Featured God is Responsive to Human Choices

You've demonstrated this to be false twice already in the last few hours.

The Archangel

 

Now you are just trying to deflect. I am not disagreeing with you because of what I know but what various bible scholars and those that have published Jewish bibles know.

Do you not find it strange that none of them agree with you?

Your comments do show self pride.

 

Ah yes... The inevitable ad hominem.

The inevitable repeating of the error.

The doubling-down on the error while focusing on "me," not the text itself.

You are so sadly predictable.

The published lexicon you're using is Strongs. There is a saying... "Strongs isn't so strong." You should get a big-boy lexicon. But if you really want actual understanding, you'll need to learn the language. You cannot simply use a parsing tool and a lexicon. So much syntax is missed, as you demonstrate time and time again.

The Archangel

 

I'm not deflecting in the least. You simply have no way to evaluate these "scholars" to know whether they are in-line with the language and grammar itself. The only thing you can do is receive information second-hand. So, your "faith," so to speak, is simply blind. You happen to like what they say, so you agree with them.

That's not at all true. There are plenty of scholars who do, you just have a rather small and narrow sample size.

Ad hominem. Of course, that's what you would have to resort to since you cannot discuss the idea as a first-hander. All you're left with is attacking the person, rather than discussing the idea.

The Archangel

 

I have never studied “Calvinism”

I have fallen for the Truth found in God’s Word. It is very clearly stated if you will only accept God’s word without a secular man made worldview blinding you to the truth.

John 19: “My sheep hear My voice and follow Me” This is a specific call to specific people that already belong to Jesus BEFORE He calls them, not a general call to all the sheep hoping some will hear and make the right choice.

John 10: “You do not believe BECAUSE you are not of My sheep”. Jesus DOES NOT say they are not His sheep because they do not believe.

As for the argument Jesus was only referring to Jews…

John 10: “I have other sheep not of this fold: they hear My voice and follow Me”

Jesus is referring to Gentiles.

peace to you

 

True I do have to trust all those scholars that do not agree with you but am I not to trust various these scholars? Or perhaps I should just trust you because you say you are right and you must know more than them. Where have you published a peer-reviewed articles on this subject? If you are going to claim that you are a expert you need to back it up. Other than that it is just you patting your own back.

You keep talking a good game but it seems to be all talk. Where are these scholars that support your view. What have they written on this subject?

I have discussed the subject and provided various scholars that disagree with your singular view. If this is the best you as a "first-hander" can muster for a response then I can see why you resort to deflection.

Why should I or anyone else trust what you are say?

 

And there in lays the problem @canadyjd, you do not even know what the foundation of your philosophical position is. Here is a hint "paganism".

 

The foundation of my every belief is GOD’S WORD!!!!!!

The fact you cannot comprehend that truth speaks volumes about your own worldview which is clearly secular and man made.

peace to you

 

That would, in your case, seem to be read through the lens of calvinism and the TULIP/DoG. Whether you want to admit it or not your philosophy is built on pagan philosophy, Augustine, Calvin and whoever came after them in the calvinist line.

I am sure that you think you are actually trusting the bible but when your foundation is bad the whole structure is thrown out of line.

 

Exegesis eh, is that what you call it? This is a double edged sword…a WAR of sorts with no quarter given to those perceived as opponents. This is an agenda to insult and degrade anyone who believes in a Doctrine of Grace theological stance…and I find it melining & pathetic

 

You're conflating a few things here. As you admit, you have to trust the other scholars. It's clear you don't trust me. But, I'll bet you've never asked the other scholars for their CV or bona fides. You take them as correct simply because you like what they say, and you cannot tell whether they are right or wrong, just as you cannot tell whether I am right or wrong. So, you are simply left to your preferences and anyone outside of those preferences who challenges what you like receives the "liar liar pants on fire" response simply because you have neither the facility or the acumen to engage on the level of the Hebrew.

The question here is not what the text means; it is what the text says. "Took" and "Led" are the words the text says. There are some possibilities for what they mean, some, though not all, would be correct in the real of the grammar and syntax. Understanding "took" to mean "led" is beyond the scope of the grammar and syntax. One does not need to be a published scholar to recognize these things. I've studied Hebrew at the Master's degree level. But, even so, it seems that for anyone to be recognized by you as having expertise he or she would have to 1.) agree with you, and 2.) be published. That's preposterous. Many false things, many heresies have been given full treatment by "scholars" who publish their erroneous thoughts. If wearing the title of "scholar" and publishing your thoughts is the threshold for accuracy, you have a very low bar.

Why would I need to assemble scholars to discuss grammar and syntax? Because you can't evaluate my thoughts? That's on you, not me.

