BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Clete]

Lee,

I have to tell you that I almost decided not to respond to your post. The only reason I am doing so is because there is some lingering doubt as to whether you are being intentionally dishonest with your questions. They hardly seem like plausible questions for a grown man to be asking. My five year old literally has a better grasp on this than you seem to have. But as I said, there is some lingering doubt as to whether my assessment is accurate and so I will respond, but if you simply repeat the same points again in response to this post, I will not continue to humor you on this. I have to draw the line somewhere or else I could spend the rest of my life answering one stupid question after another with no hope of making any progress at all.

But should we say he was right, then, when God (as the OV tells us) changes his mind?

Of course! This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about above. Haven't you ever told your children that the family was going somewhere, say someplace like the zoo or something which is fun for the kids, and then because of some misbehavior on their part, you changed your mind about going to the zoo and did not do that whcih you said you would do.
Does that mean you were wrong when you said you were going?
If you answer yes to that question we are finished discussing this issue.

If he is always right in his plans and decisions, he need never change his mind.

See above.

If what he said "does not take place or come true" is the text, and the OV holds that what God says unconditionally may not happen sometimes, it may not come true.

This sentence makes no sense.

I could mention this quote from Pat, as well: "... it is without doubt an example how one thing was said to happen, and yet another thing happened instead."

Here I am arguing with Pat about this very subject. Should you be refuting him? Has he strayed from Open Theism?!

What? Lee, I think you're losing it. This makes no sense. What is your objection here? That I don't argue against someone who's arguing my side? I don't get it!

Then we have "I will not change my mind unless I change my mind." Thus he really need not have said "I will not change my mind" at all, the statement was really conditional.

Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

This also is uncertain?

Think it through Lee. What do you think my answer would be to this idiotic question. Seriously think it through and see if you cannot figure it out. If you cannot, there is no need to continue because you're simply stupid.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

For one to be culpable one must be free to do or to do otherwise.

If God knows my action in advance I have no ability to do otherwise and thus I am not free and am therefore not culpable for that action.

The traditional view dictates that He foresees the future just as you chose to enact it. Knowing and coercing are different acts.

Expecting something to happen and even accurately predicting it is not the same as knowing that it will in fact happen. In other words, the possibility that TNT would not be used for evil was a real one, although exceedingly unlikely. Further knowing that something will be used for evil by evil people is a very general statement so you could probably say with some accuracy that God knew that much for sure, but saying that God knew precisely who would perform the evil act and what that specific act would be is wrong. Such detail is predictable perhaps, but it is not knowable.

So the open view adheres to the fact that God is NOT omnipresent? He just reads about it in the paper? I'm not sure where the OV is on this. If He sees people starving on TV in Ethiopia, and does nothing about it. How are these different: (1) He saw them starving to death 10,000 years ago. (2) He sees them starving to death today? Your answer below is correct whether He sees future events or not an actually makes my point for me......

If God wanted to stop all the evil in the world He certainly could do so and indeed will do so in His own time and when He does all the evil deeds in the world will be dealt with justly and completely.

Why is He justified in not doing just that whether he knows the future or not?

The reason why He stays His hand of judgment is related to the answer to your next "challenge".

It was placed in the Garden as a way out. God put it there to give man a choice to make because He loved His creation and wanted for that creature to fulfill its purpose which was to return that love to God. But without volitional choice, love is impossible and so God had to give man an opportunity to reject Him, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was that opportunity.

Such detail is predictable perhaps, but it is not knowable.

Patman argued that He could have chosen another future if He could see it. I argue that He could have skipped it all together by not placing the tree there. You adequately answer the question of the tree in the previous statement; but not the first question by pointing out that God had a need to 'give man the opportunity' to do right.
And it's this unknowability that the Open View rests its claims upon. It would seem that God(OV) knows some things about unpredictable humans, but not others. My point ---[A]when knowledge of wrong doing occurs has no bearing on His culpability--- stands since some evils are obviously knowable not just predictable, right?

We both agree He has his justifications for what He does. Our disagreement comes into play when we talk about his culpability. Maybe there is never a time that God[OV] sees a wrong in progress; however, I can't imagine this being true. Honestly, I believe He sees them everyday and stays his justice as you said above. I just can't see the difference between staying his justice today and staying His justice 10,000 years ago, can you?

Your Friend,

RobE

 

[Clete]

The traditional view dictates that He foresees the future just as you chose to enact it. Knowing and coercing are different acts.

No kidding. Both would preclude free will because simply knowing logically removed any ability to do other than that which is known and without the ability to do otherwise an action is not free.

So the open view adheres to the fact that God is NOT omnipresent?

Did you mean Omniscient? Either way, this open theist believes both to be overstatements of the Biblical truth. God knows that which He wants to know of that which is knowable and He is in all places that He wants to be at once but is not required to be anywhere He does not want to be or to know what He chooses not to know.

He just reads about it in the paper? I'm not sure where the OV is on this.

I'm pretty sure you knew when you wrote this that this is not what I or any open theist believes.

If He sees people starving on TV in Ethiopia, and does nothing about it. How are these different: (1) He saw them starving to death 10,000 years ago. (2) He sees them starving to death today? Your answer below is correct whether He sees future events or not an actually makes my point for me...

The difference is that in the former, no one could justly be held responsible for the tragedy because there was no ability for them to do anything other than that which God saw thousands of years before they existed and in the later those responsible are truly responsible because they could genuinely have done some other than they did.

Why is He justified in not doing just that whether he knows the future or not?

I answered this already. He could but if He did, He would effectively be bringing the human race to an end because without the ability to rebel it is no longer possible to love. What would be the result, do you think, if God decided to stop every single evil action?

Patman argued that He could have chosen another future if He could see it. I argue that He could have skipped it all together by not placing the tree there. You adequately answer the question of the tree in the previous statement; but not the first question by pointing out that God had a need to 'give man the opportunity' to do right.

How so?

And it's this unknowability that the Open View rests its claims upon. It would seem that God(OV) knows some things about unpredictable humans, but not others.

Of course He does. Some things are knowable and some things are not and some things can be predicted better than others even if they are not knowable.

My point ---[A]when knowledge of wrong doing occurs has no bearing on His culpability--- stands since some evils are obviously knowable not just predictable, right?

What? NO! If something is knowable it is definitely predictable. Something might be predictable without being completely knowable but not the other way around.

We both agree He has his justifications for what He does. Our disagreement comes into play when we talk about his culpability.

Whose culpability, God's? God is not culpable for anything. Who is there that will judge God? You? Me? I don't think so. How could God be culpable for anything? God could theoretically do something against the current description of His nature and that would render Him unrighteous by definition but no one has the authority nor the ability to hold Him accountable for such an act aside from Himself and the other members of the Trinity.

Maybe there is never a time that God[OV] sees a wrong in progress; however, I can't imagine this being true. Honestly, I believe He sees them everyday and stays his justice as you said above.

The proof of this is that you and I are both still here having this conversation.

I just can't see the difference between staying his justice today and staying His justice 10,000 years ago, can you?

The connection you've made here is a non-sequitor, but be that as it may, the point is that unless I am free then any punitive action on God's part at all would be unjust, and if He knows what I am going to do before I make the decision to do it, then such an action cannot be free because His knowledge would remove any possibility of my doing anything other than what He knows I will do, and without that ability, freedom is an illusion at best.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[RobE]

A response to CLETE

A response to CLETE

The traditional view dictates that He foresees the future just as you chose to enact it. Knowing and coercing are different acts.

No kidding. Both would preclude free will because simply knowing logically removed any ability to do other than that which is known and without the ability to do otherwise an action is not free.

So knowing is the same as doing?

If I took a test without knowing the outcome then I would do it freely, but if you 'foresaw' me in a vision passing the test then..... you made me pass the test by 'foreseeing' it; and free will was eliminated??

Did you mean Omniscient? Either way, this open theist believes both to be overstatements of the Biblical truth. God knows that which He wants to know of that which is knowable and He is in all places that He wants to be at once but is not required to be anywhere He does not want to be or to know what He chooses not to know.

We can find agreement in the statement that He's able to do as He pleases. He isn't bound by anything other than His own Holiness.

If He sees people starving on TV in Ethiopia, and does nothing about it. How are these different: (1) He saw them starving to death 10,000 years ago. (2) He sees them starving to death today?

The difference is that in the former, no one could justly be held responsible for the tragedy because there was no ability for them to do anything other than that which God saw thousands of years before they existed and in the later those responsible are truly responsible because they could genuinely have done some other than they did.

I believe you missed my point here. He=God in my statement.

If God sees people starving in Ethiopia 10,000 years ago.....

Your answer....no one could justly be held responsible for the tragedy because there was no ability for them to do anything other than that which God saw thousands of years before they existed....

I'll take it you meant it's God's fault....

second half of my question.....(2)he sees them starving to death today.

Your answer...and in the later they are truly responsible because they could genuinely have done some other than they did.

God could do something else, as well, so I'll take it you meant it's God's fault.....

My point ---[A]when knowledge of wrong doing occurs has no bearing on His culpability--- stands since some evils are obviously knowable not just predictable, right?

What? NO! If something is knowable it is definitely predictable. Something might be predictable without being completely knowable but not the other way around.

I'll underline the word not for better understanding. This is the real question I'm asking. If he knows it doesn't matter when he comes to that knowledge for culpabilities sake.

Whose culpability, God's? God is not culpable for anything. Who is there that will judge God? You? Me? I don't think so. How could God be culpable for anything? God could theoretically do something against the current description of His nature and that would render Him unrighteous by definition but no one has the authority nor the ability to hold Him accountable for such an act aside from Himself and the other members of the Trinity.

The OV says He is culpable(authors sin) if He can see the future. Let me ask you this --- Would He be culpable if he could foresee things or would you stick by your statement above? He's never culpable whether He foresees things or not. I would.

The connection you've made here is a non-sequitor, but be that as it may, the point is that unless I am free then any punitive action on God's part at all would be unjust, and if He knows what I am going to do before I make the decision to do it, then such an action cannot be free because His knowledge would remove any possibility of my doing anything other than what He knows I will do, and without that ability, freedom is an illusion at best.

Perspective, perspective, perspectivE. If sin occurs someone is responsible. Your free will is exactly that, FREE. If you had a way to see the future....and you did see the future of a child that was going to live because of your actions....and that child was going to be an antichrist would you have the right to abort that child? Would you be responsible for that childs use of his free will? Is God? What would you do if he had a twin who would become a saint, but to stop that antichrist you had to abort them both?

I wonder?

Yours,

RobE

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Clete,

Clete: They hardly seem like plausible questions for a grown man to be asking. My five year old literally has a better grasp on this...

A child of five would understand this. Someone send for a child of five. (Groucho Marx)

Lee: But should we say he was right, then, when God (as the OV tells us) changes his mind?

