ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

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.

If you read those links, they even help you out. One guy says we can only know for 'sure', that they were enslaved 80 years.

 

[Lon]

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:



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



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.



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.

Listen, numerology is indepth and scholarly work. Christian numerologists work very hard on this for much of their scholastic life and do their dissertations on these fine points.

You just brought up 'seed' for discussion which is Hebrew. Seed as in, "seed you fields" means plural. So you can't take the English here as we understand English compared to KJ English and make assumed extrapolations.

I think we talked about good software programs once and I recommended downloading E-Sword for free with Strong's notes.

Do that please and I'll give you instructions via PM how to use it for this answer.
The more you find your own answers with just a little guidance, the more scholarly and confident you'll become. It was a suggestion in the past. Please do this for me as I am searching this topic out for you. I've already spent an hour in doing so. E-sword will take about a half an hour (not including the download time) for study and answer to the 'seed' dilemma.

www.e-sword.net

 

[patman]

If you read those links, they even help you out. One guy says we can only know for 'sure', that they were enslaved 80 years.

Hi Lon

I hope they were only enslaved for 80 years. That doesn't seem likely AT ALL because Moses was 80 when he lead them out of slavery, and they were slaves before he was born... so I do not agree that it was that short at this time, I didn't agree with some of the dates.

My goal was only to find the maximum number of years possible. Because they were only in Egypt for 350(max), and Joseph died many years into that, the max is in the two hundred range.

If you want to agree with AMR's links, fine, it really doesn't matter, it isn't relevant to my point. They could have been slaves 20 years, 60 years 100 years, 200 years, or even 300 years. Pick the number you agree with, the fact is that it was not even close to 400.

And that is my point, that is my question... How can God say they would be slaves for 400 years when they weren't even slaves for 300, and at the same time the future be settled?

We are getting distracted. Steven said that God said that they would be slaves for 400 years. God said himself that they would be slaves for 400 years. I am simply restating what these two sources said. The original "plan" was 400 years of slavery.

But it changed. They were not slaves that long. Please, explain that.

Ohhhhh, btw. I have a Mac. I hate PC's, but I do have windows running on my Macbook. So I could install that program, but would rather not have it. I just use windows for my really cheap 3d animation program, and to test my websites.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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

I did very clearly tell you that your numbers were incorrect given a detailed analysis that I cited for you to go read. Later I point you to others' who have done similar, but less rigorous work, and concluded more or less the very same thing. What more do you want?

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.

I don't know what this means. Most of the time my links are to my already substantive previous posts that are directly on point. Should I duplicate them all the time? In your case, I posted external links for your own edification.

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.

You fail to see that I went out of my way to find this information for you, culling it from many more that were less useful or informative. Yet, you prefer to denigrate me for my efforts--on your behalf--and reply to others with dripping sarcasm.

My answer to your question is as before: you are wrong in your numbers, you are wrong in trying to tie the numbers to some argument about the future not being settled, you are wrong to ignore the analysis of others, in other words, patman, you are wrong.

 

[lee_merrill]

I have added a few things to this time line...

-390+Amram is born to Kohath. Exodus 6:18
-390+ Kohath is 133 and dies. Exodus 6:18
400|
410|
...
520|
-527+ Moses is born to Amram - Exodus 6:20
-527+ Amram dies at 137 - Exodus 6:20
530|
...
600|
-607+ The Exodus (80 years after Moses' birth.). - Exodus 7:7

... God said Israel would serve in a land that is not theirs. In reality, while they did serve, it was for only 246 (max).

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.

Well, here is something for you to consider, Patman.

