Shilo and Lee on God

[Nineveh]

Maybe I didn't make it clear that the Friberg dictionary is a standard Biblical Greek dictionary, it's not an English dictionary, it explains the meaning of the Greek words. So indeed sin is missing the mark, according to the Bible, and it is also disobedience to God, this word has many aspects, and it has all of them.

It seems you wrestle with Greek, like the word nacham. I don't see anywhere in Scriptures the Hebrew people even suggest God sins.

No, God does not sin, nor did he sin when he created. This is, again, a "reduction to an absurdity" argument, I do not believe this conclusion,

Then why do you keep offering it? You are the one who offers that whole line of "reason" so you can tear it down. That's called a "strawman".

No, I do not believe God sinned, you need to address the premises and the logic,

It's your premise and your logic which you take glee in tearing down. Now if you want to have a dialog, why not adress what I do say instead of debating yourself over things you wish I did say?

Then God failed in his purpose to do good, in creation, and thus I make my conclusion.

Wow...

Ok, I'll say it again. God created good, Eve wanted something else. It's pretty simple.

Then God had no good purpose in creating the world? I do think he did, though.

Right. A calvies "good purpose" are things like predestining the sacrifice of children, even though that thought never entered His mind.

So now you do recognize this form of argument!

I don't see much need going past this point until we can get on the same page on the above topics.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Nineveh,

It seems you wrestle with Greek, like the word nacham. I don't see anywhere in Scriptures the Hebrew people even suggest God sins.

Well, again, this is an "argument from an absurdity," which means I do not subscribe to the conclusion. Are you really not seeing this? You used the exact same type of argument in your previous post.

Then why do you keep offering it? You are the one who offers that whole line of "reason" so you can tear it down. That's called a "strawman".

Yes, in such an argument, to refute it, you must show that either the logic or the premises are incorrect. If the premises are incorrect, that is a straw man argument, so now your job would be to show that "God had a good purpose which he did not accomplish," does not represent your view. That is the premise in this argument I am making here.

It's your premise and your logic which you take glee in tearing down. Now if you want to have a dialog, why not adress what I do say instead of debating yourself over things you wish I did say?

Well, again, you have to show how the premise in my argument is not actually your view, or how my logic is incorrect, because I actually do not believe this premise, I am not tearing down my logic (the argument depends on this logic being correct), and this is not a conclusion I believe (it is supposed to be an absurd conclusion, thus I certainly don't believe it).

Ok, I'll say it again. God created good, Eve wanted something else. It's pretty simple.

So then I shall ask if God had a good purpose in creating the world, that he did not accomplish. Saying creation was good (it was) does not address my argument at all...

Right. A calvies "good purpose" are things like predestining the sacrifice of children, even though that thought never entered His mind.

Then God did not think of this possibility? Though it had even occured on earth before. And again, the word "mind" is more literally, "heart," and God even states in Ezekiel that this, even this, was not outside his plan for ultimate good, even this was by his decree, as was the cross, the worst evil deed ever done on earth.

I don't see much need going past this point until we can get on the same page on the above topics.

That would be fine...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nineveh]

you have to show how the premise in my argument is not actually your view,

Ok, so you want me to explain how something you made up isn't what I believe? Haven't I tried that about 5 times already?

God created very good, Eve wanted something other than what God wanted for her. She put her own will above God's. I don't know how else to say it.

Then God did not think of this possibility?

Let's see what God said about it:

They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.

They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.

They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.

Doesn't look like it entered God's mind. So laying such a thing at God's feet to "predestine" seems a bit absurd. Unless of course (and I have heard this argument) God's ideas occure to Him somewhere other than His own mind.

So obviously God didn't even think of murdering children in an idol's name, that was something men made up to do. How these destestable acts could be classified as "God's good purpose" is beyond me.

Though it had even occured on earth before. And again, the word "mind" is more literally, "heart," and God even states in Ezekiel that this, even this, was not outside his plan for ultimate good, even this was by his decree, as was the cross, the worst evil deed ever done on earth.