Clete: Of course! ... Haven't you ever told your children that the family was going somewhere, say someplace like the zoo or something which is fun for the kids, and then because of some misbehavior on their part, you changed your mind about going to the zoo and did not do that which you said you would do.

How, may I ask, can you say you were right, though?

Clete: Does that mean you were wrong when you said you were going?
If you answer yes to that question we are finished discussing this issue.

Um, if you're not right, you're wrong. Yes, if you say unconditionally we're going to the zoo, and then you don't go to the zoo, you were wrong in that statement, since it was unconditional! Your example was an apparently conditional statement, and I agree that changing your action due to a condition not being fulfilled is not being wrong. However, the OV says God can change his mind on unconditional statements, and that implies being wrong. Sorry! It does, and if you want to bow out because I said that, well, then you must bow out.

Lee: If what he said "does not take place or come true" is the text, and the OV holds that what God says unconditionally may not happen sometimes, it may not come true.

Clete: This sentence makes no sense.

What is difficult to comprehend here, Clete? This is a very plain statement, if what a prophet says does not take place or come true, that prophet is a false prophet, and the OV hold that God's unconditional statements sometimes do not take place or come true. This is a very plain statement.

Pat: ... it is without doubt an example how one thing was said to happen, and yet another thing happened instead.

Lee: Here I am arguing with Pat about this very subject. Should you be refuting him? Has he strayed from Open Theism?!

Clete: What is your objection here? That I don't argue against someone who's arguing my side? I don't get it!

You asked: "You quoted my statement about what the Scriptural test of a prophet is, where is it in there that God might be wrong?" Pat's statement implies God can be wrong, so I will ask if you will disagree with him, and help me convince him that God cannot be wrong.

Lee: Then we have "I will not change my mind unless I change my mind." Thus he really need not have said "I will not change my mind" at all, the statement was really conditional.

Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."

This also is uncertain?

Clete: Think it through Lee. What do you think my answer would be to this idiotic question.

I have no idea, I think it would be difficult to frame an answer, according to the Open View, once you have taken the position you have taken on this verse.

Clete: Seriously think it through and see if you cannot figure it out. If you cannot, there is no need to continue because you're simply stupid.

Can we leave off on the insults, Clete? Please and thank you...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[patman]

For Bling

For Bling

Patman, thanks for your comments.

My point of the posting on prophecy is to show Christians in general have problems with questionable answers of prophecy, no matter what view you have. I have gone up against many ideas on the college campus and do not find debating to be the answer to converting the unbeliever which you are not. One on one talking with scripture, about their real issues of the unbeliever and giving real personnel long term solutions has worked for me. I am using this site to sharpen my ideas on the O.V. which until August, I was not aware of, (I try to avoid brotherhood debates or literature and really deal more with young people and poorly educated). I got involved in this because even with a master degree in Chemistry, I was not familiar with other logical alternatives to Einstein’s theory of relativity, which is another discussion and something I am working on with scientist (and not this group.)

Patman , back to the subject. You give thoughtful answers, which is great, and all I ask for. You have created some changes in my thinking but not real agreement with your thinking. I used Genesis 1 as our starting point, since God started there and there is really no going back from there. I may be tied up this weekend, but will read what you say. Thank you again

Bling, I know what you are saying. Conversation works better than debate, although I have had some good success with debate too. It all comes down to planting good seeds, and each situation is different.

I enjoy the debates here. They really sharpen each of us, and that is why we have debates. As long as I feel listened to rather than mocked, I do not feel that I am fighting with brothers. I hope it does not look that way. I think you and I are debating in the spirit of love and not pride. After all, we have no pride to speak of other than what than God and his blessings.

Relativity
As far as the theory or relativity. I am not aware of many theories that challenge it myself. That does not make it right or wrong, it just means it needs more research, I guess.

As a Creationist Christian, I often find myself disagreeing with a lot of what scientist say. However, for all the "logic" evolutionist offer to give proof to their theory, I also use logic and proofs to disagree with theirs. I have faith, but this faith does not have to be blind. Being an "Open Theist" puts me at odds against the theory of relativity as well. And as with creationism, it is not without some logic.

I am in no way a chemist and thus am not an authority on the theory. I understand it to mean that time and space are relative. I heard one person say it means if space is stretched, time is slowed, for example. People use this theory in hopes that time travel is possible, after all if time and space were relative, time can be effected by space in such a way that time may be reversed.

If the theory really states that time travel is possible, I cannot agree with the theory. If the theory makes time into a creation, such that God can be outside of time, I cannot agree.

As I started posting on TOL, I spoke of time as simply a way of measuring a string of events. The Past and Future do not exist, they are just concepts we use to explain when events happen. I ran down the road yesterday. Am I still running today? No, presently I am at my trusty Powerbook typing to Bling.

People try to take the concept of time and materialize it. It becomes a road (something real so to say, a place), that we are all driving on. And like a road, some travelers may drive faster than others, making that person in a different place in time. I think the idea is just impossible.

Scientist say that speed effects time. If someone were to travel way faster than everyone else, time for him slows, and he would find himself in the future. I have heard it said that those who have visited space are actually seconds ahead of us when they return to earth because they traveled such great speeds in space for long periods of time? That just doesn't seem right.

I would love to be a few seconds ahead in time. That would be very cool. Very useful. While everyone else on earth is at 10:30:00 I am at 10:30:01. Ha! Cool! A second can be a very long time in some circumstances! If I were a second ahead of my cat, I would know if she was going to jump on me and claw me to death before she did it a second later in her time. I would defiantly move in expectation of her actions (I know they say that we have caught up to their 1 second, thus they aren't to this day 1 second ahead... I just wanted to spin the idea a little).

OK, OK. I know there are thousands of theories in time travel. At one point, when I was a Settled Viewer, I thought time travel was possible. I really studied all the different theories. I found that as different as they are, they many come to the same end - if time travel were possible, the past would be unable to be changed regardless, and future knowledge being given to the past would have been to no benefit.

This is an example of the theory I supported: Someone wants to go back in time to warn JFK to prevent his death. Despite anything he does, the death is certain to happen, and even though the traveler thought he was introducing a new factor into the equation such that the end result would be different. It turns out he was a factor all along and the equation plays out just as before. It's really crazy stuff.

Anyway. All that talk about relativity isn't really....... rel... a....ti- ah, I wont say it. Let me put it this way instead. Relativity isn't the core of the debate. It is a theory, not proven and probably not provable. So it isn't really worth talking about to any great extent since it is not normally good practice to base any argument on an unproven theory. If someone does, they should not expect everyone to agree with you knowing you did that.

Thus I just acknowledge that it is a theory and choose to disagree, respectfully.


Your Questions

Thank you for your answers:

Quote:
Patman said:
Jesus bore our sins means that our sin, in general, was bore by Christ….I wish you would not read so much into a simple verse.

I do not want to belabor the point. It has a lot to do with how I view sin and the cross. Maybe, you can help me with that. Sin I see requiring: a sinner, action, it becomes an event, and punishment. God cannot participate in sin or really have anything to do with sin, yet Jesus to takes on sin and become burden with human’s sins requiring God to look away, forsake, Christ. If Christ does not take actual sins from humans on himself at the cross then why would God have to forsake Him?

As far as reading to much into a simple verse: do you think that is what the seduces said to Jesus when He picked out only one little verse in the first 5 books that you could find to show by just the tenses of the words that there is an after life. It only takes one and Peter is talking about something we are to have burned into our memory. We are to remember both the blood and the body!

Bling, I agree that there are times a simple verse can put issues to rest. But there are also dangers that come from reading to much. It is something Jesus could do because he knew the word so well. In knowing the word, you can take simple things to make a true statement because you know there are other things that support your statement.

I realize that I have not used the best wording in explaining my view on this verse. I made a quick attempt with RobE in my post to him. We aren't really discussing the verse as much as we are other things. Now I will attempt again to explain the verse.

I believe you are familiar with the verses that talk about the cross. We can take those verses and list them to get an idea of what happened on the cross. Jesus bore our sins is one of many ways of describing the same thing that happened on the cross - and that is Jesus died for our sins. And that means that the wages of sin are death, which means the punishment due sinners is death. But Jesus died in our place so that we might not die. To say Jesus died for our sins is a poetic way saying the underlining message.

You point out that sin requires a perpetrator for the action itself to exist. If Jesus bore sin, that must mean they were there. If sins were there, they were committed and thus must exist in a time defying manner. And I see how that makes since. But I do not think this is what happened. I don't see God with a shovel collecting the sins of all time and piling them on Christ. Instead, I see Christ carrying, i.e. bearing, the weight of sin, and not every individual sin itself.

The words "Jesus bore our sin" alone could be logically thought of as working in the way you and I both describe. If all you look at are these words, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation as to how "Jesus bore our sin."

If you didn't notice, I am guilty of doing what I said against you. I too am reading into this verse to reach a logical means that supports my views. And my view does not contradict scripture. So here we both are, reading a verse as we think it is to be understood.

Who is right? If I were to expand on my view, that "Christ bore our sins" equivocates to "Christ bore our punishment," I would be able to say the context fits the rest of the verse because the very next clause says "that we may be dead to sin." It makes good since. It may not be enough to prove your concept wrong for your standards, but it should show you that there are other logical ways of reading it . Right? You can agree or disagree, and I can do the same, but who is going to be correct in the end?

Even if I add more weight to my interpretation: even though I am reading a little into this verse, I am not throwing in items that aren't really mentioned in the idea. For example, I am not throwing time into the loop. I am only sticking to the words that scripture uses to explain the cross. While this might add a little more weight to my argument, I do not think it is enough to finalize it, and I think you might agree.

All that said to say this. This verse's implications are not enough to prove the Open View or the Settled View. Both Views can make somewhat logical arguments based on their beliefs. This is one reason why I said the verse is not a handicap to the Open View, and likewise it is not a handicap to the Settled. It is simply a verse that shows that we were freed because of the cross, a welcomed message by both positions. It is not a debate killer.


The Garden
I agree that it might be possible to find a solution by looking at the garden. The garden is a very deep subject, but I do wonder how we can use the Garden as a definite proof. You say that the Garden raises some questions that may harm the OV, and I am not opposed to answer the best I can.

In the end, though, I fear I am at a disadvantage. While this line of conversation may benefit you if you are found to be correct in using the garden to expose holes in the OV, it is not a place that I can dig up much proof for my side. I basically am left answering your questions. And there is nothing wrong with that. If you must test the OV, I think I will be up to the challenge. Just know that I will not make much headway in proving the OV with this line. This discussion is more to your benefit than mine.

I say this because I believe the OV is proved by showing God's lack of future knowledge. This is also supported by God's ability to change his mind, which a God with future knowledge could not do. I could go on with more ways that I would like to prove the OV, but that is for another post.