Kohath, the son of Levi, had 4 sons (Ex. 6:18), who in turn had a total of 10 sons (Ex. 6:20-21; 1 Chr. 24:23-24), who in turn had 8,600 sons (Num. 3:28)! Surely there is a gap in this genealogy somewhere, they are called "clans" in Num. 3:28, which also implies some substantial history, as is indicated by the life of Levi being 137 years (Ex. 6:16), Kohath being 133 years (Ex. 6:18), and Amram living 137 years, yet if we say that they had all their sons at the very end of their life, we only get 407 total years, yet the time in Egypt spanned 430 years (Ex. 12:40), so there is not enough time in this genealogy to cover the time in Egypt, thus we probably have gaps in this genealogy. And presumably these Hebrew folks could add these numbers back then, and would have noticed such a discrepancy, if this was simply a numerical error.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

Well, here is something for you to consider, Patman.

Kohath, the son of Levi, had 4 sons (Ex. 6:18), who in turn had a total of 10 sons (Ex. 6:20-21; 1 Chr. 24:23-24), who in turn had 8,600 sons (Num. 3:28)! Surely there is a gap in this genealogy somewhere, they are called "clans" in Num. 3:28, which also implies some substantial history, as is indicated by the life of Levi being 137 years (Ex. 6:16), Kohath being 133 years (Ex. 6:18), and Amram living 137 years, yet if we say that they had all their sons at the very end of their life, we only get 407 total years, yet the time in Egypt spanned 430 years (Ex. 12:40), so there is not enough time in this genealogy to cover the time in Egypt, thus we probably have gaps in this genealogy. And presumably these Hebrew folks could add these numbers back then, and would have noticed such a discrepancy, if this was simply a numerical error.

Blessings,
Lee

I don't think it is that hard to imagine. The men were the only one's counted, ignoring women and children (unless the children were significant figures). The men often had multiple wives, and many children to those wives. The egyptians were shocked at how fast they grew, that is what caused the slavery in the first place.

 

[Lon]

Some for the MAC isn't too expensive. Logos is pretty good (I have it).

This on has a downloadable demo for MAC but I'm not sure how good it is.

This one MACsword is free and it is comparable to E-sword (Sword Project).

There are a bunch of freebies listed here. Many for MACs.

QuickVerse is selling their middle road (Black Box) for $99 right now. The link lists all the items (check marks) that come with that edition between the white and gold box editions. Might be a nice Christmas list item

Hard to beat free though. MacSword would be my first choice simply for the cost.

Size is only 7MB. After that, you can follow the link and get Strong's Concordance for the KJV and such. Pay attention to their instructions to download the raw data version and not the Windows ones.

 

[patman]

I did very clearly tell you that your numbers were incorrect given a detailed analysis that I cited for you to go read. Later I point you to others' who have done similar, but less rigorous work, and concluded more or less the very same thing. What more do you want?
I don't know what this means. Most of the time my links are to already substantive previous posts that are directly on point. Should I duplicate them all the time? In your case, I posted external links for your own edification.
You fail to see that I went out of my way to find this information for you, culling it from many more that were less useful or informative. Yet, you prefer to denigrate me for my efforts--on your behalf--and reply to others with dripping sarcasm.

My answer to your question is as before: you are wrong in your numbers, you are wrong in trying to tie the numbers to some argument about the future not being settled, you are wrong to ignore the analysis of others, in other words, patman, you are wrong.

AMR

I don't know whether to continue on topic or to stand up for myself when it comes to you and Nang. You are the only ones I ever smart off to on here, and that is because you provoke it.

I liked how Elijah smarted off to the false prophets to false Gods. Would you rebuke him too?

You only like people who agree with you. If I were on your side, you would cheer me on just like you do Nang. She dishes it out too ya know. Yet you are ok with that when it is aimed at me, and totally against me when I one-up her in sarcasm.

You act like there are two bodies of christ. The body that agrees with you, and everyone else.

When you show me such little regard, tell me, why should I believe you actually want to "help me?" What compliment have you ever given me? When did you ever give me any basic respect? All I get from you concerns how terrible I am. And how unworthy I am of you. Your witness is summed up in my signature.