Weozwa. Was it you that argued God thinks outside His own mind? Anyway, it's pretty clear who came up with the idea to sacrifice children to idols, and it wasn't God.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Nineveh,

Lee: you have to show how the premise in my argument is not actually your view.

Nineveh: Ok, so you want me to explain how something you made up isn't what I believe? Haven't I tried that about 5 times already?

God created very good, Eve wanted something other than what God wanted for her. She put her own will above God's.

That is not, however, the premise in my argument, my premise is in what I am saying is your view: that God had a good purpose beyond the moment of creation, which he then failed to accomplish, and if Noah had followed the Nephilim, his purpose would have failed completely, and this actually fits the definition the Bible gives of a sin.

Lee: Then God did not think of this possibility?

Nineveh: Let's see what God said about it:

They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.

Well, again, this word is more literally "heart," that is even the preferred interpretation here, I would say, that is the usual meaning of the word, and it applies well here, that this was not at all expressing God's heart (as in Lam. 3:33).

So obviously God didn't even think of murdering children in an idol's name, that was something men made up to do.

And in the cross, God certainly did not "think of murdering his own Son." Yes, we can say he did not think of this, in regard to not having the intent for this deed, per se. And yet the cross was planned, and Ezekiel says even these other terrible deeds were in God's plan, and we cannot deny either statement.

Should we prefer that the worst evil comes outside the plan of God? How is that better, if real harm is done, in that case? Is it not better if there is a resurrection, and Jesus destroys the works of the devil? Even when the devil does his worst, he is utterly defeated. I like that better.

And I would ask where you draw the line, does God think any sinful acts are possible at all? Or do they all occur to him as being unexpected? A completely contrary turn, outside of all his plan? That really is a break with reality.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nineveh]

That is not, however, the premise in my argument, my premise is in what I am saying is your view: that God had a good purpose beyond the moment of creation, which he then failed to accomplish, ...

Perhaps you need to argue against someone who will believe what you want them to believe. Obviously you have no arguments to rebut what I have stated repeatedly.

this word is more literally "heart,"

Ok, so God thinks outside His own mind. This must be another of your "arguments from the absurd".

 

[lee_merrill]

Perhaps you need to argue against someone who will believe what you want them to believe. Obviously you have no arguments to rebut what I have stated repeatedly.

Well, I do think you are the one who is not addressing arguments!

Ok, so God thinks outside His own mind. This must be another of your "arguments from the absurd".

No, I don't believe God thinks outside his mind, God's thoughts are his own, and all for good, even when sinful actions are part of his plan.

I would ask again, does God not ever think anyone is going to sin? To not think someone is possibly going to sin in a given way, is (again) actually a break with reality, if such a sin is really possible, such a break with reality is otherwise known as psychosis. So I would ask why your view here that God didn't really think they would sin like this, why doesn't this mean some psychosis, on the part of God?

And then you have not answered my other question, about God having a purpose he did not fulfill, after creation, seeming to fit the Biblical definition of a sin...

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Nineveh]

Well, I do think you are the one who is not addressing arguments!

Look, I know what I believe, lee. You seem to want to go off into left field, I don't see the point. The text is clear, God is clear.

No, I don't believe God thinks outside his mind, God's thoughts are his own, and all for good, even when sinful actions are part of his plan.

If God doesn't define Holy who does? If there is any shadow of turning in this Just Righteous Creator God, then I see no point in believing anything else about Him. I would cease to be a Christ follower. If I can not take comfort in the fact this God is telling the Truth that He is Holy, then why believe the Comforter at all?

Righteous sin is an oxymoron.

I would ask again, does God not ever think anyone is going to sin?

You want to skip ahead, stop a second and consider you have just said God doesn't sin if He conceives sin. Now you want to toddle off over here and talk about something completely different. If God is a sinner and conceived sin then we have no standard by which to judge anything at all because the defining Holy Just Righteous Creator God can't be trusted. While God is a sinner, there is no Standard.

