Inerrancy

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Let's start with a primer on inerrancy.

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:


Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, I'm going to start a new look at the doctrine of inerrancy. To begin with, I will state that I do hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. There are some ways I believe inerrancy is not understood however.

In our modern western culture, it's easy to think that the Bible was written for people in our place and time. We have found a way to center the world around us. We seek to do that which will promote us and further our good. There is hardly any interest in doing something for the sake of another.

It is odd that we take this approach with the Bible that we do not with Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Augustine, Aquinas, Shakespeare, or many other works. One can read the works of Flannery O'Connor and think she was racist when really, she was just writing using the terminology of her time. We often accuse atheists of chronological snobbery with their assumption that modern times are automatically the best times and our moral beliefs are the standard, when we are often guilty of literary snobbery, thinking that our style of studying literature should be the way all literature was written.

Much of our writing today is not as colorful as it could be, and I do not mean profanity by that. It is slow prose with no vivid imagery to it. This is because we are not familiar with other works of literature in part and because we live in an image-saturated culture where we tend to pre-think in images due to TV and other related media.

Thus, we live in a world where metaphors and such are highly absent. The only way we often understand things is in a straight-forward manner. The beauty of such great language is lost. Does this affect the way that we read our Bibles? The sad reality is that it does.

When I affirm inerrancy then, I am at the start affirming that the Bible does not contain errors and contradictions. However, there is no doubt that our interpretations of Scripture can involve errors and contradictions. We must always be open to the possibility that our interpretations can be wrong.

A problem with not realizing metaphor can be taking a text such as Numbers 23:19.

God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?


But what about Exodus 32:14?

Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.


So at this point the atheist jumps up and down with glee realizing that a contradiction has occurred.

Or has it?

Could it be that one of these is a metaphor and one is not?

Now if we take both without considering the idea of metaphor, I think we would have a contradiction, but the Bible is a much richer text than that full of several literary techniques and flourishes. It is not a simple piece of literature despite what some may think and to study it, we need to be cognizant of the time and culture it was written in instead of assuming that people were just like us.

Why do I think Exodus 32 is the metaphor? The reason is that Numbers 23 is making a direct statement about the nature of God. He is saying "This is the way God is." We see however in narrative often that there are literary devices used, such as God saying He will extend His arm or God walking through the Garden of Eden.

Not only that, I have several philosophical problems with God changing His mind. Am I to believe that God is ignorant? Is He no longer the God of all-truth? Yes. I know several open theists could complain at this one and if they want to, I'm more than happy to engage them on those issues. It will not be enough to say to me "Greek philosophy!" I need to be shown why my thinking and the thinking of the church throughout history has been wrong.

If it's a metaphor, does that mean there is no truth to it? Not at all. The point of the narrative is in this case to show that Moses was being a mediator for Israel as Christ would be in the future. Our prayers don't change God. God knows what we are to pray, although I would say He would not do what we would do had our prayers not been known. God knows in advance what we will pray and has in advance acted accordingly. Yes. I suspect there are many headaches coming about right now.

The literal truth then is that a mediator before God does hold back His wrath so that those of us on the other side of the mediator may be saved. Did God literally change His mind? No. Did God hold back his wrath after hearing from Moses? Yes. (All the while knowing Moses would do that however)

The same is true of passages that say God covers us with His wings or in talking about the might of God's arm or the smoke coming from His nostrils. These are literary devices that contain great truth. What we need is a richer appreciation of literature and a deeper look at the text.

We shall continue next time.

[themuzicman]

Seriously, Nick? Did you read the context of Numbers 23:19? What is God lying or not lying about? Or changing or not changing His mind about?

Numbers 23

11 Balak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? I brought you to curse my enemies, but you have done nothing but bless them!”

12 He answered, “Must I not speak what the LORD puts in my mouth?”
Balaam’s Second Message
13 Then Balak said to him, “Come with me to another place where you can see them; you will not see them all but only the outskirts of their camp. And from there, curse them for me.” 14 So he took him to the field of Zophim on the top of Pisgah, and there he built seven altars and offered a bull and a ram on each altar.

15 Balaam said to Balak, “Stay here beside your offering while I meet with him over there.”

16 The LORD met with Balaam and put a word in his mouth and said, “Go back to Balak and give him this word.”

17 So he went to him and found him standing beside his offering, with the Moabite officials. Balak asked him, “What did the LORD say?”

18 Then he spoke his message:

“Arise, Balak, and listen;
hear me, son of Zippor.
19 God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
20 I have received a command to bless;
he has blessed, and I cannot change it.

21 “No misfortune is seen in Jacob,
no misery observed[a] in Israel.
The LORD their God is with them;
the shout of the King is among them.
22 God brought them out of Egypt;
they have the strength of a wild ox.

This is the story of Balaam. You remember the talking donkey, right?

Read the story. Balaam isn't prophesying that God never in any instance changes His mind. Balaam is prophesying that God doesn't break His covenants because someone wants Him to. If you go on to read the rest of the Old Testament, we see God not keeping His covenant because Israel has been failing to keep covenant with Him. The second half of the verse makes this clear.

For your interpretation to work, here, we have to impose upon Exodus 32 without warrant. There is no textual or exegetical basis for saying that there is a metaphor here. Same with an "anthropomorphism." Any atheist that knows anything about hermeneutics is going to eat your lunch if you try this.

Tell you what... a metaphor is an image that explains something in reality. If I say that Jaltus is a pig, people from our culture who are reading this will understand that I am saying that he is habitually mess, or that he is chauvinist, depending on the context.

So, please tell us what the metaphor is, and what it is representing.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Seriously, Nick? Did you read the context of Numbers 23:19? What is God lying or not lying about? Or changing or not changing His mind about?

Yes. I do know the context.

This is the story of Balaam. You remember the talking donkey, right?

Yep.

Read the story. Balaam isn't prophesying that God never in any instance changes His mind. Balaam is prophesying that God doesn't break His covenants because someone wants Him to. If you go on to read the rest of the Old Testament, we see God not keeping His covenant because Israel has been failing to keep covenant with Him. The second half of the verse makes this clear.

God didn't keep his covenant? He kept it perfectly. He also stated in Deuteronomy 28 what would be the consequences if that covenant was not honored by Israel, and he did just that. Yet even in their exile, he spoke to them about the covenant and how it would be new in the future days as well. God's always been in a covenant with His people since in reality the true Israel is Christ and all who have been in Christ, both before and after the cross, are Israel.

For your interpretation to work, here, we have to impose upon Exodus 32 without warrant. There is no textual or exegetical basis for saying that there is a metaphor here. Same with an "anthropomorphism."

Do you have a textual or exegetical basis for saying God doesn't have an arm, or God doesn't walk in the garden, or God doesn't have nostrils?

Any atheist that knows anything about hermeneutics is going to eat your lunch if you try this.

They've tried, but they haven't succeeded.

Tell you what... a metaphor is an image that explains something in reality. If I say that Jaltus is a pig, people from our culture who are reading this will understand that I am saying that he is habitually mess, or that he is chauvinist, depending on the context.

And indeed, you haven't told us what the context is. However, you left out that Jaltus could be a four-footed animal with pinkish skin and a curly tail that wallows in mud. How do we know that's not what you mean? Oh right. We have information outside of the text that shows Jaltus isn't that.

So, please tell us what the metaphor is, and what it is representing.

I already did. The metaphorical passage is Exodus 32 and I said that it was for our benefit to know that this is how God seems to act with a mediator. It is an explanation in a way we can understand.

[themuzicman]

God didn't keep his covenant?

Israel was sent from the land. The covenant was that Israel would inherit the land, given to Abraham without condition.

He kept it perfectly. He also stated in Deuteronomy 28 what would be the consequences if that covenant was not honored by Israel, and he did just that. Yet even in their exile, he spoke to them about the covenant and how it would be new in the future days as well. God's always been in a covenant with His people since in reality the true Israel is Christ and all who have been in Christ, both before and after the cross, are Israel.

Which means He will re-establish the covenant.

Do you have a textual or exegetical basis for saying God doesn't have an arm, or God doesn't walk in the garden, or God doesn't have nostrils?

Absolutely. Depending on the verse, we may be looking at a genre of poetry or a clear indication of a metaphor, which can be clearly defined.

They've tried, but they haven't succeeded.

Only becauase you're dogmatic about this.

And indeed, you haven't told us what the context is. However, you left out that Jaltus could be a four-footed animal with pinkish skin and a curly tail that wallows in mud. How do we know that's not what you mean? Oh right. We have information outside of the text that shows Jaltus isn't that.

We didn't need outside information, however. I could say this to someone who has no idea who Jaltus is, and context would identify the meaning from the context.

I already did. The metaphorical passage is Exodus 32 and I said that it was for our benefit to know that this is how God seems to act with a mediator. It is an explanation in a way we can understand.

You're not being specific enough. What exactly in this text is metaphor, and how exactly does it point to what you claim?

In my Jaltus example, the pig is the metaphor, which clearly points to a conclusion based upon context.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Israel was sent from the land. The covenant was that Israel would inherit the land, given to Abraham without condition.

Please explain Deuteronomy 28. Note that in the end of Joshua, we are told that God kept His promises. A covenant requires both sides keep their promises. Israel didn't and they got the promised consequences.

Which means He will re-establish the covenant.

Which He did.

Absolutely. Depending on the verse, we may be looking at a genre of poetry or a clear indication of a metaphor, which can be clearly defined.

Then please show why I should not take it literally in the texts where it says God has an arm, nostrils, walks, etc. Make sure you stay with the text after all.

Only becauase you're dogmatic about this.

No. They just haven't succeeded. Of course, it's a great part of mind-reading to be able to know about all those debates.

We didn't need outside information, however. I could say this to someone who has no idea who Jaltus is, and context would identify the meaning from the context.