Now you want me to believe you took time to help me? So you say you went through "all that work" to make a link... and I am supposed to thank you and forget about the rest? After everything you have done to put me down, I have to be super excited about a link? What are you trying to prove, and who are you trying to impress?

Even though all you do is put me down, respond with a few sentences and a few links, completely ignore me, and (worst of all) tell me I am not worthy to talk to you, I still do.

But how dare you expect me to be pleasant towards you! And what nerve you have to expect me to fall for this post!

What do I want from you? I have told you all along. Just talk... type, whatever. Use your fingers, and tell me exactly what you think I need to know. Answer my questions to you directly, and not with a, "Here," "Here," "Here," "Here," "Here," "Here," and "Here."

Because "here," isn't an answer. "Here" doesn't tell me you thought about my question. "Here," doesn't make me believe you catered your answer to my question. "Here," just tells me "read this and leave me alone."

I didn't know TOL was a canned answer site. You know what a canned answer is, right? An answer in a can. Just take it off the shelf, serve it to someone, and expect them to find it helpful. No, TOL is a discussion site. We come here to form dialog.

When you answer, just say what you think. If there is a particular paragraph from another web page, cite it. Quote it, give it credit by offering a link, bold the stuff you want to stand out, just make an effort!

Do you accept a student's essay when he just gives y ou a few books with bookmarks, with numbers, and a page that says "Dear professor, Here is my essay, just read these pages that are bookmarked in the order they are bookmarked?"

Why would you not understand? Type out your answers. Talk about your thoughts. People who come to these threads and read want it all there. Answers that are links are just distractions. If they find your explination good, and want more, then they can follow the links you cited.

Also, just pasting a bunch of links from google, or from you bookmarks doesn't work, not for me. I told you in my last post, so please, stop. Internet search, computer meta tags, are amazingly fast.

That timeline I made. That took time. I highly value my time these days. I love each second more than you ever even thought about loving them. My timeline, be it right or wrong, was a true time investment for you, and whoever would address my question. It's only purpose was to show that Israel was not slaves for 400 years.

So your links.... don't even try to compare their value in time. So, please, don't make yourself sound better than you are, while putting me down. Stop trying to put me down with this kind of bull.

Many of your links, even your own words, confirmed what I set out to prove. Israel was not slaves for 400 years. I am right about that. It is the only thing that I wanted to be right about.

God prophesied Israel would be slaves for 400 years. They weren't. Now, here is your chance to explain how an all future seeing God can say something would happen that didn't.

One last thing "Your wrong" doesn't convince me. Your links didn't either.

 

[patman]

Some for the MAC isn't too expensive. Logos is pretty good (I have it).

This on has a downloadable demo for MAC but I'm not sure how good it is.

This one MACsword is free and it is comparable to E-sword (Sword Project).

There are a bunch of freebies listed here. Many for MACs.

QuickVerse is selling their middle road (Black Box) for $99 right now. The link lists all the items (check marks) that come with that edition between the white and gold box editions. Might be a nice Christmas list item

Hard to beat free though. MacSword would be my first choice simply for the cost.

Size is only 7MB. After that, you can follow the link and get Strong's Concordance for the KJV and such. Pay attention to their instructions to download the raw data version and not the Windows ones.

The MacSword.... kinda annoying. The Strongs version, nearly impossible to search. I used my dad's at one point, but do not own one now.

Anyway, i found this site.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/d.pl?book=Gen&chapter=15&verse=13&version=KJV#13

I thought we could use it and not leave anyone out.

But before we get neck deep in this, please tell me how this relates. It seems we all agree the slavery/time in egypt wasn't 400 years.

What are you hoping I see?

 

[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

Everyone thinks that when another person disagrees, the problem must be the other person's depth of scriptural knowledge. It can never be our own fault.

Nang, maybe you should learn from Lon's attitude. I can be much less sarcastic when you engage me without the scoldings.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

When you show me such little regard, tell me, why should I believe you actually want to "help me?" What compliment have you ever given me? When did you ever give me any basic respect? All I get from you concerns how terrible I am. And how unworthy I am of you. Your witness is summed up in my signature.

