RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

evry1needsgod -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/14/2008 9:17:22 PM)

WOAH! I had no idea this conversation was still in full throttle! I just HAVE to say one more thing. I don't consider theo_book's opinions of time and God as heretical, but I must question this...
quote:


What a nasty spirited thing to say. Are you telling me that all you have to offer God is your ignorance, and that you worship that which you do not know? Your own words testify against you. You continually tell me we "cannot know" anything about God. I say that is nonsense. If you will get away from the safety of "doctrines" and start accepting what the scriptures say, without placing everything into categories (like "metaphor" and "poetry") and just accept what they teach, you will begin to "know the Lord." Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

Too many Christians plead ignorance and humility, when they ought to be learning all there is to know and offer their best to God, in humility. Instead, they offer a voluntary humility characterised by ignorance. And seem to be proud of how humble they can sound through insisting they are more ignorant than their neighbor. And, perish forbid, let not one claim to understand, lest he be labeled "arrogant" for his claims.


I'm sorry TB (actually I'm not), but you CAN NOT understand God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is AMPLE, CLEAR Scriptural evidence (which I laid out very easy for you to see in a previous post) that tells us FINITE human beings that there are aspects of God which are incomprehensible and IMPOSSIBLE to know. The best you can give is a passage in the OT wich was taken WAY out of context. God commands us to study to know what we CAN know, but NOWHERE does Scripture say we can know EVERYTHING. To think you have the capability, let alone the RIGHT, to understand God fully is at BEST heretical, at worse blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I'm not a fan of name calling, but your arrogance in your so-called "knowledge" is sickening. You make it sound as though humility is a bad thing! If I were you, I'd get on my knees and BEG God for forgiveness of my arrogance, and ask God to show me some humility.

Look, I know you are frustrated, and I know you are probably finished with this conversation. You will most likely walk away from this debate, thinking "I was right, and those who debated with me (who were wrong) became angry (becasue they were wrong) which means I'm right. This is what happens when people become trapped in a corner and have been proven wrong. They start name calling and become very bitter. Thank God I'm right!" Don't fool yourself. God is not the author of confusion. If you are right, He has been confusing the majority of His children. hmm...

quote:

I'm sorry, theo_book, but it's become painfully obvious that I have nothing further to discuss with someone who distorts my posts, misunderstands even simple scientific facts, and redefines words to satisfy whatever argument is he currently making.


Hey Dr. Mark! This is pretty much where I left him. There are WAY too many misunderstandings, too much trying to act "smart." I applaud you for you patience...at least what is left of it! (whatever that is supposed to mean[;)])



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/15/2008 9:03:32 AM)

TO THEO'S REMARK: What a nasty spirited thing to say. Are you telling me that all you have to offer God is your ignorance, and that you worship that which you do not know? Your own words testify against you.

You continually tell me we "cannot know" anything about God. I say that is nonsense. If you will get away from the safety of "doctrines" and start accepting what the scriptures say, without placing everything into categories (like "metaphor" and "poetry") and just accept what they teach, you will begin to "know the Lord." Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

Too many Christians plead ignorance and humility, when they ought to be learning all there is to know and offer their best to God, in humility. Instead, they offer a voluntary humility characterised by ignorance. And seem to be proud of how humble they can sound through insisting they are more ignorant than their neighbor. And, perish forbid, let not one claim to understand, lest he be labeled "arrogant" for his claims.

EING RESPONDED: I'm sorry TB (actually I'm not), but you CAN NOT understand God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is AMPLE, CLEAR Scriptural evidence (which I laid out very easy for you to see in a previous post) that tells us FINITE human beings that there are aspects of God which are incomprehensible and IMPOSSIBLE to know.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Let me see, o.k., I think I've got it...
Change "you will begin to "know the Lord" to "I can understand God," and you will have an accusation that will stick.

Change "I have no problem comprehending the enormous, not the tiniest, of God's creative efforts," to "I have no problem comprehending all there is to know about God." Voila, we have another accusation that will stick.

Change "Nor do I have any problem whatsoever understanding that God and time exist within the same frame of reference as regards 'when,"" to "I think I have the capability and right to know EVERYTHING (emphasis YOURS) to understand God fully," and bingo! you have another accusation that will stick.

For after all, have we not just seen the readers on the board interpret what Theo MUST HAVE MEANT, in spite of what Theo actually SAID?

E1NG WROTE: The best you can give is a passage in the OT which was taken WAY out of context. God commands us to study to know what we CAN know, but NOWHERE does Scripture say we can know EVERYTHING. To think you have the capability, let alone the RIGHT, to understand God fully is at BEST heretical, at worse blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

THEO'S RESPONSE: And this is in response to what? Which claim that we can know "EVERYTHING?" Please give the post # in which I said ANY of the garbage attributed to me, and I will apologize.

And the popular concept that we cannot "know God" makes a lie out of God's own instructions "Be still and Know that I am God," and Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

E1NG WROTE: I'm not a fan of name calling, but your arrogance in your so-called "knowledge" is sickening.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Now go back and read what it is I actually SAID, and you will find no such arrogance in my post. And take a spiritual aspirin.