You really have yet to post anything that contradicts the text of "took" and "led." What you have posted gives no "why." I've pointed to the grammar and syntax... the Qal imperfect (Took) and the Hiphil stem (Led). That's pretty first hand. It is not deflection. You probably consider it deflection since I keep on returning to the text--since that is, in fact, the issue, and you cannot evaluate the text on your own, at least not in the original language.

The Archangel

 

I will say one thing for you, you have no shame. You are comparing yourself to J.H. Thayer, W.E.Vine, Spiros Zodhiates etc. Please enlighten us as to what you have published that would come up to their level. You even go so far as to say you know Hebrew better than the Jews themselves.

You have given us no reason, other than your opinion, to agree with your view. Please give me one good reason I should.

You say your view is correct so it is incumbent upon you to support your view. Something that you have so far failed to do. I have provided acknowledged scholars that disagree with your view and you say they are wrong and we should just believe you.

As I have said before I am not a Hebrew scholar so I enlisted Hebrew scholars. Your fight is not with me but rather with them. They have obviously looked at the text and have come to a different conclusion than you have. Perhaps it is time that you admitted that you could just be wrong.

Here is another scholar for you to consider

Jos_24:3-4
After his call, God conducted Abraham through all the land of Canaan (see Gen 12), protecting and shielding him, and multiplied his seed, giving him Isaac, and giving to Isaac Jacob and Esau, the ancestors of two nations. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

CONDUCTED, pp. Led; guided; directed; introduced; commanded; managed. Webster's 1828 Dictionary

 

Of course I have said nothing of the sort. You're assuming I think that. Again, one does not need to publish to have or prove expertise in a particular area. But, even so, you would still have no basis to adjudicate what I say.

I don't have to support facts. The word "took" is... well, "took." God is doing the action; Abraham is not. God led Abraham (again, a different verb from "took"). Again, God is doing the action here, Abraham is not. These are facts of grammar; there is no need to "show my work." But, even if I did, you would have no way to evaluate it.

You enlisted Hebrew scholars... How can you know whether they are right or not? You can't. So, it's merely a preference for what they say. Perhaps you're following a blind guide? You'd have no way to know.

You're using an English dictionary where you need a Hebrew lexicon. Notice, though, in your quote above (which is a paraphrase of the text) that God conducted Abraham. That's God's doing; Abraham is not acting. Abraham is being acted upon by God. The grammar here--even in English--is quite plain and simple: God (Subject) "took" (verb, from the Hebrew) Abraham (direct object). Abraham is not acting. He's not following God here because he feels like it. He's following God because God is doing the work. That's the grammar.

The Archangel

 

JH Thayer was a New Testament guy, dealing mostly with Greek. He also denied the inerrancy of Scripture. WE Vine was also a New Testament guy, dealing mostly with Greek. Zodhiates was also a Greek guy... who was actually Greek. He did publish a Hebrew-Greek word study Bible, but he was involved mostly in the New Testament part. As for Keil & Delitzsch... their work was published in the late 1800s. We have over a century of linguistic study in Hebrew since they wrote their work. Neither Keil nor Delitzsch were Jews.

To humor you... here is a scholarly take on the word "took"

לָקַח (lāqaḥ) take (get, fetch), lay hold of (seize), receive, acquire (buy), bring, marry (take a wife), snatch (take away).

Source: Walter C. Kaiser, “1124 לָקַח,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 481.

לָקַח

—1. take, lay hold of, seize: qaḥ beyādekā Ex 17:5, take (s.one) by (the hair) Ez 8:3; = keep Gn 14:21;—2. take (person or animal) w. one Gn 12:5; take words Ho 14:3;—3. take = receive miyyad- 2 K 5:20; acquire, buy Pr 31:16; metaph. = obey: commandments Pr 10:8; (God) receives (& accepts) (prayer) Ps 6:10;—4. take up = shelter (subj. bird, obj. its young) Dt 32:11;—5. fetch, bring: qaḥ lî Gn 27:13; have s.one brought 1 S 17:31; take = take an interest in (s.one) Je 40:2; lequḥîm lammāwet those dragged to death Pr 24:11; lāqaḥ ʿal take (& load) on Ju 19:28, take (& spread) on 2 S 13:19;—6. take (on as a slave) 2 K 4:1, take (in as a daughter) Est 2:7;—7. lāqaḥ ʾiššâ take a wife Gn 25:1, for onesf. Gn 4:19, for s.one else Gn 24:4, lāqaḥ ʾōtāh lô leʾiššâ Gn 12:19;—8. take away: s.one’s garment Pr 27:13, blessing Gn 27:35;—9. (God) carries off s.one Gn 5:24;—10. var.: obj. nāqām Is 47:3 (neqāmâ Je 22:10) vengeance, ḥerpâ disgrace Ez 36:30; obj. dābār, take = receive & understand Je 9:19; subj. heart (sweeps away s.one) Jb 15:12.​

Source: William Lee Holladay and Ludwig Köhler, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 178–179.
​

The Archangel

 

Only in your biased mind would you accuse someone of paganism that has laid the foundation of everything he believes upon scripture.