Let's set the record straight. You drew first blood with your post in reply to me here. We had not communicated prior to that discussion thread. Anyone can read the history of our discussion in that thread will see that I was very civil with you until that post of yours. You seem to think sarcasm is "discussion". I do not. From that point on, you made by "wise-acre" list and deserve nothing more in return. Again, this just points out how imprecise you are with the facts. You want respect, leave the sarcasm at home. You want compliments, post cogently. I pos rep even the worst of those that disagree with me as long as they do so intelligently.

You want talk, typing, etc. from me? Other than the external links I suggested you view, all other links given to you are my typing. You just need to catch up on them for I see no need to re-post them when you can follow a link and clearly see what I have said on a topic in months and weeks past before you were involved in the respective threads.

The fact that you sincerely took time to create a timeline does not make it correct, only sincerely wrong. It is a worthy effort (that is a compliment by the way), but nevertheless, equally worthily wrong.

You write, "God prophesied Israel would be slaves for 400 years. They weren't. Now, here is your chance to explain how an all future seeing God can say something would happen that didn't."

Then you have proven God is a liar. You have therefore proven too much. God clearly tells us in the Scriptures that one of the key reasons (and tests) He is the one, true, God, is that, unlike false Gods, what He prophesied actually occurs. So unless you are ready to deny God's own words on the matter, you need to revisit your efforts and reconcile them with the clear teachings of God's own words.

 

[RobE]

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?

The answer to your one question --- God does not lie!

 

[patman]

Let's set the record straight. You drew first blood with your post in reply to me here. We had not communicated prior to that discussion thread. Anyone can read the history of our discussion in that thread will see that I was very civil with you until that post of yours. You seem to think sarcasm is "discussion". I do not. From that point on, you made by "wise-acre" list and deserve nothing more in return. Again, this just points out how imprecise you are with the facts. You want respect, leave the sarcasm at home. You want compliments, post cogently. I pos rep even the worst of those that disagree with me as long as they do so intelligently.

You want talk, typing, etc. from me? Other than the external links I suggested you view, all other links given to you are my typing. You just need to catch up on them for I see no need to re-post them when you can follow a link and clearly see what I have said on a topic in months and weeks past before you were involved in the respective threads.

The fact that you sincerely took time to create a timeline does not make it correct, only sincerely wrong. It is a worthy effort (that is a compliment by the way), but nevertheless, equally worthy wrong.

You write, "God prophesied Israel would be slaves for 400 years. They weren't. Now, here is your chance to explain how an all future seeing God can say something would happen that didn't."

Then you have proven God is a liar. You have therefore proven too much. God clearly tells us in the Scriptures that one of the key reasons (and tests) He is the one, true, God, is that, unlike false Gods, what He prophesied actually occurs. So unless you are ready to deny God's own words on the matter, you need to revisit your efforts and reconcile them with the clear teachings of God's own words.

Early disclaimer, nothing in this post is sarcastic....

AMR, you are very sensitive. VERY sensitive. If I were "attacking you," I think I could do better. I always wondered why you had a problem with me, and that post is what started it?

AMR, I use jokes, sarcasm, etc, for interesting reading. I make my points in doing so sometimes. But that post to you.... I wasn't being sarcastic. At all. I was trying to figure out where you stood and I hoped to get you to consider something different.

I don't get it. What was so sarcastic? My post to Nang, that was sarcastic. I was using the "Christian apologetic" thing as a play on words to apologize something that I really wasn't that sorry for. That's sarcasm. You say what you don't mean for jest.

For example, Nang thinks if I put off answering a topic that means I am ignoring it. Then she turns it around to make someone look stupid, or like they don't care about study. The truth is, I didn't have time to read all that on her schedule. I was going to read it at work that day, but I am pretty busy there lately. I'll disappear again after tomorrow too. I am 27, I gotta work my butt off to get ahead on top of many challenges no one should have to face.