E1NG WROTE: You make it sound as though humility is a bad thing!

THEO'S REPSONSE (NEW): And you make it sound like the ONLY thing. God wants us to be humble both in our approach to Him, and in our dealing with our fellow man. He does not expect us to grovel and outdo each other in "voluntary humility" [Col 2:18]. Nor does he expect us to hide our God-Given abilities in order to appear humble, robbing him of the glory that is his from his creation. And THAT is not arrogance, it is God's gift, appreciated and aknowledged to his glory.

E1NG WROTE: If I were you, I'd get on my knees and BEG God for forgiveness of my arrogance, and ask God to show me some humility.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): That is not the limit of what I ask God to forgive me for. If you want to see real humility, take a hand held mirror outside at night look to the stars and side by side with your reflection, and know true humility. Humility is not found in groveling and denial, it is found in aknowledgment and appreciation.

E1NG WROTE: Look, I know you are frustrated, and I know you are probably finished with this conversation. You will most likely walk away from this debate, thinking "I was right, and those who debated with me (who were wrong) became angry (because they were wrong) which means I'm right. This is what happens when people become trapped in a corner and have been proven wrong.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Frustrated? Why? I do not believe anyone on this board deliberately tries to dishonor me. I believe all who have posted here honestly believe what they have said. It would be frustrating if I believed they were lying or simply mischief making. But I do not believe such things.

I do detect some frustration in that I have not been able to articulate my position without raising animosity, but that is for God to judge, not me. I detect some frustration from aknowledgment not all men are my friends, but what is more frustrating is to know that some become my enemies because they do not properly read what I SAY. They let others persuade them that my remarks were other than what they actually were.

And no, I do not think "I am right" in the sense that all others are wrong, but maybe in the sense that I do try to correctly present my position, and at the same time represent to others, what I think glorifies God. I do feel frustration however, when I give my best effort and it comes back at me as "arrogant." However, I realize others also feel the crunch of seeing their best efforts brutalized. So I try to find another scripture that will better illustrate the point, or sometimes I just reiterate what has already been said, thinking in my hubris, someone will read it this time and see it for what I intended for it to convey. THAT is frustration.

And no my friend, I do not think others are angry because they are wrong. I think others get angry because they try, and do their best to get accross to me, a point that I just simply do not agree with. And they do not understand why. THEY find it easy to understand, Why do I not understand it? THAT makes people frustrated and angry.

But mostly I do not feel trapped "in a corner" other than my inability to communicate with what I consider intelligent beings. I see the frustration of which you speak, begin to build, sometimes to the point of animosity, sometimes to the point of hostility, but always to the point of "Inspire me Lord, I can't seem to find the right way to do it on my own."

E1NG WROTE: They start name calling and become very bitter. Thank God I'm right!" Don't fool yourself. God is not the author of confusion. If you are right, He has been confusing the majority of His children. hmm...

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): You may be right but I do not think so. I think they are frustrated from honest effort that seems to go nowhere.

As for "confusing the majority of God's children," What do you think has caused denominationalism? "Some say I am of Paul, some say I am of Apollis, some say I am of Cephas, and some say I am of Christ." ALL of the people mentioned by Paul were corrected INCLUDING those who say "I am of Christ." Have you ever wondered why? Why did Paul fail to say that only those who claim to follow Christ are correct? Because they were as divisive as all the others. THER is real humility, my friend, to be able to convince others not only of the correctness of a position, but to be able to allow them to think that they would have come to the same conclusion on their own if given enough time. They certainly already possess the knowledge, they just have to see the application.

DRMARK WROTE: I'm sorry, theo_book, but it's become painfully obvious that I have nothing further to discuss with someone who distorts my posts, misunderstands even simple scientific facts, and redefines words to satisfy whatever argument is he currently making.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): I sincerely apologize my friend, if it is true that I have "distorted" your position. I thought I had quoted it directly, and did not intend to offend. As for misunderstanding scientific facts, maybe. I don't think so, but maybe. As for redefineing words, I think it is allowable to say what scripture teaches "in many other words" (Acts 2:40], in any honest effort to explain oneself.

E1NG WROTE: Hey Dr. Mark! This is pretty much where I left him. There are WAY too many misunderstandings, too much trying to act "smart." I applaud you for you patience...at least what is left of it! (whatever that is supposed to mean )

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Please, go back and read what I actually said in those posts in which you think I claim to understand all there is to know about God. It is not my remarks that you are debating, but your reaction to what DRMARK thought about it.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/15/2008 2:33:11 PM)

Theo:

You don't need to worry about us misunderstanding your positions. You have CLEARLY stated in your posts that you believe God is subjected to something (which means He is limited by it) and you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY, which is utterly wrong and un-Scriptural. These things have been clearly said by YOU, and no one here has misunderstood that. Perhaps you are finally realizing how RIDICULOUS these claims are, and are now regretting and denying them, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just forgot your opinions. These are things you have said throughout this thread, and there is no way around them. You are seriously the first and ONLY Christian I know who believes God is limited by something (time), and that you are capable of understanding God beyond what has been revealed in Scripture. You make Christianity out to be a Buddhist style religion...that is, we are all given a life which we are supposedly "commanded by God" to use in hopes to understand EVERYTHING about God. Maybe, just maybe, we will reach that ultimate state of mind "enlightenment" where we FINALLY understand and can comprehend God PERFECTLY. NON-SENSE! THAT, sir, is blasphemy. If that isn't, then I have NO idea what is.

p.s. Are you a professional at taking Scripture out of context? consider the following...

"Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."

How is that verse commanding us to know everything about God? Here is a great explanation of that verse by Barnes.

quote:

Psa 46:10
Be still - The word used here - from רפה râphâh - means properly to cast down; to let fall; to let hang down; then, to be relaxed, slackened, especially the hands: It is also employed in the sense of not making an effort; not putting forth exertion; and then would express the idea of leaving matters with God, or of being without anxiety about the issue. Compare Exo_14:13, “Stand still, and see the salvation of God.” In this place the word seems to be used as meaning that there was to be no anxiety; that there was to be a calm, confiding, trustful state of mind in view of the displays of the divine presence and power. The mind was to be calm, in view of the fact that God had interposed, and had shown that he was able to defend his people when surrounded by dangers. If this the divine interposition when Jerusalem was threatened by the armies of the Assyrians under Sennacherib, the force and beauty of the expression will be most clearly seen.

And know that I am God - See, in what I have done, the evidence that I am God. See a work accomplished which none “but” God could effect.


(emphasis mine)

Note the bold. Again, God is not commanding you to completely understand Him! He is actually doing the opposite. He is telling you to basically relax, take a chill pill, stop thinking, and be happy that "I AM that I AM." Not "I am something." God just IS, no explanation, no understanding, just "I AM." That is all we need to know. God is just God, and we are not commanded by Him to understand what we CAN NOT understand. But, again, you believe there is nothing we can't understand about God.

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

You have taken this verse out of context and used it unjustly. Here are the previous verses to undersatnd the context of v 11.

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

First off, the beginning of verse 11 tells us that they WON'T tell their neighbor and brother to know the Lord. Why? Because "for all shall know me" meaning they will already know Him. Know what? NOT that aspects of God, which we are arguing. Verse 10 explains what will be known and how they will be learned. "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."

Conclusion: This verse is speaking of the law (not theology) which they will already know (not learning) because it was put into their minds and written on their hearts. You see, verse 11 is speaking of a covenant made by God, and NOT what you have used it for.

Neither of the verse you have given tell us to understand God in every aspect, nor do they hint we have the CAPABILITY or RIGHT to!!!!! With all due respect, you should get out of your theology books and into your Bible. This is the 3rd time you have taken verses out of context and used them to prove an unsubstantial, foundation-less ideology. You need to stop using verses that have NOTHING to do with your beliefs to prove yourself right.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/15/2008 2:38:58 PM)

btw - does anyone know why this is in the "Science and Origins" folder? This is more of a doctrinal and theological debate than a scientific one.



drmark -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/15/2008 5:13:22 PM)

Half the stuff that shows up in the S&O threads is directly related to doctrine and theology. However, the agno-atheists will not generally post in any other forums, but that does not apply to theo_book, of course.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/16/2008 8:04:45 AM)

every1needsgod WROTE: Theo: You don't need to worry about us misunderstanding your positions. You have CLEARLY stated in your posts that you believe God is subjected to something (which means He is limited by it) and you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY, which is utterly wrong and un-Scriptural. These things have been clearly said by YOU, and no one here has misunderstood that.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW):
Please give the post #. I don't believe it.

In fact, here is a list of my remarks on the subject. Please show which remark you reference by post number. Where have I stated that "I have the capability to understand God and all of his aspects COMPLETELY" (emphasis YOURS).

As a further matter of fact, I have repeatedly LIMITED my understanding to that which God has revealed about himself. And if you think men are not to understand THAT, who is the heretic?

(Theo_Book)(Page 4)(Post # 85) "I try to understand EVERYTHING God reveals in his word to us. And I try to limit my understanding to what God reveals in his word to us. ALL ELSE IS CONJECTURE AND DOCTRINES OF MEN.

COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"


(Theo_Book)(Page 6)(Post #137) "we can "KNOW" the things about God that he Has chosen to reveal to us, AND UNDERSTAND THEM."

COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"


(Theo_Book)(Page 6)(Post # 140)"But if God expresses himself to us in revelation ("Search the scriptures"), in prophecies, in dreams, in confrontations, any of the many ways God communicated to men through history, then we can certainly understand those things about God for which he punishes us for not understanding and doing. " "I can and DO understand God as he revealed himself to me in his word."

COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"


(Theo_Book)(Page 6)(Post # 147)"I DO understand that which I worship. And I DO understand that which God has revealed about himself."

COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"


(Theo_Book)(Page 7)(Post #172) "Before God I declare, I have no problem comprehending the enormous, nor the tiniest, of God's creative effort." Nor do I have any problem whatsoever, understanding that God and Time exist within the same frame of reference as regards "when."

COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"


(Theo_Book)(Page 7)(Post # 174) "Before God I declare, I have no problem comprehending the enormous, nor the tiniest, of God's creative effort." " Nor do I have any problem whatsoever, understanding that God and Time exist within the same frame of reference as regards "when."

COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"


(Theo_Book)(Page 8)(Post # 177)"you will begin to "know the Lord." Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"

"Be still and Know that I am God," and Heb 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

COMPARE WITH "you have also clearly stated that you have the capability to understand God and all of His aspects COMPLETELY"


every1needsgod CONTINUED: Perhaps you are finally realizing how RIDICULOUS these claims are, and are now regretting and denying them, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just forgot your opinions. These are things you have said throughout this thread, and there is no way around them.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Sure there is a way around them. Find out the source of such garbage and you will see who lies. The first post I see it in is YOURS.

What is ridiculous is the charge you make. Give the post number where I made such a claim.

every1needsgod WROTE: You are seriously the first and ONLY Christian I know who believes God is limited by something (time), and that you are capable of understanding God beyond what has been revealed in Scripture.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Are you serious? Do you really think God did not limit himself when he made a covenant dealing with time issues? If man is punished for not keeping the sabbath covenant with God do you seriously think God is not bound by that same covenant? Now THAT is ridiculous.

every1needsgod WROTE: You make Christianity out to be a Buddhist style religion...that is, we are all given a life which we are supposedly "commanded by God" to use in hopes to understand EVERYTHING about God. Maybe, just maybe, we will reach that ultimate state of mind "enlightenment" where we FINALLY understand and can comprehend God PERFECTLY. NON-SENSE! THAT, sir, is blasphemy. If that isn't, then I have NO idea what is.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): I do. It is not blasphemy, it is a LIE. I made no such nonsensical blabberishment. Try reading what it was I actually SAID. Again, the first place I do find this nonsense is in YOUR post. Who then is the real blasphemer and heretic?

every1needsgod WROTE: p.s. Are you a professional at taking Scripture out of context? consider the following...

"Psa 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."

How is that verse commanding us to know everything about God? Here is a great explanation of that verse by Barnes.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): I care nothing for commentaries, spare me.

every1needsgod CONTINUED: Again, God is not commanding you to completely understand Him! He is actually doing the opposite. He is telling you to basically relax, take a chill pill, stop thinking, and be happy that "I AM that I AM." Not "I am something." God just IS, no explanation, no understanding, just "I AM." That is all we need to know. God is just God, and we are not commanded by Him to understand what we CAN NOT understand. But, again, you believe there is nothing we can't understand about God.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Not true. God did explain, and say "I am..." and continued with the explanation.
Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

BUT, God's instruction did not end with that statement, but continued to say... 15 AND GOD SAID MOREOVER (God continued to say) unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: THIS IS MY NAME for ever, and THIS IS MY MEMORIAL unto all generations. 16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Jehovah GOD OF YOUR FATHERS, THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, OF ISAAC, AND OF JACOB, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
Moses did NOT tell the children of Israel "I AM" is God's name. Contrary to your understanding, He DID say "I am (something."

TO THEO'S REMARK: Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

E1NG RESPONDED: You have taken this verse out of context and used it unjustly. Here are the previous verses to undersatnd the context of v 11.

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

First off, the beginning of verse 11 tells us that they WON'T tell their neighbor and brother to know the Lord. Why? Because "for all shall know me" meaning they will already know Him. Know what? NOT that aspects of God, which we are arguing. Verse 10 explains what will be known and how they will be learned. "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."

Conclusion: This verse is speaking of the law (not theology) which they will already know (not learning) because it was put into their minds and written on their hearts. You see, verse 11 is speaking of a covenant made by God, and NOT what you have used it for.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Too bad you never learned to read scripture. Verse 11 did not begin with "so they will not teach..." it begins with
"AND they will not teach..." it is an addendum, not a conclusion. God will put his laws in their hearts, AND they will not teach every man his neighbor.

And I did not use it out of context. My context was what God expects of us as far as "knowing him" is concerned. We will know him because we will have already learned about him prior to accepting him by Baptism into Christ. Under the Hebrew dispensation, one was born a Hebrew and had to learn as they grew up, all the laws and regulations and commitments of their religion, And their God. Being Mature, Christians already "know the Lord" upon becoming babes in Christ. They already have the milk of the word and continue on to strong meat.

E1NG WROTE: Neither of the verse you have given tell us to understand God in every aspect, nor do they hint we have the CAPABILITY or RIGHT to!!!!!

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Correct! And I made no such claim, and if you claim I did, you are a liar.

E1NG CONTINUED WITH INUENDO, ACCUSATION, AND INSULT: With all due respect,

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): Respect? Surely you jest.

E1NG CONTINUED: you should get out of your theology books and into your Bible. This is the 3rd time you have taken verses out of context and used them to prove an unsubstantial, foundation-less ideology. You need to stop using verses that have NOTHING to do with your beliefs to prove yourself right.