And, once again, I don’t need a lecture on theology from someone that believes, “many are saved having never heard the gospel”.

Instead of addressing the many passages of scripture that have been repeatedly referenced that demonstrate mankind responds to God, the best you can do is claim it sounds like “Calvinism do it must be based on paganism.

I do understand you believe you are making sound, reasonable arguments. That only demonstrates how thoroughly blinded you are to the Truth of God’s Word.

peace to you

 

It is not I that is adjudicating what you say it is the various scholars that I have presented

Your "facts" are not supported by the scholars that I presented so in reality it is just your opinion

[QUOTE="The Archangel, post: 2892297, member: 834"You enlisted Hebrew scholars... How can you know whether they are right or not? You can't. So, it's merely a preference for what they say. Perhaps you're following a blind guide? You'd have no way to know.[/QUOTE]

Why would I trust what several scholars that are in agreement over you that disagrees with them. If I were comparing you with one other scholar then your argument might have some weight but when several stand in opposition to you then it is not bias but rather trusting in the scholarship of a number of scholars.

[QUOTE="The Archangel, post: 2892297, member: 834"You're using an English dictionary where you need a Hebrew lexicon. Notice, though, in your quote above (which is a paraphrase of the text) that God conducted Abraham. That's God's doing; Abraham is not acting. Abraham is being acted upon by God. The grammar here--even in English--is quite plain and simple: God (Subject) "took" (verb, from the Hebrew) Abraham (direct object). Abraham is not acting. He's not following God here because he feels like it. He's following God because God is doing the work. That's the grammar.

The Archangel[/QUOTE]

I do not need a Hebrew lexicon to tell me what an English word means.

I have not questioned whether God took Abraham from the other side of the River, it states that clearly. And God can even lead but Abraham still has to choose to follow, that is unless you think God forced him to follow Him. Is that what you are saying.

 

Whether you want to admit it or not the foundation of calvinism is pagan philosophy. Get your head out of the sand and actually do the research for yourself. When your read scripture through the lens of calvinism it distorts the word of God.

I did not accuse you of paganism but you do have the habit of being a bit melodramatic in your comments. Even your comments prove you have a low view of the sovereignty of God.

I have pointed out numerous times man has to respond to the various means God has provided for knowing Him. But you have failed to respond to any of the scripture that proves man has to make real choices in regard to his salvation.

The TULIP/DoG reflect pagan philosophy and you have yet to show where it does not. The best you can do is wave your hands and say I am wrong about the foundation of your theology.

 

Actually, they're not. The scholars you reference are of days gone by (probably because their work is in the public domain). And so they do not have the advantage of the last century or more of linguistic research.

As I said here:

We are in the realm of grammar, not theology. Grammatical fact are facts: Subject, verb, etc. That's what we're dealing with here. I'm saying the equivalent of 2+2=4 and you're asking what mathematicians agree with me. Rarely, if ever, will a mathematician write a defense of 2+2=4 because it is so stunningly basic that it should be common knowledge... like subject, verb, direct object....

So, for you, it's the preponderance of evidence? The one with the most published stuff wins? That's just silly.

Actually, you do. You see, English is a translation of the Hebrew. So, the original word is Hebrew and so, therefore, you need a Hebrew lexicon. What you're doing in using an English dictionary is to take the translator(s) as the divinely-inspired author, not the biblical author--Joshua, in this case. What is more, it's as if you're using the handbook of NFL rules to adjudicate an NHL game.

The text here does not say that. The combination of the verbs "took" and "led" and the grammar of each (again, the Qal and the Hiphil) along with what is called the "Vav consecutive." The Vav consecutive carries the force of the first verb through the whole string of verbs. The verbs (along with the subjects) are God speaking, through Joshua, about what He's done. God says: "I took"... "I led"... "I increased" (his offspring)... "I gave" (Issac.)... And, that consecutive of verbs goes on. But the point is that the text is telling us what God did. Abraham or his choice is not at all in view here. Just as Abraham did not give himself Isaac, He did not take himself, nor lead himself. He is responding to God's (imperative) command in Genesis 12. Nothing in this passage discusses Abraham's actions; the discussion is Joshua (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) what God has done for Israel.

Now, you might discuss Abraham's willingness or lack thereof from another text, but it can't be this one.

The Archangel