God is Responsive to Human Choices

[The Archangel]

In Genesis 12:1-4 we see that God revealed His desire to Abram, and then Abram submitted to God. So rather than saying God took Abraham from across the river, a better choice in translation would be God led Abraham across the river. See Joshua 24:3.

Wrong. In Joshua 24:3, both words "Took" and "Led" are used. Here it is in Hebrew:

וָאֶקַּח אֶת־אֲבִיכֶם אֶת־אַבְרָהָם מֵעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וָאוֹלֵךְ אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל־אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וָאֶרֶב אֶת־זַרְעוֹ וָאֶתֶּן־לוֹ אֶת־יִצְחָק׃

It does read right-to-left. The red is "took;" the blue is "led." They are different roots and different stems, "led" being a Hiphil and the "took" being a Qal. Now, your premise is proven false by this fact alone. However, the word "led," being a Hiphil stem puts the "causative" on the subject which, in this case as with "took" is God. Why did Abraham go through Canaan? The Hebrew here says it's because God caused it. You could not be more wrong.

And, what is more, you spend a lot of time and electronic "ink" trying to tell people that they are translating based on their theological preferences. But that is exactly what you are doing here.

The Archangel

 

[Silverhair]

Wrong. In Joshua 24:3, both words "Took" and "Led" are used. Here it is in Hebrew:

וָאֶקַּח אֶת־אֲבִיכֶם אֶת־אַבְרָהָם מֵעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וָאוֹלֵךְ אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל־אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וָאֶרֶב אֶת־זַרְעוֹ וָאֶתֶּן־לוֹ אֶת־יִצְחָק׃

It does read right-to-left. The red is "took;" the blue is "led." They are different roots and different stems, "led" being a Hiphil and the "took" being a Qal. Now, your premise is proven false by this fact alone. However, the word "led," being a Hiphil stem puts the "causative" on the subject which, in this case as with "took" is God. Why did Abraham go through Canaan? The Hebrew here says it's because God caused it. You could not be more wrong.

And, what is more, you spend a lot of time and electronic "ink" trying to tell people that they are translating based on their theological preferences. But that is exactly what you are doing here.

The Archangel

Not knowing Hebrew I looked up Joshua 24:3 at chabad.org and from what I found there it supports what @Van said.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15808

אֶקַּ֠ח אֶת־אֲבִיכֶ֚ם אֶת־אַבְרָהָם֙ מֵעֵ֣בֶר הַנָּהָ֔ר וָֽאוֹלֵ֥ךְ אוֹת֖וֹ בְּכָל־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן וָֽאַרְבֶּ֙ה (כתיב וָֽאַרְבֶּ֙) אֶת־זַרְע֔וֹ וָֽאֶתֶּן־ל֖וֹ אֶת־יִצְחָֽק:

3And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the river, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.

Abraham’s experience was like that of modern Christians who follow the Holy Spirit: “He drew me, and I followed on." Daniel Whedon''s Commentary

 

[The Archangel]

Not knowing Hebrew I looked up Joshua 24:3 at chabad.org and from what I found there it supports what @Van said.

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15808

אֶקַּ֠ח אֶת־אֲבִיכֶ֚ם אֶת־אַבְרָהָם֙ מֵעֵ֣בֶר הַנָּהָ֔ר וָֽאוֹלֵ֥ךְ אוֹת֖וֹ בְּכָל־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן וָֽאַרְבֶּ֙ה (כתיב וָֽאַרְבֶּ֙) אֶת־זַרְע֔וֹ וָֽאֶתֶּן־ל֖וֹ אֶת־יִצְחָֽק:

3And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the river, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.

Abraham’s experience was like that of modern Christians who follow the Holy Spirit: “He drew me, and I followed on." Daniel Whedon''s Commentary

Actually, it doesn't. The grammar of the verse is this: God is the subject (speaking through Joshua). God takes Abraham... God leads Abraham. Again, "leads" being in the Hiphil stem is emphasizing the action of the subject, not the direct object (Abraham, or "him," being the direct object here). If Van was right, the passage should say Abraham followed, but it doesn't. God is the agent of taking Abraham and leading Abraham. The grammar is saying that, and the version you quote above also shows that. Whedon's commentary, that you quote is going against the grammar.