THEO'S RESPONSE (NEW): You need to start several things; and quit one. You need to start reading what is written. You need to start making accurate quotes. You need to START taking verses at their face value and understand what the scriptures teach. And you need to quit being DRMARK'S attack dog.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/16/2008 6:52:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Half the stuff that shows up in the S&O threads is directly related to doctrine and theology. However, the agno-atheists will not generally post in any other forums, but that does not apply to theo_book, of course.


Even you are not that dumb Dr. Mark. The discussion of time and its scientific application is most certainly a subject for the S&O threads.



WesP -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 1:56:21 PM)

Color me stupid, but I cannot get a grasp on the merry-go-round rung. [8D]

Just a quick question (or 4): when will God be born (since He is within time)?
Or, if He was already born, at what point in time did that happen? Was it after time started? If His birth marks the beginning of time, then logically He has not been born yet to my way of thinking. Can someone clear up this quandry for me? Thanks!



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 3:06:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

Color me stupid, but I cannot get a grasp on the merry-go-round rung. [8D]

Just a quick question (or 4): when will God be born (since He is within time)?
Or, if He was already born, at what point in time did that happen? Was it after time started? If His birth marks the beginning of time, then logically He has not been born yet to my way of thinking. Can someone clear up this quandry for me? Thanks!


That's no quandry. It's a simple lack of grasping the reality of language. Consider for example, the simple verb; any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in most languages, as in English by taking the past ending in -ed, that function as the main elements of predicates, that typically express action, state, or a relation between two things, and that when inflected, may be inflected for tense, aspect, voice, mood, and to show agreement with their subject or object.

The actual word "Time" is a noun describing the system of sequential relations of any event to any other event, , as past, present, and future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

"Event;" another noun, describing something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, in a certain place and during a particular interval of time.

The word "verb" is itself a noun, used to combine the functions of action and time, so that it is understood there is no function of one apart from the other.

Look at a simple verb "to be." Does it require time to have function? How can something, or someone "be," with no time in which to do so? Is that really so difficult to comprehend? Consider, my friend, all verbs are word-indicators of action. Action requires time in which to act. "I am" is the present tense of the verb concept "to be." "Was" is the past tense, and will be is the future tense of the verb "to be." Time is REQUIRED for any of the tenses of "to be" to influence what is, or what was, or what could be, to function in any capacity whatsoever.

To say God existed "outside of time" contradicts the meaning of language itself. It has nothing to do with placing limits on God. That is tantamamount to saying God is not expressed in language because language cannot do God justice. There are no limits placed on God by appropriately placing his "being" in its proper "event circumstance" which is time and place. That is simple theological nonsense; speculation at its worst, for the purpose of making God so far above men that he literrally become "out of reach." It is an exercise in voluntary humility, which is condemned in scripture.

Look my friend, God chose to communicate to men. And he chose the medium of language. And language has rules and functions, of which God is the master, and man is only the student. When God spoke to men, he spoke to certain men, but not to all men. For example Moses in Egypt, but not to Pharoah.

Paul tells us men are "earthen vessels" imperfect, but made fit for the master's use by the master himself. And the language he utilizes for communication is precise and unambiguous, and to the point.

When language describes what a noun and verb are, and their functions, and God uses nouns and verbs to communicate, who is man that he can modify the meaning inherent within the confines of the words themselves, to build a concept of God that goes outside the boundaries of those very words God used to communicate?

When God says he created the heavens and the earth, and THEN created light, AND says he "made everything beautiful IN his own TIME," who is man to come along and modify that to mean "He was outside of time, and created outside of time, until he created light which is time."

Anyway, that is the crux of the disagreement that is on these pages, and the continued exercise of misquoting that is going on in order to build strawman dummies for the purpose of defeating an opponent in debate.

But the record remains on the board for any reader to go back and see if any of the claims and accusations are true.

There is no scripture reference anywhere that says God created time. None. Nada. Zilch. But there has built up quite a theology about God that requires him to expand beyond time itself to express his ultimateness, and his grandeur, that goes WAAAY beyond what God tells us about hinself.

It would be kinda like a debate about what "race" God represents, or which race of men most expresses the image of God. It is pointless, nonsense, and silly. The debate would melt down to its most simple possibilities, and the conclusion would modify according to which race was most numerous at any given point. Then, let men put it to the vote, and which ever race is most numerous, voila, That becomes the race God most likely resembles.

THAT is exactly how denominations get started. Someone comes up with a concept, tests it for "can it be proven wrong" and proceeds to publsih it as though, because it cannot be proven wrong, it must be right.

That pretty well describes the process of thought that came up with the concept that God exists outside of time. Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be."



drmark -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 3:17:24 PM)

quote:

Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be."
WesP, it's useless. theo_book shows a simple lack of grasping the reality of language.



WesP -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 3:26:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be."
WesP, it's useless. theo_book shows a simple lack of grasping the reality of language.