And then you have not answered my other question, about God having a purpose he did not fulfill, after creation, seeming to fit the Biblical definition of a sin...

The Biblical definition of sin is disobedience to God. The dictionary agrees. You can find an example of this in Genesis 3.

I don't see where God sinned, lee. Obviously you do, you keep repeating this one thing over and over again. and I keep saying the same thing, over and over again. God didn't mess anything up, we did.

Perhpas it's because you deny Eve her "choice"?

 

[shilohproject]

Are you implying they were imbeciles or just didn't understand God's spoken language?

I won't presume to label them "imbeciles," but it's obvious that they had no knowledge of good or evil, of right or wrong. So, to expect them to behave properly, i.e. to respond to directions that they might well have understood in some way, doesn't seem to make much sense, does it?

The significance of the Tree episode is that mankind then knew the differance and could then rightly be held accountable.

 

[Nineveh]

I won't presume to label them "imbeciles," but it's obvious that they had no knowledge of good or evil, of right or wrong. So, to expect them to behave properly, i.e. to respond to directions that they might well have understood in some way, doesn't seem to make much sense, does it?

Did they understand what "Do not" means? I think they did.

The significance of the Tree episode is that mankind then knew the differance and could then rightly be held accountable.

And I think the significance of God recording this event exposes the fact we humans often place our own will above His, no matter the consequences.

 

[shilohproject]

Did they understand what "Do not" means? I think they did.

You think they did based on what? Then what was the point of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Doesn't your Bible go on to say something like "Now they know the differance between right and wrong?" :think:

 

[shilohproject]

And I think the significance of God recording this event exposes the fact we humans often place our own will above His, no matter the consequences.

BTW, I wasn't addressing why God "recorded" the act. But, now that you bring it up, it seems to me to be the powerful message that God is willing to extend mercy rather than justice. It sets the tone for the entire relationship of God and man throughout the Bible, culminating in Christ.

 

[Nineveh]

You think they did based on what? Then what was the point of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?" Doesn't your Bible go on to say something like "Now they know the differance between right and wrong?" :think:

It boils down to if they could understand the words "Do Not". God seemed to think they could handle it. That's right where satan went to decieve them, "Did God really say...?"

I wasn't addressing why God "recorded" the act.

Ok, so what did, "The significance of the Tree episode ...", mean?

 

[shilohproject]

It boils down to if they could understand the words "Do Not". God seemed to think they could handle it.

Which brings us finally back to the original question I posed.(It makes litlle sense to expect someone who doesn't know right and wrong to make the right choice.)

That's right where satan went to decieve them, "Did God really say...?"

The only place the serpent contested what God said was in the area of consequences, i.e. "in that day you shall surely die." (BTW, he was right; they didn't die.)

Ok, so what did, "The significance of the Tree episode ...", mean?

The significance of the episode is the elightenment of mankind to right and wrong, making him/her a free and accountable moral agent with no more excuse for failure. Before they ate of the tree, Adam and Eve would have had an excuse; now none was available.

Why God chose to record the event is a seperate matter altogether.

 

[Nineveh]

Which brings us finally back to the original question I posed.(It makes litlle sense to expect someone who doesn't know right and wrong to make the right choice.)

When you tell your child "no", do you expect they understand you when you speak to them? Do you think them capable to understand what you mean when you say, "no"?

The only place the serpent contested what God said was in the area of consequences, i.e. "in that day you shall surely die."

Perhaps you should start at the beginning of chapter 3.

Verse 1: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

(BTW, he was right; they didn't die.)

It's too bad you believe satan.

The significance of the episode...

You already explained it..

is the elightenment of mankind to right and wrong, making him/her a free and accountable moral agent with no more excuse for failure.

Did Adam and Even getting kicked out of the garden and denied the Tree of life look like they weren't held accountable for their disobedience? Would they have been kicked out if they had not disobeyed?