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When have I said man saves himself, never. What I have said and backed it up with scripture is that man has to make a choice to accept or reject salvation through faith in God.

Gods' will is to save those that trust in Him or do you, EWF, not believe scripture?

So please stop with the diatribe that man does not have to respond to God in faith before they are saved.

Do you know what regeneration is?

 

[Silverhair]

Actually, it doesn't. The grammar of the verse is this: God is the subject (speaking through Joshua). God takes Abraham... God leads Abraham. Again, "leads" being in the Hiphil stem is emphasizing the action of the subject, not the direct object (Abraham, or "him," being the direct object here). If Van was right, the passage should say Abraham followed, but it doesn't. God is the agent of taking Abraham and leading Abraham. The grammar is saying that, and the version you quote above also shows that. Whedon's commentary, that you quote is going against the grammar.

The Archangel

So I take it that you are a Jew. The main part that I posted came from chabad.org a Jewish website. And Whedon actually does agree with that the website says.

So I think you need to rethink your position. To quote you "The Hebrew here says it's because God caused it." and now you are actually agreeing with Van "a better choice in translation would be God led Abraham across the river." by saying that God was leading Abraham.

 

[Van]

Wrong. In Joshua 24:3, both words "Took" and "Led" are used. Here it is in Hebrew:

וָאֶקַּח אֶת־אֲבִיכֶם אֶת־אַבְרָהָם מֵעֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וָאוֹלֵךְ אוֹתוֹ בְּכָל־אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וָאֶרֶב אֶת־זַרְעוֹ וָאֶתֶּן־לוֹ אֶת־יִצְחָק׃

It does read right-to-left. The red is "took;" the blue is "led." They are different roots and different stems, "led" being a Hiphil and the "took" being a Qal. Now, your premise is proven false by this fact alone. However, the word "led," being a Hiphil stem puts the "causative" on the subject which, in this case as with "took" is God. Why did Abraham go through Canaan? The Hebrew here says it's because God caused it. You could not be more wrong.

And, what is more, you spend a lot of time and electronic "ink" trying to tell people that they are translating based on their theological preferences. But that is exactly what you are doing here.

The Archangel

LOL, what nonsense. Did I say the Hebrew word translated "took" is not in the verse? Nope.

I said that the Hebrew word would be better translated as "led."

1. (Qal)
   1. to take, take in the hand
      
   2. to take and carry along
      
   3. to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away
      
   4. to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept
      
   5. to take up or upon, put upon
      
   6. to fetch
      
   7. to take, lead, conduct
      
   8. to take, capture, seize
      
   9. to take, carry off
      
   10. to take (vengeance)

Your effort to claim that something hidden in Hebrew makes my view invalid is blatantly false. Time to repent.

In Genesis 12:1-4 we see that God revealed His desire to Abram, and then Abram submitted to God. So rather than saying God took Abraham from across the river, a better choice in translation would be God led Abraham across the river. See Joshua 24:3.​

 

[The Archangel]

So I take it that you are a Jew. The main part that I posted came from chabad.org a Jewish website. And Whedon actually does agree with that the website says.

So I think you need to rethink your position. To quote you "The Hebrew here says it's because God caused it." and now you are actually agreeing with Van "a better choice in translation would be God led Abraham across the river." by saying that God was leading Abraham.

You don't have to be a Jew to know Hebrew well. And, in my experience, many Jews (especially those who are non-believers in Christ) discount the grammar of the language. Historically, this has happened for millennia.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you're not understanding that two distinct actions are being related by the verbs "took" and "led." God says: "I took Abraham." That doesn't say "led." The statement is (God speaking): I led Abraham. In the case of "led," again being a Hiphil stem, the connotation is not simply that God led Abraham, but that Abraham's following of God is included in leading God was doing.

Now, of course, you seem not to have any facility with Hebrew. So you have no basis by which to adjudicate what I say or what the Jewish website says. They could tell you a particular word means VW Beetle, and you'd have no basis by which to accept it or reject it--because you simply have no facility in Hebrew.