All this is not to say that I think there aren't things about the garden that support the OV. There are, but you almost have to be an OV'er to see them, or have an open mind at least. However, I might be wrong. I might find plenty of good things in this topic that I have not thought about before. I love being sharpened - So here'goes:

1. Was the objective of the Garden completed or was it a failure?

Quote:
Patman said:
What was the objective of the Garden? To give a place for man to commune with God forever and in return to receive the wealth of God's favor. It was an utter failure. Man left the place, it was shut off from man, it was a very lonely place afterwards.

We are real far apart with the Garden, objectives, man and God, but we both see God as be love and that is where we can start from. I do want to thank you for your lengthy response which just generates more questions:
1a. What do you say to people that say: “ If God really loved us, He would not have done this or allowed that.”? In general they are saying, a loving God would put them in a Garden situation without the tree or Satan. They can still have choices (what to have for lunch, what to call this animal, etc.), so what is the problem?
1b. Would you rather be in a situation where: a. your eternal close relationship with God was total dependent on your obedience to God’s command(s). Or b. Your eternal close relationship with God was totally dependent on God’s mercy?

1a. What do you say to people that say: “ If God really loved us, He would not have done this or allowed that.”?
Basically, I would disagree with their evaluation of how God should love us. I just say that real love is free. If God didn't want our love, our true love, he would have trapped us in the Garden with him.

Love does not trap the object of its affection into an eternity service. God would not trap man to be in the garden forever because that is not love. Thus he allowed for a truly genius way out. I hope to show that not loving God required more than a simple "yes,no" choice, but a true separation, and being separated from God required knowledge of good and evil.

Lets pretend that the choice to love God was as simple as just saying "yes" or "no".

In the garden, everything was provided for them as blessings for being with God. Had man chose to hate Go. Because there was no sin involved, God continued to bless man regardless, because there was nothing to separate God from man. So even though man left God, God had nothing to separate him from man.

As man would begin to populate the garden, few would find reason to love God, but others would not, and instead take advantage of the free blessings. The more God would ask for love, the less he would get. Perhaps a few would love him. But they would be eternally cursed by those who didn't. Some would be cursed to the point that they wouldn't love him. Their curse would go on forever, because God could not justly put an end to it. After there was no wrong, ie sin involved, it was just a choice.

Remember, sin brought death to man. Without sin, there would be no death.

So there are a few "positive" things... there would be no death, no knowledge of good and evil... but much love would give way to selfishness. And with no knowledge of good and evil and no love for God, man would be a very dangerous creature. If man can choose not to love God, he can choose no to love his fellow creation. This would put God in a very bad situation, because in order to keep man healthy, he would be compelled to tell them what not to do. This means issuing commandments, but that would introduce sin because with sin, if man knowingly disobeys, he is a sinner. And God cannot be joined to sin. So that person would be put away from God.

As God put these sinners away, he would be sending them up the creek with out a paddle. Because they only have limited knowledge of good and evil. And since they were separated from God, they could not obtain more. The only way to obtain more would be to ask God, i.e. return to him. Some may, others may not, but in the end those who do will again be cursed by those who don't because of their ignorance. And this is going to go on forever!?

I hope you can see the problem created is very complex. That is why God had a better plan. In his great love, even for potential sinners, he devised a way for both Man and God to be separated should man choose, and a way for Man to make it on his own.

God gave man one command. Don't eat the tree. Man knew it was wrong to eat of it only because God said "no", and that is why it was a sin. Thus, eating of the tree would make the separation complete from the start. The tree provided man with the knowledge of good and evil. Man could survive without God if he did good. In this way, God, even when man didn't want him, loved man enough to provide the tools needed to have a long life without God. Man is no longer dependent on God's blessings, including that of eternal life.

Death is now in the picture. As punishment for sin, yes. But it is more than that. It is also a deterrent to sin. Out of respect for death, people have made many good moral decisions. Death can stop evil in many ways. Without death, sin and hate would forever abound even among those who love, and that would not be just, fair, or loving for God to allow for that forever.

Death also gives man a reason to turn back to God. For those who love God will forever live with him again.

Therefore, the tree was the only way to live apart from God and to set up a system that would allow for justice. Man, in his very soul, knows good and evil. It is necessary that all man born outside of God's blessings know good and evil. And with death comes an end to hate and a deterrent to sin for those alive. And with it also comes our justification in Christ! Thanks be to God forever. Amen.

1b. Would you rather be in a situation where: a. your eternal close relationship with God was total dependent on your obedience to God’s command(s). Or b. Your eternal close relationship with God was totally dependent on God’s mercy?

God only gave one command to Adam. Don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There were lots of other "wrong" things Adam could have done, yet only one command was given. It was a command in order that separation from God might be real.

If God didn't command it, but instead said "It isn't a good idea to eat that, I wouldn't if I were you," And man ate... Well, there is no sin to separate God and man. So now we have man, who knows what evil is, who has a son who also knows what evil is, killing his brother out of jealousy, all living in the Garden. Only now there is the tree of life. So his dead brother is saved from death because he ate of it. And now the brother who did the killing is really mad! He can't get away from him because they are all stuck in the garden. Well, sure he could leave, but that would mean working for his food, going outside all day and picking and planting wasn't cool. And he couldn't kick his brother out, so they were stuck.

Adam is mad at Cain for trying to kill Able. Cain is mad at Adam for not understanding. What a mess.

It is good to have commands, Bling. But it is good to have mercy too. And I thank God that I do not have to pick A or B. Even after the fall God was still there for those who would turn back. His mercy is strong and a wonderful gift to us.

I must choose C. I choose a God who rightly and wisely gives commands for the good of man and is merciful enough to still accept man when he repents.

2. Do you see Adam and Eve being better off outside the Garden or inside the Garden (before they sinned)? Why?
Quote:
Patman said:
They were better off in that they were not forced to be somewhere they didn't want to be. But the reality of the situation is that they numbered their days, causing death to fall on the world. But still, in their minds they were better off without God, and God was right to let them be free.

Your question is were they better off outside the garden? For the sake of their body's and home, children, and children's children, no... they got into a bad situation. But for the sake of their souls... yes. God could win them back easier without force, and the same goes for the rest of the world to follow.

It was best to let them make their own minds for the sake of their souls.

2a. Do you really think Adam and Eve did not want to be in the Garden?

Paul in Romans tell us how easy it is not to sin??? Do you always do what you want to and if so, does Adam and Eve have more or less then you or Paul?

2b. You understand how people are, if you only had knowledge of people and the power of Satin would you expect a person put in the Garden situation for a long period of time not to sin, by his own power?

Do you really think Adam and Eve did not want to be in the Garden?
No, I am sure it was a great place. But as I explained above, there was more involved. The real curse is sinners living in the Garden.

2b. You understand how people are, if you only had knowledge of people and the power of Satin would you expect a person put in the Garden situation for a long period of time not to sin, by his own power?
We really don't know how long they were there in the first place. Some say about a week. Some say it may have been longer. I do not believe that Satan was sent to Adam and Eve to push them, although I do not say it was impossible. I think Satan on his own will, visited them in the garden in hopes that they would sin.

Satan's objective is to be like God. He wants the power. He saw the potential in the human race, that they might follow him and serve him. What is a king without followers?

That having been said, It is also possible that Satan was sent as a test from God. Just like Job. Satan approaches God, God still thinking his creation is very good, and says "Adam and the woman only follow you out of ignorance, give me the chance, and they will leave you for me!" God says, "They are holy and sinless, they will always follow me."

After all, the garden was great, the blessings was great, no death... no sin. Why would they ever leave? So God allows the test. He thinks they will pass.

And as the story goes... God thought his vineyard would produce good fruit, but instead he got sour grapes. Apparently the power and independence of being on their own was enough to make them sin.

In the Garden:
Humans must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience. Outside the Garden they will dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship.
2c. In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since they have not sinned, is there a problem with this?
2d. In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
2e. We love then we obey, does our developing agape love require needy people?
2f. Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Does agape love begin with the realization of being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50?
2g. Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling Holy Spirit? Why?
2i. I see these as huge problems, do you think God could not see these as a huge problem, even before He made Adam?


3. What lesson do you learn from this garden story, which could not be told another way?

Your line of questions in 2c-2i are very interesting. But you must remember that obedience is more desirable than repentance. Paul asked "Should we sin that grace should multiply? Certainly not!" We should never sin that good may come of it. I think that is something that some Settled Viewers forget. I am not accusing you of this, but they think that God's looking into the future and seeing what his creation would do was not enough to stop him from creating this evil because he saw good in some places. That just blows me away. God doing evil that good may come of it...

Anyway, even though a broken vase makes a new vase look better, no one wants a broken vase as their center piece.

Man could truly love God with out sin just as God could love man with out sinning.

As for Adam having the indwelling of the Spirit, I do not think so. The Spirit seems to be something available to Christians as a result of the cross. Those before, as I understand it, did not have such a gift. That is not bad in that they were condemned from it, it is just a gift we enjoy today, along with having the completed word.

Adam knew God face to face.

Quote:
Patman said:

I do not believe the garden story is meant to give a lesson as much as it is to give an account of the events. Though we do learn a lot about God, his allowance of free will, and we see from the beginning that he had a plan to save man "through the woman's seed."

If there is a lesson per say, I would imagine it is that there are paths away from God, and paths to God, and the choice on what path we take is ours.

The Garden is the place were God really desire to put man, we can be assured of His heavenly promises since that is where He wants man. The problem with the Garden which we all need to realize early on is it is not the place to fulfill our objective, so God hold’s back His desire for man in order to help man fulfill man’s objective. God’s love is so great for man that He will do virtually everything to help man fulfill his objective. Could God show His love any better?

Says you! Just kidding.

I don't know if we are disagreeing too much on this? I don't think the garden was meant to be a test, but a place to live. Even though they failed a test in the garden, it wasn't a test. It was their home with God. They did leave home. That does not mean they were placed in a home in order to leave it.

I am not sure where you are taking this however. I think we agree that God's objective in man is that we love him and he love us. But I think you believe that love required that we fall, so that it might be richer? I do not agree if this is your point, I think the richness of love does not sin. The possibility of sin makes love true when you resist, but that does not make love incomplete because there is no sin.

What if we turn the tables on your questions:

2c. In the Garden God can not experience forgiveness, “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since God has not sinned, is there a problem with this?
2d. In the garden God is not needy (those God can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs, Their agape love is being showered on him, but he can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
2e. God loves and is holy, does his developing agape love require needy people?
2f. If God can not give Adam and Eve the full extent of his love without the cross. Does God really love them in the garden?

If God can love us without sinning, why can't we love God without sinning?

4. What is man’s purpose in relationship to God and what is God’s purpose in relationship to man?
Quote:
Patman said:
You said it twice. Relationship. God made us to have a happy and healthy relationship with him and one another. But in order to keep the happy and healthy part, it is man's choice to stay in the relationship.