We don't because we already have it. We live in a context where Jaltus is known. (Shudders) The same applies with Israel where God was known.

You're not being specific enough. What exactly in this text is metaphor, and how exactly does it point to what you claim?

In my Jaltus example, the pig is the metaphor, which clearly points to a conclusion based upon context.

In my example, God changing his mind is a metaphor which rather than giving us a lesson in the ultimate nature of God that would be thoroughly confusing, the writer expects us to understand the metaphor just like He does with the descriptions of God's "body." The writer expects Israel to know that God doesn't have an arm or nostrils or feet and that God then does not change His mind since He knows all things. The writer wishes us to understand however that there is a place for mediators and our prayers are not in vain.

[themuzicman]

Please explain Deuteronomy 28. Note that in the end of Joshua, we are told that God kept His promises. A covenant requires both sides keep their promises. Israel didn't and they got the promised consequences.

Explain, then, from Joshua, what part of the covenant was broken when the city who made the peace treaty wasn't moved out (Joshua 9), or what part of the covenant was broken when Manasseh (Josh 17) couldn't drive out the Cannanites. No indication here of any covenant breaking. Yet, the promise was not kept.

Which He did.

Re-establish implies breaking.

Then please show why I should not take it literally in the texts where it says God has an arm, nostrils, walks, etc. Make sure you stay with the text after all.

Give me a text to exegete, then. You're just making vague references to what could be any number of verses. Exegesis happens on text, not on vague ideas.

We don't because we already have it. We live in a context where Jaltus is known. (Shudders) The same applies with Israel where God was known.

But even if we said this to someone who didn't know Jaltus, anyone who knows how "pig" is used in the context in which the metaphor occurs would understand. We don't need to import specific knowledge of Jaltus to accomplish this.

Also, you appear to be using your systematically inferred view of God to alter the text, here.

In my example, God changing his mind is a metaphor which rather than giving us a lesson in the ultimate nature of God that would be thoroughly confusing, the writer expects us to understand the metaphor just like He does with the descriptions of God's "body."

You still haven't told use what "chaning one's mind" metamorphized into based upon the text. (Also, God changing His mind in this context wouldn't be thoroughly confusing. In fact, it fits perfectly into the story.) Given that there isn't anything here to suggest a metaphor, you've still fallen short of your task.

I can say that calling someone a "pig" with respect to their attitudes about women clearly points directly to chauvinism. I can say that speaking about God's right arm defeating His enemies clearly points to God's power in assisting Israel in battle in that context.

However, God changing His mind doesn't point us to anything other than God changing His mind. You've still not told us what this metamorphized into.

The writer expects Israel to know that God doesn't have an arm or nostrils or feet and that God then does not change His mind since He knows all things.

Please show us the text where the bible tells us that God doesn't change His mind because he knows all things. All of the "God doesn't change" texts that I know of speak of God keeping covenant, and not changing in His nature.

The writer wishes us to understand however that there is a place for mediators and our prayers are not in vain.

Which is a bit silly, after you say that God knows the future exhaustively. That's the only thing here that is confusing.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Explain, then, from Joshua, what part of the covenant was broken when the city who made the peace treaty wasn't moved out (Joshua 9), or what part of the covenant was broken when Manasseh (Josh 17) couldn't drive out the Cannanites. No indication here of any covenant breaking. Yet, the promise was not kept.

Let's see. Joshua 9 has Joshua making a rash promise without consulting with God. Point to make? Consult with God before making treaties with people you don't know. Note the end of Joshua 23

“Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed. 15 But just as all the good things the LORD your God has promised you have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has threatened, until the LORD your God has destroyed you from this good land he has given you. 16 If you violate the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and you will quickly perish from the good land he has given you.”

If you violate the covenant, this will happen. Not only had the promises been kept according to Joshua, but the punishments were still there. Israel being in the land meant they honored the covenant.

And I STILL have no explanation of Deuteronomy 28.

Re-establish implies breaking.

So either Israel violated the covenant or God can't be trusted to keep His promises. Which is it?

Give me a text to exegete, then. You're just making vague references to what could be any number of verses. Exegesis happens on text, not on vague ideas.

Fine. Consider the end of Exodus 33 and the start of 34. God covers the rock Moses it to be behind with his Hand, says he will pass in front of Moses, says Moses will see His back, and says Moses must not see His face.

But even if we said this to someone who didn't know Jaltus, anyone who knows how "pig" is used in the context in which the metaphor occurs would understand. We don't need to import specific knowledge of Jaltus to accomplish this.

"Jaltus is a pig."

Are they to know automatically that Jaltus is a non-human being?

Also, you appear to be using your systematically inferred view of God to alter the text, here.

No. I don't alter the text. I take it in the context of how I believe the ancient Hebrews would understand it.

You still haven't told use what "chaning one's mind" metamorphized into based upon the text. (Also, God changing His mind in this context wouldn't be thoroughly confusing. In fact, it fits perfectly into the story.) Given that there isn't anything here to suggest a metaphor, you've still fallen short of your task.

Other than that you've given me no reason to think that Numbers 23:19 shows that God does not change his mind. That seems quite straight-forward to me. I don't see anything to suggest a metaphor. I do see such throughout Exodus however in the narrative where it talks about God's body parts and such.

I can say that calling someone a "pig" with respect to their attitudes about women clearly points directly to chauvinism.

Meaning in the context of knowing their ideas about women which might not be expressed in the statement.

I can say that speaking about God's right arm defeating His enemies clearly points to God's power in assisting Israel in battle in that context.

It does? Why should I just take it literally? Why not use it the same as I would with the arm of David as a king for instance?

However, God changing His mind doesn't point us to anything other than God changing His mind. You've still not told us what this metamorphized into.

Metamorphized? Um. No. I stated that the metaphor is meant to show the power of a mediator on how God seems to act. Not liking it is not a response.

Please show us the text where the bible tells us that God doesn't change His mind because he knows all things. All of the "God doesn't change" texts that I know of speak of God keeping covenant, and not changing in His nature.

Already shown Numbers 23:19. I will also stick with the texts like Malachi 3:6 and the ones in Isaiah speaking about prophecying and saying only God knows what will happen in the future. The Hebrews knew from prophecy that God was telling exactly what would happen since it was known to Him.

Which is a bit silly, after you say that God knows the future exhaustively. That's the only thing here that is confusing.

No. God pre-acts knowing out future prayers and that He would have not acted had He not known we would be praying.

[themuzicman]

Let's see. Joshua 9 has Joshua making a rash promise without consulting with God. Point to make? Consult with God before making treaties with people you don't know. Note the end of Joshua 23

“Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed. 15 But just as all the good things the LORD your God has promised you have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has threatened, until the LORD your God has destroyed you from this good land he has given you. 16 If you violate the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and you will quickly perish from the good land he has given you.”

Who is speaking, here?

If you violate the covenant, this will happen. Not only had the promises been kept according to Joshua, but the punishments were still there. Israel being in the land meant they honored the covenant.

But the land was not cleared of Cannanites, as promised.

And I STILL have no explanation of Deuteronomy 28.

Don't need one. The Abrahamic covenant isn't conditional. Furthermore, you don't have examples of violations of covenant which resulted in the two examples given.

So either Israel violated the covenant or God can't be trusted to keep His promises. Which is it?

An excellent question. OR maybe another option altogether.

Fine. Consider the end of Exodus 33 and the start of 34. God covers the rock Moses it to be behind with his Hand, says he will pass in front of Moses, says Moses will see His back, and says Moses must not see His face.

The key to understanding this verse is when God says, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live." This is a reference to Genesis 32:30, where Jacob says that he has seen the face of God and lived. Moses would have known this story (as he authored Genesis), and would have called forth an image to Moses of a theophany not unlike Jacob's experience, but in this case, God's face would not be seen. In a theophany (as we see both in Jacob's and Abraham's case) God takes on a physical form to physically interact with the physical world. And the same occurs in this case, but with the intent of Moses seeing God's glory from the backside. And this is apparently what is accomplished.

See, that's called "exegesis."

"Jaltus is a pig."

Are they to know automatically that Jaltus is a non-human being?

In the context of a larget conversation, yes. You appear to be intentionally ignoring significant details that I mention in order sustain your point. I've said that this was spoken in a specific context each time I've referred to it, and you continue to be obtuse about it.

No. I don't alter the text. I take it in the context of how I believe the ancient Hebrews would understand it.

What context? What biblical evidence did you provde? You just asserted and assumed. That's not exegesis.

Other than that you've given me no reason to think that Numbers 23:19 shows that God does not change his mind. That seems quite straight-forward to me. I don't see anything to suggest a metaphor. I do see such throughout Exodus however in the narrative where it talks about God's body parts and such.

I was reading Numbers 23:19, and you don't even pay attention to the last half of that verse, which gives the context in which the first half of the verse is spoken. Clearly Numbers 23:19 is about God honoring covenants.

Meaning in the context of knowing their ideas about women which might not be expressed in the statement.

Yes. Local context. That's a part of hermeneutics. But you need a basis for claiming what ideas might have existed.

It does? Why should I just take it literally? Why not use it the same as I would with the arm of David as a king for instance?

It's called good exegesis, Nick.

Metamorphized? Um. No. I stated that the metaphor is meant to show the power of a mediator on how God seems to act. Not liking it is not a response.

So, you agree with me that God really did change His mind, then? Or you're saying that the metaphor is intened to show that God gives the illusion that a mediator can make a different, but it really doesn't?

Already shown Numbers 23:19. I will also stick with the texts like Malachi 3:6 and the ones in Isaiah speaking about prophecying and saying only God knows what will happen in the future. The Hebrews knew from prophecy that God was telling exactly what would happen since it was known to Him.

Or maybe God knows how to bring it about. You're inserting your assumption of EDF, and then concluding EDF. That's called "assuming the conclusion." A fallacy.