ROFL! Yep. The bible says that God is the ETERNAL I AM. I am just trying to narrow down that small period of eternity. Can anyone tell me when that began?! Please! [;)]



WesP -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 3:28:41 PM)

quote:

It would be kinda like a debate about what "race" God represents, or which race of men most expresses the image of God. It is pointless, nonsense, and silly. The debate would melt down to its most simple possibilities, and the conclusion would modify according to which race was most numerous at any given point. Then, let men put it to the vote, and which ever race is most numerous, voila, That becomes the race God most likely resembles.


Just out of curiousity, what group holds the most acceptable amount of time at the present? I guess I am not in that group! [:D]



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 3:54:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be."
WesP, it's useless. theo_book shows a simple lack of grasping the reality of language.


And DRMARK confuses language with theology. How do you define "being" DR Mark? Without the concept of Time, of course. Use your superior language and tell us how one can "be" without time in which to be. "BE" is a verb of action within time.



WesP -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 3:57:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be."
WesP, it's useless. theo_book shows a simple lack of grasping the reality of language.


And DRMARK confuses language with theology. How do you define "being" DR Mark? Without the concept of Time, of course. Use your superior language and tell us how one can "be" without time in which to be. "BE" is a verb of action within time.


theo,

The problem is that God is not a physical being existing in the same plane as us. He does not need time to "be."



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 4:36:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WesP

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Time is REQUIRED for expression of being; i.e., for God to "be."
WesP, it's useless. theo_book shows a simple lack of grasping the reality of language.


And DRMARK confuses language with theology. How do you define "being" DR Mark? Without the concept of Time, of course. Use your superior language and tell us how one can "be" without time in which to be. "BE" is a verb of action within time.


theo,

The problem is that God is not a physical being existing in the same plane as us. He does not need time to "be."


What makes you think the laws of physics apply only to material? Spirits need time to "be" just as much as bodies. It is not the substance of the one being that is under consideration, it is the fact of "being."



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 4:56:13 PM)

Hmm,
I am generally puzzled by this running debate.

Perhaps your concern hinges on the phrase "I am." Now, linguists may tell us that some statements have parts which are implied. theo_book, it sounds that you feel there is no understanding of the copula apart from an attachment to an adjective, adverb, or other modifier. Thus, "I am," would mean "I am now," or "I am always," displaying either way a reference to time.

However, I am struck that the phrase "I am" has, in fact, no implicit modifier for the subject I. What's wrong with that? Rather than a statement, you see, I have taken it to be a paradox: "I am" means that reference to being cannot be made apart from reference to God. And thus, those who deny God, are not in fact a part of anything considered "being" as God is using the word -- and that the sense of "I never knew you" would be precise, since one coudl be said to have never existed. For, God cannot look on sin -- and for sin to exist, is for it to be under God's omniscience -- a contradiction. That is why I would say that God trumps time. I don't think He is a character in a narrative, for instance, which is what placing Him in time would sound like to me.

What do you think about these ideas?



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 5:09:12 PM)

Let me think on this one a bit. I'll get back to you.



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 6:16:29 PM)

cool, looking forward to it



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 6:42:50 PM)

hellohellohi WROTE: Hmm, I am generally puzzled by this running debate.

Perhaps your concern hinges on the phrase "I am." Now, linguists may tell us that some statements have parts which are implied. theo_book, it sounds that you feel there is no understanding of the copula apart from an attachment to an adjective, adverb, or other modifier. Thus, "I am," would mean "I am now," or "I am always," displaying either way a reference to time.

THEO'S RESPONSE: Not necessarily the point I seek to make. "I am" is the present tense of the verb "to be." That is the only use I have for the phrase "I am." I am not tied up in the concept that God said "I am" without saying "I am (something)." He did not do such without continuing with modifiers to the statement.

In fact, the entire context in which God used the term, so often misapplied to Jesus allegedly "quoting Jehovah, making himself God," is God explaining to Moses exactly who it is that is sending him to Pharoah and to Israel. "I am who am" did not end the instruction God gave to Moses.

He expanded on the premise, from "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you," to include "And God said moreover unto Moses,(IN OTHER WORDS, GOD CONTINUED TO INSTRUCT MOSES) Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:" [Exo 3:14-16]

hellohellohi CONTINUED: However, I am struck that the phrase "I am" has, in fact, no implicit modifier for the subject I. What's wrong with that?

THEO'S RESPONSE: I think the 15th through the 16th verse serve to modify the 14th verse and all it's ramifications. And that would indeed modify the concept promulgated in verse 14. Try doing a word search in which the words "I am" stand alone. You will find that it shows up ONLY in commentaries. It is not scripture. I will aknowledge however, that there is instance in which the modifier is implied within the question itself, rather than expressed in the response. "I am he" as translated in Acts 10:21 for example, "he" is not in the text, but is implied in the context.

In Exod 3:14 God does not say "egw eimi" (I am) but rather he says "egw eimi 'o 'wn; "I am the being" or "I am that I am" and in the latter case, "I am" become the object modifier answering "Who or what is it you are?"

hellohellohi CONTINUED: Rather than a statement, you see, I have taken it to be a paradox: "I am" means that reference to being cannot be made apart from reference to God. And thus, those who deny God, are not in fact a part of anything considered "being" as God is using the word -- and that the sense of "I never knew you" would be precise, since one could be said to have never existed.

