lee_merrill
New member
Hi everyone,
Job 2:10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
(more comments concerning your reply further down, Patman)
I would consider it probable in fact that some of his thoughts and intents were even tinged with sinfulness, even while he said this, I daresay he was in doubt and turmoil.
“Niph. be sorry, console oneself, etc. (only in der. species) -- Niph. 1. be sorry, moved to pity, have compassion…” (BDB)
“Unlike man, who under the conviction of sin feels genuine remorse and sorrow, God is free from sin. Yet the Scriptures inform us that God repents (Gen 6:6-7; Exo 32:14; Jud 2:18; 1Sam 15:11 et al.), i.e. he relents or changes his dealings with men according to his sovereign purposes.” (TWOT)
Isaiah 52:14-15 Just as there were many who were appalled at him--his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness--so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.
This ax was referring to the invasion of Israel by sinful Assyrians.
Isaiah 10:12-13 When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, "I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. For he says: ‘By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. I removed the boundaries of nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings.’”
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days…
God bless you,
Lee
Yes, I agree.Clete: Of course it was a sinful act on the man's part and of course God planned it!
It seems you misunderstood me, I was arguing that God did plan this.How much better at such planning do you suppose an omniscient God would be than you are, or is it that you really do believe that such planning would be too difficult for God to accomplish?
What then does omnipotent mean? And I will also need an outside source to be referenced, given that we may not redefine such terms.Lee: And if others have an ability (even by your decision) to thwart your will, then you are not at that moment omnipotent, you don't at that moment have all power.
Clete: If this is what it meant to be omnipotent then God never has been omnipotent since He created the first living being.
Then how did Job not sin in what he said? You seem to hold that Job did not sin here in his attitude, yet the Bible says his words were not sinful.Lee: Let us note "The Lord took away," and Job did not sin in saying this.
Patman: It means Job thought God took away. The story tells us the behind the scenes, what Job couldn't see, that SATAN did it.
Job 2:10 He replied, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.
(more comments concerning your reply further down, Patman)
So it seems this boils down to reading here “In all this Job did not sin in what he meant.” He meant he trusted God, and said words that were incorrect in expressing this. However, the text reads that Job did not sin in what he said.Lee: Then did God only "permit" the gifts that Job received? For the verbs both have the same forms here, active forms, and so God is an agent, and an agent in both.
Clete: The comment Job made concerning God having taken away was a statement of faith not a statement of fact. It was a figure of speech.
I would consider it probable in fact that some of his thoughts and intents were even tinged with sinfulness, even while he said this, I daresay he was in doubt and turmoil.
So in which lexicon do we see this phrase as a way people would understand as saying “I trust God”? We can’t just say it’s a figure of speech willy nilly, such expressions have to in fact be an idiom in the language.Clete: I know for a fact that he was using a figure because the Bible teaches that God's power is founded upon His righteousness and so if God is not righteous His omnipotence is meaningless.
No, I believe it wasn’t a sin to say this because the Bible says Job did not sin in what he said.Clete: You believe it wasn't a sin because the accusation was true!
I agree, yet “The Lord took away” is plainly stated, as is “Shall we not receive trouble from the Lord?”God does not do evil.
Exclamation points do not however, constitute an argument. Which grammar says this expression also is a figure of speech? “Raining cats and dogs” is one in English, and “Shall we not receive trouble?” is one in Hebrew? Where this is documented, is what I now need to know.IT’S A FIGURE OF SPEECH, LEE!!!!
So then “the Lord took away” is quantitative? What does it quantify, may I ask?That's the question I answered in the affirmative.
Insults also are not arguments.Can you read Lee or am I just completely wasting my time?
This is an extraordinary claim. Where have you studied Hebrew and Greek? What scholarship do you bring here to overturn their conclusions? I happened to meet Walt Liefeld in Chicago, who was one of the translators, a man of integrity and a fine scholar, who loved Scripture.The NIV is not even a Bible as far as I am concerned. I couldn't care less what it says. You may as was well be reading the Koran.
But let’s check the Hebrew dictionaries:The word nacham does not mean relent it means repent…
“Niph. be sorry, console oneself, etc. (only in der. species) -- Niph. 1. be sorry, moved to pity, have compassion…” (BDB)
“Unlike man, who under the conviction of sin feels genuine remorse and sorrow, God is free from sin. Yet the Scriptures inform us that God repents (Gen 6:6-7; Exo 32:14; Jud 2:18; 1Sam 15:11 et al.), i.e. he relents or changes his dealings with men according to his sovereign purposes.” (TWOT)
I agree that God can change his response, why does it have to mean a change of overall plan, though?… no matter how you slice it, nacham is a word that indicates change and that cannot make any rational sense in a world where God either knows the entire future or predestined it from "before the beginning of time".
But their deeds expressed their intent, they carried out their intent, and were not the deeds also planned by God? So then God (with a different intent) had as part of his plan those deeds which were indeed, sins.Lee: … the people who crucified Jesus sinned, their intent was the essence of their sin, to murder an innocent person.
Patman: I agree their intent was sin, but God did not intend for them to intend to sin. He knew they would, just because people are and always have been evil, but God didn't make them sin.
But the prophecy was that Jesus would be betrayed and afflicted, all of this involved sin.Patman: Has there been no intent to sin, God still could have arranged the death of his son to save the world.
Isaiah 52:14-15 Just as there were many who were appalled at him--his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness--so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.
Isaiah 10:15 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood!This is the difference, you say God did intend for them to sin, thus making God, again, the author of sins!
This ax was referring to the invasion of Israel by sinful Assyrians.
Isaiah 10:12-13 When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, "I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. For he says: ‘By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. I removed the boundaries of nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings.’”
But the cross was God’s plan for our redemption, and Jesus prayed “Father, forgive them,” and so it was a sin, and in the plan of God.But I say God did not need sin to do his will, and never author sins, thus he did not arrange for sin in the crucifixion.
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days…
God bless you,
Lee