The development of agape love requires all this earth has, had and it will have. It is not like any other love. It comes from God, it must be accepted as a gift, it requires real true alternatives, it is a thought-out freewill choice to love, it can grow and/or be taken back by God.
I describe our objective as; Here to develop agape love for God, for humans, and hate sin. God’s objective, in relation to humans, is to help humans fulfill their object. The question is what kind of world is best to fulfill the objective?

As I said in this post, the way the that God gave us the choice put us the best possible situation to make it in a world without him, and to turn back.

5. What is satan’s purpose and why is he continuing to live here?
5a. Is God not strong enough to do away with Satan now?

Yes

5b. Do you think God is arbitrary, has no purpose for satan?

This is a tricky question. God did not purpose for Lucifer to become Satan. God never predestines evil. God does use Satan for certain purposes now that Satan has fallen, but God does not wish that Satan be fallen for that purpose.

Is God Arbitrary? NO. God created Lucifer, not Satan. Lucifer had a purpose. Once he fell, he turned from that.

You might think of Satan as a tool. But Satan was never supposed to even exist, God wanted Lucifer to be holy. Today, as a result of the fall, Satan helps God find out who loves him, thus God uses Satan as a test. But from creation, this was not the case. Satan does this to hurt God, to break his heart. And mostly to build his kingdom.

5c. Does God have hope for satan?

Hope can run out. If God ever did have hope, it is now long gone. God hoped Lucifer would love him. That fell away fast after Satan destroyed much.

5d. What can satan do that God can not do and would there be any purpose in this?

Satan can sin. God can not. Sin separates God from man, that is why it is there. I think you understand what I believe now from my writings above. Knowing all that, also know this, Satan's job is not decreed from God. That's where I feel this line of question takes us.

If I am wrong, correct me, but do you think that God predestined Satan to be a tool and uses Satan to cause sin so that we might love him back?

If you do, I cannot disagree more. Our love for God does not require sin, just as his love does not for us. Satan, the fall of man, and the fall of angels are tragic events that God must make the best out of. Its not all for a purpose, it didn't happen just as God planned it. That would make God the author of all our sins.


6. How do you define a Godly HOPE and a Godly believe?

This is really another whole subject we can talk about later. I will try to word it better.


That's a broad question. Godly hope from the perspective of man is a desire that future circumstances resemble GOOD such as God is. From the same perspective, It means unprecedented thinking that something of God will happen.

His hope in heaven is a GODLY HOPE.

His belief in the cross is a Godly Belief.

As far as God's hope, and ability to believe. It isn't really different. He naturally hopes for things that are in his nature. And would believe much in the same way. But as for man, God's hope can be disappointed, and what he believes will happen sometimes does not. That would be why God does not know the future.

Hope this explains everything.
-Pat

 

[patman]

RobE

RobE

Lee,

I think that the answer here from the OV is that He's not mistaken, He just changed his mind. It's only a mistake if He says 'I'll not change my mind' and then it's not a mistake because He's just changed his mind. In other words if one were to change their mind about changing their mind then their mind would be changed. There's no right or wrong in changing an ever changing mind only in changing a mind that can't be changed, right?

I hope you can change your mind about changing your mind about mind changing.
:kookoo:

Thanks for pointing out the change(Ha, Ha!)

RobE
p.s. I'm just having fun. Reminds me of the Time<--->Patience comment before. I've been so serious in my thoughts about this subject that I needed to have a little fun. No insult intended to anyone. I think I might be changing my mind about submitting this post, so I need to do it now. Bye. In Him.

RobE

RobE, thanks for having a little fun, even if it is at my expense.

You got it wrong btw. If God says he can change his mind, his word is true. Amen and Amen.

If God says one thing will happen, then it does not happen, it has little to do with a change of mind. For example, He said Israel around-about the time of King Hezekiah would bear good fruit but then admits they didn't. That's not God changing his mind, he always wanted Israel to bear good fruit. That's God not seeing the future. But he didn't lie, he really thought it would happen, and he told us. You can trust God.

The example that works with God changing his mind is one such as Jonah preaching that God would destroy the City in 40 days, and does not do it. He changed his mind there, just as he said he would.

Its not so ":kookoo:" after all! The OV goes by the bible and its words more so than any other theology.

I just wanted to drop that quick note. I'll address your last post as time allows.
-Patman :juggle:

 

[Clete]

Good-bye Lee. You simply cannot be trying. I refuse to believe that you are so stupid as to not be able to figure this out. It just very simply isn't worth my time to explain something to someone who is trying not to get it.

Disappointing, really. :nono:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

Post to Lee

Post to Lee

Your case is just not conclusive, Pat, we both have possible views here that could be correct, and I'm not going to stand up and say that because we have seen no such record, this didn't happen. What sort of records do we have of Neb's conquests? How much is there? Is it extensive enough that we should expect to see this listed?

I'm not going to say there was no 9/11 terrorist attack, because I kept no newspaper or magazine article about this, though I do think it was an important event. Not all events people think are important are kept by them in a permanent record...


From Tyre though? I read of Neb receiving wages from Egypt, because he did not receive them from Tyre, but maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, I can't let you get away with saying "we both have possible views here that could be correct." The only way your view can be correct is to ignore 80% of the truth that is in the scripture.

In my next post prove that my points are accurate using evidence from scripture alone. I do not require history's account (which matches the biblical account btw), because scripture tells us exactly what happened.

Your "possible views" are possible only if you ignore what scripture says. This seems to be a bad pattern with you. I have already provided enough evidence to prove my point, I have shown with scripture how these points are right. You even have admitted that I COULD be correct. What is it going to take? I could just post the entire book of Kings Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, but you wouldn't read it.

I’m curious, just how much of the Bible have you read?

Your misreading of scripture, your wishing it away, your twisting it's words, your very thought process is causing you great problems. You are so willing to believe that God knows the future that you will throw away the obvious meanings of scripture! Who gave you that right? And I must say, "shame on you," if you continue to do it. I think you are smart enough to see the clear meanings of the words of God that I show you, yet you find it OK to twist them.

There are some things that you need to deal with. Hiding from the truth will never move you forward. And you using false truths in a debate is wrong, to say the least. You are wronging me, but most of all you are wronging yourself (and not to mention God, the author). Anyone you talk to about this matter from here on, if you continue to ignore the truth, you will be lying to. You will be teaching them a message that you will know that the bible does not support. And I hope it bothers you to your soul to know you did this after having been corrected.

Remember, teachers will be judged the hardest on the final day.

This next post will include scripture only. I will construct a time line. I will quote verses in context. I will do everything in my power to prove once and for all that the account about Tyre and Egypt happened as I have stated over and over. You will have to read it very closely to follow. It will be my toughest post yet. And after this, after I have proven to you that scripture is true just as I said it, if you continue to go down this path of confusion, I will wonder if there is any help for you.

This post should make you see how your "answers" are not answers at all, but just more questions. I say "this is what happened." You say "no it isn't, because this could have happened." And that is the best you got? You cannot provide solid evidence in scripture to prove I am wrong, and there is a reason for that.

I am glad you were not my teacher in scripture, because I would never know what the message was. It would just be clouded with confussion. After all, you are just confusing the issue for youself.

I look forward to the next post. It will tell us all a lot about you. I will hold the light of truth up against.

 

[bling]

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Patman said: As far as the theory or relativity. I am not aware of many theories that challenge it myself. That does not make it right or wrong, it just means it needs more research, I guess.

This is the last I will say on the subject until I get some break through information. I have become a lot more skeptical of the results on this subject. There are many scientist looking to publish contradictions to Einstein’s Theory, it might mean a Nobel price for them. There are several repeatable (expensive) experiments that can be done to support the theory with much pear review. So far I have found more doubt with other theories then Einstein’s. Any theory will have to do as good of a job explaining the exception to the Doppler Effect with light as Einstein’s to be given much creditability. Remember we had and observer problem in the universe before Einstein’s Theory of Relativity that that theory explained and nothing as far as I know has come close.

Patman said:
You point out that sin requires a perpetrator for the action itself to exist. If Jesus bore sin, that must mean they were there. If sins were there, they were committed and thus must exist in a time defying manner. And I see how that makes since. But I do not think this is what happened. I don't see God with a shovel collecting the sins of all time and piling them on Christ. Instead, I see Christ carrying, i.e. bearing, the weight of sin, and not every individual sin itself.

I am not saying, there are no other ways to interpret this verse. What I have heard from some O.V.ers is “we take verse literally if they can be taken literally, only and S.V. must use interpretations that fit.” Will the O.V.’s can’t take this verse literally they (you) have to interpret it to fit your conclusions, which does not mean you are wrong! And this is not a debate stopper. We could possibly go on discussing sin and what all happened on the cross, multiple event or different descriptions of the same event. We can pick that up later.

Patman said:

In the end, though, I fear I am at a disadvantage. While this line of conversation may benefit you if you are found to be correct in using the garden to expose holes in the OV, it is not a place that I can dig up much proof for my side. I basically am left answering your questions. And there is nothing wrong with that. If you must test the OV, I think I will be up to the challenge. Just know that I will not make much headway in proving the OV with this line. This discussion is more to your benefit than mine.

I start here because this is where God starts and I think for good reason. There is no going back from here so to speak. I also here the O.V.ers using the Garden often.

Patman said:

Love does not trap the object of its affection into an eternity service. God would not trap man to be in the garden forever because that is not love. Thus he allowed for a truly genius way out. I hope to show that not loving God required more than a simple "yes,no" choice, but a true separation, and being separated from God required knowledge of good and evil.

In one way we are trapped on earth, or in this universe, or in heave at some point. Do you really think Adam and Eve felt trapped?

1a. What do you say to people that say: “ If God really loved us, He would not have done this or allowed that

Patman said:
So there are a few "positive" things... there would be no death, no knowledge of good and evil... but much love would give way to selfishness. And with no knowledge of good and evil and no love for God, man would be a very dangerous creature. If man can choose not to love God, he can choose no to love his fellow creation. This would put God in a very bad situation, because in order to keep man healthy, he would be compelled to tell them what not to do. This means issuing commandments, but that would introduce sin because with sin, if man knowingly disobeys, he is a sinner. And God cannot be joined to sin. So that person would be put away from God.
And a lot of other stuff.

Do you think God would not realize this and a whole lot more even before He created man?

1b. Would you rather be in a situation where: a. your eternal close relationship with God was total dependent on your obedience to God’s command(s). Or b. Your eternal close relationship with God was totally dependent on God’s mercy?

Patman said: I must choose C. I choose a God who rightly and wisely gives commands for the good of man and is merciful enough to still accept msan when he repent.

You are avoiding the question, it is simple. You can have as many or as few commands (at least one) as you want: Would you rather be in a situation where: a. your eternal close relationship with God was total dependent on your obedience to God’s command(s). Or b. Your eternal close relationship with God was totally dependent on God’s mercy?