But she uses that against people. She did it to Bob too. She tried to publicly embarrass him by making a whole thread about it. I don't know if you noticed that Bob formed the American Right to Life.

I know we all wish he had more time to address your answers. But he is obviously too busy. I bet he too wishes he had the time. But he is out doing very noble things, saving lives. That trumps your discussion for now. But Nang has got to cause a fuss. And so she did with me. She doesn't know what my life is like. She doesn't care. She uses anything she can to spin a non issue into something that will make someone else, who not on her side, look bad. And you all jumped on board.

So she got a sarcastic response from me. She will never learn. I could have called her a million names, I could have done much worst. Yet I didn't. I just made up some dumb several paragraph pun that offended her. I offended the offender.

As for you, I actually meant what I said in that link. But you were in a hurry to end the conversation and I still don't believe you really cared where I stood at the end of that conversation. I wasn't trying to offend, but you took offense. I really don't know why. I am sorry that I offended you, I never wanted to (not back then anyway ).

Let's look at this conversation now. I only have one point. Yet no one is even looking at it. No matter how I beg, and pled, no matter how I try to show the simple truth that Israel was not in Egypt, being afflicted for 400 years, no one is talking about it.

In stead the focus is on "Pat got that one birthday wrong" or "Pat was 50 years off on this one date." Even I know that, I made it known what days were approximations. I referenced everything so you could double check my figures. (I wish someone would if it is that important, and just tell me what day to move... but really, that isn't important at all because we are not discussing Moses, we are discussing Open Theism.) Whatever the case, I am not wrong about Israel's stay in Egypt being much less than 400. Not even close.

It looks like we should all agree that Israel was more or less NOT slaves for 400 years. They were in Canaan for a lot of that time. That's just how it was.

I can see why you are so willing to over look this.

Then you have proven God is a liar. You have therefore proven too much. God clearly tells us in the Scriptures that one of the key reasons (and tests) He is the one, true, God, is that, unlike false Gods, what He prophesied actually occurs. So unless you are ready to deny God's own words on the matter, you need to revisit your efforts and reconcile them with the clear teachings of God's own words.

That says it all. You don't want God to be a liar, You have another verse that seems to contradict the possibility, and you just don't trust me(from the rest of everything you said). I wish you said that first, and skipped the non critical links. I like that rebuttal much better than what has been happening.

I know God is no liar. But if you say "God knows the entire future" and "God said A would happen and A didn't happen," the two together make him a liar. A lie is when you speak about something you know about falsely.

lie 2
noun
an intentionally false statement
The American Oxford Dictionary.

It, however, is not a lie, if you didn't know that what you said wasn't true. I.E. If God didn't see the actual event, said what he thought/planned, and then something unforeseen happened that changed that thought/plan.

Another example: If Lon tells his kids he will take them to the park, then he walks out side to find someone slashed his tires, cut his phone line, and put chewing gum on all his shoes so bad that he CAN'T take them to the park, Lon didn't lie.

God's prophecies and promises are often conditional.. I don't think I need to break out the Jeremiah verse, you have heard it a million times I bet (here it is just in case). But it says God reserves the right to change his mind. Something that is only possible under Open Theism.

Maybe unforeseen things happened to move God to act faster. Maybe they were starting to forget him and worship false Gods. Maybe Egypt needed judged sooner, and God could wait no longer. A lot of things could explain how God saw fit to move ahead of schedule.

 

[patman]

The answer to your one question --- God does not lie!

Agreed.:thumb:

And how is that possible under settled theism?

 

[lee_merrill]

I don't think it is that hard to imagine. The men were the only one's counted, ignoring women and children (unless the children were significant figures). The men often had multiple wives, and many children to those wives. The egyptians were shocked at how fast they grew, that is what caused the slavery in the first place.

