not seeing the truth. Please Lon.

I've read yours, and I've read the other points as well. Don't forget I'm kinda jumping in the middle here.

I remember the night I stayed up worrying about whether Judas hung himself or put a sword through his stomach. I finally had to go to sleep and in the morning do a little more study. I think it was a prof who actually told me "Both, he hung himself and nobody took him down." It made a lot of sense, but I still recognize that it deductive not inductive.

For this discussion, I'd have to do the same work and digging as you've done. I'd have to spend a lot of time looking at numbers. Let me work on it some.

You have always been my favorite person to talk to in this thread. Don't let me down. If you disagree, then tell me why. Don't shrug it off.

Do you know atheist know the Bible better than some christians? They have lists and lists of supposed bible contradictions. Don't think this will never come up again, because they know it, and they deserve a good answer. They will not take the "ignorance is bliss" answer. Instead they will think "Here is another christian who believes in something that I am more familiar with than he."

Lon, if you are willing to ignore this, it tells me that some part of you thinks this could cause problems for what you believe.

Realize this is only the tip of the iceberg. I will post more problems like this. Please, rise above the problems and deal with them, don't ignore them.

 

[patman]

I've read yours, and I've read the other points as well. Don't forget I'm kinda jumping in the middle here.

I remember the night I stayed up worrying about whether Judas hung himself or put a sword through his stomach. I finally had to go to sleep and in the morning do a little more study. I think it was a prof who actually told me "Both, he hung himself and nobody took him down." It made a lot of sense, but I still recognize that it deductive not inductive.

For this discussion, I'd have to do the same work and digging as you've done. I'd have to spend a lot of time looking at numbers. Let me work on it some.

I welcome you to. I hope it goes quicker than it did for me, but a few hours should show you that at the very least, less than 300 years in Egypt is the only possibility.

Please look into it, that's all I ask.:thumb:

 

[Lon]

Okay, work with me on it a tad.

Did you read this post thoroughly?

Look specifically at the Acts passage and how Paul understood it. That is very important for a starting point on 'how' to calculate and account for those years.


Do you agree with Paul's assessment at that point or are the atheists no buying it so you are looking for something else? (either the 400 or 430?)

So question 1: Who's starting place, and what are we up against?

(check his list at the bottom as well "common errors")

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Realize this is only the tip of the iceberg. I will post more problems like this.

Well before you start down a bunch of more rabbit holes, do us all a favor a review this or this beforehand.

 

[patman]

Okay, work with me on it a tad.

Did you read this post thoroughly?

Look specifically at the Acts passage and how Paul understood it. That is very important for a starting point on 'how' to calculate and account for those years.


Do you agree with Paul's assessment at that point or are the atheists no buying it so you are looking for something else? (either the 400 or 430?)

So question 1: Who's starting place, and what are we up against?

(check his list at the bottom as well "common errors")

Lon, I think the NT passages are being made into a bigger deal than they need to be. Not only that, they have little to nothing to do with Gen 15, and the fact that Israel was only in Egypt for 200ish years.

What amazes me tho, is that every time I look at these same passages in the NKJV, the verses are different enough to make them non issues. Take a look at Acts 13's verse. That site quotes like this:

Acts 13:16 Standing up, Paul motioned with his hand and said:
"Men of Israel and you Gentiles who worship God,
listen to me!
:17 The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers;
he made the people prosper during their stay in
Egypt, with mighty power he led them out of that
country,
:18 he endured their conduct for about forty years in
the desert,
:19 he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their
land to his people as their inheritance.
:20 All this took about 450 years.
:21 After this, God gave them judges until the time
of Samuel the prophet.

Yet the NKJV says:
Acts 13
16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17 The God of this people Israel[] chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. 18 Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. 19 And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.
20 “After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

That's just so different! Not only that, look at the starting point. "The God of this people Israel[] chose our fathers" One translation starts with Egypt, yet this one starts with the forefathers. One translation applies the 450 to the exile, the other to the time between the judges and Samuel.

It actually was about 450 years between Abraham's death and the Exodus.

Look at their translation of Acts 7

Acts 7:6 But God spoke in this way: that his descendants
would sojourn in a foreign land, and that they
would bring them into bondage and oppress them
four hundred years.
:7 'And the nation to whom they will be in bondage
I will judge', said God, 'and after that they
shall come out and serve Me in this place'.

I have no issue with this. For one, AMR called it lame, but we can't treat a quote of someone's mouth the same way we do an epistle. We just can't. But even if we did, Steven presents no problem with what he said.