The garden is A. and what we have today is B. Do you think you are smarter then God was, before He even created man, He could not have figured this out, it seems real logical to me?

There is a lot going on in this situation that does not have to be written we can figure some of it out and I am sure God understands it all or does He?

2b. You understand how people are, if you only had knowledge of people and the power of Satin would you expect a person put in the Garden situation for a long period of time not to sin, by his own power?

Patman said:
And as the story goes... God thought his vineyard would produce good fruit, but instead he got sour grapes. Apparently the power and independence of being on their own was enough to make them sin

The long period of time is really forever in one respect, but I agree, from my knowledge of man and Satan it would not take long, I would have eaten before Eve even arrived on the seen, but I am very weak.

Patman tell me how long you would last, I will give you the same command just worded differently: Thou can not desire that which thou should not have and/or you can not be jealousy of those that do possess what you should not have (thou shall not covet)?
In Adam and Eve’s case there was no stopping the sin at the inward desire level, so it is obvious to all and above question, but you may not carry your desire to fruition, but it will still be the sin. Read Rm. 6, 7 ,8

In the Garden:
Humans must maintain their eternal close relationship with God by obedience. Outside the Garden they will dependent on God’s mercy for an eternal relationship.
2c. In the Garden humans can not experience forgiveness, “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since they have not sinned, is there a problem with this?
2d. In the garden there are no needy people (those Adam can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs of humans, His agape love is being showered on them, but they can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
2e. We love then we obey, does our developing agape love require needy people?
2f. Adam and Eve can not see the full extent of God’s love without the cross. Does agape love begin with the realization of being forgiven of much (for humans) Luke 7: 36-50?
2g. Did Adam and Eve have the indwelling Holy Spirit? Why?
2i. I see these as huge problems, do you think God could not see these as a huge problem, even before He made Adam?

Patman said: Your line of questions in 2c-2i are very interesting.
Paul asked "Should we sin that grace should multiply? Certainly not!" We should never sin that good may come of it.

I hope you do not think I am not familiar with what Paul said about sinning.
Our differences between O.V. and S.V. are in my opinion small compared to our understanding of purpose and objective. I have no problem with a God that would chose not to know some future in order to help man with his objective or even a God who can’t know the exact future, because of time, but to have “open or poorly thought-out objectives for things” is not a very smart God.
Since God is in control, the objective should drive everything, understand the objective and you are will on your way to the goal.

Being forgiven of just one sin (all that goes into that and all that comes out of that) makes a huge difference from not having a sin to be forgiven of and especially not being forgiven of one sin. Did God know that???

Patman asks:
2c. In the Garden God can not experience forgiveness, “ he who is forgiven of much loves much” since God has not sinned, is there a problem with this?
2d. In the garden God is not needy (those God can help without being helped directly in return) God is providing for all the needs, Their agape love is being showered on him, but he can’t be faithful sheep in the example of Matt. 25: 31-46, can they?
2e. God loves and is holy, does his developing agape love require needy people?
2f. If God can not give Adam and Eve the full extent of his love without the cross. Does God really love them in the garden?

Good let us think about this:
2cx. I did not suggest forgiveness is the only way to begin to develop agape love (I specify humans in question2f), having this Garden Story may show us though, for humans it maybe a requirement, Christ is talking about people not God! The angles could easily had some other set up which we really don’t need to know about. This in my opinion is one of the reasons for putting the Garden Story first.
2dx. That is the point!!! God is serving needy people he is showering agape love, how can Adam and Eve express their agape love for God, through obedience to the command which they can not/ do not achieve. Read your own question it does not work in reverse?
2ex. God may very much require needy beings at some point to be God. He served before man and will continue to serve after this world is gone. Can you imagine your God as not serving?
2fx. This question also can not be reversed. God shows the Love He already has with the Cross.

Patman ask:
If God can love us without sinning, why can't we love God without sinning?

That is a good question and the question I really want you to ask. This is where we need to be. I do not have the time, energy or wisdom to give you the answer you deserve to this question; maybe together we can develop a partial answer.

The Garden is our one chance to make this happen, so were Adam and Eve poor human representative? Will, physically they were as perfect as we could get, with the help of the tree of live they could last forever. Mentally they had a brain without bad mutations, made directly by God, no bad genes. What about training, up until they were mature adults, they were taught (programmed) by God, when Adam looked at an animal to name it, what did he know about that animal, nothing or more then we will ever know, God trained him about this animal to recognize the differences so how much knowledge could God give? When God and Adam talked about the plants what vocabulary did Adam have to describe them, the ones God gave him. God gave no false training. Eve was not surprised to talk to an animal, what capacity did the first animals and Eve have? The bottom line might be, they are as good as you can get.

The issue is agape love (there are books on that subject) what God has is a sacrificial love that will send His son to the cross, do almost anything, for humans. This requires thought and most of all, real alternatives with the choice being made of a free will to love the other and not self. Agape love is a gift of God, which means for the transaction to happen, there has to be a giver (God), a gift (agape love), and a willing uncohorts receiver (in this case humans) with the acknowledgement of receiving the gift be evident. The gift can not be taken back by the giver, but it can be rejected or given back by the receiver. Agape love can grow with ever increasing challenges and/or by being extended more agape love and it being excepted (this does not mean Christians should sin more, but has to do with Spirit).

I know you talk about man having a relationship with God, will man can have a relationship with a pet, which is not what God is looking for, the issue in the relationship is man’s lack of agape love, only, and not sin or a problem with God. I know, “sin separates man from God”, but Christ takes care of our past sin (and another subject the Spirit takes care of our future sins, and the present immediately becomes our past), so we have the solution to sin. Agape love for man is a much bigger problem, and will require everything God can do and will allow to happen for man to accept and develop such love.

This brings up the whole discussion of sin (books are written on this), which is what a lot of my previous questions were addressing and you for the most part did a good job of avoid answering. How bad is sin, lets think about that: person (A) is out there pushing the envelop in the thick of temptation, sins 100 in his life with immediate washing of Christ blood and depends on God’s mercy, is forgiven of all his sins, person (B) goes off to a monastery and sins 1 time, but is not forgiven of his sin, and person (C) really tries avoid the hint of temptation sins 3 time but at last does find God’s forgiveness.
They all go to judgment, B is lost, A and C have no sins God knows nothing about their sins it is like their sins never happened, it is a reward assemble for A and C. Forgiven sins for God and hopefully for all Christians are like they never happened.

How great is the objective of “man developing agape love”?
Could it be great enough for God to create a universe? For God to create a very involved complex plan that requires a lot of Himself? For God to allow Jesus to go to the cross? For God to allow people, He very dearly loves, to suffer? For God to allow Satan to continue to exist on earth? For God to allow sin?
If there was any other way…

Look at the tree seen again, this tree was not made ugly, smelling bad, with thorns around it. It was made desirable to the eye. It had this Godly attribute that had an attraction for humans (since we feel this is the only way Adam and Eve could sin then all other possibilities might be illogical for them, which seems logical to me.) Agape loves requires real choice which I do not see the tree providing in and of it self by Adam and Eve, but allow a lie, which God can not provide, and the tree can become a real alternative, the one choice for agape love to be expressed. We need a Godly reason for God to allow sin and all that results in sin, there has to be a benefit that exceeds the cost and really no other way to do it. If we say, the more attractive sin is, the greater the love must be to over come the sin, then as our love (or Adam and Eve’s love) grows will there be ever increasing attractive sins, challenging that love? Can we ever relax? Does God relax?

This is a beginning on the subject.

5a. Is God not strong enough to do away with Satan now?

Patman said: Yes

I want to make sure that is the question you are saying Yes to?

Satan lost the war to angels, not to God directly. God has told us what will happen to Satan, so what is holding Him up, what will change with time, God strength, Satan’s strength? Or does Satan satisfy some purpose? I do not care if God planned this for Satan or just some great angel failure, God knew would eventually happen in Heaven and He would use on His future earth.

Patman ask:

If I am wrong, correct me, but do you think that God predestined Satan to be a tool and uses Satan to cause sin so that we might love him back?

I do not believe in predestination. The whole situation with God and angels is really left untold, since we do not need it to fulfill our purpose. We do have some information. I understand agape love to require free will and with free will there will be wrong choices over time, and angel can agape love. Since I think angels were made spiritual beings from the beginning, they are vastly different then humans in their choices. God would have known some would fail and provide a Satan for earth.

Patman said:
If you do, I cannot disagree more. Our love for God does not require sin, just as his love does not for us. Satan, the fall of man, and the fall of angels are tragic events that God must make the best out of. Its not all for a purpose, it didn't happen just as God planned it. That would make God the author of all our sins.

We agree God allows sin to happen. The question is, why does God allow sin? You are trying to tell me (I think) so man can have free will, freely love and because God lacked the knowledge to program man correctly, to not feel trapped into doing good.( Maybe you can explain this again, specifically). I am saying, the develop of a selfless sacrificial agape love is so difficult that only man on this earth under extreme conditions and with everything God could possible do can and only might, develop such a love. That everything from God includes allowing Man to sin. God is not the “author” of sin does not like it, does not want it, hates it, but because His objective (in relation to man) is the ultimate in unselfishness of doing all He can to help Man fulfill his objective, God allows sin. If there was only another way.

Back to the question, would you rather be in the garden or were your are right now and why?

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Pat,

Your "possible views" are possible only if you ignore what scripture says. This seems to be a bad pattern with you. I have already provided enough evidence to prove my point, I have shown with scripture how these points are right. You even have admitted that I COULD be correct. What is it going to take?

Well, you would need to prove that your view is more probable! This I am not convinced of.

I’m curious, just how much of the Bible have you read?

I have read all of the Bible...

Your misreading of scripture, your wishing it away, your twisting it's words, your very thought process is causing you great problems. You are so willing to believe that God knows the future that you will throw away the obvious meanings of scripture! Who gave you that right? And I must say, "shame on you," if you continue to do it. I think you are smart enough to see the clear meanings of the words of God that I show you, yet you find it OK to twist them.

But this is not a refutation of my viewpoint. I will be glad to discuss the pertinent Scriptures further, though...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[bling]

Patman, I hope you are not tired of hearing from me. You generate a lot of questions for me and I even think about them at night. I really did not do the question of sin justice; I have a lot more ideas on that. I do want to address a general concern you have and get a better understanding from you:

Patman said: That would make God the author of all our sins.

This has come up before. I am beginning to think, and correct me here, that you feel for God to have foreknowledge He would have to be the cause of our sins? I do not agree with this!