Before they ate of the tree, Adam and Eve would have had an excuse; now none was available.

They didn't have an excuse. They were held accountable for their actions. God even told them before hand what would happen and it did. The ramifications of their disobedience affected the whole earth.

Why God chose to record the event is a seperate matter altogether.

No it's not, it's so we would know what happened and why.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Lee: I would ask again, does God not ever think anyone is going to sin?

Nineveh: You want to skip ahead, stop a second and consider you have just said God doesn't sin if He conceives sin.

Well, you need to answer my question, too! Does God ever think someone is going to sin? Is he completely surprised, any time a sin is done?

Now if this is not the case, then God does consider the possibility of even the worst sins, and then does he not choose his course of action, based at least to some degree, on what he knows the result will be?

Then the question becomes, does God at least allow sin, for a good purpose? If so, then could he not even direct the course of history so that even sin comes out for a good purpose? And then even sinful actions could be part of his plan for good, which he brought to pass.

Again, as in the cross. God did plan this, but he did not conceive sin.

Nineveh: The Biblical definition of sin is disobedience to God. The dictionary agrees.

Not the Greek dictionary, though! To know the meaning of Greek words, we have to consult, primarily, the Greek dictionary, and it says one word for sin is "to miss the mark." So then does God ever miss the mark? That is what I am asking.

I don't see where God sinned, lee.

If he had a good purpose that he did not fulfill (which I don't believe happened), he missed the mark, and that is what one of the primary words for sin means.

God didn't mess anything up, we did.

Such as when God sent Jonah, and spoiled his own plan? If he changed his mind, his plan was to destroy them, and he acted, and overturned his primary objective. How can we then trust him? He may act himself, and defeat his primary purpose.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[shilohproject]

When you tell your child "no", do you expect they understand you when you speak to them? Do you think them capable to understand what you mean when you say, "no"?

Probably not relevant, as my children do not exist in a time before mankind knew the differance between good and evil. In any case, there are clearly instances where it is unreasonable to expect a person, either due to maturity level or mental illness, etc., to understand that no really means what it would mean to you or me.

Perhaps you should start at the beginning of chapter 3.

Verse 1: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

First of all, it's nice that you pick the NIV for this quote, since it's the only translation I can find that puts this particular spin on the passage. Second of all, to ask a question is not necessarily to confront. And, most importantly, it's not the issue at all. The issue is that Eve did not have the ability to know right and wrong. It is her action, and Adam's afterward, that illustrate their condition at the time of the incident.

It's too bad you believe satan.

I don't believe Satan. I believe the Bible clearly goes on to show that they did not die. Or will you give me some clever word study to show that "die" does not mean "die." Perhaps you buy the story that is often tossed out, that die means something like die spiritually. That's fine, but it doesn't say that.

You already explained it..

Well, your response led me to believe you didn't get the point, so I tried again...sorry if it seems repetitive.

Did Adam and Even getting kicked out of the garden and denied the Tree of life look like they weren't held accountable for their disobedience? Would they have been kicked out if they had not disobeyed?

The Bible tells us that they were not punished as originally threatened. Further, it says that God expelled them from the garden to stop them from becoming god-like themselves. Whether or not God would have found a reason later on to kick them out is all a guess. The point is that the story explains a step in mankind's journey away from God, so as to then show God's mercy and willingness to make a way back for us. It is more about the nature and character of God than it is about Adam and Eve.

They didn't have an excuse.

Yes they did, even if you don't see it.

They were held accountable for their actions. God even told them before hand what would happen and it did.

No, it didn't. God chose mercy over justice, just like he did with you and me.

The ramifications of their disobedience affected the whole earth.

Sure, and it was bound to happen, because they did not know what they were doing. It reminds me of Jesus' words from the cross.

No it's not, it's so we would know what happened and why.

Think what you like. I believe it less important to know "what happened and why" than to see the character of God in this initial encounter with sin. It sets the stage for all that follows.

