Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is this you clinging to that wrong view of "hate your parents children and family" text over John 3??
The quotes that we give for God loving (from the Bible) all show God Loving PEOPLE and show Him weeping over LOST people (that would be the "wicked").
Hi webdog,
What, my answers weren't clear enough? </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Webdog,
Calvinists "need" to twist the quote of Romans 9 as Paul quotes Malachi 1 -- such that God "hates Esau" before the infant was born. </font>[/QUOTE] Note who is twisting what. I was careful not to go beyond what the text very literally says... just as you were not careful about reading your assumptions into my statement.
That is simply false. There is no eisegesis involved in letting the words mean what they mean in context. That is a ludicrous accusation.
In fact Malachi 1 does not say that Esau was wicked it says the EDOM (the nation of Esau) was a "wicked people" because it is the NATION of Esau and Jacob (Edom and Israel) that is actually being addressed - NT the infant sons of Rebekkah!!
Romans 4 appears to. Paul was every bit as inspired in his use of Mal 1 as Malachi was when he penned it.
Maybe, maybe not. The text could clearly also refer to both the men and the nations they fathered.
Maybe and in order to not get further off the subject, I won't argue. None the less, that is not the case contextually in Romans 9.
Excellent point.
Scott,
The quotes that we give for God loving (from the Bible) all show God Loving PEOPLE and show Him weeping over LOST people (that would be the "wicked").
Like father like son.
God can't talkie the English. HaHa! The word the Word uses cannot be understood unless we learn other languages. Some God. So the bible's authority is zeroed but such a denial of English thwarts God's will: so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. As long as you know Greek and Hebrew.
And we can know the Greek and the Hebrew but we are the 1% of Christianity that has been blessed by the tools.So according to you, God can't speak Hebrew. Sorry, you can choose to accept a lie by choosing to be ignorant. You remain wrong nonetheless.
Doesn't mean love does it? We have been here before are we going to lose you at the same place this time?
What this again still saying the bible can't be trusted and that the same as last time and I reject your words and disdain them.
There as bold as brass you are: RO 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." And that is the lie?
By the way did you hear what happened to Edom? Where are they these days? Where's Jacob?None of that has anything to do with the Hebrew word sane.
Oh no I made my point when you mistakenly said that the Greek was the Hebrew and it left a doubt in my mind as to your qualifications as an expert on biblical manuscripts in their original languages. You have no degree have you? You have warrant to teach others what is not true.
Found neutral have you?
You are preaching to the converted mate only fools walk in where angels fear to tread.
The Dutch have reduced those two sentences into one word: poppycock.
I see you heard what happened to Edom then.
As I see it, unlike you, it's all academic you see, action speaks louder than words. See what happened and your context is found in history. Where's Jacob?So according to you, God can't speak Hebrew. Sorry, you can choose to accept a lie by choosing to be ignorant. You remain wrong nonetheless. </font>[/QUOTE]This whole point is moot. Whether you translate the Hebrew word as "hate" or not, you still have to deal with the Greek word.
Thank you Scott...i agree 100% How changing the word or the subject has anything to do with the context...beats me. It could have read...God loves red shirts...and hates blue shirts....and this would still be in context of the passage. Then one could say God hates some shirts.
Your Edom example does not support your scripturally false contention that God withheld love from Esau, either by inference or context. It inferrs that God bestowed upon one his grace, while withholding it from another. But grace is not the issue here (indeed, God does not give grace to all, nor does He do so in like manner).As I see it, unlike you, it's all academic you see, action speaks louder than words. See what happened and your context is found in history.
Uhhh. Not exactly. The discussion revolves around the verse that says "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated". There's a presumption by some that this verse says God did not love Esau. But, in the Hebrew, the word translated "hate" is sane (pronounced saw-nay). Sane carried no inference of withholding love, as is sometimes implied when using the word in English.