I do have a similar issue with your line of thinking that you might not realize.
What do I say to a young person about to reach their age of accountability, that asks, “will I sin in the future?”
1. I can say with my understanding of an O.V., “you do not have to.” But is that scriptural? Is Christ the only one and will always be the only one not to sin? It has happened only once with a very special, person deity is human form (Christ), so does this young person have a chance?
2. I can say, “I and others do not want you to sin, God and Jesus do not want you to sin, you do not want to sin, and sin is extremely bad.” The next question being, “Then why will I sin”. Who do we blame Satan or Adam & Eve, or God- God for not doing a better job in making us to not sin, God for not improving on His errors with Adam and Eve and the 12 billion people before us to make us better, God for making the rules to tough, God for giving up on His hope of making a man that will not sin and going to plan B with some lesser objective, where sin will happen and Christ will bear it, or God for not getting rid of Satan from earth. God is just not smart enough, powerful enough, not concerned enough about your sinning, can’t plan will enough, and is to picky.
3. Does our young person have the right to be discouraged, disappointed, up set with God, up set with the way things are, and beaten before he/she tries?

Can we then blame God for our sinning at least once?

Forget foreknowledge for a moment, lets talk about a truly awesome God, that would be smart enough, powerful enough, extremely concerned about your personal sins, only set rules that would help humans, sticks with, a very will thought-out, plan A, and of which our logic today can not come close to His knowledge of a million years ago. Everything would work according to some totally unselfish Godly objective and that objective would be so great, as to over ride all other objectives. The objective of man would be worth dieing for, over ride all other objectives, would not be limited to any intellectual, physical handicap or location restrain, would be universally available to all, somewhat obvious and yet achievable by.

Man not committing sin does not fit this objective. Not sinning can be a very wonderful objective, but there is a greater objective, one that might allow man to sin and still be fulfill.
1. If not sinning were the objective, then no one (but Christ) has or will fulfill that objective and the God that set that objective, would have set up the man He designed and made for failure and I think we agree it is obvious for God to have realized that and we know the cross was in the plan before man.
2. God has provided a solution to all man’s sins both in Christ and the Spirit, so sin ceases to be the problem. Still extremely bad, but not an objective stopper.
3. From simple observation we can see that, sinning just one time and having that sin forgiven, would not hurt the greater objective of agape loving God & humans, and hating sin, and could actually enhance our love for all the reasons I stated before.

God is not the cause of sin, does not want sinning, hate sin, hates Satan, hate the people He loves to be hurt “naturally” or through evil,and really did not want Christ to go to the cross. God will allow Christ to go to the cross, will allow Satan to stick around, will allow innocent people to be hurt, and will allow sin to happen, if that will help Humans fulfill their objective. That is what I am saying.

 

[RobE]

Exactly my question about the tree in the garden.

Exactly my question about the tree in the garden.

Man not committing sin does not fit this objective. Not sinning can be a very wonderful objective, but there is a greater objective, one that might allow man to sin and still be fulfill.
1. If not sinning were the objective, then no one (but Christ) has or will fulfill that objective and the God that set that objective, would have set up the man He designed and made for failure and I think we agree it is obvious for God to have realized that and we know the cross was in the plan before man.
2. God has provided a solution to all man’s sins both in Christ and the Spirit, so sin ceases to be the problem. Still extremely bad, but not an objective stopper.
3. From simple observation we can see that, sinning just one time and having that sin forgiven, would not hurt the greater objective of agape loving God & humans, and hating sin, and could actually enhance our love for all the reasons I stated before.

God is not the cause of sin, does not want sinning, hate sin, hates Satan, hate the people He loves to be hurt “naturally” or through evil,and really did not want Christ to go to the cross. God will allow Christ to go to the cross, will allow Satan to stick around, will allow innocent people to be hurt, and will allow sin to happen, if that will help Humans fulfill their objective. That is what I am saying.

Thanks Bling.

Foreseeing and enacting a perfect plan doesn't make one responsible for the harms that are done by others, through their actions, as that plan plays out.

OV'ers say that God doesn't err, He just copes with the errors of his imperfect creation. If God made man NOT to sin then He made a mistake(mistake=He did everything right and it still turned out wrong). If He made them to sin then how could they be 'GOOD'. I point you to Gen. 3:22 for the answer. The tree was there for a purpose. Good doesn't mean perfect, right? The question is-----How does God perfect things?

Calvinism fails at the same point as the Open View does. Specifically, Grace.

Yours,

RobE

p.s. Welcome to the party, pal!!!

 

[RobE]

RobE, thanks for having a little fun, even if it is at my expense.

You got it wrong btw. If God says he can change his mind, his word is true. Amen and Amen.

Anything is possible for Him.

If God says one thing will happen, then it does not happen, it has little to do with a change of mind. For example, He said Israel around-about the time of King Hezekiah would bear good fruit but then admits they didn't. That's not God changing his mind, he always wanted Israel to bear good fruit. That's God not seeing the future. But he didn't lie, he really thought it would happen, and he told us. You can trust God.

If you really thought the Broncos would win the superbowl, you wanted them to win the superbowl, and they did NOT win the superbowl. Then you were.......what's the word here.....mistaken, wrong, what?

The example that works with God changing his mind is one such as Jonah preaching that God would destroy the City in 40 days, and does not do it. He changed his mind there, just as he said he would.

Where did He say He would change His mind?

Its not so ":kookoo:" after all! The OV goes by the bible and its words more so than any other theology.

If you mean the OV literalizes the bible and its words more so than any other theology, you might be right; but I doubt it.

I want to quickly address lying here. Is it a lie not to tell ALL that you know about a particular situation. When dealing with someone who is immature compared to you do you tell them everything that's on their mind or just what you think they can handle.

Do you, Patman, believe that God reveals everything to everyone. Is it possible that God didn't say everything He had planned to Jonah? Would His ommission be a LIE?

He laid out cleanliness issues in the Old Testament, what do you think the language today would be. Instead of saying--He who touches a sick person is unclean, how about--if you come in contact with someone who is sick wash up because you might get a bacterial infection.



Thanks RobE.

I'd still like to know you opinion on Clete's responses and His proof text in Matthew.

 

[bling]

RobE asked: Good doesn't mean perfect, right? The question is-----How does God perfect things?

The perfection of man is not in his ability not to sin, but in his ability to complete his objective. It does not matter how you are physically or mentally (as long as you reach the age mentally of accountability), or where you are located. You can still fulfill the objective of agape loving God, man and hate what you know to be sin. Man and women are perfect in the Garden for the task, just not perfect in not being able to keep from sinning, which would fall contrary to the objective. I really appreciate Patman hanging in there, so many O.V. left and I did not find this web site until the debate was half over and I was not aware with this doctrine. It took me a long time to see the issue. I need to know how they resolve the issues or even thought about them.

 

[lee_merrill]

Good-bye Lee. You simply cannot be trying.

Oh, I'm very trying...

I refuse to believe that you are so stupid as to not be able to figure this out. It just very simply isn't worth my time to explain something to someone who is trying not to get it.

Well, this is rather ironic! The Open View chides people for not reading verses that could well mean "God changed his mind" at their plain face value.

So then when we come across a verse saying "God will not change his mind," we are to take that at face value, too!

No, wait...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Oh, I'm very trying...


Well, this is rather ironic! The Open View chides people for not reading verses that could well mean "God changed his mind" at their plain face value.

So then when we come across a verse saying "God will not change his mind," we are to take that at face value, too!

No, wait...

Blessings,
Lee

Take both literally! In some situations, God will change His mind. In other scenarios, God will NOT change His mind. This is no different than any personal being. As a parent or Christian, I will not change my mind on some things, but I will be open to change on other things. It is poor exegesis to proof text one set to create a contradiction that forces us to take the other set figuratively without warrant. Read each verse in context at face value. This will lead to a straightforward understanding of God and His ways, as He intended.

 

[patman]

Lee, and Everyone else, a timeline

Lee, and Everyone else, a timeline

Lee, I promised you to give you undeniable evidence to my claims. Here it is.

|
|
|
|
|
|

These lines are my timeline. It will start off small and grow as events are added. I would like to make it horizontal, but that would mean problems for computers of different resolutions.

Our timeline's years will be numbered according to Ezekiel at first. Keep that in mind.

To start with, we need a reference point. Ezekiel uses a different system of counting years than others do. In Chapter 29:17 God tells Ezekiel he will destroy Egypt. The verse says the word came to him on the first month of the first day of the month in the 27th year.

So where does Ezekiel start counting from? 27th year of what?

Ezekiel 1:1,2 says that the 13th year was 5th year of King Jehoiachin's captivity. 13-5 = 8. Counting years requires you start from the year you are counting. Thus the 1st year of the captivity of King Jehoiachin would be Ezekiel's 9th year.

|-1 Ezekiel's 1st year
|-2
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Captivity of King Jehoiachin
|-10
|-11
|-12
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)

Jehoiachin is spoken of in 2 Kings 24:8-16. He reigned 3 months, was carried away. After that Zedekiah was made King by Nebuchadnezzar.

|-1 Ezekiel's 1st year
|-2
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10
|-11
|-12
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)

Zedekiah is mentioned in 2 Kings 24:17- 25:3. Zedekiah was king for 11 years. At the 11th year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar again attacked Jerusalem and killed many, and took the rest captive, leaving very few behind. It was this time that Jerusalem was utterly destroyed.

|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10
|-11
|-12
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20
|-21
|-22

2 Kings 25:8 tells us that the 5th month of the 11th year of King Zedekiah was also King Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. Do you notice something? Our timeline is numbered by Ezekiel's years.

Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year of being King is also Ezekiel's 19th year. Thus Ezekiel uses King Nebuchadnezzar's reign as the starting point of his years.

So what of Pharaoh Necho? He is mentioned in 2 Kings 23:29. King Josiah tried to help Pharaoh Necho fight against Nebuchadnezzar. He(Josiah) died doing so. When did Josiah die? Lets count up the kings from Josiah to Jehoiachin.

2 Kings 23:31 There was Jehoahaz who reigned 3 months after Josiah died. Pharaoh Necho put him in prison and replaced him with his brother Jehoiakim.

2 Kings 23:36 says Jehoiakim reigned 11 years until Nebuchadnezzar came against him and he was killed. That brings us up to his son, Jehoiachin.

So it was 11 years, 3 months before Jerusalem was attacked for the first time that King Josiah Died.


|- -4
|- -3
|- -2
|- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz made king / 3 months later Jehoiakim is crowned King by Necho
|-0
|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10
|-11
|-12
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20
|-21
|-22

It seems right after that Battle between Necho and Nebuchadnezzar, something happened, because Nebuchadnezzar wasn't king at that point. Where did that battle take place? 2 Kings 23:29 says they fought at the Euphrates River. That's something to keep in mind too.

What about that other Pharaoh, the one who came sometime after Necho. His name was Pharaoh Hophra. Jeremiah 44:30 Tells Pharaoh Hophra that he will be given in the hands of his enemies. JUST LIKE ZEDEKIAH. This prophecy must have been given after Israel's captivity. So when was this prophecy given? Jeremiah does not use years like Ezekiel did, so it is harder to pinpoint. We will have to do our homework on this one. One thing we know for sure is that it happened after Zedekiah was removed. That was in Ezekiel's 9th year.