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

672K views · 15K reactions | Donkey said to the tiger | Donkey said to the tiger #motivation #Quotes #Inspiration #Tips | By Success VocalFacebook

 

[The Archangel]

LOL, what nonsense. Did I say the Hebrew word translated "took" is not in the verse? Nope.

I said that the Hebrew word would be better translated as "led."

1. (Qal)
   1. to take, take in the hand
   2. to take and carry along
   3. to take from, take out of, take, carry away, take away
   4. to take to or for a person, procure, get, take possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept
   5. to take up or upon, put upon
   6. to fetch
   7. to take, lead, conduct
   8. to take, capture, seize
   9. to take, carry off
   10. to take (vengeance)

Your effort to claim that something hidden in Hebrew makes my view invalid is blatantly false. Time to repent.

In Genesis 12:1-4 we see that God revealed His desire to Abram, and then Abram submitted to God. So rather than saying God took Abraham from across the river, a better choice in translation would be God led Abraham across the river. See Joshua 24:3. ​

Again, you don't simply get to pick which translation of a particular verb fits your pre-conceived ideas of what it should be. Hebrew doesn't work that way.... even in Qal.

In Deuteronomy (in addition to many other places) we see the same root:

[34] Or has any god ever attempted to go and take a nation for himself from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, by wonders, and by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, and by great deeds of terror, all of which the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? (Deuteronomy 4:34 ESV)​

Your understanding of the word would not work there. God doesn't lead Israel as much as He commands them. They rebel against Him, but that isn't the point of that word.

Also, in Genesis 12, no where does God "invite" Abraham. The first verb "Go" is not an invitation; it is a command. Yes, promises are made for obedience, but the text does not suggest God is pleading or inviting or wooing anyone. He is commanding.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

Again, you don't simply get to pick which translation of a particular verb fits your pre-conceived ideas of what it should be. Hebrew doesn't work that way.... even in Qal.
SNIP
The Archangel

I did not pick "took = lead" in Joshua 24:3. That view is a published view which satisfied my understanding of the context.

Your denial of the obvious is shameful nonsense.

 

[Silverhair]

You don't have to be a Jew to know Hebrew well. And, in my experience, many Jews (especially those who are non-believers in Christ) discount the grammar of the language. Historically, this has happened for millennia.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you're not understanding that two distinct actions are being related by the verbs "took" and "led." God says: "I took Abraham." That doesn't say "led." The statement is (God speaking): I led Abraham. In the case of "led," again being a Hiphil stem, the connotation is not simply that God led Abraham, but that Abraham's following of God is included in leading God was doing.

Now, of course, you seem not to have any facility with Hebrew. So you have no basis by which to adjudicate what I say or what the Jewish website says. They could tell you a particular word means VW Beetle, and you'd have no basis by which to accept it or reject it--because you simply have no facility in Hebrew.

The Archangel

True I am not Jewish but then again neither are you, correct. So why do you think you understand Hebrew better than the Jews on that website?

Yes you could tell me a particular word means VW Beetle, and I would have no basis by which to accept it or reject it except to go to a Jewish website and check to see if what you had said was correct. Which is what I did and lo and behold they disagree with your position.

 

[Silverhair]

Do you know what regeneration is?

I have given you just a few biblical comments from bible dictionaries. Hope this helps clear up any confusion you have.

Regeneration

Thayer's Unabridged Greek - english Lexicon of the New Testament
properly, new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation

The Complete WordStudy Dictionary
fem. noun from pálin (G3825), again, and génesis (G1078), generation, nation. Regeneration, restoration, renovation, rebirth.

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
The new birth and "regeneration" do not represent successive stages in spiritual experience, they refer to the same event but view it in different aspects. The new birth stresses the communication of spiritual life in contrast to antecedent spiritual death

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Only found in Mat_19:28 and Tit_3:5. This word literally means a “new birth.”

Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
All people are sinners; therefore all are spiritually dead and unable to give themselves spiritual life. They are cut off from God, with no hope of salvation through anything they might plan or do. God, however, can save them from this hopeless condition by forgiving their sins, giving them new life and restoring them to a right relationship with himself. This experience is called the new birth, or regeneration, and is the work of the Spirit of God within the individual. It takes place when people humbly submit to Jesus Christ and trust him for forgiveness, salvation and life (John 1:12-13, John 3:3-6, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 1:13) To be regenerated means, in other words, to be born anew, to be spiritually re-created.

I added this as Born Again/Anew is used in some scripture.
Born again/anew

The Complete WordStudy Dictionary
from aná (G303), again, and gennáō (G1080), to beget. To beget again, regenerate. In the pass. anagennáomai, to be begotten again, regenerated (1Peter 1:3, 1Peter 1:23). It is equivalent to being a child of God (Galatians 3:26) or to be born of God (John 1:12-13; 1 John 3:9) or to be born from above (ánōthen [G509], John 3:3), or becoming a qualitatively new (kainós [G2537]) creation or creature (ktísis [G2937]), as in 2 Corinthians 5:17.

 

[The Archangel]

I did not pick "took = lead" in Joshua 24:3. That view is a published view which satisfied my understanding of the context.

Your denial of the obvious is shameful nonsense.

This pretty much sums it up: "That view is a published view which satisfied my understanding of the context". You find the view that satisfies your a priori understanding. Thanks for stating what we all already knew. Of course, it is quite clear that you inject your understanding of the text into the text itself rather than allowing the text to direct your understanding. Again, this is not news to anyone.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

Again, you don't simply get to pick which translation of a particular verb fits your pre-conceived ideas of what it should be. Hebrew doesn't work that way.... even in Qal. SNIP

Note the repeated false claim I "picked" which translation, rather than I concurred with the published view.

And the claim Hebrew does not mean what the published lexicon says it means is just gibberish to hide truth.

Finally, note the mind reading claim I found what "fits" my "pre-conceived" idea is floated out like a barge on the river Styx.
Here is the truth:
1) I saw the claim referencing Joshua 24:3 implying God compelled Abraham, rather than allowed him to obey.
2) I looked up the Hebrew word translated "took."
3) I found that the lexicon indicated the seventh meaning "led" was applied to the verse.

 

[The Archangel]

True I am not Jewish but then again neither are you, correct. So why do you think you understand Hebrew better than the Jews on that website?

Yes you could tell me a particular word means VW Beetle, and I would have no basis by which to accept it or reject it except to go to a Jewish website and check to see if what you had said was correct. Which is what I did and lo and behold they disagree with your position.

Notice that you are using two different criteria in this example. They may disagree with my position, but there is no evidence that they disagree with what I said about the grammar.

Your view of language here is quite absurd, as you're projecting your incapacities onto everyone else. One does not need to be Jewish to understand or work in Hebrew just as one does not need to be from Italy to speak Italian. Many Jews today learn how to pronounce the text for their Bar Mitzvahs. But most are not taught to translate. Also, many Jews today read (and revere) some ancient sage's interpretation--without looking at whether or not the text supports that interpretation. So, again, my ethnicity is neither here nor there. The text is the issue.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Note the repeated false claim I "picked" which translation, rather than I concurred with the published view.

And the claim Hebrew does not mean what the published lexicon says it means is just gibberish to hide truth.

Finally, note the mind reading claim I found what "fits" my "pre-conceived" idea is floated out like a barge on the river Styx.
Here is the truth:
1) I saw the claim referencing Joshua 24:3 implying God compelled Abraham, rather than allowed him to obey.
2) I looked up the Hebrew word translated "took."
3) I found that the lexicon indicated the seventh meaning "led" was applied to the verse.

Let's be fair... you picked the seventh meaning because it fit your pre-conceived idea, which you again reference above. You simply don't like the claim that God compelled Abraham; so you're changing the text to fit your idea. That's what you've said (and done) twice now. Again, your "method" is not news, but you should call it eisegesis, as that's what it is.

The Archangel

 

[Silverhair]

Notice that you are using two different criteria in this example. They may disagree with my position, but there is no evidence that they disagree with what I said about the grammar.

