Bob Enyart vs.Gary DeMar Debate

[Lon]

Both debaters are wrong. The generation that see's the rebirth of Israel will not pass (the part you "..." of Matthew 24:34)

How could I be wrong? I haven't stated any position as yet. I've just stated that there is a myriade so that it is difficult to see the truth of the matter for me and you seem to hold the preterist view that the prophecy has been fulfilled. I believe this also, but can easily see dual prophecy applications.

Or were you talking about the preterist and Hal Lindsey?

 

[Lon]

When I show this to SVer's they always pretend it away or say something like God changed the outcome... but yet God still knows all the future, and they don't realize that his changing the outcome would have been known by him anyway, so .... it is a HUGE circular reasoning.

God said what he would do, I don't think we can change that, or change what he meant.. If he changes his mind about performing a future event, and if he never lies, the future must be open.

Or as Benjamin suggested, there are those who see it as fulfilled. I understand the questions that are left but maybe Benjamin could address those. At this venture in my theology, I also believe it had immediate fulfillment but am open to discussing those problems that arise in questions. I was just trying to say, with a myriad of different interpretations I do not think I have any corner on this for better understanding because I have a loosely held preterist position. I know it has some loopholes, but I haven't been able to see anyone's positon on these particulars. I understand, I think, the OV but it is a whole buy-in on interpretation and I have some honest doubt as to valid hermenuetics.

 

[patman]

Or as Benjamin suggested, there are those who see it as fulfilled. I understand the questions that are left but maybe Benjamin could address those. At this venture in my theology, I also believe it had immediate fulfillment but am open to discussing those problems that arise in questions. I was just trying to say, with a myriad of different interpretations I do not think I have any corner on this for better understanding because I have a loosely held preterist position. I know it has some loopholes, but I haven't been able to see anyone's positon on these particulars. I understand, I think, the OV but it is a whole buy-in on interpretation and I have some honest doubt as to valid hermenuetics.

As an open theist, simply reading the word as it is said is the primary way to interpret it. If God said this or that, we can't say he said this or that , and those, too..

Yes, there are times the Bible and God uses figures of speech, but God often repeats himself and reitterates his words, we can look to those other times he said something along those same lines to see if it was figurative. We only read the word.. we never should add our own preconceived ideas to it, but let the Bible add to our ideas as though we had no ideas.

When it comes to God's future knowledge, no where in the word does it say he knows the entire future. It says he knows all things, and it is assumed by the S.V. that the future and time is a thing. But this idea is more modern and not truly scriptural.

They tend to say there is no time in heaven. But the Bible records examples of time in heaven, for example heaven was silent for a half an hour in Revelation 8..

Time is just measure, not a thing. This happened then that happened for that long. This will be at 5:00. It is just a measure. When God talks about the future, he never talks about it as though he were there already, otherwise we would see prophecies such as Jonah and the ones from the Exodus as though they were written in the past, yet they for a future tme. But the future prophecies are subject to change depending on the people.

God doesn't use prophecy to impress us with what he knows, he uses it to tell us what he will do IF....or what he will do BECAUSE... he told us that when he proclaims these things, he could change his mind if the people he spoke to change their hearts. Read this passage

So the assumption of future being a thing and the proof of fulfilled prophecy is something the S.V.er may never have. To be a S.V.er you must have faith in it, faith that defies the word and actually adds assumptions to it.

As for the prophecies being fulfilled....... they aren't. First of all, you must ask which one is fulfilled, the one about those nations being kicked out, or the one about them remaining there forever as a throne in their side? They can't both be fulfilled. They are totally opposite. So, yes, one was fulfilled... the one about those nations staying, the one that came AFTER it was promised, "without fail," I might add, that they would be totally abolished from the land...

So only the second prophecy was fulfilled. It is impossible to have it both ways for Israel, they can't have those nations there and not have them there. This is the perfect example of the O.V. at work. God doesn't look to the future, he looks to his wisdom to make plans for the future... and some plans can change, like these mentioned....

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Both debaters are wrong. The generation that see's the rebirth of Israel will not pass (the part you "..." of Matthew 24:34)

I think that was the basis of Hal Lindsey's book that predicted Jesus' return in 1988 (a generation of 40 years after 1948). I think many, like Lindsey, try to invent some crazy ideas to get away from what the text is saying for certain theological pet theories.