The entire chapter of Jeremiah 44 stays in context. It tells about Jews from Judah living in Egypt. Jeremiah was there too. He was in a place called Tafpanhes. The Jews there were burning incense to the "queen of heaven", a false God. God commands them to stop, or else they will be taken by their enemies. Jeremiah 44:12 tells us that this group of people are the remnant of Judah, who went to Egypt to escape Nebuchadnezzar.

When did the remnant of Judah flee to Egypt? 2 Kings 25:22 tells us that after Zedekiah's reign, Nebuchadnezzar left a small remnant of Jews in Judah. Over them he appointed Gedaliah governor. He reigned 7 months before a band of Jews killed him, and then fled for Egypt.

|- -4
|- -3
|- -2
|- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz King / 3 months later crowned Jehoiakim King by Necho
|-0
|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10
|-11
|-12
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20 Judah Flees to Egypt 7 months after Zedekiah's Reign ends
|-21
|-22

Jeremiah 41 tells all about how Judah killed Gedaliah and planed to go to Egypt. Jeremiah 42 tells how God forbids Judah to go to Egypt. Jeremiah 43 tells how they all go anyway, and end up in Tahpanhes. This is the place Jeremiah 44 tells us that there is a Pharaoh named Hophra. How much time could have passed between Ezekiel's 20th year and Jeremiah 44? A few months later? A year? 4 years? I cannot determine the year, but only estimate.

The estimation should be accurate, it should take into account getting there by foot, and a short time for them to sin, but does not matter in the grand scheme of things. It happen sometime after the 20th year. I estimate a year. It could be more, it does not matter. The point is that after the 20th year, Egypt absolutely had a new King, name Hophra

|- -4
|- -3
|- -2
|- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz King / 3 months later crowned Jehoiakim King by Necho
|-0
|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10
|-11
|-12
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20 Judah Flees to Egypt 7 months after Zedekiah's Reign ends
|-21approx A new Pharaoh in Egypt is mentioned for the first time since Necho. His name is Hophra
|-22

Something worth talking about is that after the 20th year, there is sill an Egypt to go to. Necho was Pharaoh reign ended somewhere between -1 and 20.

Jeremiah 46:2 Says that in the 4th year of King Jehoiakim God told Jeremiah Necho was defeated at the River Euphrates by Nebuchadnezzar.

|- -4
|- -3
|- -2
|- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz King / 3 months later crowned Jehoiakim King by Necho
|-0
|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2Jehoiakim's 4th year / Necho defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the River Euphrates
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10
|-11
|-12
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20 Judah Flees to Egypt 7 months after Zedekiah's Reign ends
|-21approx A new Pharaoh in Egypt is mentioned for the first time since Necho. His name is Hophra
|-22

The entire chapter of Jeremiah 46 speak of how Nebuchadnezzar would crush Necho. You do not have to read the entire chapter to gather this, because It says so in the first 2 verses. Jeremiah 46:1, 2 "The word of the LORD which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the nations. Against Egypt. Concerning the army of Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, which was by the River Euphrates in Carchemish, and which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah:"

Jeremiah 46:19 declares "O you daughter dwelling in Egypt, Prepare yourself to go into captivity! For Noph [that is ancient Memphis] shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant." Remember Jeremiah 46 Is all about Necho and Nebuchadnezzar! The subject does not change.

Jeremiah 46:13 says "The word that the LORD spoke to Jeremiah the prophet, how Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon would come and strike the land of Egypt." And right after that is the word of destruction for Necho's Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar even was named! No other king after him, nor before, but Nebuchadnezzar was the very person to do this. This prophecy was given in the 4th year of Jehoiakim.



Jeremiah 43:10,11 also talks about Nebuchadnezzar, "and say to them, 'Thus says the LORD of host, the God of Israel: "Behold, I will send and bring Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will set his Throne above these stones that I have hidden. And he will spread his royal pavilion over them.(11) When he comes he shall strike the land of Egypt and deliver to death those appointed for death, and to captivity those appointed for captivity, and to sword those appointed for the sword."'"

NOTE:, Jeremiah 43 happened at the 20th year, as Judah fled to Egypt. Pharaoh Necho was supposed to be taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar. Yet after the 20th year, there is another Pharaoh?

2 Kings 23:35 tell of how Jehoiakim gave silver and gold to Pharaoh Necho, the very person who made him King over Israel. Necho owned Israel. Israel thus paid taxes to its ruler, Necho. This went on through Jehoiakim's reign, and ended after 11 years. 3 Years before the end, as reported in 2 Kings 24:1, Nebuchadnezzar and his allies fought to take the land from Egypt. 2 Kings 24:7 tells us, "And the king of Egypt did not come out of his land any more, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the King of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates." That land described includes Israel, that Nebuchadnezzar took from Egypt at the end of Jehoiakim's reign. And Egypt did not step in to stop it. Necho stayed there for the rest of his life.


|- -4
|- -3
|- -2
|- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz King / 3 months later crowned Jehoiakim King by Necho
|- -1 Pharaoh Necho Taxes the land of Israel as it is a part of his empire
|-0
|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2 Jehoiakim's 4th year / Necho defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the River Euphrates
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Land of Israel taken from Necho by Nebuchadnezzar / Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10
|-11
|-12
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20 Judah Flees to Egypt 7 months after Zedekiah's Reign ends
|-21approx A new Pharaoh in Egypt is mentioned for the first time since Necho. His name is Hophra
|-22

So what happened to Necho? When did his reign end? We can only tell that it happened somewhere between the years of 9 and 20. Regardless, Necho was threatened by God directly in Jeremiah 46 with Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah 46 promises captivity. God promise it Egypt and to Pharaoh Necho?

Ezekiel 29 speaks of Egypt's demise! It also speaks of them coming out of captivity after 40 years. And it speaks it to the Pharaoh who reigned in the 10th year! Necho was still Pharaoh in the 9th year.

Ezekiel 31 speaks to the Pharaoh in the 12th year, and describes him as having "the greatest tree in the garden." What other Pharaoh besides Necho had such a big kingdom? That included Egypt, Israel, and other nations up to the Euphrates River? All other Pharaoh's from then on did not own such great land , thus in the 12th year, Necho was still on his throne, according to scripture's description of that Pharaoh.

So in Jeremiah 46, God promises captivity to Necho, in Ezekiel 29, he promises 40 years of captivity. Ezekiel 29:2 "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him, and against all Egypt."

Ezekiel 29:10 "Indeed, therefore, I am against you[Pharaoh and His Egypt] and against your rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly east and desolate, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the Border of Ethiopia."

Ezekiel 29:12 "I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and among the cities that are laid waste, her cities shall be desolate forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them throughout the countries."

No one has a right to change the subject matter of the scripture. The Pharaoh who reigned in the 10th year is told that his Egypt would be utterly destroyed. It is in plain black and white. They were to be captive for 40 years. Not even a foot will step on the land of Egypt (Ezekiel 29:11).

So when did it happen? Did it happen to the Pharaoh that God said it would happen to? After all, he said it would happen in two completely different books by two completely different people who described the same thing that would happen by the same King from the same nation. And it turns out that Egypt was going to be deserted for 40 years. So if this prophecy were to be completed, this would have happened sometime after the 10th year to the Pharaoh of the 10th year.

Remember, sometime after the 20th year, Pharaoh Necho's reign had been long gone, because Pharaoh Hophra reigned. Do the math. IF Pharaoh Necho's reign ended at the 20th year, that would mean that from the 20th year up until the 60th year, Egypt would be in captivity, scattered, and not the foot of man nor beast would set foot on the land of Egypt.

But the Bible records more Pharaoh's after Necho, existing well after the fall of Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 29:17 through the end of chapter 30 again proclaims doom on Egypt. This time it is in the 27th year. Long after Necho. And again, Nebuchadnezzar is to be the one to do it.

Even up to the 27th year, Egypt still stands, in spite of the fact the Necho's Egypt was supposed to be taken into captivity.


|- -4
|- -3
|- -2
|- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz King / 3 months later crowned Jehoiakim King by Necho
|- -1 Pharaoh Necho Taxes the land of Israel as it is a part of his empire
|-0
|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2 Jehoiakim's 4th year / Necho defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the River Euphrates
|-2 <Necho promised captivity in Jeremiah 46:2,8,19
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Land of Israel taken from Necho by Nebuchadnezzar / Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10 <Pharaoh of the day, who is Necho, promised 40 years of captivity for his land, and the Egypt would be emptied in Ezekiel 29:2,8,9,11,12
|-11 <Pharaoh shall be weakened and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 30:25
|-12 <Pharaoh Necho is identified by description and Egypt Threatened in Ezekiel 31:2,11,12,31
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20 Judah Flees to Egypt 7 months after Zedekiah's Reign ends
|-21 approx A new Pharaoh in Egypt is mentioned for the first time since Necho. His name is Hophra
|-22
|-23
|-24
|-25
|-26
|-27 <Egypt still remains as proof by Ezekiel 29:17,19
|-28
|-29

One very important thing to keep in mind is that these prophecies are letters addressed to the person they are against. If it is a letter to the Pharaoh of the 12 year, and it says "you will fail", it means you - the Pharaoh of the 12 year - will fail. We have no right to add to the words of scripture and state that it says something other than what it clearly says. God spoke exactly what he meant. If God said Say to Pharaoh, and it was in the 12th year, He was a direct personal message to the Pharaoh of the 12th year!

So far we have identified when these events have taken place, who the words were spoken to, what would happen, and we can clearly see that many of these words did not happen. For Egypt to be in captivity, at the very latest, by the 20th year, that again would mean Egypt would be an empty land such that no foot would step on it until the 60th year, 40 years later. At the very earliest, if the 12th year ended Necho, Egypt would be desolate until the 52nd year. Yet in the 27th(According to Ezekiel) year, Egypt was still there. Also, in the 21st, give or take(according to Jeremiah), there was yet another Pharaoh, Hophra. And even he is threatened to be destroyed by his enemies, but not by Nebuchadnezzar.


And what of Tyre?

Ezekiel 26 God makes proclamations against Tyre in the 11th year. Remember this is all in Context, each statement rests on the complete thought. You cannot take one verse out and say "this one doesn't fit with the rest," because you have no right to pick and move verses to change their clear meaning.

Ezekiel 26:3"Therefore thus says the LORD God:Behold, I am against you O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up.'"

Ezekiel 26:7 "For thus says the LORD God:'Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen and an army with many people"

Ezekiel 26:11 "With the hooves of his [Nebuchadnezzar's] horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground."

Ezekiel 26:12 "They [Nebuchadnezzar's army] will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water."

Ezekiel 26:14 "I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken,' says the LORD."