THEO'S RESPONSE: I do not think "I am" is ever used in the sense of "I never knew you." There is no such sense or meaning in the phrase "I am."

I think you are attributing to God, absolutes of language God does not grasp for himself. Allow me to expand on the theme for a moment.

If in fact God did say simply "I am" in Exo 3:14, and if Jesus did in fact simply "quote Exo 3:14" to prove he is God, Then it would follow that everyone else who "quoted Exo 3:14" would also qualify to be God.
This is of course qualified on the premise "quoting Exo 3:14" serves as proof one is God.

Look for example at the claim made, and how it is worded. God said in Exo 3:14 "I am." Jesus said in John 8:58 "I am." Therefore, Jesus is God.

Look however, at another example;
"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, WHOM YE SEEK, shall suddenly come to this temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts." [Mal 3:1]

"Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, behold, "I AM [HE] WHOM YE SEEK; What is the cause wherefore ye have come?" [Acts 10:21]["He" is not in the text]

So, Peter "quotes" Jehovah's "I AM" of Exo 3:14 and also "whom ye seek," of Mal 3:1; so does that make Peter God?

Some very important issues have been developed from such little evidence.

hellohellohi CONTINUED: For, God cannot look on sin -- and for sin to exist, is for it to be under God's omniscience -- a contradiction. That is why I would say that God trumps time.

THEO'S RESPONSE: I think the idea is "God cannot look upon sin" with a view toward ignoring it. He certainly "looks upon" it or how can he judge the deeds of men? As for it being "under God's omniscience" I do not understand your application. What does that mean?

And what does it mean "God trumps time." They are not in a contest, nor yet a game. And they are not in a competition with each other. How is it understood God "trumps time?"

hellohellohi CONTINUED: I don't think He is a character in a narrative, for instance, which is what placing Him in time would sound like to me. What do you think about these ideas?

THEO'S RESPONSE: I do not place God in time. It is God who says "He hath made every thing beautiful in his time..." [Ecc 3:11]

And it is God who said "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good:"

And all this BEFORE light was separated from darkness. I think the effort to define light as time falls by the strength of scripture. In fact, the very next phrase in scripture is, "And God separated the light from the darkness." So it seems light existed prior to its separation from darkness, thus negating any tie to E=mc2 as postulated by some. What is the square of the speed of light when it is still mixed inexorably with darkness? Is its acceleration slowed by darkness? Or is its acceleration enhanced by darkness?

Yet I am castigated for the language. What "language" factors are affected by this exchange? Where is the "confusion over language" referenced by DR Mark?

As for God being a character in a narrative, how else would you describe God's narrative account of the creation, in which he is the principal character?



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 7:08:08 PM)

something like that.

I dunno, I think "I am that I am," is simply a longer and more precise way to express the paradox that I was referring to. I didn't really follow everything that you said, because it kind of sounded oblique to my thoughts, no offense -- I'm just interested in what I'm interested in, and lazy when it comes to other things sometimes. Basically, I was bemused by your discussion of verses modifying "I am that I am." It's nice to place things in context, but it seems like your point might have been too fine (for me to care about). Perhaps you can again express what you mean if you like -- even though that may be unfair of me to ask since I was admittedly a little lazy with all your textual references.

Some of what you say is interesting though, about God being intelligible as changing (or at least being part of a narrative) and having an interest in seasons or things happening in their due time. I suppose it is true that there is a narrative of God's relationship to us.

I also think it is an interesting scientific supposition to treat light and time as the same thing. I don't know if any scientist does this, but it sounds like a good jumping off point for consideration.

I remain puzzled about what you actually believe. I mean, I can't tell what that is.

Hmm, to restate my premise, it was only this: That God does not exist in time, because God IS existence. I understand the inclination to think of existence as happening in time, but I am understanding the word existence to mean "all knowable." Time would be a subset of this -- I suppose??


I am interested to know what you believe about time -- apart from textual reference and exegesis, as well. I agree time is a funny concept. Time itself might be beyond our capacity to know; rather, it may be the mode of our knowing? That would place it in the realm of God, and your apparent position of placing God in time would seem much more intelligible. Is that what you are saying? I am interested in that idea -- and I do agree that there appears to be plenty of textual evidence for it that you have referenced. Perhaps I am explaining to myself why I ought to be interested in what you say.



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 7:23:29 PM)

Oh yes, a bit more:
I misspoke when I said that y'all's debate "hinges" on the phrase "I am." Rather, I was curious as to whether you might entertain MY positioning it as a fulcrum to alter or move or resolves y'all's running thing.

Also:

quote:

"I am" is the present tense of the verb "to be."