Um, that means each of the 10 sons had 860 sons! not counting daughters, doesn't that seem to you to be a little out of kilter? Think of the size of the dinner table. And you skipped my point about the years, there is not enough room in all the generations to cover the 430 years, so there are probably gaps in the genealogies.

 

[lee_merrill]

Agreed.:thumb:

And how is that possible under settled theism?

I would say prophecy being fulfilled confirms the point that God cannot lie, the question then becomes: how could Jesus say "Truly, truly" about Peter's denial, and future faithfulness in martyrdom years later, knowing it might not be true?

And if (as Muz did say) Peter had already decided to be faithful, after denying the Lord, and could not reverse this years later, how would faithfulness in martyrdom, when you could not change your decision made long ago, bring special glory to God?

Wouldn't the glory be in having a real choice to remain faithful at that time, and choosing to do so, instead of being unable to choose any other way than to be faithful?

And I do wonder how a decision can be made to remain faithful, that is impossible to reverse. Why then all the terrible warnings in Hebrews about falling away, though the writer is convinced of better things in their case, he is convinced of their salvation?

 

[Lon]

The MacSword.... kinda annoying. The Strongs version, nearly impossible to search. I used my dad's at one point, but do not own one now.

Anyway, i found this site.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/d.pl?book=Gen&chapter=15&verse=13&version=KJV#13

I thought we could use it and not leave anyone out.

But before we get neck deep in this, please tell me how this relates. It seems we all agree the slavery/time in egypt wasn't 400 years.

What are you hoping I see?

I wanted to be able to help you with 'seed' for a plural understanding. It was one of your points and I want to walk through this with you one step at a time.
We have to start somewhere. If you want a broad generalization, we can do that.

Let's start here. You gave me this as a link we could both use so I'm perplexed.

In it is a time chart that shows 430 years.

I am also trying to show relevance to how the early church fathers (Paul,Stephen) understood this.

Agreed.:thumb:

And how is that possible under settled theism?

I look at both Paul's and Stephen's understanding. They used the 400(+) years for apologetics. They weren't embarrassed for God.
Acts 13:16-21, Paul is addressing Jews and Gentiles. If there was a discrepancy on the understanding, Paul would have needed to clarify God was wrong, mistaken, or what-have-you. He didn't. Stephen didn't either. Both Paul and Stephen recognized the duration of the 400+ years as starting with Abraham and/or his offspring. For them, the numbers added up. They understood how the numbers fit.

Exodus 12:40 Notice 'after' the time, this comment is made. Either the whole ball of wax is completely wrong and in gross error even an OV view of God could not make, or we have to see the timescale as something completely different than just enslavement in Egypt.

I have not run the numbers at this point, but again, we have to come to an agreement of where to begin with the numbers. Do we take God's and Paul's and Stephen's word for it?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God's prophecies and promises are often conditional.. I don't think I need to break out the Jeremiah verse, you have heard it a million times I bet (here it is just in case). But it says God reserves the right to change his mind. Something that is only possible under Open Theism.

No Jeremiah 18:7-10 does not teach what you are claiming.

First, let's agree that the ESV or NASB versions of these verses more accurately renders the Hebrew:

Jeremiah 18:7 (ESV)
7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
(NASB)
7 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it;

Jeremiah 18:8 (ESV)
8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.
(NASB)
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it.

Jeremiah 18:9 (ESV)
9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
(NASB)
9 "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it;

Jeremiah 18:10 (ESV)
10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
(NASB)
10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it.

What is the context here?

God instructed Jeremiah to go to the potter’s house. There the Lord would give His prophet a very special message for the people of Judah. The Lord included Jeremiah’s experience in His Holy Word because He intended that the message be shared with the nations and people of every generation.

When Jeremiah arrived at the potter’s house, he saw him working at the wheel, attempting to mold the clay into a jar. Turning the bottom wheel with his feet, the potter worked the clay on the top wheel as it turned. All of a sudden the potter noticed a defect, a flaw in the jar. It had not turned out as he had hoped. So the potter squashed the jar into a lump of clay and started again. Patiently, he worked and reworked the clay time and again until he had formed the jar he wanted.