 

[Nineveh]

Well, you need to answer my question, too! Does God ever think someone is going to sin? Is he completely surprised, any time a sin is done?

If you want to trot off over into left field, feel free. But pardon if I don't follow.

Not the Greek dictionary, though! To know the meaning of Greek words, we have to consult, primarily, the Greek dictionary, and it says one word for sin is "to miss the mark." So then does God ever miss the mark? That is what I am asking.

Ask again, lee. We haven't been over this a billion times already. Why you seem insistant applying even a definition of sin to God Himself, I can not fathom. I do not see where this idea is derived from the text. It is you that needs to explain how a Holy God can have the mind/heart of sin to predestine people to it. Not me.

If he had a good purpose that he did not fulfill (which I don't believe happened), he missed the mark, and that is what one of the primary words for sin means.

Ok, when did He fail? I can't seem to find that part in the Creation account. All I keep seeing is how men followed their own hearts.

 

[Nineveh]

Probably not relevant, as my children do not exist in a time before mankind knew the differance between good and evil. In any case, there are clearly instances where it is unreasonable to expect a person, either due to maturity level or mental illness, etc., to understand that no really means what it would mean to you or me.

So when your english speaking kid does as he pleases, I wonder if you discipline him.

Sin didn't enter the world before God spoke with them in the garden, they understood what God said to them. It appears it is you that is having trouble with God's words.

First of all, it's nice that you pick the NIV for this quote, since it's the only translation I can find that puts this particular spin on the passage. Second of all, to ask a question is not necessarily to confront. And, most importantly, it's not the issue at all. The issue is that Eve did not have the ability to know right and wrong. It is her action, and Adam's afterward, that illustrate their condition at the time of the incident.

Strike 2:

KJV: VERSE 1: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

NKJV: VERSE 1: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

NASB: VERSE 1: Now (A)the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

How many more versions do you want, shilo?

Anyway, Eve understood what God had commanded, that's why satan started with trying to undermine Eve's understanding with "did God really say....?" But since we are back to square one with what I originally said, thanks for helping me prove it further.

I don't believe Satan. I believe the Bible clearly goes on to show that they did not die. Or will you give me some clever word study to show that "die" does not mean "die." Perhaps you buy the story that is often tossed out, that die means something like die spiritually. That's fine, but it doesn't say that.

They not only died spiritually to God at that moment, they were denied access to the Tree of Life and died physically. Perhaps you missed where the Bible records Adam's death as you missed where your buddy satan is called the father of lies.

]Well, your response led me to believe you didn't get the point, so I tried again...sorry if it seems repetitive.

I understand what you say, hopefully you don't believe all women are incable of understanding language like Eve. I just thought it was funny you tried to back out by saying, " I wasn't addressing why God "recorded" the act." Then go on to try explaing the event (repeatedly). You prolly won't quite grasp the humor of it all, c'est la vie

]Yes they did, even if you don't see it.

God didn't see it either. That's why they were left trying to "pass the buck". From Adam to Eve, from Eve to satan. Maybe you missed that part too?

]No, it didn't. God chose mercy over justice, just like he did with you and me.

Ok, I guess getting expelled from Eden really wasn't a punishment, and being denied access to the Tree of Life was a reward. Maybe you derive all this from believing satan really isn't the father of lies...

]Sure, and it was bound to happen, because they did not know what they were doing. It reminds me of Jesus' words from the cross.

And on the 6th day God created man in His own image, an idiot, who could not understand spoken language.

Think what you like. I believe it less important to know "what happened and why" than to see the caharacter of God in this initial encounter with sin. It sets the stage for all that follows.

Well, it seems to me the actual events make you stumble, so it's no wonder you look for other ways to explain what they mean.

 

[shilohproject]

So when your english speaking kid does as he pleases, I wonder if you discipline him.

Sure I do. But again, that's not the point. Which seems to continually escape you.

Sin didn't enter the world before God spoke with them in the garden, they understood what God said to them. It appears it is you that is having trouble with God's words.