One of the tests people on here have mentioned is the fourth grader test. If you read this passage to a fourth grader and asked them what it meant, would they say "the generation that sees the rebirth of Israel"? I don't think so. I think they would say "the people Jesus was directly speaking to". And so that's usually the safest way to read the passage.

 

[Lon]

As an open theist, simply reading the word as it is said is the primary way to interpret it. If God said this or that, we can't say he said this or that , and those, too..

Yes, there are times the Bible and God uses figures of speech, but God often repeats himself and reitterates his words, we can look to those other times he said something along those same lines to see if it was figurative. We only read the word.. we never should add our own preconceived ideas to it, but let the Bible add to our ideas as though we had no ideas.

When it comes to God's future knowledge, no where in the word does it say he knows the entire future. It says he knows all things, and it is assumed by the S.V. that the future and time is a thing. But this idea is more modern and not truly scriptural.

Please forgive me in ignorance here, and it is, but the trinity? Is it to be seen as 'not truly scriptural?' I know you do not believe this, but how are exhaustive foreknowledge and the triune view different? Granted I understand the OV assessment, but I'm asking if this wasn't a bit overstated.

They tend to say there is no time in heaven. But the Bible records examples of time in heaven, for example heaven was silent for a half an hour in Revelation 8..

Time is just measure, not a thing. This happened then that happened for that long. This will be at 5:00. It is just a measure. When God talks about the future, he never talks about it as though he were there already, otherwise we would see prophecies such as Jonah and the ones from the Exodus as though they were written in the past, yet they for a future tme. But the future prophecies are subject to change depending on the people.

I think I have a grasp on the OV at least to a cognizant appreciation. Of course we disagree. It isn't a huge deal I don't think between our perceptions but it definitely leads to interpretation differences that leave the other perplexed and a bit out of the loop on ones train of thoughtful theology.

God doesn't use prophecy to impress us with what he knows, he uses it to tell us what he will do IF....or what he will do BECAUSE... he told us that when he proclaims these things, he could change his mind if the people he spoke to change their hearts. Read this passage

Right, I think here we are on the same page for the truth, I think (guess work and some implications that point) that our perspective theologies emphasize differences in the details.

So the assumption of future being a thing and the proof of fulfilled prophecy is something the S.V.er may never have. To be a S.V.er you must have faith in it, faith that defies the word and actually adds assumptions to it.

And here I think my guess work proves out to be the case. I don't believe it defies the Word and is actually supported from the text. There is always a difference in how we view foreknowlege and exhaustive foreknowlege as well, and I have a difficult time knowing precisely which things OV adheres on it and which it doesn't.

As for the prophecies being fulfilled....... they aren't. First of all, you must ask which one is fulfilled, the one about those nations being kicked out, or the one about them remaining there forever as a throne in their side? They can't both be fulfilled. They are totally opposite. So, yes, one was fulfilled... the one about those nations staying, the one that came AFTER it was promised, "without fail," I might add, that they would be totally abolished from the land...

So only the second prophecy was fulfilled. It is impossible to have it both ways for Israel, they can't have those nations there and not have them there. This is the perfect example of the O.V. at work. God doesn't look to the future, he looks to his wisdom to make plans for the future... and some plans can change, like these mentioned....

I can grasp, appreciate, and even adhere to much of this truth, even if it tends to move my position away from SV. I think many of us who are not OV, may indeed have elements of OV in our understandings. I don't dismiss this, but it does lend to incogence. I tend to see similar problems from being completely OV as a theological position however. I lean more toward Calvinim than away from it.

I see unfulfilled prophecy that is contingent on man's part just fine. I'm still perplexed why Pinnock and Sanders would say that it was God who made the 'mistake.' I need to read a bit more, I've some of their books on back-order.

 

[patman]

Please forgive me in ignorance here, and it is, but the trinity? Is it to be seen as 'not truly scriptural?' I know you do not believe this, but how are exhaustive foreknowledge and the triune view different? Granted I understand the OV assessment, but I'm asking if this wasn't a bit overstated.


I think I have a grasp on the OV at least to a cognizant appreciation. Of course we disagree. It isn't a huge deal I don't think between our perceptions but it definitely leads to interpretation differences that leave the other perplexed and a bit out of the loop on ones train of thoughtful theology.


Right, I think here we are on the same page for the truth, I think (guess work and some implications that point) that our perspective theologies emphasize differences in the details.


And here I think my guess work proves out to be the case. I don't believe it defies the Word and is actually supported from the text. There is always a difference in how we view foreknowlege and exhaustive foreknowlege as well, and I have a difficult time knowing precisely which things OV adheres on it and which it doesn't.



