One on One: Mr. 5020 & Knight (II)

[Mr. 5020]

bump

I'm sorry, Knight. I'm just a bit busy right now. I work from 6am - 6 pm every day for DISH Network, and then work at nights at my church.

I'm still reading up on the verse that you gave me. Could you give me a few more to read up on as well.

:thumb:

- :5020:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'm sorry, Knight. I'm just a bit busy right now. I work from 6am - 6 pm every day for DISH Network, and then work at nights at my church.

:up:

I'm still reading up on the verse that you gave me. Could you give me a few more to read up on as well.

Since time is hard to come by, lets just stick with the verse I have already supplied.

Respond when you can.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate your patience.

 

[Mr. 5020]

There are several.... however, to remain focused I will choose but one.

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

God expected Israel to produce "good grapes" but instead Israel produced "wild grapes".

There are two possible conclusions to be made from this....

A. God has exhaustive foreknowledge yet God is irrational and expects things that He knows will not come to pass.

B. God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge.

Which do you choose, A or B?

Finally had a chance to look at this. This is a great point/argument! :thumb:

This will take some study. I'm close to admitting your right, but I'm not willing to just drop something as important as this.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Finally had a chance to look at this. This is a great point/argument! :thumb:

This will take some study. I'm close to admitting your right, but I'm not willing to just drop something as important as this.

I understand completely!

Take your time and get back with me when you are ready.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Mr. 5020 did you get a chance to think about Isaiah 5?

No rush, I know your busy so just respond when you can.

 

[Mr. 5020]

There are several.... however, to remain focused I will choose but one.

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

God expected Israel to produce "good grapes" but instead Israel produced "wild grapes".

There are two possible conclusions to be made from this....

A. God has exhaustive foreknowledge yet God is irrational and expects things that He knows will not come to pass.

B. God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge.

Which do you choose, A or B?

So, I finally did a little bit of studying on this. First of all, I'm not willing to drop a doctrine that I believe there is substantial proof for because there is one verse that I don't completely understand. I know that sounds asinine, but I said it in hopes for more supporting verses from you.

Getting to the verse...

In the KJV, the verse reads...

Isaiah 5:2 KJV And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.

Because of the slightly different wording, I looked it up in a concordance. The words "he looked" are defined like this:

H6960

A primitive root; to bind together (perhaps by twisting), that is, collect; (figuratively) to expect: - gather (together), look, patiently, tarry, wait (for, on, upon).

Notice that the definition is to wait, or to figuratively expect something to happen. With that in mind, I don't feel this verse is substantial enough to overturn this doctrine.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because of the slightly different wording, I looked it up in a concordance. The words "he looked" are defined like this:
Notice that the definition is to wait, or to figuratively expect something to happen. With that in mind, I don't feel this verse is substantial enough to overturn this doctrine.

The "figure" wouldn't change that fact that God was looking for good grapes yet found wild grapes instead.

Just look at Isaiah 5:4 (in the KJV)...

Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?

So assuming the "looked" is a figure of speech what would that figure of speech mean?

How would any of this change the obvious meaning of the verse?

And how would replacing "expected" with "looked" help your assertion that God has already "looked" at the future yet was "looking" for another outcome?

 

[Mr. 5020]

The "figure" wouldn't change that fact that God was looking for good grapes yet found wild grapes instead.

Just look at Isaiah 5:4 (in the KJV)...So assuming the "looked" is a figure of speech what would that figure of speech mean?

How would any of this change the obvious meaning of the verse?

And how would replacing "expected" with "looked" help your assertion that God has already "looked" at the future yet was "looking" for another outcome?

The word "looked" wasn't the point. I simply said that the difference in words made me look up the definition. Using the definition provided by Strong's, it would seem as though it means that God did everything He could to make it produce good grapes, but they chose otherwise.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God did everything He could to make it produce good grapes, but they chose otherwise.

Right but the verse states that God was "looking" for (or "expecting") good grapes because of all that He had done for Israel.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Right but the verse states that God was "looking" for (or "expecting") good grapes because of all that He had done for Israel.

Figuratively speaking.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Figuratively speaking.

Figures of speach are used to simplify or help make things easier to understand.

Figures of speech are not used to make things harder to understand.

Therefore, what would the figure of speech in Isaiah 5 mean? (assuming it was a figure of speach)

Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

 

[Mr. 5020]

Figures of speach are used to simplify or help make things easier to understand.

Figures of speech are not used to make things harder to understand.

Therefore, what would the figure of speech in Isaiah 5 mean? (assuming it was a figure of speach)

Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

In this context, it would mean that Israel should have been good grapes, with everything God did. One would expect them to with all the blessings He bestowed upon them (but not One that already knew they would be wild grapes).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

In this context, it would mean that Israel should have been good grapes, with everything God did. One would expect them to with all the blessings He bestowed upon them (but not One that already knew they would be wild grapes).

But in this case it's God that is doing the "expecting".

It is God that expected good grapes.

 

[Mr. 5020]

But in this case it's God that is doing the "expecting".

It is God that expected good grapes.

It does not translate to literally expecting. It is a figure of speech.

For somebody that claims to have several verses, you sure are making a big deal about this one being found to be insubstantial.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It does not translate to literally expecting. It is a figure of speech.

And the figure of speech would mean what????

For somebody that claims to have several verses, you sure are making a big deal about this one being found to be insubstantial.

This verse isn't insubstantial.

 

[Mr. 5020]

And the figure of speech would mean what????

You already asked this, and I already answered it.

In this context, it would mean that Israel should have been good grapes, with everything God did. One would expect them to with all the blessings He bestowed upon them (but not One that already knew they would be wild grapes).

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You already asked this, and I already answered it.

Your answer never addressed the actual question.

Assuming that the "expectation" or the "looking" was a figure of speech and knowing that God was the one doing the "expecting and or "looking" what would the figure of speech mean in that context?

Are you saying that God really wasn't looking for or expecting good grapes?

Are you saying that the figure of speech would mean the opposite of what the verse says?

 

[Mr. 5020]

Your answer never addressed the actual question.

Assuming that the "expectation" or the "looking" was a figure of speech and knowing that God was the one doing the "expecting and or "looking" what would the figure of speech mean in that context?

Are you saying that God really wasn't looking for or expecting good grapes?

Are you saying that the figure of speech would mean the opposite of what the verse says?

I did address the question. The question was, "What does the figure of speech mean?"

By asking the question, I can assume that you agree that it is a figure of speech, which are never literal. Looking at the context, it simply says that with everything God did, there is no reason Israel should have rebelled. Nothing more than that.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God states....

Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

God says not only did He not command this awful behavior but such an evil act didn't even come into His mind!

In other words had God seen all the future these evil acts would have come to God's mind. Yet God wasn't expecting or "looking" for such an awful thing.