No. I'm simply factering all the variables of this episode, which includes the fact that Eve did not know right from wrong.

Strike 2:
(examples deleted for brevity, see her post if interested)
How many more versions do you want, shilo?

None of these examples has the ring of the NIV, the spin I was refering to in your post. KJV, NRSV don't read that way to me, and the NASB changes too often to be reliable,I'm afraid.

But, as I said, in any event it has nothing to do with whether or not Eve could have known right from wrong. BTW, Shiloh has an H.

Anyway, Eve understood what God had commanded, that's why satan started with trying to undermine Eve's understanding with "did God really say....?" But since we are back to square one with what I originally said, thanks for helping me prove it further.

All you've proven is that you've missed the point, or choose to argue about other things because of...well, I don't really know.

They not only died spiritually to God at that moment, they were denied access to the Tree of Life and died physically.

The "died spiritually" thing, where did you read that? Anyway, again, not the issue.

Perhaps you missed where the Bible records Adam's death...

Perhaps you missed where the original threat was "in that day you will die." Adam went on to a long life I believe. Plus since they had not eaten of the Tree of Life, they would have died anyway.

...as you missed where your buddy satan is called the father of lies.

I didn't miss where Satan was called that. He's not my buddy though. Since you call him that, who is your father? (You really might try taking it easy. Someone disagrees with a position you offer and you start this kind of garbage.)

I understand what you say, hopefully you don't believe all women are incable of understanding language like Eve. I just thought it was funny you tried to back out by saying, " I wasn't addressing why God "recorded" the act." Then go on to try explaing the event (repeatedly). You prolly won't quite grasp the humor of it all, c'est la vie

The distinction I'm making is between why the episode is important v. why it was recorded. BTW, I have never suggested that gender played a role in a person's ability to understand language. Eve's problem was not understanding language; it was not knowing right from wrong. Also, I wasn't backing out of anything, rather was trying to explain the differances in what I'd said and what you'd said.

God didn't see it either.

Says who?

That's why they were left trying to "pass the buck". From Adam to Eve, from Eve to satan. Maybe you missed that part too?

Didn't miss it at all. The point is, at that time they knew they had sinned, what right and wrong were, good and evil. Before the Tree incident they didn't.

Ok, I guess getting expelled from Eden really wasn't a punishment, and being denied access to the Tree of Life was a reward.

The point is, they were not the threatened punishment, death was.

Maybe you derive all this from believing satan really isn't the father of lies...

Are you always this rude? If so, feel free to not respond to my posts in the future.

And on the 6th day God created man in His own image, an idiot, who could not understand spoken language.

"Image" may simply be a physical descriptor at this point in the passage. What was created had obvious differances from the creator, he was a being who did not know right from wrong, good from evil, (and was a being that would eventually die). That is the discussion, Nineveh, not whether they understood language.

Well, it seems to me the actual events make you stumble, so it's no wonder you look for other ways to explain what they mean.

What?

 

[Nineveh]

Before I even attempted to rebut your ever growing posts, I wanted to see how you handled obvious in you face facts.

None of these examples has the ring of the NIV, the spin I was refering to in your post. KJV, NRSV don't read that way to me, and the NASB changes too often to be reliable,I'm afraid.

You said, "First of all, it's nice that you pick the NIV for this quote, since it's the only translation I can find that puts this particular spin on the passage."

Strike 3.

NIV, NKJV, KJV and NASB all say the same thing. It appears you are desperate to prove yourself right even in the face of clear witnesses that show you are incorrect. In your long absence from TOL, I had hoped you would gain the wisdom that willfull ignorance makes you stagnant. But I see that you have not come across that wisdom yet.

Tell me shilo, what do you hope to gain by ignoring all 4 versions? Do you need me to look for a version that skips Genesis 3 verse 1 so you can be right?

PS after reading your list of versions you claim I quoted, it was NIV, NASB, KJV and NKJV, perhaps your reading comprehension is at the level you appear to claim Eve's to be concerning spoken language.