No. Perhaps we have a misunderstanding here, but it sounds like you are ignoring the subject "I." "Am" is of course a conjugation of the infinitive form of the copula. Not necessary to point that out, I would assume, either.
So, this kind of serves to reintroduce my claim that the phrase "I am" is a circular one in which the omission of the modifier (or the reduplication of it in "I am that I am") might be understood as the subject merely referring back to itself -- a linguistic representation of the reflexive property of mathematics. This, I would go on to say, is to demonstrate to humanity that God is not wholly intelligible; he transcends description and metaphor fundamentally, since, in fact, He represents existence itself. If existence is "all knowable," and God represents that existence for us, then we can consistently claim that He show us everything to know.

I say this not because I think it is logical but because I like the consequence of believing that living outside of God is non-being, or death.

I am still interested in the idea that time is in God's jurisdiction or arena of knowing rather than ours though.



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 7:31:59 PM)

quote:


THEO'S RESPONSE: I think the idea is "God cannot look upon sin" with a view toward ignoring it. He certainly "looks upon" it or how can he judge the deeds of men? As for it being "under God's omniscience" I do not understand your application. What does that mean?


Hey! That struck me as interesting!

I am getting of topic, but perhaps "judgment" is the process of granting us an opportunity to confess (picture a court if you will, featuring a Judge, an Advocate, and an adversary if you like). We could speak more about this in another setting if you'd be interested. Perhaps we do not even confess our sin but rather confess our love of the Lord -- ceasing the rebellion! That could be consistent, I think, with the idea that God cannot look on sin.

Or, perhaps, part of what God has done in begetting Jesus is to create an aspect of Himself that CAN look on sin, and judge us. But we would have to consider Jesus in depth to understand in what way He looks upon sin. It is certainly true that He used the phrase "I never knew you," at least to my knowledge. (I was making my own tenuous connection to the phrase "I am," which you didn't seem keen on following, I guess.)



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 8:05:47 PM)

quote:

I also think it is an interesting scientific supposition to treat light and time as the same thing. I don't know if any scientist does this, but it sounds like a good jumping off point for consideration.


There is the true "paradox" for you. If Light IS time, how then is the "speed" of light to be considered? "Speed" would be the result of acceleration (changing speed) through specific units of time. It becomes a case of using the word to define the word.

And it STILL leaves unresolved, the creation account in Genesis chapter one. God created heaven and earth, THEN created time (light)?



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 8:19:08 PM)

quote:


Some of what you say is interesting though, about God being intelligible as changing (or at least being part of a narrative) and having an interest in seasons or things happening in their due time. I suppose it is true that there is a narrative of God's relationship to us.


Many are the claims made for God based on the principal "God changes not" [Mal 3:6]. But the correct understanding of that reference shows that God not only changes, but changes continually to meet circumstances.

Repentence is a change, and God repented continually, from both the position of judgment to punish and mercy to forgive.

In Mal 3, God was castigating Israel for inconsistancy, and informing them that unlike them, in their abandonment of the covenant, he could be depended upon to keep to the agreement contained therein.

He explained to them that unlike them, he does not change with the circumstances. They abandoned the covenant, but he did not make that change.

The only reason he has not destroyed them in his fury, is because he is consistent to his covenant.
6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Their falling away is a constant concern.
7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

The solution: "What must we do?" "PROVE ME!"
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.
12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.

The problem:
13 Your words have been stout against me, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee?
14 Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts?
15 And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.
16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

The solution: God will spare "because he changes not"
17 And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.

Discernment is the key to understanding.
18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

The whole point of the expression "I change not" has nothing to do with whether God makes differences in his being, it has to do with whether his people can depend upon his being consistent. Will he still allow them to repent and return to him, after they have so badly treated him? THAT is the consideration they ponder.

God is telling them "the only reason I have not destroyed you is because you can depend on me to stick to the terms of the covenant I made with you.

Jer 8:6 I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man [naw-kham] repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.

I Sam 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor [naw-kham] repent: for he is not a man, that he should [naw-kham] repent.

Jer 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not [naw-kham] repent, neither will I turn back from it.

Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will [naw-kham] repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will [naw-kham] repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Joel 2:12 Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning:
13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and [naw-kham] repenteth him of the evil.
14 Who knoweth if he will return and [naw-kham] repent, and leave a blessing behind him; even a meat offering and a drink offering unto the LORD your God?

Amos 7:1 Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings.
2 And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord GOD, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.
3 The LORD [naw-kham] repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.
4 Thus hath the Lord GOD shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord GOD called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.
5 Then said I, O Lord GOD, cease, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.
6 The LORD [naw-kham] repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD.

Zec 8:14 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; As I thought to punish you, when your fathers provoked me to wrath, saith the LORD of hosts, and I [naw-kham] repented not:
15 So again have I thought in these days to do well unto Jerusalem and to the house of Judah: fear ye not.

Jonah 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and [naw-kham] repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God [naw-kham] repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

KJV Jonah 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and [naw-kham] repentest thee of the evil.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 8:21:05 PM)

quote:

I am getting of topic, but perhaps "judgment" is the process of granting us an opportunity to confess (picture a court if you will, featuring a Judge, an Advocate, and an adversary if you like). We could speak more about this in another setting if you'd be interested.


Sure. Set it up and let me know where. I agree it does not belong on this board. Perhaps another of the board in the vicinity?



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI