Why should He? And where did He say He would leave them the way He said He would?
Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
But going beyond that, letting us experience the consequences of our actions is inferred in every warning that God gives. Going beyond
that, God was so insistent on freedom that He let the world go to hell in a handbasket to the point of having to destroy it.
Even on another level, changing the rules after the game has started is wrong. Even I know that. So if God can change the rules for some people to "help" them get saved, He is obligated to fix physics for everyone.
If He can give further salvation opportunities to scores of unsaved people by preventing the mass carnage of 9/11, wouldn't it be worth the scattering of a few atoms to do so?
The best thing for God to do to save the most people is to let the consequences of their actions be evident.
Please answer this, Yorzhik, because it sounds like you're dodging the question with arbitrary stipulations.
It probably isn't important, but why did you say this? I don't think I dodged anything in any way. I did niggle before, but I *also* answered the question straightforward and completely.
Couldn't God come up with myriad creative ways to prevent evil people from murdering innocent people who might someday get saved? Wouldn't a healthy God do something to stop the premature deaths of people who might otherwise have become believers?
No, the best way to save the most people is let them experience the consequences of their actions.
Please convince me of the value of thousands of people plunging into hell at the hands of the 9/11 terrorists in the eyes of a God who wants to save as many people as possible.
Many more would not be saved if God did not allow us to experience the consequences of our actions. Even on a government policy level (and gov't has a lot to do with the number of people saved in a country), we can learn about the law. We can know that tomorrow is not promised to us.
Are those choices free? Or are they constrained by your preferences and myriad other factors outside of your control?
Yes, and the value you put on those factors at the time.
If they are free, then you could choose something you do not want. But you can't.
Right, but there are enough variables in the weight of value one would place on any particular external influence to make every choice hard to predict.
God doesn't have to "predict."
So decrees the mighty Hilston. God disagrees with you if what He has written in his word is true.
He knows because He has decreed, in meticulous detail, every event, every electron orbit, every hide and hair of existence.
So Hilston claims without support.
If He didn't, then He could not make a single prophecy come true with any certainty.
Sure He could. God is very smart, and thus a very good predictor. Beyond that, as creator of all things, He's very good at knowing how the things He created work. Even *I* can predict some things with great certainty without knowing the future exhaustively. I'm greater than Hilston's God.
Another thing, sometimes when God says something will come to pass, it doesn't. If God says something about what will happen, isn't that, by definition, a prophecy?
Is that what "they" said? Who do you think was talking? The Father? The Son? The Holy Spirit? Was it said audibly, with vocal cords and molecular vibration? Did the other members of the Godhead hear Him say this? Was it heard with their ears, the sound waves vibrating the divine eardrum?
I'm not sure. The bible says, "the LORD God said".
What is the Hebrew word for "maybe", Yorzhik?
From Tim McMahon, a Hebrew scholar: In Genesis 3:22, "lest" is a translation of the Hebrew conjunction pen, which means "lest" ("in order that... not") and is generally so translated throughout the English OT. It’s precisely the same word translated "lest" in verse 3, "lest you die."
Do you recognize the importance of due process in scripture?
Yes.
How about anthropopathisms?
Yes.
Do you see any value in these concepts at all?
Yes.
So for you haven't mentioned anything that has to do with Gen 22:12.
When you and other Open Theists take the linguistic figures of scripture and literalize them, you rob the scriptures of their force and richness. It's really tragic. The funny thing is, God saw fit to use them so frequently that you guys had plenty of fodder with which to build an entire irrational theology.
So this is an anthropopathism? What does the figure mean? Now the way I read it, using the historical grammatical method, this is a passage that should be taken literally. It is nothing more than an historical account.
So, Hilston says, "Now I know" does not mean "Now I know". Fair enough – figures mean other than what is actually written. Until Hilson tells us what it means, the only thing we can know about the meaning of this phrase is that it cannot mean "I have always known". That is the only meaning (at this point) that we can rule out as a possible meaning.
So, Hilston, please tell us the meaning of this linguistic figure. When you are done, we should be able to replace the phrase "Now I know" with what you relate to us.
He is 100% sure because He decreed every case without exception. If there were anything He did not decree, He would not -- could not -- coherently and honestly ask you to trust Him.
I trust my dad, and he doesn't decree every case without exception. Are you saying I shouldn't trust God, who is perfect, without exhaustive forknowledge, but I can trust my dad, who not only cannot see very far into the future, but he is sinful as well?