I can grasp, appreciate, and even adhere to much of this truth, even if it tends to move my position away from SV. I think many of us who are not OV, may indeed have elements of OV in our understandings. I don't dismiss this, but it does lend to incogence. I tend to see similar problems from being completely OV as a theological position however. I lean more toward Calvinim than away from it.

I see unfulfilled prophecy that is contingent on man's part just fine. I'm still perplexed why Pinnock and Sanders would say that it was God who made the 'mistake.' I need to read a bit more, I've some of their books on back-order.

I am glad you are looking into this. I just want to make sure you know the OV believes in an Open Future that is within the control of God's will... that doesn't mean he controls all of the future, but when the time is right, he will put things the way he wants them, according to his love, that is.

That is a loaded paragraph, so I will just leave it at that. Some of the future is indeed settled, other parts are not. Being able to see in the word what parts are settled and what parts are open is very useful.

Also, this theology is very useful in witnessing to non-believers. You should try it sometime... you don't have to tell them you believe it if that is the truth, but see how they react to the idea. It really opens the doors for a truly Loving God for the first time for many non-believers.

 

[patman]

Please forgive me in ignorance here, and it is, but the trinity? Is it to be seen as 'not truly scriptural?' I know you do not believe this, but how are exhaustive foreknowledge and the triune view different? Granted I understand the OV assessment, but I'm asking if this wasn't a bit overstated.

Ohhh, I forgot about this in my last post..

There is plenty of evidence for what we call the trinity... but there is no solid evidence and much contrary evidence to the S.V..

I did a very complex study on Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Tyre, which is prophesied by God to happen, and to be total. It just didn't happen. History and the Bible both said so. God isn't a liar, he just didn't know (with 100% certainty) the future would contain a set of events that would change the result. He let it happen too...

Just go to biblegateway.com and do a search for Tyre... See what God said would happen, then go to Wikipedia.com and see what really happened... It was Alexander the Great who took down Tyre, not Nebuchadnezzar, as prophesied. Not God's mistake, but rather God's decision to change...

 

[Lon]

Ohhh, I forgot about this in my last post..

There is plenty of evidence for what we call the trinity... but there is no solid evidence and much contrary evidence to the S.V..

I did a very complex study on Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Tyre, which is prophesied by God to happen, and to be total. It just didn't happen. History and the Bible both said so. God isn't a liar, he just didn't know (with 100% certainty) the future would contain a set of events that would change the result. He let it happen too...

Just go to biblegateway.com and do a search for Tyre... See what God said would happen, then go to Wikipedia.com and see what really happened... It was Alexander the Great who took down Tyre, not Nebuchadnezzar, as prophesied. Not God's mistake, but rather God's decision to change...

And OV does have a nice position here, but I'll need to struggle a bit more for my understanding. I still believe the prophecy could have had fulfillment with Alexander and that the text allows for this as I see it. Most definitely I see our respective views coloring the perception, but I think it's kewl that even though we interpret differently, the conclusions are about the same. Godrulz has told me there does occur conflict between us of course, but I still appreciate it.

 

[patman]

And OV does have a nice position here, but I'll need to struggle a bit more for my understanding. I still believe the prophecy could have had fulfillment with Alexander and that the text allows for this as I see it. Most definitely I see our respective views coloring the perception, but I think it's kewl that even though we interpret differently, the conclusions are about the same. Godrulz has told me there does occur conflict between us of course, but I still appreciate it.

By all means, study it.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=901117&postcount=398

I have, here is a post that I made a while back about Nebuchadnezzar. It is the construction of a timeline based on Biblical Content. I build it step by step, the once it is made, you can see how well it matches with history. You can use it to undeniably tell who God is addressing when he makes prophecies about Tyre and Egypt.

You don't really have to read it, just scroll to the bottom and see the timeline. If you question it's accuracy, read the rest... After that, consider the prophecies about Tyre, Egypt, and Nebuchadnezzar.

If you really want to hurt your eyes reading, here is more information on this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=894707&postcount=366

That was back when I wrote REALLY long posts... man I wish I had that kind of time now.

Anyway, if it helps you see that The O.V. better, I will be glad. You said you were more calvinist, but calvinist can mean so many things lately... I take it to mean you are S.V. that allows for a God to change his mind. I was there once too... The O.V. fits scripture much better in light to there being no solid evidence for S.V. teachings and no 100% prophecy accuracy rate, which I hope you can verify when you study.