He said, that God said, that they would be in bondage for 400 years. He is right. God did say that. I have said that God said that too. I agree with Steven that God said they would be slaves for 400 years!

I seem to be the only one who actually believes that God said that. But God did say that, it didn't happen because God changed his mind, but still yet, that is what he said would happen.

Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it
is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed,
no one annuls or adds to it.

:17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred
and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant
that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that
it should make the promise of no effect.

Notice how they left verse 16 out????

NKJV says:

16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,[j] that it should make the promise of no effect.

The starting point includes his seed. Even though Paul is speaking figuratively, he is sticking to the facts too. As I showed in my timeline, you can arrive at that number of years.

These "problems" just aren't problems at all.

 

[patman]

Well before you start down a bunch of more rabbit holes, do us all a favor a review this or this beforehand.

AMR,

I am not going to follow your links. Quote what you want me to read. Or just tell me yourself, in your own words.

BTW, You are still stuck at reconciling Gen 15 400 years of servitude and the 200 years of actual servitude.

If the future is settled just like the past, how can God proclaim a future that never happened? It would be like me saying "15 years ago I had a $400" when in truth I was I only had $200, but the only difference is God is doing that for the future, and you say he knew better.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,

I am not going to follow your links. Quote what you want me to read. Or just tell me yourself, in your own words.

BTW, You are still stuck at reconciling Gen 15 400 years of servitude and the 200 years of actual servitude.

If the future is settled just like the past, how can God proclaim a future that never happened? It would be like me saying "15 years ago I had a $400" when in truth I was I only had $200, but the only difference is God is doing that for the future, and you say he knew better.

That is your problem. You won't follow links. I post links that clearly demonstrate the error of your number counting, you ignore them. Lon tells you to read them, you ignore them. I post more links that catalog so-called biblical contradictions and you say you won't read them. So you will just go your merry way re-inventing the wheel as it were, and wasting your time. You know, if you won't take the time and effort to become more informed, no one will take you very seriously. I am actually trying to help you here, but you have your AMR blinders on.

 

[Lon]

AMR,

I am not going to follow your links. Quote what you want me to read. Or just tell me yourself, in your own words.

BTW, You are still stuck at reconciling Gen 15 400 years of servitude and the 200 years of actual servitude.

If the future is settled just like the past, how can God proclaim a future that never happened? It would be like me saying "15 years ago I had a $400" when in truth I was I only had $200, but the only difference is God is doing that for the future, and you say he knew better.

John Gill's Commentary:

"...about the space of four hundred and fifty years; not that from the division of the land of Canaan among the tribes, to Samuel the prophet, was such a space of years; for from the coming of the children of Israel out of Egypt, to the year that Solomon began to build the temple, were but four hundred and fourscore years, 1Kings 6:1 and out of these must be taken the forty years the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and seven years in subduing the land of Canaan, before the division of it, which reduce this number to four hundred and thirty and three; and from hence must be deducted the time of Samuel's judging Israel, the reigns of Saul and David, and three years of Solomon's, which reduced the years of the judges to less than four hundred years; and according to some, the years of the judges were three hundred and fifty seven; and according to others, three hundred and thirty nine, and both fall short of the space of years here assigned. The Alexandrian copy and the Vulgate Latin version read this clause in connection with the preceding words, "he divided their land unto them, about the space of four hundred years, and after that he gave unto them judges"; agreeably hereunto the Ethiopic version renders it, "and after four hundred and fifty years, he set over them governors, &c". So that this account respects not the time of the judges, or how long they were, but refers to all that goes before, and measures out the space of time from God's choice of the Jewish fathers, to the division of the land of Canaan: and reckoning from the birth of Isaac, when the choice took place, and in whom Abraham's seed was called, there was much about such a number of years; for from the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob, were sixty years; from thence to his going down into Egypt, an hundred and thirty years; and from thence to the Israelites coming out of Egypt, two hundred and ten years; and from thence to their entrance into the land of Canaan, forty years; and from that time to the division of the land, seven years, which in all make four hundred and forty seven years: so that, according to this account, there were three years wanting of the sum in the text; hence the apostle might with great propriety say, that it was about the space of so many years. It follows."

When the NT comments on the OT, it is important for us to consider what they also considered. They didn't see a dichotomy. Here is another important note: If we question as OV is questioning, it is indirectly questioning Biblical veracity and must eventually leads to direct questioning of Biblical veracity as well. If I think God can be incorrect, I or my grandkids are going to take it to the next logical step: The Bible can be wrong. Once we get to that point, we are Christian in name only.