No. God pre-acts knowing out future prayers and that He would have not acted had He not known we would be praying.

Talk about a chicken-egg problem. God acts before creation to answer prayers that haven't occurred yet, because He knows they will, even though it isn't certain that they will actually be prayed. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Who is speaking, here?

Joshua.

But the land was not cleared of Cannanites, as promised.

Obviously, Joshua was ignorant of the covenant and the promises that were made and the status of the land and this Scripture cannot be trusted.

Don't need one. The Abrahamic covenant isn't conditional. Furthermore, you don't have examples of violations of covenant which resulted in the two examples given.

Yes you do. You claim that God broke the covenant He made with Israel. I say God did what He said He would in Deuteronomy 28. How is that breaking the covenant?

An excellent question. OR maybe another option altogether.

If you think it's another one, show it.

The key to understanding this verse is when God says, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live." This is a reference to Genesis 32:30, where Jacob says that he has seen the face of God and lived. Moses would have known this story (as he authored Genesis), and would have called forth an image to Moses of a theophany not unlike Jacob's experience, but in this case, God's face would not be seen. In a theophany (as we see both in Jacob's and Abraham's case) God takes on a physical form to physically interact with the physical world. And the same occurs in this case, but with the intent of Moses seeing God's glory from the backside. And this is apparently what is accomplished.

See, that's called "exegesis."

Why say it's theophany however? Why say God takes on physical form. The text seems to say that God does have a physical form with a back, a hand, and a face. Why read into it "theophany"?

In the context of a larget conversation, yes. You appear to be intentionally ignoring significant details that I mention in order sustain your point. I've said that this was spoken in a specific context each time I've referred to it, and you continue to be obtuse about it.

No. I point out that one outside the conversation does not know the context and would need it explained. You know, kind of the way we are with not being ancient Hebrews....

What context? What biblical evidence did you provde? You just asserted and assumed. That's not exegesis.

False. I stated my reasons. The Jewish concept of God did not include having a body and did not include indecision since God knew the future and an idol could not be made of God.

I was reading Numbers 23:19, and you don't even pay attention to the last half of that verse, which gives the context in which the first half of the verse is spoken. Clearly Numbers 23:19 is about God honoring covenants.

Why does God honor covenants?

That's right. It's His nature! He does not change his mind or lie so we can count on Him to honor covenants.

Yes. Local context. That's a part of hermeneutics. But you need a basis for claiming what ideas might have existed.

I gave it. Notably, the fulfillment of prophecy, such as Abraham saw and Jacob had given.

It's called good exegesis, Nick.

Asserted but not shown? Again, why not take it literally. Or else, I'll just answer like you do.

"Why do you not take God changing his mind literally?"

"It's called good exegesis."

So, you agree with me that God really did change His mind, then? Or you're saying that the metaphor is intened to show that God gives the illusion that a mediator can make a different, but it really doesn't?

Nope. God cannot change His mind. There is also no illusion. The mediator does make the difference and God acts knowing what the mediator will do in advance.

Or maybe God knows how to bring it about. You're inserting your assumption of EDF, and then concluding EDF. That's called "assuming the conclusion." A fallacy.

Except that's not what the text says. What kind of prophecy is it anyway where God says He will do something and then the only reason it's done is because he forces the hands to do it? Note that God's things that he's bringing about include the free-will actions of humans.

Talk about a chicken-egg problem. God acts before creation to answer prayers that haven't occurred yet, because He knows they will, even though it isn't certain that they will actually be prayed. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Actually, it is certain, from God's foreknowledge. Wanna straw man my stance again?

[themuzicman]

Joshua.

So, for inerrancy's sake, we only need be assured that the author quote Joshua accurately.

Obviously, Joshua was ignorant of the covenant and the promises that were made and the status of the land and this Scripture cannot be trusted.

Or Joshua was willing to think and to say that what they accomplished was close enough for his purposes.

Dumb question: When any person makes a statement that is recorded in the bible, must that statement be 100% true? Or just reported accurately?

Yes you do. You claim that God broke the covenant He made with Israel. I say God did what He said He would in Deuteronomy 28. How is that breaking the covenant?

Just because God says that He will break the covenant under certain conditions doesn't mean that He doesn't do it.

If you think it's another one, show it.

Israel acted in a way that didn't violate the covnenat, but made fulfilling the promise impossible?

Why say it's theophany however? Why say God takes on physical form. The text seems to say that God does have a physical form with a back, a hand, and a face. Why read into it "theophany"?

Your answer is right here, Nick. God isn't in physical form when present with Moses. Read the text. God interacts with Moses, but Moses doesn't see God. Only when God intends to interact physically with the world does He take a physical form.

No. I point out that one outside the conversation does not know the context and would need it explained. You know, kind of the way we are with not being ancient Hebrews....

First, your "point" was a complete strawman, as I repeatedly said that the metaphor existed within the context of a conversation, and your statement was devoid of what I consistently included.

Second, you haven't demonstrated from the text that the Israelites (and Moses) around this time believed this about God. The text up to and surrounding this point clearly points in the other direction, with God changing His mind (Gen 6, Exo 32, Numb 11) and learning (Gen 22), and clearly having to respond to the actions of men (Cain, Babel, etc.)

So, again, you can't just assert and assume. Show me textually where this is the case.

False. I stated my reasons. The Jewish concept of God did not include having a body and did not include indecision since God knew the future and an idol could not be made of God.

Not being indecisive has nothing to with EDF. That's a complete non-sequitor. And I've already shown from the local text that God didn't have a body. However, you haven't shown from the text that the ANE Jews thought God knew the future exhaustively and definitely.

Why does God honor covenants?

Because it suits His eternal purpose.

That's right. It's His nature! He does not change his mind or lie so we can count on Him to honor covenants.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.. Wrong.

First, if it's God's nature, then he CANNOT change His mind. But none of the texts in question say that God CANNOT change His mind. The texts say that He does not change His mind. If it were God's nature, then it would not require faith in God to rely on His covenants. And God requires faith.

I gave it. Notably, the fulfillment of prophecy, such as Abraham saw and Jacob had given.

You're making the rash assumption that fulfillment of prophecy comes from foreknowledge and not God's omnipotence.

Unless you're saying that your God isn't even powerful enough to bring about His prophesies without foreknowing every event that would occur beforehand.

Asserted but not shown? Again, why not take it literally. Or else, I'll just answer like you do.

Local context tells us why.

"Why do you not take God changing his mind literally?"

"It's called good exegesis."

Please. Show us this good exegesis, then. Give us a solid biblical foundation for your assertions. So far, all we have is assert and assume, and what seems to be a denial of what the bible says. The bible says that God relented and did not do what HE said he would do to Israel. You're saying that this is a metaphor for God lied to Moses about destroying Israel to see what Moses would say and to show us that we should pray even though the future is already fixed.

Nope. God cannot change His mind. There is also no illusion. The mediator does make the difference and God acts knowing what the mediator will do in advance.

Again, Chicken-egg problem. The mediator doesn't even exist to make a choice (much less all the choices that came before that put him in that position), but God already knows that he's going to do it, and is going to lie to Moses to get him to be a mediator, so He can respond to it.

Except that's not what the text says. What kind of prophecy is it anyway where God says He will do something and then the only reason it's done is because he forces the hands to do it?

Ever heard of Pharoah? You know, the part where God hardens Pharoah's heart, and doesn't let the Israelites go?

Or maybe all the people who serve and obey God along the way who bring about His will? Do you suppose that humans who serve God might participate in prophesies to bring them about?

Are you seriously saying that you doubt God's ability to bring about His prophsies without fixing the game beforehand?

Note that God's things that he's bringing about include the free-will actions of humans.

Yeah... and some of those actions are done by people who are obeying and serving God. And some of those actions could be done by any number of people in a given group, who are generally inclined to lean in that direction.

You see, with EDF comes a very narrow view of the fulfillment of prophecy, such that it can only be fulfilled one way. But without EDF, prophecy can be fulfilled in a myriad of ways by any number of people. One only needs believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Actually, it is certain, from God's foreknowledge. Wanna straw man my stance again?

Oh. My bad. I thought you believed in free will.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

So, for inerrancy's sake, we only need be assured that the author quote Joshua accurately.

Of course, why this was recorded is another matter. Joshua was the one who was the representative between God and men at that point. Perhaps we should take his words more seriously than just one guy who said something but could be wrong, but let's record it anyway.

Or Joshua was willing to think and to say that what they accomplished was close enough for his purposes.

Dumb question: When any person makes a statement that is recorded in the bible, must that statement be 100% true? Or just reported accurately?

Not a dumb question. It must be recorded accurately. However, Joshua is reporting to them on the details of the consequences and the land. It's something he would have known. God had given them the land.

Just because God says that He will break the covenant under certain conditions doesn't mean that He doesn't do it.

Reword this. The double negatives leave your meaning entirely unclear to me.

Israel acted in a way that didn't violate the covnenat, but made fulfilling the promise impossible?

And the evidence for this is?

Your answer is right here, Nick. God isn't in physical form when present with Moses. Read the text. God interacts with Moses, but Moses doesn't see God. Only when God intends to interact physically with the world does He take a physical form.

Why think such a thing? Maybe he's in physical form all the time and just comes down when he wants to? Why assume he doesn't have a physical form? The text does not deny such.

First, your "point" was a complete strawman, as I repeatedly said that the metaphor existed within the context of a conversation, and your statement was devoid of what I consistently included.

Um. No. I in fact pointed out that you did state something without a context that we understand knowing the context, but others would not. Suppose I say "Wilbur is a pig." Okay. I could be saying the main character in Charlotte's Web is a pig, a true statement, or I could be making a statement about Mr. Ed's owner, or I could be speaking about something entirely different. You don't know without context.