 

[Lon]

By all means, study it.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=901117&postcount=398

I have, here is a post that I made a while back about Nebuchadnezzar. It is the construction of a timeline based on Biblical Content. I build it step by step, the once it is made, you can see how well it matches with history. You can use it to undeniably tell who God is addressing when he makes prophecies about Tyre and Egypt.

You don't really have to read it, just scroll to the bottom and see the timeline. If you question it's accuracy, read the rest... After that, consider the prophecies about Tyre, Egypt, and Nebuchadnezzar.

If you really want to hurt your eyes reading, here is more information on this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=894707&postcount=366

That was back when I wrote REALLY long posts... man I wish I had that kind of time now.

Anyway, if it helps you see that The O.V. better, I will be glad. You said you were more calvinist, but calvinist can mean so many things lately... I take it to mean you are S.V. that allows for a God to change his mind. I was there once too... The O.V. fits scripture much better in light to there being no solid evidence for S.V. teachings and no 100% prophecy accuracy rate, which I hope you can verify when you study.

I understand what you are saying here, but SV is where I've found and love Christ. OV seems too foreign to me. For one thing, if you visit some web pages in SV, you might get just as beat up for the OV from some of the SV 'truth smackers' but there are also those who are of gentle spirit and it is easy for us to have fellowship there. I always look for that. I hate to say that truth could not win me over, but 'living truth' is so much more important to me. I could give a care less what you prove with the mind because I have a truth paradigm, but my very first impression is always my last one, and I really do look for Godliness in someone as seen in love, joy, peacefulness, gentleness, patience, kindness. If I don't see it in a denomination or a wing of that denomination, it is almost like a no-brainer, not what I'm looking for and already qualified with some sincere doubts.
I really appreciate your patience and kindness in treating this subject. It really does make a difference, because without a few of you showing this, frankly with some of the others, I really wouldn't be interested at all.

 

[patman]

I could give a care less what you prove with the mind because I have a truth paradigm, but my very first impression is always my last one, and I really do look for Godliness in someone as seen in love, joy, peacefulness, gentleness, patience, kindness. If I don't see it in a denomination or a wing of that denomination, it is almost like a no-brainer, not what I'm looking for and already qualified with some sincere doubts.
I really appreciate your patience and kindness in treating this subject. It really does make a difference, because without a few of you showing this, frankly with some of the others, I really wouldn't be interested at all.

If you accept the open view, a lot changes. I was S.V. for the first 11 years of my Christian Life. I was always happy as a Christian until I realized that my theology didn't work... But then the O.V. was re-presented to me, and for the first time in my entire life I saw God's love in a whole new light.

If you ever loved anyone, you know how bad it hurts to let them go, especially when they want to go. If God didn't know Adam would fall, just think... how did that affect God? And how did it feel when time and time again Israel rejected him when he said he expected that they would love him? The rejection came as a surprise to him, yet he keeps going. He keeps loving us. You have heard of Passion? It is real passion.

Isaiah 5
1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
3 “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Trust me, scripture makes the future to be open.

 

[Lon]

If you accept the open view, a lot changes. I was S.V. for the first 11 years of my Christian Life. I was always happy as a Christian until I realized that my theology didn't work... But then the O.V. was re-presented to me, and for the first time in my entire life I saw God's love in a whole new light.

If you ever loved anyone, you know how bad it hurts to let them go, especially when they want to go. If God didn't know Adam would fall, just think... how did that affect God? And how did it feel when time and time again Israel rejected him when he said he expected that they would love him? The rejection came as a surprise to him, yet he keeps going. He keeps loving us. You have heard of Passion? It is real passion.

Isaiah 5
1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:

My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
3 “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4 What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Trust me, scripture makes the future to be open.

I've always believed that God is incredibly relational from a settled view as well. I've always seen and appreciated the relational aspects of who God is.

The problem with the grapes, is that I see it somewhat differently than the OV.

I believe God expected good grapes like I expect my children to behave. I am not taken by surprise at all when they do not behave, but I still expect good behavior. My expectation sets the bar for them to comply. Certainly they don't always, but the expectation gives them a bar to shoot for and a loving/encouraging environment to do so. None of that is my 'foreknowledge' but a reality awareness and predictability. With God however, I believe there is foreknowlege and because of this, He has even more abilty to not be caught unaware. So God has several and infinitely more insights than I as a father so that even in OV God isn't caught unaware at all. If I can determine my own children will not behave even though I model and provide the environment for the behavior so that I am not caught at all with surprise. God certainly has no surprises here. His expectation and realization will supercede my own.