When the jar was finished, the Lord explained that the potter and clay illustrated His relationship with His people (vv.5-10). As the potter held the clay in his hands, so the Lord held His people in the palm of His hand. This is a descriptive way of saying that the Lord can do with His people as He wills. Holding them in His hands means that He possesses all rights and power over them. He can set up the laws that decide people’s fate (v.6). In other words, God is sovereign-- supreme in power, rank, or authority.

You are arguing that the pairs relent-intend/planned and think better/promised, imply that God is “open” to changing His mind. These verses contain God’s decree by which the whole of God’s conduct towards man is regulated.

God is saying that He will relent of the punishment He was going to bring upon a people if that people turns from its sin. In fact, God often tells them that He will punish them, which causes them to repent, whereby God then proclaims that He will not punish them. God knew they would repent, and knew this from eternity. God used His spoken threat to bring them to that place of repentance. If He did not tell them what would happen to them if they were to continue in sin, they wouldn't have repented. In other words, God ordained the means of that repentance. Nothing in these verses suggests God is changing His mind. (I speak to this aspect of God's ordaining the ends as well as the means in another context here that is worth reviewing.)

The changes spoken of in these verses are not in God, but in the circumstances which regulate God’s dealings: just as we say the land recedes from us when we sail forth, yet it is we who recede from the land (Eze. 18:21; Eze. 33:11). This is applied practically to the Jews’ case.

Unsettled theists cannot use narrative verses in the scriptures to circumvent proper grammatical-historical exegesis. See Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, 2d ed. (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

When Jeremiah arrived at the potter’s house, he saw him working at the wheel, attempting to mold the clay into a jar. Turning the bottom wheel with his feet, the potter worked the clay on the top wheel as it turned. All of a sudden the potter noticed a defect, a flaw in the jar. It had not turned out as he had hoped. So the potter squashed the jar into a lump of clay and started again. Patiently, he worked and reworked the clay time and again until he had formed the jar he wanted.

Excellent! AMR I am so proud of you, there is hope for you yet. :BRAVO:

Read your own words again, you might teach yourself something.

"All of a sudden the potter noticed a defect, a flaw in the jar."

Notice you didn't say..... "The potter created a defected jar, the potter intentionally marred the vessel."

You also said... "It had not turned out as he had hoped."

Notice you didn't say... "It turned out as just as he intended."

Very nice! God turned a bad thing into a good thing, He didn't make a bad thing just so He could do good. Viva la Open Theism!!!

 

[Lon]

Excellent! AMR I am so proud of you, there is hope for you yet. :BRAVO:

Read your own words again, you might teach yourself something.

"All of a sudden the potter noticed a defect, a flaw in the jar."

Notice you didn't say..... "The potter created a defected jar, the potter intentionally marred the vessel."

You also said... "It had not turned out as he had hoped."

Notice you didn't say... "It turned out as just as he intended."

Very nice! God turned a bad thing into a good thing, He didn't make a bad thing just so He could do good. Viva la Open Theism!!!

Clay=Israel.

Flaw=Sin blight.

Especially with my own contrived analogy, it is best not to extrapolate too far.
After all, if you consider the flaw to be God generated, you are more in line with a Calvinist than you potentially realize (there's a scary thought).

If we didn't turn out as God planned (hoped). God allowed it to happen. It isn't just capability in this instance, it is also recognition. If the clay had a rock, or a patch of dirt, or was somehow flawed, the potter missed it somehow. Since it all comes from Him in the first place, it is indeed an awkward situation.
If someone tampered with the material (ala wheat/tare) there was some sinister plot in effect. However, in both OV AND Calvinist positions (among others) God knew at the time of sowing, the seeds had been altered or the blight had been added (Past event and God is All-knowing of past and present in both theology premises).