Second, you haven't demonstrated from the text that the Israelites (and Moses) around this time believed this about God. The text up to and surrounding this point clearly points in the other direction, with God changing His mind (Gen 6, Exo 32, Numb 11) and learning (Gen 22), and clearly having to respond to the actions of men (Cain, Babel, etc.)

The text also has in it God saying what will happen prior to it happening and later biblical records show that. Again, I could just as well say "The text clearly says God has a body as is illustrated in several points starting with man being in God's image and man having a body and with God walking in the garden. Show me where the Hebrews believed otherwise about God."

So, again, you can't just assert and assume. Show me textually where this is the case.

That sword cuts both ways. You're the one who brought up anthropomorphisms. I'm the one bringing out that prophecy has taken place and been fulfilled. God repeatedly tells Moses what will happen as well including the apostasy of Israel in Deuteronomy 32. (Or do you want to say God caused Israel to do that?)

Not being indecisive has nothing to with EDF. That's a complete non-sequitor. And I've already shown from the local text that God didn't have a body. However, you haven't shown from the text that the ANE Jews thought God knew the future exhaustively and definitely.

You haven't shown that God lacks a body. You've just stated it's a theophany. Well why should I believe that? Give me a reason. I'm coming as the skeptic of this.

Also, it is indecisiveness, and apparently revealing of God that Moses thought of something that God couldn't.

Because it suits His eternal purpose.

Well maybe he'll change His mind on His eternal purpose or maybe He's lying about His eternal purpose.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.. Wrong.

First, if it's God's nature, then he CANNOT change His mind. But none of the texts in question say that God CANNOT change His mind. The texts say that He does not change His mind. If it were God's nature, then it would not require faith in God to rely on His covenants. And God requires faith.

Why yes it does require faith. Faith is trust in what has been shown to be reliable. God's nature has been shown to be trustworthy and He has been shown to be that way.

Furthermore, the text in Numbers 23:19 is a contrast between God and men. God keeps his covenant because of who He is. He is not man who changes His mind. Why does God not change His mind? Because He knows all. Why does He not lie? Because He is truth.

You're making the rash assumption that fulfillment of prophecy comes from foreknowledge and not God's omnipotence.

Unless you're saying that your God isn't even powerful enough to bring about His prophesies without foreknowing every event that would occur beforehand.

Oh he could, but why should I think that since God is not the author of sin and many prophecies involve the sins others will commit.

Local context tells us why.

I wonder how well this works if I take this non-answer for what I say.

Please. Show us this good exegesis, then. Give us a solid biblical foundation for your assertions. So far, all we have is assert and assume, and what seems to be a denial of what the bible says. The bible says that God relented and did not do what HE said he would do to Israel. You're saying that this is a metaphor for God lied to Moses about destroying Israel to see what Moses would say and to show us that we should pray even though the future is already fixed.

All we've had so far is an assertion and an assumption that God does not have a body when He clearly does. The text speaks repeatedly of it. The Bible says that God has an arm, that He has nostrils, that He has a face, and that He has a back.

Also, I am not saying God lied to Moses. I am saying God showed Moses what His role was to be as a mediator, much the same way God tested Abraham. Furthermore, there is no need to abandon prayer for prayer is not for us to change the future so much as to allow us to change to trust in God more and if he honors our prayers and does what we ask, very well, but if not, we are still the better for praying.

Again, Chicken-egg problem. The mediator doesn't even exist to make a choice (much less all the choices that came before that put him in that position), but God already knows that he's going to do it, and is going to lie to Moses to get him to be a mediator, so He can respond to it.

Or I can say that God didn't know and that Moses knew something that God didn't. God gives Moses a chance to act as a mediator. Would you prefer God tell Moses that it's a mock drama?

Ever heard of Pharoah? You know, the part where God hardens Pharoah's heart, and doesn't let the Israelites go?

So God is the author of Moses's unbelief? You mean God causes Pharaoh to not believe in Him?

I could have sworn you weren't a Calvinist.

Or maybe all the people who serve and obey God along the way who bring about His will? Do you suppose that humans who serve God might participate in prophesies to bring them about?

Absolutely, but not because God causes them to.

Are you seriously saying that you doubt God's ability to bring about His prophsies without fixing the game beforehand?

I'm saying I seriously doubt God needs to fix a game. The texts say God knows the end from the beginning. Much like in Psalm 139:16. This Psalm is all about the grandeur of God speaking of his omnipresence and such.

Yeah... and some of those actions are done by people who are obeying and serving God. And some of those actions could be done by any number of people in a given group, who are generally inclined to lean in that direction.

You see, with EDF comes a very narrow view of the fulfillment of prophecy, such that it can only be fulfilled one way. But without EDF, prophecy can be fulfilled in a myriad of ways by any number of people. One only needs believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent.

So you say God is fixing the game making people act a certain way? If He does not, then God is wrong and there's no reason to trust Him. However, the only way God can be right is if He stacks the deck in advance.

Oh. My bad. I thought you believed in free will.

I do. God knowing the future and my actions does not mean He does not know what I would freely do.

[themuzicman]

Of course, why this was recorded is another matter. Joshua was the one who was the representative between God and men at that point. Perhaps we should take his words more seriously than just one guy who said something but could be wrong, but let's record it anyway.

Really? Where does Joshua say "Thus Sayeth the Lord"?

Not a dumb question. It must be recorded accurately. However, Joshua is reporting to them on the details of the consequences and the land. It's something he would have known. God had given them the land.

And, as a general statement (minues a few anomolies) that's true.

And the evidence for this is?

Joshua 9. Israel (unwisely) engages in a peace treaty. No covenant breaking. Just a bad decision. Now God is left in a position of either breaking Israel's covenant with this town, or not fulfilling the promise.

Joshua 17. For and unknown reason, Manassah can't drive out the Cananites in certain cities, and they reamin. No covenant breaking, it just didn't happen.

Why think such a thing? Maybe he's in physical form all the time and just comes down when he wants to? Why assume he doesn't have a physical form? The text does not deny such.

Well, to the deliberately obtuse, this might be possible.

Um. No. I in fact pointed out that you did state something without a context that we understand knowing the context, but others would not. Suppose I say "Wilbur is a pig." Okay. I could be saying the main character in Charlotte's Web is a pig, a true statement, or I could be making a statement about Mr. Ed's owner, or I could be speaking about something entirely different. You don't know without context.

Thank you for coming over to my side and making my point. I did not make a statement without clearly stating that it existed in a particular context.

I accept your consession.

The text also has in it God saying what will happen prior to it happening and later biblical records show that.

Well, we could use your method of refuting scripture with scripture, or we could work to understand how God cn say what will happen prior to it happening without EDF.

Again, I could just as well say "The text clearly says God has a body as is illustrated in several points starting with man being in God's image and man having a body and with God walking in the garden. Show me where the Hebrews believed otherwise about God."

I'd call you out for proof texting out context and disrespecting the text altogether. The text itself explains what being "in the image of God' is, and I would do a proper exegesis of that passage for you.

And proper exegesis and biblical theology will reveal that God does not naturally exist in a body, too. Only by using bad exegesis and improper proof texting can such an assertion be made. I've already demonstrated that God interacts with Moses without being seen, and that the idea of a theophany has been brought into the Moses story via the Jacob story. If you can't deal with the exegesis, there isn't much I can do fo you.

That sword cuts both ways. You're the one who brought up anthropomorphisms. I'm the one bringing out that prophecy has taken place and been fulfilled. God repeatedly tells Moses what will happen as well including the apostasy of Israel in Deuteronomy 32. (Or do you want to say God caused Israel to do that?)

Not necessary. Group dynamics are fairly easy for men to predict. I imagine God does it far better than we do.

You haven't shown that God lacks a body. You've just stated it's a theophany. Well why should I believe that? Give me a reason. I'm coming as the skeptic of this.

I have shown that God lacks a body. I've given you basis for believing it. You're becoming a skeptic because it thwarts your argument.

Also, it is indecisiveness, and apparently revealing of God that Moses thought of something that God couldn't.

God isn't indecisive. He doesn't ask Moses' opinion. In fact, in Exo 32, God tells Moses to go away, and Moses doesn't. In both cases, God is quite decisive in His decision, stating His intention clearly. Only after Moses presents his case does God change His mind.

Well maybe he'll change His mind on His eternal purpose or maybe He's lying about His eternal purpose.

That's why it's called "FAITH."

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with Reformers. They're all looking to make everything from God so certain that the make God this slave to His nature such that He couldn't possibly do anything else other than what they've defined for Him.

Is your faith so weak that you can't possibly give consideration that God is continuing to pursue His purpose because He desires to do so, and, if He desired, could change His mind? Are you not OK with obeying God if there wasn't an ontological certainty about His purpose? Are you unwilling to trust God just because He promised it?

Why yes it does require faith. Faith is trust in what has been shown to be reliable. God's nature has been shown to be trustworthy and He has been shown to be that way.

If it's God's nature, then there's nothing to be trustworthy about. God is slave to that nature, and He couldn't do anything otherwise anyway. That doesn't require faith any more than it requires faith to believe that when you release a rock just above the surface of the earth, it will be drawn to the center.

Furthermore, the text in Numbers 23:19 is a contrast between God and men. God keeps his covenant because of who He is. He is not man who changes His mind. Why does God not change His mind? Because He knows all. Why does He not lie? Because He is truth.

Show me in Numbers 23:19 where the text say that God knows all. (Hint: It doesn't.)

Furthermore, the contrast to mankind is because mankind is fickle. Mankind breaks its covenants on a whim. For profit. For pretige. For fame. The contrast is that God is not fickle like man. He keeps His covenants, and does not lie. It doesn't say that God cannot lie. Nor does it say that He MUST keep His covenants. It just say that this is what He does.

Oh he could, but why should I think that since God is not the author of sin and many prophecies involve the sins others will commit.

So, people who tend to sin and with certain tendencies are put in particular circumstances, such that one of them will fulfill it. Again, so many propecies could be fulfilled by many many people.

I wonder how well this works if I take this non-answer for what I say.

You'd be hit up to demonstrate.

All we've had so far is an assertion and an assumption that God does not have a body when He clearly does. The text speaks repeatedly of it. The Bible says that God has an arm, that He has nostrils, that He has a face, and that He has a back.

This kind of theology is what results when proper exegesis isn't done, but the typical pop-theology of the American Church, which is to cherry pick and proof text one's way to the conclusions one wants. I've already demonstrated otherwise with a local exegetical basis, and you didn't even see it.

Also, I am not saying God lied to Moses.

Did God tell Moses that He was going to destroy Israel or not? Was this actually God's intent?

How is that not a lie?

I am saying God showed Moses what His role was to be as a mediator, much the same way God tested Abraham.

By lying to him?

Is God lying in Genesiss 22:12 when God says, "Now I know..."

Furthermore, there is no need to abandon prayer for prayer is not for us to change the future so much as to allow us to change to trust in God more and if he honors our prayers and does what we ask, very well, but if not, we are still the better for praying.

Unless, of course, God foreknew that we wouldn't pray. Then we're better off for not praying, since that was God's will, too.

Or I can say that God didn't know and that Moses knew something that God didn't.

What did Moses know that God didn't?

God gives Moses a chance to act as a mediator. Would you prefer God tell Moses that it's a mock drama?

If that's the truth. Yes. I would rather have God tell the truth than lie to Moses.

So God is the author of Moses's unbelief?

No. Moses is.

You mean God causes Pharaoh to not believe in Him?

Pharoah already didn't believe. God just brought about circumstances such that Pharoah refused to let the Israelites go.

Absolutely, but not because God causes them to.

No.. they do so because God asks them to, and they serve God.

I'm saying I seriously doubt God needs to fix a game. The texts say God knows the end from the beginning.

That's the end and the beginning. Not the middle.

Much like in Psalm 139:16. This Psalm is all about the grandeur of God speaking of his omnipresence and such.

In poetry, which is given to hyperbole and symbolic language. Again, proper exegesis takes this into account, which you have not.

So you say God is fixing the game making people act a certain way? If He does not, then God is wrong and there's no reason to trust Him. However, the only way God can be right is if He stacks the deck in advance.

No, that's what you're saying.

I do. God knowing the future and my actions does not mean He does not know what I would freely do.

Logical contradiction much? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fr...foreknowledge/

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Really? Where does Joshua say "Thus Sayeth the Lord"?

He doesn't. Are you saying that he must say it every time?

Joshua 9. Israel (unwisely) engages in a peace treaty. No covenant breaking. Just a bad decision. Now God is left in a position of either breaking Israel's covenant with this town, or not fulfilling the promise.

Joshua 17. For and unknown reason, Manassah can't drive out the Cananites in certain cities, and they reamin. No covenant breaking, it just didn't happen.

And Joshua knowing these events says that not one promise failed to come to pass. Are you saying Joshua was ignorant of them?

Well, to the deliberately obtuse, this might be possible.

So you have no reason for thinking such but would prefer to say one must be deliberately obtuse. Some of the heresies of the Christian church took such passages very seriously and the church had to answer them.

Thank you for coming over to my side and making my point. I did not make a statement without clearly stating that it existed in a particular context.

I accept your consession.

Odd because my point from the beginning has been you need a context. Are you finally realizing that?

Well, we could use your method of refuting scripture with scripture, or we could work to understand how God cn say what will happen prior to it happening without EDF.

No. I'm not refuting Scripture with Scripture. Again, I can still ask why you go with the position that God doesn't have a body when I've shown numerous texts that would indicate He does. But oh wait. It's just asserted that it's a theophany. There's no evidence from the text. Surely you're not bringing in some outside thought from the text are you?

I'd call you out for proof texting out context and disrespecting the text altogether. The text itself explains what being "in the image of God' is, and I would do a proper exegesis of that passage for you.

So in the image of God He created them.
Male and female He created them.

The text doesn't say what it is. That has to be understood from the surrounding context including the culture of the time.

And proper exegesis and biblical theology will reveal that God does not naturally exist in a body, too. Only by using bad exegesis and improper proof texting can such an assertion be made. I've already demonstrated that God interacts with Moses without being seen, and that the idea of a theophany has been brought into the Moses story via the Jacob story. If you can't deal with the exegesis, there isn't much I can do fo you.

I'm dealing with you right now without seeing you. That God dealt with Moses without Moses seeing Him does not prove that God does not have a body. Interactions taking place with someone from a distance does not entail that person does not have a body. Why is it that you're allowed to just let it be that God doesn't have a body but when I say God knows the future which I show from the text, that is unallowable?

Not necessary. Group dynamics are fairly easy for men to predict. I imagine God does it far better than we do.

Oh. First God brings it about somehow by stacking the deck. Then, God just predicts. So are you saying God could have been wrong about the crucifixion of Christ or the naming of Cyrus or Israel spending 400 years in bondage and 70 in exile?

I have shown that God lacks a body. I've given you basis for believing it. You're becoming a skeptic because it thwarts your argument.

No you haven't. You've just asserted it. You've said a theophany could be an explanation. I ask why it should be.

God isn't indecisive. He doesn't ask Moses' opinion. In fact, in Exo 32, God tells Moses to go away, and Moses doesn't. In both cases, God is quite decisive in His decision, stating His intention clearly. Only after Moses presents his case does God change His mind.

The point of which is that God WANTS his people to come to him as Moses did. He wants them to know they can make intercession. God is showing the terms of the deal.

That's why it's called "FAITH."

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with Reformers. They're all looking to make everything from God so certain that the make God this slave to His nature such that He couldn't possibly do anything else other than what they've defined for Him.

No one defines God's nature. They describe it and I am not going by the reformers. My information comes prior to them. You want me to trust God won't change His mind or that He isn't lying. What reason do you have for that? If God is lying, that calls into account His goodness. If God can change His mind and go back on His word, that also calls into account His goodness. Perhaps He will decide to send all Christians to Hell and have only non-believers in Heaven.

Is your faith so weak that you can't possibly give consideration that God is continuing to pursue His purpose because He desires to do so, and, if He desired, could change His mind? Are you not OK with obeying God if there wasn't an ontological certainty about His purpose? Are you unwilling to trust God just because He promised it?

The trust of someone goes insofar as they are reliable. If God can change His mind on the covenant, then what basis do I have for trust? If God is just guessing as much as we are, why should I trust Him? I do not believe you are using faith rightly here. I'm only willing to trust someone who has shown Himself to be trustworthy not just for today but for the future. God I can trust seeing as I know He is eternally good, eternally true, and knows all eternally and can do that which all power can do.

If it's God's nature, then there's nothing to be trustworthy about. God is slave to that nature, and He couldn't do anything otherwise anyway. That doesn't require faith any more than it requires faith to believe that when you release a rock just above the surface of the earth, it will be drawn to the center.

Of course it requires faith because it is our nature to NOT trust God. It is a call to go against what we would normally do in going against the ways of God and instead rely on His nature. Trust that He is who He says He is.

Show me in Numbers 23:19 where the text say that God knows all. (Hint: It doesn't.)

Nor did I say it did.

Furthermore, the contrast to mankind is because mankind is fickle. Mankind breaks its covenants on a whim. For profit. For pretige. For fame. The contrast is that God is not fickle like man. He keeps His covenants, and does not lie. It doesn't say that God cannot lie. Nor does it say that He MUST keep His covenants. It just say that this is what He does.

If I take Exodus 32 and other passages literally, I see a fickle God. I see one who is ready to change His mind just because someone gives a better argument. Perhaps someone will give God a good argument as to why He should destroy Christians and not non-Christians.

So, people who tend to sin and with certain tendencies are put in particular circumstances, such that one of them will fulfill it. Again, so many propecies could be fulfilled by many many people.

Note however that this does not work as well with someone like Judas who Jesus says was doomed to destruction. Were all twelve of the apostles then chosen because, well hopefully one of them will screw up big time

You'd be hit up to demonstrate.

Then I suggest you do so.

This kind of theology is what results when proper exegesis isn't done, but the typical pop-theology of the American Church, which is to cherry pick and proof text one's way to the conclusions one wants. I've already demonstrated otherwise with a local exegetical basis, and you didn't even see it.

I've demonstrated God has a body from the text. You've just asserted He doesn't. Where is the text that says God has no body?

Did God tell Moses that He was going to destroy Israel or not? Was this actually God's intent?

How is that not a lie?

It is much the same with what God did with Sodom and Gomorrah. God knew what He was going to do, but He acted in a way to show that intercession would be allowed in the covenant. However, as with Abraham, the intercession is always on God's terms.

By lying to him?

Is God lying in Genesiss 22:12 when God says, "Now I know..."

No. It is saying that since Abraham has honored the covenant, God will now bless Him for it, although God knew that He would do it. Are you saying God did not know Abraham's heart when He gave him the challenge? By that standard, God would not only not know the future, He would also not know the present.

Unless, of course, God foreknew that we wouldn't pray. Then we're better off for not praying, since that was God's will, too.

No. We're not better off. We're worse off. If God was simply willing the best for everyone, then all would be in Heaven. Justification is His work, but sanctification is two-way as we learn to submit to Him. God's ultimate Will is for Himself and as we take part in that, we are bettered.

What did Moses know that God didn't?

Apparently, He knew that God would be dishonored according to what I gather from you. Did God just forget about Egypt or what?

If that's the truth. Yes. I would rather have God tell the truth than lie to Moses.

Not a lie. It's just speaking in human terms as an example.

No. Moses is.

I meant Pharaoh. Are you saying though that Pharaoh was the cause of His own action?

Pharoah already didn't believe. God just brought about circumstances such that Pharoah refused to let the Israelites go.

Correct. Pharaoh didn't believe, but the text has Pharaoh hardening His heart first. What is the significance of that?

No.. they do so because God asks them to, and they serve God.

Your earlier statement was that God brings about the actions. Now it's man that does it? Which is it?

That's the end and the beginning. Not the middle.

Saying He is the alpha and omega, the first and the last, and all that is a way of trying to be as exhaustive as possible.

In poetry, which is given to hyperbole and symbolic language. Again, proper exegesis takes this into account, which you have not.

So are you saying there is a place where God is not present then and that He is not omnipresent as a result? By that standard, it seems more likely He has a body.

No, that's what you're saying.

No, because I do not say God stacks the deck. I say He knows by his foreknowledge what's coming up.

Logical contradiction much? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fr...foreknowledge/

Nope. Not a contradiction at all. How does knowing X will happen mean you cause X to happen?

[themuzicman]

He doesn't. Are you saying that he must say it every time?

Or some similar textual cue.

And Joshua knowing these events says that not one promise failed to come to pass. Are you saying Joshua was ignorant of them?

I'm saying that Joshua was OK with saying what he said, knowing what happened.

So you have no reason for thinking such but would prefer to say one must be deliberately obtuse.

I've given you sufficient reason. Your comments are just obtuse.

Some of the heresies of the Christian church took such passages very seriously and the church had to answer them.

Guilt by association? Really? Sounds like you know you're losing.

Odd because my point from the beginning has been you need a context. Are you finally realizing that?

Your original point was that "I am going to destroy Israel..I relent from destroying Israel" is somehow a metaphor for "mediators matter." And you've been trying to use my example of needing a context to define a metaphor ("Jaltus is a pig") to squirm in "the Hebrews believed God has EDF" as "context" for declaring Exo 32 a metaphor. And you appeared to finally realize that this assertion/asumption wasn't sufficient context to actually declare "I am going to destroy Israel" as a metaphor for "mediators matter."

Indeed, the very suggestion that "Hebrews believed God has EDF" is context for making Exo 32 into a metaphor is laughable, as this belief would only be undermined directly by Exodus 32. You've not shown in any way that "Hebrews believed God has EDF" makes "I will destroy Israel..I relent from destroying Israel" into any kind of a metaphor.

I mean, I can show context for the use of the word "pig" as meaning "messy" or "Chauvinist" in our cultural setting in a huge number of contexts. You've shown exactly zero cultural contexts where "I will destroy Israel..I relent from destroying Israell" means "mediators matter."

Indeed, the story is written such that this is one of the major points of the text: God, once again, relents (changes His mind) from His wrath and judgment to offer mercy. In no sense does the story reflect a lesson of "mediators matter."

SO, unless you can actually do a complete job of exegeting this passage to show how the story develops within the narrative of Exodus into this "mediators matter" theme, apparently requiring that this story never really happened, or that God lied to Moses to make this point, and how that's acceptable (especially light of the 10 commandments God is giving to Moses, specifically #8, I believe), there isn't sufficient reason to accept your claims.

No. I'm not refuting Scripture with Scripture. Again, I can still ask why you go with the position that God doesn't have a body when I've shown numerous texts that would indicate He does. But oh wait. It's just asserted that it's a theophany. There's no evidence from the text. Surely you're not bringing in some outside thought from the text are you?

Excuse me? I've presented multiple contexts which show that God uses theophany when He wants to interact with the physical world, and even more contexts that God interacts with men without being seen by them. Again, with the obtuse thing.

So in the image of God He created them.
Male and female He created them.

The text doesn't say what it is. That has to be understood from the surrounding context including the culture of the time.

Seriously? You do no better than the pop-theology crowd in pulling out a proof text? Did you bother to read the chapter? Or even the verses that surround this one? Maybe even the other verse that mentions the image of God?

Of course not.

Gen 1

26Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Hmm... Exegesis says that sometimes terms are unpacked when the text uses repitition or wraps the idea before and after with an explanation of what it is. I'm not sure what that might mean for these verse...

C'mon, Nick. If you want to be a serious theologian, you gotta do the little stuff like this.

I'm dealing with you right now without seeing you. That God dealt with Moses without Moses seeing Him does not prove that God does not have a body. Interactions taking place with someone from a distance does not entail that person does not have a body.

OK, you're back to either obtuse or stupid. Do you really not know the difference between synchronous and asynchronous communication? The difference between written correspondence and direct communication? C'mon.

Why is it that you're allowed to just let it be that God doesn't have a body but when I say God knows the future which I show from the text, that is unallowable?

Because I've actually shown it from the text, whereas you have not. You've inserted it into contexts without warrant, as I've already shown.

Oh. First God brings it about somehow by stacking the deck. Then, God just predicts.

That's your position of "foreknowledge."

People who believe in omnipotence believe that God is active in bringing about His prophecies.

So are you saying God could have been wrong about the crucifixion of Christ or the naming of Cyrus or Israel spending 400 years in bondage and 70 in exile?

No, I'm saying that God was active in bringing these things about, that God didn't have to fix everything beforehand in order for His prophesies to be true.

No you haven't. You've just asserted it. You've said a theophany could be an explanation. I ask why it should be.

No, I said that based upon the exegesis of this passage and the reference to another instance of theophany that this claim is one that has solid foundation.

The point of which is that God WANTS his people to come to him as Moses did. He wants them to know they can make intercession. God is showing the terms of the deal.

But that's not the point of the story. Again with the pop-theology thing. Moses isn't making this point at all. Moses is saying that once again Israel violated covenant in a very serious way (idolatry, which would plague Israel until after the Exile), and that God's judgment was that He would destroy Israel, and that only by Moses' appeal (which one Reformed OT prof said was Moses refusing to participate) did God change His mind. This isn't some touchy-feely feel-good text where God wants us all to pray because prayer matters to God. No. This is a very judgment/warning oriented story as warning to Israel (which is who the Torah is written to) to obey the covenant, or judgment may befall you.

Now, if you can relay this story in the larger context of Exodus to show that Moses intended to say to the people of Israel "prayer matters", please try, but I doubt you're going to get far enough away from God declaring that Israel would be destroyed without winding up saying that God lied to Moses.

No one defines God's nature. They describe it and I am not going by the reformers. My information comes prior to them. You want me to trust God won't change His mind or that He isn't lying. What reason do you have for that?

It's called "faith." It's called looking at what God has done for mankind since Adam and Eve rejected Him, and giving thanks for His delayed judgment, and coming and making a sacrifice so could be reconciled to Him, not because God was compelled by His nature, but rather our of pure love for His creation and His decision to offer grace to us, and His desire to restore all things within the context of His justice.

You believe in Anselm's defintion of God? Which is greater? A god who is compelled by his nature to make a way for reconcilliation for his creation, or a god who may at any time bring down judgment upon all, but chooses out of love and grace to make a way for reconciliation?

If God is lying, that calls into account His goodness. If God can change His mind and go back on His word, that also calls into account His goodness. Perhaps He will decide to send all Christians to Hell and have only non-believers in Heaven.

God would be both good and justified to do whatever He wishes with this rebellious and fallen world. Look at what happened to Israel. They were God's chosen people. They followed the covenant and endured the exile, and in that time He blinded them to their Messiah, so they would not accept Him in order that the Gentiles, the outcast, wicked, pagan god worshipping, law breaking gentiles, would come in and enjoy the fruits of the New Covenant, even as the Israelites, the people of the Old Covenant, rejected Christ because they were blinded and condemned to hell.

How does that fit into your pretty picture of God's goodness?

(So, you agree with my exegesis of Exodus 32, then? God wasn't lying when HE said He would destroy all of Israel?)

Maybe. Do you trust God?

Absolutely.

The trust of someone goes insofar as they are reliable. If God can change His mind on the covenant, then what basis do I have for trust?

Who are you to question GOD? God groomed a pot prepared for destruction, a pot who were called the people of God, and who were blinded to their messiah. Who are you to answer back to God and His purposes?

If God is just guessing as much as we are, why should I trust Him?

Because He's GOD. If His decision is that I spend eternity in hell as part of His purpose then so be it. I prefer God's judgment and His purposes to my own petty little ends.

I do not believe you are using faith rightly here. I'm only willing to trust someone who has shown Himself to be trustworthy not just for today but for the future.

What has God done to violate that trust?

God I can trust seeing as I know He is eternally good, eternally true, and knows all eternally and can do that which all power can do.

So, you'll only accept God if He lives on your terms?

Of course it requires faith because it is our nature to NOT trust God. It is a call to go against what we would normally do in going against the ways of God and instead rely on His nature. Trust that He is who He says He is.

And what He actually does.

Nor did I say it did.

Then your attempt to explain Numbers 23:19 is a bit odd:

Furthermore, the text in Numbers 23:19 is a contrast between God and men. God keeps his covenant because of who He is. He is not man who changes His mind. Why does God not change His mind? Because He knows all. Why does He not lie? Because He is truth.

Sounds to me like you think that "God knows all" is in Numbers 23:19, here. Unless you're imposing that on this context.

If I take Exodus 32 and other passages literally, I see a fickle God. I see one who is ready to change His mind just because someone gives a better argument. Perhaps someone will give God a good argument as to why He should destroy Christians and not non-Christians.

I guess we'd better hope that doesn't happen. If that's a possibility, would you stop serving Him?

Note however that this does not work as well with someone like Judas who Jesus says was doomed to destruction. Were all twelve of the apostles then chosen because, well hopefully one of them will screw up big time

Not sure about all twelve. But you can't say that there wasn't more than one.

Then I suggest you do so.

Already did.

I've demonstrated God has a body from the text. You've just asserted He doesn't. Where is the text that says God has no body?