 

[RobE]

God didn't lie, he changed his mind, changed the future, whatever, to keep Israel from having to stay another 130 years in slavery! His mercy is great!

Gen 15:13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.​

No Patrick. According to your definition of 'lying', God did lie. He said 400 years and you claim it was less. Not 'really' lying means what exactly? Are you saying that God decreed a false outcome?

Also, you state, "changed the future". Changed the future from what, Patrick? Are you claiming that God changed the future from what He foreknew to something else? If so, then you are acknowledging God foreknew the future to begin with. Without foreknowledge 'change' is impossible! You should also realize by now that if foreknowledge is untrue then what did God change the future to?

Even open theism requires God to foreknow free will acts. That's what the discussion is about. Your 'proof' proves foreknowledge of these actions. The foundation of all o.v. 'proofs' is precisely that which they strive to disprove - foreknowledge of free actions.

I'll repost my response to this 'proof' below.....

I haven't done any math! I'm not the one holding God to a timetable and then claim He's lying if I can't figure the math out.

This reminds me of Tyre and the King of Babylon. You know the one I mean---Alexander the Great.

Eternity is a long time. God fulfills His word according to His own plans and His own timetable. I think it's fair since He created everything. ALL prophecy and promises of God have been or will be fulfilled. Period. End of discussion. We both agree this is true. Does God lie? Never!

Let's discuss how God foreknows free will acts when the two are incompatible according to open theism. I'm willing to discuss the foreknown free acts of the Jews, Egyptians, or any other free agent which you believe upholds open theology. Considering the admission, that this ever really happened, defeats incompatibility.

Name an effect without a cause.

Was Pharoah free to keep the Jews enslaved?
Were the Jews free to reject Moses and stay enslaved?

What does this mean?

"...for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."​

Were the Amorites free to not sin?
Was Jacob free to not go to Egypt?
Was Joseph free in action?

Free will foreknown or foreordained. What's it gonna be?

 

[patman]

That is your problem. You won't follow links. I post links that clearly demonstrate the error of your number counting, you ignore them. Lon tells you to read them, you ignore them. I post more links that catalog so-called biblical contradictions and you say you won't read them. So you will just go your merry way re-inventing the wheel as it were, and wasting your time. You know, if you won't take the time and effort to become more informed, no one will take you very seriously. I am actually trying to help you here, but you have your AMR blinders on.

I did follow your links AMR, but I won't anymore. I am just letting you know. I am open to others testing my views, unlike you.

But I am simply asking you, for the sake of time, to just tell me what you want me to consider.

No one ever talks to you, they just talk about your links. It's a discussion form, and it is more engaging when you just tell people what area you disagree.

My numbers ARE not 100% concerning the amount of time They were slaves, but there is a maximum number of years. That number is, 270.

Please, please, please, stop bashing me and just answer my question. For someone who claims to be a teacher you don't teach. I have a question, just answer it.

 

[patman]

Gen 15:13 Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.​

No Patrick. According to your definition of 'lying', God did lie. He said 400 years and you claim it was less. Not 'really' lying means what exactly? Are you saying that God decreed a false outcome?

Also, you state, "changed the future". Changed the future from what, Patrick? Are you claiming that God changed the future from what He foreknew to something else? If so, then you are acknowledging God foreknew the future to begin with. Without foreknowledge 'change' is impossible! You should also realize by now that if foreknowledge is untrue then what did God change the future to?

Even open theism requires God to foreknow free will acts. That's what the discussion is about. Your 'proof' proves foreknowledge of these actions. The foundation of all o.v. 'proofs' is precisely that which they strive to disprove - foreknowledge of free actions.

I'll repost my response to this 'proof' below.....



Was Pharoah free to keep the Jews enslaved?
Were the Jews free to reject Moses and stay enslaved?

What does this mean?

"...for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure."​

Were the Amorites free to not sin?
Was Jacob free to not go to Egypt?
Was Joseph free in action?

Free will foreknown or foreordained. What's it gonna be?

Rob,

Great questions, but before I answer you 20 questions, could you answer my one? Please, just answer it. Answer it with answers, not questions, if you could.

Israel was slaves no longer than 270 years. The verse said they would be slaves 400 years. How can God know the future with 100% certainty when he was said 400 and it was less than 270?

 

[patman]

From most analyses, there were 215 years of sojourning in and around Canaan, and 215 years of sojourning and oppression in Goshen and Egypt = 430 years.

We can just ignore my timeline for now, one of your last posts said 215 was the time they were in Egypt. That just strengthens my point! I am hovering around 250, and as we all know, 250 is closer to 400 than 215.