 

[patman]

I've always believed that God is incredibly relational from a settled view as well. I've always seen and appreciated the relational aspects of who God is.

The problem with the grapes, is that I see it somewhat differently than the OV.

I believe God expected good grapes like I expect my children to behave. I am not taken by surprise at all when they do not behave, but I still expect good behavior. My expectation sets the bar for them to comply. Certainly they don't always, but the expectation gives them a bar to shoot for and a loving/encouraging environment to do so. None of that is my 'foreknowledge' but a reality awareness and predictability. With God however, I believe there is foreknowlege and because of this, He has even more abilty to not be caught unaware. So God has several and infinitely more insights than I as a father so that even in OV God isn't caught unaware at all. If I can determine my own children will not behave even though I model and provide the environment for the behavior so that I am not caught at all with surprise. God certainly has no surprises here. His expectation and realization will supercede my own.

Lets clarify this a little... children misbehaving and children totally rebelling is different. Do you expect your children to rebel? Do you expect them to adopt a new father and completely forsake you? No... God didn't either. This expectation goes way farther and deeper, we can tell by what happened to Israel, and what God did.

How many times in scripture did God say after he was finished punishing Israel that they would return to him and stay that way? Kinda like he expected it, right? yet here they are, 3000 years later still rebelling against God and still expecting a different Savior....

 

[Lon]

By all means, study it.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=901117&postcount=398

I have, here is a post that I made a while back about Nebuchadnezzar. It is the construction of a timeline based on Biblical Content. I build it step by step, the once it is made, you can see how well it matches with history. You can use it to undeniably tell who God is addressing when he makes prophecies about Tyre and Egypt.

You don't really have to read it, just scroll to the bottom and see the timeline. If you question it's accuracy, read the rest... After that, consider the prophecies about Tyre, Egypt, and Nebuchadnezzar.

If you really want to hurt your eyes reading, here is more information on this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=894707&postcount=366

That was back when I wrote REALLY long posts... man I wish I had that kind of time now.

Anyway, if it helps you see that The O.V. better, I will be glad. You said you were more calvinist, but calvinist can mean so many things lately... I take it to mean you are S.V. that allows for a God to change his mind. I was there once too... The O.V. fits scripture much better in light to there being no solid evidence for S.V. teachings and no 100% prophecy accuracy rate, which I hope you can verify when you study.

I wanted to get back to this when I had a bit more time to spend on reading this. I'd seen it in other posts by others (perhaps it was Knight that brought it to my attention).

Right off the bat, I'd say there is another view already that addresses this as an overall prophecy seen in phases in which Nebuchadnezzar plays the initial role. Tyre was both considered the island, but also the mainland and Nebuchadnezzar actually does all the things specifically mentioned about tearing down the surrounding city and literally casting them into the sea to make a seige engine of a peninsula that he makes Tyre island.

26:12 goes back to the term "they" rather than "he" and it is believed that this is where it comes back in reference to 26:3. It is a solid interpretation and at the very least should give you some more food for thought and shoring up your interpretation.

"Shoring up" LOL, no pun was intended, I just read it over.

 

[patman]

I wanted to get back to this when I had a bit more time to spend on reading this. I'd seen it in other posts by others (perhaps it was Knight that brought it to my attention).

Right off the bat, I'd say there is another view already that addresses this as an overall prophecy seen in phases in which Nebuchadnezzar plays the initial role. Tyre was both considered the island, but also the mainland and Nebuchadnezzar actually does all the things specifically mentioned about tearing down the surrounding city and literally casting them into the sea to make a seige engine of a peninsula that he makes Tyre island.

26:12 goes back to the term "they" rather than "he" and it is believed that this is where it comes back in reference to 26:3. It is a solid interpretation and at the very least should give you some more food for thought and shoring up your interpretation.

"Shoring up" LOL, no pun was intended, I just read it over.

Lee, the guy I was debating this with, brought this up... I wasn't convinced, the content never lost Nebuchadnezzar as the person in charge of the attack and the one winning the spoils.

Plus, Tyre was supposed to be utterly forgot and destroyed... yet it stands to this day.

 

[Lon]

Lee, the guy I was debating this with, brought this up... I wasn't convinced, the content never lost Nebuchadnezzar as the person in charge of the attack and the one winning the spoils.