Your view of language here is quite absurd, as you're projecting your incapacities onto everyone else. One does not need to be Jewish to understand or work in Hebrew just as one does not need to be from Italy to speak Italian. Many Jews today learn how to pronounce the text for their Bar Mitzvahs. But most are not taught to translate. Also, many Jews today read (and revere) some ancient sage's interpretation--without looking at whether or not the text supports that interpretation. So, again, my ethnicity is neither here nor there. The text is the issue.

The Archangel

So are you now saying that those that published the Jewish bible at chabad.org are wrong.

Jos 24:3 And I took your father Abraam from the other side of the river, and I guided him through all the land, and I multiplied his seed; Brenton's English Septuagint

Jos 24:3 AndG2532 I tookG2983 G3588 your fatherG3962 G1473 G3588 AbrahamG* from out ofG1537 theG3588 other sideG4008 of theG3588 river,G4215 andG2532 I guidedG3594 himG1473 inG1722 allG3956 theG3588 landG1093 of Canaan,G* andG2532 I multipliedG4129 G3588 his seed.G4690 G1473 Apostolic Bible Polyglot w/ Strong's Numbers

There seems to be quite a distinction between your "The Hebrew here says it's because God caused it." and what we see in scripture, whether Brenton or ABP of guided him. Or numerous other bibles I have that say God led him.

Are you saying none of them got it right except you? Do you not think that is being just a bit arrogant of you?

 

[Silverhair]

Let's be fair... you picked the seventh meaning because it fit your pre-conceived idea, which you again reference above. You simply don't like the claim that God compelled Abraham; so you're changing the text to fit your idea. That's what you've said (and done) twice now. Again, your "method" is not news, but you should call it eisegesis, as that's what it is.

The Archangel

Let's be fair here @The Archangel I am sure you have numerous bible that translate the text as you say it should be translated "God caused". So why do you not list some of them for us. That would help bolster your case as I have found none that do support your case.

 

[Van]

Let's be fair... you picked the seventh meaning because it fit your pre-conceived idea, which you again reference above. You simply don't like the claim that God compelled Abraham; so you're changing the text to fit your idea. That's what you've said (and done) twice now. Again, your "method" is not news, but you should call it eisegesis, as that's what it is.

The Archangel

I had no idea until I looked up the verse and the contextual passage in Genesis. I expect you believe I do as you do, by interpreting scripture through your preconceived notions based on Calvinism. Sir, your apparent projection is false. I study God's word, in order to arrive at my understanding of the text.

 

[The Archangel]

So are you now saying that those that published the Jewish bible at chabad.org are wrong.

Not all of them.

Jos 24:3 And I took your father Abraam from the other side of the river, and I guided him through all the land, and I multiplied his seed; Brenton's English Septuagint

Jos 24:3 AndG2532 I tookG2983 G3588 your fatherG3962 G1473 G3588 AbrahamG* from out ofG1537 theG3588 other sideG4008 of theG3588 river,G4215 andG2532 I guidedG3594 himG1473 inG1722 allG3956 theG3588 landG1093 of Canaan,G* andG2532 I multipliedG4129 G3588 his seed.G4690 G1473 Apostolic Bible Polyglot w/ Strong's Numbers

There seems to be quite a distinction between your "The Hebrew here says it's because God caused it." and what we see in scripture, whether Brenton or ABP of guided him. Or numerous other bibles I have that say God led him.

Again, the issue isn't so much the translation of "led." "Took" can't mean "led" in this passage, no matter how much Van wants it to. The issue with "led" is the Hiphil stem. That adds meaning that a simple translation doesn't convey. So, as an example, you can lead your dog on a walk with our without a leash. Without the leash you tend to follow the dog; with the leash the dog follows you. The Hiphil tends to be more the "leash" understanding.

Are you saying none of them got it right except you? Do you not think that is being just a bit arrogant of you?

Being correct is not an issue of arrogance. It is not arrogant to know things; it is not arrogant to be right. If you can't work in this medium (as you've admitted you can't) then accusing me of being arrogant because of your own shortcomings is rather small on your part.

The Archangel