No, you've played biblical cherry picking without doing any exegesis, as is typical of the pop-theology of the American Church. You've only even given one actual text, for which I already did an exegesis for you.

It is much the same with what God did with Sodom and Gomorrah. God knew what He was going to do, but He acted in a way to show that intercession would be allowed in the covenant. However, as with Abraham, the intercession is always on God's terms.

Well, God said what He was going to do. However, the story of S&G has nothing to do with sowing that intercession would be allowed in "the covenant". What covenant? The unconditional covenant of land and descendents? C'mon Nick.

No. It is saying that since Abraham has honored the covenant, God will now bless Him for it, although God knew that He would do it. Are you saying God did not know Abraham's heart when He gave him the challenge? By that standard, God would not only not know the future, He would also not know the present.

Well, if the matter was unsettled or uncertain in Abraham's heart, then a test would be warranted. If the matter was settled and God knew where Abraham's heart was, then the test is nothing more than a horrendously cruel practical joke.

And you have yet to explain how the explanation of the test begins with "NOW I KNOW...." Usually when a test is complete, and the tester says, "NOW I KNOW..." Some new knowledge is gained. Perhaps you can explain why God says, "NOW I KNOW..."

No. We're not better off. We're worse off.

So, you're say that if I don't pray for my dear Aunt Sally, in spite of the fact that all events are fixed and nothing will change as a result of my praying, that not praying somehow made things worse? Again... it just doesn't make sense. If things were fixed such that I don't pray, then that's what was best because God fixed it that way.

If God was simply willing the best for everyone, then all would be in Heaven. Justification is His work, but sanctification is two-way as we learn to submit to Him. God's ultimate Will is for Himself and as we take part in that, we are bettered.

An excellent reason to deny EDF. If God already knew that the vast majority of mankind would be going to hell, can you really say that it was good to create at all?

Apparently, He knew that God would be dishonored according to what I gather from you. Did God just forget about Egypt or what?

Apparently you haven't gathered the concept of the dichotomy in God between justice and mercy. Here God has just removed them from Israel without fighting a single battle, and God is giving New Covenant for them, and they are building an idol to an Egyptian god and worshipping it. God is more than just in destroying them immediately and starting over with Moses. But Moses acts. As my former (Reformed) prof said, on more than one occasion Moses negotiated with God and got everything he wanted. Moses said he wanted nothing to do with God's plan, and God was stuck with Israel.

Not a lie. It's just speaking in human terms as an example.

Let me get this straight: You think that when someone says, "I am going to destroy X", but does not have any intention of destorying X, isn't lying?

Seriously?

How is this just "putting things in human terms." What "terms" in "I am going to destroy Israel" aren't clear?

I meant Pharaoh. Are you saying though that Pharaoh was the cause of His own action?

Yes.

Correct. Pharaoh didn't believe, but the text has Pharaoh hardening His heart first. What is the significance of that?

That God created circumstances that resulted in Pharoah making a choice.

Your earlier statement was that God brings about the actions. Now it's man that does it? Which is it?

No, I said that God would bring about His prophecies. I never said that He would be causing the actions. I can prophesy that my lawn will be mowed today, and then instruct a child to mow it, and it will have been bought about without me actually doing the action.

Saying He is the alpha and omega, the first and the last, and all that is a way of trying to be as exhaustive as possible.

No, in that passage, God is challenging any other gods to prophesy and then bring all their prophesies about. God is making a claim to being greater than any other supposed god by claiming that only He can declare the end from the beginning.

You probably should read a passage and do some critical theology on it before making statements.

So are you saying there is a place where God is not present then and that He is not omnipresent as a result? By that standard, it seems more likely He has a body.

No... I'm saying that we have to take the fact that Psalms (including 139) is poetry and given to hyperbole and symbolism.

Are you claiming that this is the only place where we can deduce that God is omnipresent?

No, because I do not say God stacks the deck. I say He knows by his foreknowledge what's coming up.

Of course, all these "decisions" were already certain before those who made them existed...

Nope. Not a contradiction at all. How does knowing X will happen mean you cause X to happen?

You've made an unwarranted leap.

The proof shows that foreknowing that X will happen means that it cannot be freely chosen. It does not speak to cause. One corrilary to this proof is that for any specific decision that is definitely forknown, it must have been made certain before it was known. The knower doesn't have to be the causer.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Or some similar textual cue.

Reason being?

I'm saying that Joshua was OK with saying what he said, knowing what happened.

So Joshua was okay with saying not one promise had failed even though it had?

I've given you sufficient reason. Your comments are just obtuse.

Nonsense. You have simply asserted your position. You have given no reason to think God is without a body. You say theophany, an appearance of God in physical form. Well that implies you don't believe He has a physical form, but the text talks so much about it! Please show the text in the books of Moses that says otherwise.

Guilt by association? Really? Sounds like you know you're losing.

Reading comprehension that bad? You stated one would have to be obtuse to take the texts this way. Well there were some who did and thought that it meant God has a physical body. Is your reply to them "You're just obtuse."?

Your original point was that "I am going to destroy Israel..I relent from destroying Israel" is somehow a metaphor for "mediators matter." And you've been trying to use my example of needing a context to define a metaphor ("Jaltus is a pig") to squirm in "the Hebrews believed God has EDF" as "context" for declaring Exo 32 a metaphor. And you appeared to finally realize that this assertion/asumption wasn't sufficient context to actually declare "I am going to destroy Israel" as a metaphor for "mediators matter."

Wishful thinking on your part? I haven't changed my stance once. I've always said that statements need context. I also believe Israel was a high-context society.

Indeed, the very suggestion that "Hebrews believed God has EDF" is context for making Exo 32 into a metaphor is laughable, as this belief would only be undermined directly by Exodus 32. You've not shown in any way that "Hebrews believed God has EDF" makes "I will destroy Israel..I relent from destroying Israel" into any kind of a metaphor.

Indeed, the very suggestion that "Hebrews believed God does not have physical form" is context for making Exo 33-34 into a theophany is laughable, as this belief would only be undermined directly by Exodus 33-34. You've not shown in any way that "Hebrews believed God does not have a physical form" makes the passage a theophany.

But oh wait. You don't have to establish your views. Mine are just obtuse.

I mean, I can show context for the use of the word "pig" as meaning "messy" or "Chauvinist" in our cultural setting in a huge number of contexts. You've shown exactly zero cultural contexts where "I will destroy Israel..I relent from destroying Israell" means "mediators matter."

Other than Isaiah and the rest of the prophets. Perhaps you should track down someone in Israel in the time of Christ and such who affirmed that God did not know the future.

Indeed, the story is written such that this is one of the major points of the text: God, once again, relents (changes His mind) from His wrath and judgment to offer mercy. In no sense does the story reflect a lesson of "mediators matter."

Obviously. Mediators must not matter. The text is not meant to show us anything about the actions of Moses.

SO, unless you can actually do a complete job of exegeting this passage to show how the story develops within the narrative of Exodus into this "mediators matter" theme, apparently requiring that this story never really happened, or that God lied to Moses to make this point, and how that's acceptable (especially light of the 10 commandments God is giving to Moses, specifically #8, I believe), there isn't sufficient reason to accept your claims.

#9 actually, and it is not a lie. It is God speaking on human terms to the people, much like I say with him having a body, something you have not shown He does not have.

Excuse me? I've presented multiple contexts which show that God uses theophany when He wants to interact with the physical world, and even more contexts that God interacts with men without being seen by them. Again, with the obtuse thing.

You assume it’s a theophany and therefore God does not have a physical form. God can also interact without being seen by men if He wants to can He not? Would you deny His omnipotence there?

Seriously? You do no better than the pop-theology crowd in pulling out a proof text? Did you bother to read the chapter? Or even the verses that surround this one? Maybe even the other verse that mentions the image of God?

Of course not.

Nice assumption on your part.

Hmm... Exegesis says that sometimes terms are unpacked when the text uses repitition or wraps the idea before and after with an explanation of what it is. I'm not sure what that might mean for these verse...

Yes. The term is unpacked, but it does not say that God does not have a body. In fact, to say we are made in His image could be an argument that He does have one. Besides, it speaks of His body throughout the text.

C'mon, Nick. If you want to be a serious theologian, you gotta do the little stuff like this.

Which I do. I just find you’re inconsistent. When it comes to one characteristic you don’t want God to have, you take the text literally. When it comes to another, you don’t. For the first, there has to be absolute proof on the other side. For the second part, well we don’t need that. It’s obvious.

OK, you're back to either obtuse or stupid. Do you really not know the difference between synchronous and asynchronous communication? The difference between written correspondence and direct communication? C'mon.

Yes I do and I’m a skeptic of your position. Saying I’m being obtuse or stupid does not count as an argument.

Because I've actually shown it from the text, whereas you have not. You've inserted it into contexts without warrant, as I've already shown.

Really? What text says God doesn’t have a body have you pointed to? That’s right. NONE! Instead, you’ve just asserted it’s a theophany. Lovely double standard!

That's your position of "foreknowledge."

People who believe in omnipotence believe that God is active in bringing about His prophecies.

God is active, but it is not that all events happen because God causes them to happen. That’s not my position. You’re supposed to be the one stronger for free-will. Are you saying the only way God can get a prophecy to come about is if he really pushes hard on someone but if they don’t give, well God could just be wrong on this one.

And does omnipotence really entail that you can force a free being to choose X?

No, I'm saying that God was active in bringing these things about, that God didn't have to fix everything beforehand in order for His prophesies to be true.

Could God have been wrong? Yes or no?

No, I said that based upon the exegesis of this passage and the reference to another instance of theophany that this claim is one that has solid foundation.

No Muz. Your whole system relies on God being unembodied and when you find a contrary passage, you just interpret it as a theophany, but you have not shown a text yet that says God has no body.