Ezekiel 26:19,20 "For thus says the LORD:'When I make you a desolate city, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you, (20) then I will bring you down with those who descended into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lowest part of the earth, in places desolate from antiquity, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you will never be inhabited; and I shall establish glory in the land of the living."

Tyre, during Nebuchadnezzar's time, will be utterly destroyed. May as well drop a few Nukes on it and cover it with water. Oh, but before you Nuke the place, Nebuchadnezzar gets all the gold and other plunder.

Tyre was prophesied to NEVER be rebuilt.


|- -4
|- -3
|- -2
|- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz King / 3 months later crowned Jehoiakim King by Necho
|- -1 Pharaoh Necho Taxes the land of Israel as it is a part of his empire
|-0
|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2 Jehoiakim's 4th year / Necho defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the River Euphrates
|-2 <Necho promised captivity in Jeremiah 46:2,8,19
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Land of Israel taken from Necho by Nebuchadnezzar / Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10<Pharaoh of the day, who is Necho, promised 40 years of captivity for his land, and the Egypt would be emptied in Ezekiel 29:2,8,9,11,12
|-11 < Tyre is doomed by God. Nebuchadnezzar is to plunder Tyre and utterly destroy it, and it is never to be rebuilt
|-11<Pharaoh shall be weakened and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 30:25
|-12<Pharaoh Necho is identified by description and Egypt Threatened in Ezekiel 31:2,11,12,31
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20 Judah Flees to Egypt 7 months after Zedekiah's Reign ends
|-21 approx A new Pharaoh in Egypt is mentioned for the first time since Necho. His name is Hophra
|-22
|-23
|-24
|-25
|-26
|-27 <Egypt still remains as proof by Ezekiel 29:17,19
|-28
|-29


Ezekiel 29:17 God speaks to Ezekiel again about Tyre in the 27th year.

Ezekiel 29:18,19 "Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it. (19) Therefore thus says the LORD God: 'Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, cary off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army."

So about 17 years after Tyre was doomed, God said it wasn't going to happen. Instead, God wants Nebuchadnezzar to go after Egypt.

|- -4
|- -3
|- -2
|- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz King / 3 months later crowned Jehoiakim King by Necho
|- -1 Pharaoh Necho Taxes the land of Israel as it is a part of his empire
|-0
|-1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
|-2 Jehoiakim's 4th year / Necho defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the River Euphrates
|-2 <Necho promised captivity in Jeremiah 46:2,8,19
|-3
|-4
|-5
|-6
|-7
|-8
|- 9 Land of Israel taken from Necho by Nebuchadnezzar / Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
|-10<Pharaoh of the day, who is Necho, promised 40 years of captivity for his land, and the Egypt would be emptied in Ezekiel 29:2,8,9,11,12
|-11<Tyre is doomed by God. Nebuchadnezzar is to plunder Tyre and utterly destroy it, and it is never to be rebuilt
|-11<Pharaoh shall be weakened and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 30:25
|-12<Pharaoh Necho is identified by description and Egypt Threatened in Ezekiel 31:2,11,12,31
|-13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
|-14
|-15
|-16
|-17
|-18
|-19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
|-20 Judah Flees to Egypt 7 months after Zedekiah's Reign ends
|-21 approx A new Pharaoh in Egypt is mentioned for the first time since Necho. His name is Hophra
|-22
|-23
|-24
|-25
|-26
|-27 <Egypt still remains as proof by Ezekiel 29:17,19
|-27<Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre, received no plunder, and will attack Egypt to get it.
|-28
|-29





There is my time line. It is complete, Bible based, history had no say on it at all. Now lets have some fun. Lets get some history and actual dates.

What year was Nebuchadnezzar made King? According to World Book, and Wikipedia.com that was 605 B.C. That means Ezekiel's 1st year was at 605 B.C.

610 |- -4
609 |- -3
608 |- -2
607 |- -1 King Josiah Dies helping Pharaoh Necho / Jehoahaz King / 3 months later crowned Jehoiakim King by Necho
____|- -1 Pharaoh Necho Taxes the land of Israel as it is a part of his empire
606 |- 0
605 |- 1 Ezekie'sl 1st year
604 |- 2 Jehoiakim's 4th year / Necho defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the River Euphrates
____|- 2 <Necho promised captivity in Jeremiah 46:2,8,19
603 |- 3
602 |- 4
601 |- 5
600 |- 6
599 |- 7
598 |- 8
597 |- 9 Land of Israel taken from Necho by Nebuchadnezzar / Captivity of King Jehoiachin / Zedekiah made king
596 |- 10 <Pharaoh of the day, who is Necho, promised 40 years of captivity for his land, and the Egypt would be emptied in Ezekiel 29:2,8,9,11,12
595 |- 11 <Tyre is doomed by God. Nebuchadnezzar is to plunder Tyre and utterly destroy it, and it is never to be rebuilt
____|- 11 <Pharaoh shall be weakened and destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in Ezekiel 30:25
594 |- 12 <Pharaoh Necho is identified by description and Egypt Threatened in Ezekiel 31:2,11,12,31
593 |- 13 Ezekiel's 13th year (5 years in captivity)
592 |- 14
591 |- 15
590 |- 16
589 |- 17
588 |- 18
587 |- 19 Zedekiah's reign ends after 11 years, Jerusalem captured final time
586 |- 20 Judah Flees to Egypt 7 months after Zedekiah's Reign ends
585 |- 21 approx A new Pharaoh in Egypt is mentioned for the first time since Necho. His name is Hophra
584 |- 22
583 |- 23
582 |- 24
581 |- 25
580 |- 26
579 |- 27 <Egypt still remains as proof by Ezekiel 29:17,19
____|- 27 <Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre, received no plunder, and will attack Egypt to get it.
578 |- 28
577 | -29

Without looking, I estimated that Pharaoh Hophra was king in the 21st year. That would be 585 B.C. His reign, as history records was from 589-570 B.C.. That is almost 11 years. If you wish to check me on this, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hophra

So it turns out that Necho, at the very latest, was out by the 17th year! But according to history, There was another Pharaoh who's reign started in 595 and ended in 589! Which means that Necho's reign ended in 595! Look at the time line! It fits perfectly. God really was speaking to Pharaoh Necho at the end of his reign, as scripture points out! According to History, Necho's reign was from 610-595B.C.

Wow. It is a credit to the Bible how much it matches history to the "T".

What about Israel's captivity? When does history say it happened? According to Wikipedia's account of Nebuchadnezzar, he took King Jehoiachin to Babylon in 597. Look up at the time line! It matches soooooooo gooooood. It said the second attack happened in 587/586.... And look up! It did. The time line, based only on scripture is 100% accurate.

I invite everyone to read about history's account of Nebuchadnezzar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II

After Nebuchadnezzar took Israel, He turned to Tyre. Wiki says that happened in 585. 10 years after the God said it would happen. Amazing. But 17 years after the Prophecy that doomed, Tyre was still there. And God admits that Nebuchadnezzar was not winning the war, and that he would not win. So God says Nebuchadnezzar would take Egypt in 579 B.C..

The war between Tyre and Nebuchadnezzar ended in 572 in an agreement. Nebuchadnezzar received no plunder, there was no utter destruction, the city was still there, and was rebuilt over time.

Thus, just as God said, after changing his mind, Nebuchadnezzar went to Egypt in his 37th year. He made war with the king who came AFTER Hophra, Pharaoh Amasis. But even then, Egypt remained. It continued to have Pharaohs up until 521 B.C. It has never been unpopulated.

History matches the Bible PERFECTLY.

So here are my proofs.

Jeremiah told Necho that Nebuchadnezzar would bring them into captivity. Ezekiel adds that the captivity would last for 40 years. Both books address Necho, as they were written and addressed to Pharaoh in the 2nd,10th, 11th, and 12th years, all during Necho's reign. God commanded the prophets to tell the Pharaoh these things. It was Necho. And it didn't happen, Necho's reign ended during the 12th year. Another Pharaoh took his place, there was no captivity, no desolation, no utter destruction, man continued to walk the land of Egypt, even thought it was still said to happen. Egypt was not invaded until the 37th year, and even then there was no utter destruction. Necho never lost his kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar.

Ezekiel states that Nebuchadnezzar would take Tyre, utterly destroy it, that it would not be rebuilt, he would take all its plunder, its wealth, and it would be as a rock, with nothing on it. This was predicted to happen in the 12th year. In the 27th year God changed his mind and decided to send Nebuchadnezzar to Egypt. God changed his mind for reasons unknown. But he admits that Nebuchadnezzar was not able to take Tyre, and that he did not receive plunder from that land. History confirms it.

Here is the verse again: Ezekiel 29:18"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his arm to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it."

Now, Lee. It is your idealism against the Bible, its obvious meaning, and history's matching account. If you do not see now, I must sadly say you are blind. I have proven every point, backed every evidence, and backed up that evidence. It all fits.

Now, if God can change his mind, how can he know the future? And if God can say one thing will happen, and then it doesn't, how does God know the future?

It is more like this: God plans for the future, he makes it work for those who will follow him. We are all free, and I follow the God who I can trust to love me, and to have mercy on me, in spite of what I should get. He does not need future knowledge.

Lee, I do not wish to be cruel. I do not say things against you for fun, I hate to say them. But you must see what is clearly in front of your own eyes.

If you will only go back and re-read all the chapters and books I have quoted, you will see everything I say is true. I don't want to win a debate, per say, I want to give you light that you might understand scripture. Please open your eyes and read.

I ask that you not reply to this immediately. Passion sometimes gets in the way of what we really think. I ask that you read my post at least 3 or 4 times. It is a lot to take in, it is a lot of comprehension. Better yet, do what I did. Test my timeline against your own. I beg of you to take time with this post. I did, and I do with every one I write to you.

I will pray for you.
-Patman

 

[patman]

Bling is famous!

Bling is famous!

Hey Bling,
I don't know if you realize this, but you are famous!

Check it out:

http://kgov.com/bel/2005/20051007-BEL200-24k.mp3

You are towards the end. Enjoy.

Oh yeah, Clete is famous too. Good to hear you on kgov Clete! :first:

 

[Clete]

Hey Bling,
I don't know if you realize this, but you are famous!

Check it out:

http://kgov.com/bel/2005/20051007-BEL200-24k.mp3

You are towards the end. Enjoy.

Oh yeah, Clete is famous too. Good to hear you on kgov Clete! :first:

Thanks patman!

That was a really good couple of shows! When my call was done I was really thinking I had sounded stupid because I stumbled over my words a bit but it sounds better when you listen to it than it did when it was coming out of my mouth.

Your timeline post is brilliant, by the way. That must have taken hours and hours to write not to mention study out. I've saved it and intend to use it as a reference in the future. So, know that regardless of Lee's response (if any) your time wasn't wasted.

Resting in Him,
Clete