Plus, Tyre was supposed to be utterly forgot and destroyed... yet it stands to this day.

On the first note, you don't have to be convinced but it is what you are up against. It is a reasonable response and widely held by those who have studied the text.

I'm sure if you were aware of the first, you'd also have to be aware of other traditional views on the second. There is a strong belief that the Hebrews themselves understood these prophecies fulfilled which should definitely be the prefered on the interpretation of Hebrew writings with Jewish scholarship. There are Jewish scholars who have said these prophecies are understood to be fulfilled.

 

[patman]

On the first note, you don't have to be convinced but it is what you are up against. It is a reasonable response and widely held by those who have studied the text.

I'm sure if you were aware of the first, you'd also have to be aware of other traditional views on the second. There is a strong belief that the Hebrews themselves understood these prophecies fulfilled which should definitely be the prefered on the interpretation of Hebrew writings with Jewish scholarship. There are Jewish scholars who have said these prophecies are understood to be fulfilled.

You have to understand the bias people have when they develop their views. If you twist and turn the Bible enough, it will say anything you want it to, including that you should make a $100000 donation to the patman foundation... but when you just read the words without adding your own two cents... just let them speak plainly.

If God said Tyre would be utterly destroyed and completely forgot, and no one would ever rebuild it, what should we say? "Oh, God didn't really mean utterly?"

That is bold to say....

 

[Lon]

Lets clarify this a little... children misbehaving and children totally rebelling is different. Do you expect your children to rebel? Do you expect them to adopt a new father and completely forsake you? No... God didn't either. This expectation goes way farther and deeper, we can tell by what happened to Israel, and what God did.

How many times in scripture did God say after he was finished punishing Israel that they would return to him and stay that way? Kinda like he expected it, right? yet here they are, 3000 years later still rebelling against God and still expecting a different Savior....

I'm not on the same page here. Christ's incarnation definitely shows where God was headed and the parable of the wedding feast where all are finally invited shows that God used Israel as 'type' for the revealed Christ. I do believe relationally God still has a longing for His people to this day. I do not believe God was caught surprised, no way. Even if you just applied the analogy to what God did. At every turn the grapes turned bad. They NEVER were good as a whole. I'd see my kids as the 'remnant.' The writing for Israel was always on the wall. I cannot fathom that something radically happened in Isaiah so many years later that would have shocked God. I (very honestly, and not as a maligning belief) believe OV is totally wrong here.

 

[Lon]

You have to understand the bias people have when they develop their views. If you twist and turn the Bible enough, it will say anything you want it to, including that you should make a $100000 donation to the patman foundation... but when you just read the words without adding your own two cents... just let them speak plainly.

If God said Tyre would be utterly destroyed and completely forgot, and no one would ever rebuild it, what should we say? "Oh, God didn't really mean utterly?"

That is bold to say....

I am saying if a Jewish scholar believes this was fulfilled, and they are the ones who rejuvinated the language, continued to pass down the traditions, have kept and preserved early works and commentaries, that we should really give a credible listen. They are not always right, but in the area of Hebrew understandings of prophecy I tend to look to them for interpreting their mindset and whether we like it or not, it is definitely different from Eastern and Western logical mindsets.

Clarke wrote a commentary leaning on Jewish scholastics and you can discern the belief that this prophecy was fulfilled in his mind: http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeeze26.htm

 

[patman]

I'm not on the same page here. Christ's incarnation definitely shows where God was headed and the parable of the wedding feast where all are finally invited shows that God used Israel as 'type' for the revealed Christ. I do believe relationally God still has a longing for His people to this day. I do not believe God was caught surprised, no way. Even if you just applied the analogy to what God did. At every turn the grapes turned bad. They NEVER were good as a whole. I'd see my kids as the 'remnant.' The writing for Israel was always on the wall. I cannot fathom that something radically happened in Isaiah so many years later that would have shocked God. I (very honestly, and not as a maligning belief) believe OV is totally wrong here.

They had their ups and downs... but when they got too down God took actions to bring them back up. When God told Abram about his children, did he say they would be cut off and cut off some more and then they would be the chosen?

God said they would be his people. He expected it. Perhaps someone who could go to the original language could settle this between us, but that person Is not me . Whenever I run into the doubt of a particular word's meaning, I look to other subject related content to bridge the gap for me. Abram is an example of that... so anyway, there's my input... what scriptural reasons do you use to the word expect as you do?