But that's not the point of the story. Again with the pop-theology thing. Moses isn't making this point at all. Moses is saying that once again Israel violated covenant in a very serious way (idolatry, which would plague Israel until after the Exile), and that God's judgment was that He would destroy Israel, and that only by Moses' appeal (which one Reformed OT prof said was Moses refusing to participate) did God change His mind. This isn't some touchy-feely feel-good text where God wants us all to pray because prayer matters to God. No. This is a very judgment/warning oriented story as warning to Israel (which is who the Torah is written to) to obey the covenant, or judgment may befall you.

Oh please. I don’t give a darn for that touchy-feely nonsense. As for what a Reformed one said, what do I care? I’m not a Calvinist. I’m not bound by their positions. I have no problem saying obey the covenant or judgment will befall you. I’ve been saying that from the beginning. I also point out that Moses was a mediator and thus a precursor of Christ.

Yes. Mediators matter to God, unless you want to say the cross means nothing.

Now, if you can relay this story in the larger context of Exodus to show that Moses intended to say to the people of Israel "prayer matters", please try, but I doubt you're going to get far enough away from God declaring that Israel would be destroyed without winding up saying that God lied to Moses.

Um. No. My point is not prayer but mediation. Moses was one standing in the gap, something Israel would need, and it needed to be known that one standing in the gap does prevent judgment that ought to come.

It's called "faith." It's called looking at what God has done for mankind since Adam and Eve rejected Him, and giving thanks for His delayed judgment, and coming and making a sacrifice so could be reconciled to Him, not because God was compelled by His nature, but rather our of pure love for His creation and His decision to offer grace to us, and His desire to restore all things within the context of His justice.

Ah yes. You have evidence. But one could just as well say God is tricking us with all he’s doing. Or, one could develop a well-thought out theology to know what it means to say that God is good and true.

You believe in Anselm's defintion of God? Which is greater? A god who is compelled by his nature to make a way for reconcilliation for his creation, or a god who may at any time bring down judgment upon all, but chooses out of love and grace to make a way for reconciliation?

No. I don’t believe in Anselm’s definition. It’s too subjective. I could just as well say “Which is greater? A God who can only do good or a God who can only do evil?” No. Anselm’s position just doesn’t work nor does his Ontological Argument.

God would be both good and justified to do whatever He wishes with this rebellious and fallen world. Look at what happened to Israel. They were God's chosen people. They followed the covenant and endured the exile, and in that time He blinded them to their Messiah, so they would not accept Him in order that the Gentiles, the outcast, wicked, pagan god worshipping, law breaking gentiles, would come in and enjoy the fruits of the New Covenant, even as the Israelites, the people of the Old Covenant, rejected Christ because they were blinded and condemned to hell.

Whoa. You want to say it’s good to break your promise and not keep your Word and God would be justified in doing that? When did you become a voluntarist? You’re sounding more and more Calvinistic in your thinking. Are you saying God actively kept Israel from believing in Jesus?

How does that fit into your pretty picture of God's goodness?

My picture of God’s goodness is that God does allow people to go apart from Him if He wants to because He is not just good, but holy and just as well. Goodness entails in Him however that He keeps His word and honors His covenants. Apparently, you think he can be a good God and not do that.

(So, you agree with my exegesis of Exodus 32, then? God wasn't lying when HE said He would destroy all of Israel?)

My position is the same. You sure seem quick to get me to get where you are without an argument.

Who are you to question GOD? God groomed a pot prepared for destruction, a pot who were called the people of God, and who were blinded to their messiah. Who are you to answer back to God and His purposes?

Sounds just like a Calvie response with a hard question. Interesting how this turns out. I just asked a question. I guess that’s unallowable. So it’s trust God and if one asks why it’s “HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD!”

Because He's GOD. If His decision is that I spend eternity in hell as part of His purpose then so be it. I prefer God's judgment and His purposes to my own petty little ends.

Fine. Serve your fickle God. I’ll serve one who cannot lie as is stated in the NT very clearly.

What has God done to violate that trust?

Nothing here, but I also know that it won’t happen because of His nature. Because of His nature, He has my faith.

So, you'll only accept God if He lives on your terms?

I pointed to who He is, not what He does.

And what He actually does.

Which flows out of who He is.

Then your attempt to explain Numbers 23:19 is a bit odd:



Sounds to me like you think that "God knows all" is in Numbers 23:19, here. Unless you're imposing that on this context.

Of course, saying God doesn’t have a body even though numerous texts speak of that, far more than speak of Him “changing his mind” and such, that’s not imposing on the context at all.

I guess we'd better hope that doesn't happen. If that's a possibility, would you stop serving Him?

It would imply God doesn’t know something It would make God simply another created being. He just differs from us in degree. Now one could serve Him because He’s still the most powerful and such, but it would not be because His nature is goodness and truth.

Not sure about all twelve. But you can't say that there wasn't more than one.

So when Jesus prayed he was saying “Heavenly Father, please help me choose a man who will screw up. Who do you think has the most odds of doing such?”

Already did.

No. You asserted.

No, you've played biblical cherry picking without doing any exegesis, as is typical of the pop-theology of the American Church. You've only even given one actual text, for which I already did an exegesis for you.

And your exegesis does not show my conclusion to be wrong. In fact, you have God who can break covenants easily. Is that your concept of a good God? That would be a violation of #9 now wouldn’t it?

Well, God said what He was going to do. However, the story of S&G has nothing to do with sowing that intercession would be allowed in "the covenant". What covenant? The unconditional covenant of land and descendents? C'mon Nick.

The covenant started with Abraham. Did you forget that covenant? That is who God is speaking to in the text.

Well, if the matter was unsettled or uncertain in Abraham's heart, then a test would be warranted. If the matter was settled and God knew where Abraham's heart was, then the test is nothing more than a horrendously cruel practical joke.

You think God didn’t know the heart. Aren’t we told repeatedly in Scripture that God knows the heart? Could it be that God was demonstrating Abraham’s faith to Abraham in light of the covenant promise?

And you have yet to explain how the explanation of the test begins with "NOW I KNOW...." Usually when a test is complete, and the tester says, "NOW I KNOW..." Some new knowledge is gained. Perhaps you can explain why God says, "NOW I KNOW..."

Yada means more than intellectual knowledge. It also refers to relational knowledge. In this case, God was showing that since Abraham acted, God would reply with the promise of the covenant and how Abraham would be an example for ages to come.

So, you're say that if I don't pray for my dear Aunt Sally, in spite of the fact that all events are fixed and nothing will change as a result of my praying, that not praying somehow made things worse? Again... it just doesn't make sense. If things were fixed such that I don't pray, then that's what was best because God fixed it that way.

When all events are fixed, your prayers are also considered. God knowing what you will pray pre-responds to Aunt Sally accordingly. He also knows what would have happened had you not prayed.

An excellent reason to deny EDF. If God already knew that the vast majority of mankind would be going to hell, can you really say that it was good to create at all?

Who said the vast majority is going? Note I said nothing about Hell in that post. That was what you put in.

Apparently you haven't gathered the concept of the dichotomy in God between justice and mercy. Here God has just removed them from Israel without fighting a single battle, and God is giving New Covenant for them, and they are building an idol to an Egyptian god and worshipping it. God is more than just in destroying them immediately and starting over with Moses. But Moses acts. As my former (Reformed) prof said, on more than one occasion Moses negotiated with God and got everything he wanted. Moses said he wanted nothing to do with God's plan, and God was stuck with Israel.

This doesn’t address what I said. Was God ignorant of how His Name would be perceived in Egypt at the time of this event and needed Moses to remind Him? Did He have a memory lapse or something?

Let me get this straight: You think that when someone says, "I am going to destroy X", but does not have any intention of destorying X, isn't lying?

Seriously?

We’re not talking about someone. We’re talking about God. He’s not just anyone.

How is this just "putting things in human terms." What "terms" in "I am going to destroy Israel" aren't clear?

Oh it’s clear. It’s also nothing He was going to do and Moses would have known this because of His covenant. Did He need to remind God of the covenant because God forgot? No. He stated the covenant to fill the role of the mediator.

Yes.

Then God didn’t need to stack the deck. Pharaoh did it himself.

That God created circumstances that resulted in Pharoah making a choice.

Pharaoh made a choice anyway. God didn’t have to stack the deck against Him. In fact, one would think that the miracles God did should have made Pharaoh do otherwise.

No, I said that God would bring about His prophecies. I never said that He would be causing the actions. I can prophesy that my lawn will be mowed today, and then instruct a child to mow it, and it will have been bought about without me actually doing the action.

You said God would bring it about, including the free-will actions of human beings. Your child could just as easily say “No” and then your lawn would not be mowed today, until you start applying force. Hardly glorious to thank God can only bring about prophecy through force.

No, in that passage, God is challenging any other gods to prophesy and then bring all their prophesies about. God is making a claim to being greater than any other supposed god by claiming that only He can declare the end from the beginning.

And does He say He brings it about or does He say it happens?

No... I'm saying that we have to take the fact that Psalms (including 139) is poetry and given to hyperbole and symbolism.

So God is omnipresent? Then what is the hyperbole and symbolism in the passage? Or is it just the part inconvenient to you that’s hyperbole and symbolism?

Are you claiming that this is the only place where we can deduce that God is omnipresent?

Nope. Nor is it the only passage where we have God knowing the end from the beginning.

Of course, all these "decisions" were already certain before those who made them existed...

Yep.

You've made an unwarranted leap.

The proof shows that foreknowing that X will happen means that it cannot be freely chosen. It does not speak to cause. One corrilary to this proof is that for any specific decision that is definitely forknown, it must have been made certain before it was known. The knower doesn't have to be the causer.

Correct. God who knows does not cause. I am the free cause of my actions that are known in advance.

Thanks for confirming it.