How human was Jesus/how much like Jesus are we

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The law was given by Moses around 1500 years before Paul was born, so no thinking person would believe the word "without" in Romans 7:9 means the law did not exist.

One might, but the fact the word doesn't mean "without" in this context is hard to escape.

 

[DHK]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

You simply don't believe God's words. God said he would allow the children to go in and possess the Promised Land because they had no knowledge between good and evil in the day that their parents sinned. You can write a novel to attempt to explain this away, and that is all it is, a vain attempt to explain away the word of God.

That was a long post with a lot of Scripture.
Your rebuttal is "Blah, blah, blah, blah."
My conclusion: Your reverence for the Word of God has bottomed out. It is at the bottom of the well. It is not I that disbelieves. You just disregarded an entire post of Scripture and answered in an almost blasphemous way. You should be ashamed. Is baby talk the only answer you have?

 

[Winman]

That was a long post with a lot of Scripture.
Your rebuttal is "Blah, blah, blah, blah."
My conclusion: Your reverence for the Word of God has bottomed out. It is at the bottom of the well. It is not I that disbelieves. You just disregarded an entire post of Scripture and answered in an almost blasphemous way. You should be ashamed. Is baby talk the only answer you have?

When I hear anybody go on, and on, and on, and on trying to disprove what the scriptures simply say, then I know it is time to head for the door.

Deu 1:39 very simply and plainly says that God would allow the children of the Jews to go in and enter the promised land because they had no knowledge between good and evil in that day.

It is you that rambles on and on trying to say this scripture does not really mean what it simply and plainly says.

Nobody is fooled, that is, nobody that is honest.

 

[Winman]

Not many commentaries address Deu 1:39, but the few that do agree with my interpretation and not your convoluted mini-novel.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 39. - Only among the young of that generation should the inheritance be divided, as they had no part in the rebellion of their seniors. Your little ones; i.e. children beginning to walk (טַפ, from טָפַפ, to trip, to take short and quick steps). And your children - boys and girls - which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil; rather, of whom [ye said] they know not today good and evil. The Hebrews were wont to express totality or universality by specifying contradictory opposites, as, e.g., great and small (2 Chronicles 34:30), master and scholar (Malachi 2:20), free and bond (Revelation 13:16; Revelation 19:18), shut up and left (Deuteronomy 32:36, where see note; 1 Kings 14:10), etc. Accordingly, when good and evil are set over against each other, the notion of entireness or universality is expressed. Thus, when Laban and Bethuel said to Abraham's servant "We cannot speak unto thee bad or good" (Genesis 24:50), the meaning is, We can say nothing at all. Absalom spake to Amnon "neither good nor bad" (2 Samuel 13:22); that is, he did not say anything to him. The woman of Tekoa said to David, "As an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good and bad" (2 Samuel 14:17); i.e. There is nothing the king does not know - his knowledge is universal. Hence to know good and evil came to mean to be intelligent, and not to know good and evil to be unintelligent, as is a babe. The children here referred to knew nothing, and consequently could not be held as morally responsible; comp. Isaiah 7:15; Homer, ' Odyssey,' 18:228 -

Οἴδα ἔκαστα
ἐσθλά τε καὶ χέρεια παρὸς δ ἔτι νήπιος ἠᾶ

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Moreover, your little ones, which ye said should be a prey,.... To the Amorites, into whose hands they expected to be delivered, Deuteronomy 1:27 see Numbers 14:3.

and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil; not being at years of understanding, and which is a common description of children; it is particularly expressed "in that day", for now they were the very persons Moses was directing his speech unto, and relating this history, it being thirty eight years ago when this affair was, so that now they were grown up to years of discretion:

they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it: the relation of which now might serve greatly to encourage their faith, as well as it would be a fulfilment of the promise of the land made unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which was not made of none effect through the unbelief of the Israelites, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, since their posterity was to enjoy it, and did.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

39. your children … who in that day had no knowledge between good and evil—All ancient versions read "to-day" instead of "that day"; and the sense is—"your children who now know," or "who know not as yet good or evil." As the children had not been partakers of the sinful outbreak, they were spared to obtain the privilege which their unbelieving parents had forfeited. God's ways are not as man's ways [Isa 55:8, 9].

 

[HankD]

When I hear anybody go on, and on, and on, and on trying to disprove what the scriptures simply say, then I know it is time to head for the door.

Deu 1:39 very simply and plainly says that God would allow the children of the Jews to go in and enter the promised land because they had no knowledge between good and evil in that day.

It is you that rambles on and on trying to say this scripture does not really mean what it simply and plainly says.

Nobody is fooled, that is, nobody that is honest.

OK I'm provoked:

Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Just between you and I Winman, I don't see the objection - it doesn't say they had not done good or evil but that they didn't know the difference.

When my kids were little they would take things from each other just because the other one had it and make each other cry.

Now they had done evil grabbing away toys from each other in their selfishness and making the other child cry and sometimes even hitting each other in the process.

Their mother and I did not teach them how to do this evil, we hated it.
It seemed to come natural to them.

In fact we were the law givers and law teachers in instructing them not to follow these inclinations and to discipline them when they did these bad things (of which they seemed oblivious to the pain they were inflicting upon each other).

Got to get a plane tomorrow so I won't be able to respond right away.

Maybe later - Lord willing.

HankD

 

[Winman]

OK I'm provoked:

Deuteronomy 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Just between you and I Winman, I don't see the objection - it doesn't say they had not done good or evil but that they didn't know the difference.

When my kids were little they would take things from each other just because the other one had it and make each other cry.

Now they had done evil grabbing away toys from each other in their selfishness and making the other child cry and sometimes even hitting each other in the process.

Their mother and I did not teach them how to do this evil, we hated it.
It seemed to come natural to them.

In fact we were the law givers and law teachers in instructing them not to follow these inclinations and to discipline them when they did these bad things (of which they seemed oblivious to the pain they were inflicting upon each other).

Got to get a plane tomorrow so I won't be able to respond right away.

Maybe later - Lord willing.

HankD

The important point made in Deu 1:39 is that God did not punish the children who did not understand between good and evil.

No one is saying that children do not do wrong things. I have 8 children, I assure you that I know children can do wrong.

But the law does not hold a person accountable who does not fully understand their actions. If a 3 year old boy found his father's pistol and shot his little sister to death, would that child be prosecuted by the law? NO, because the law considers that this little boy does not truly understand his actions.

It is no different with God's laws, God does not hold little children who do not understand their actions accountable.

This is why God told Jonah that he SHOULD spare Nineveh. It was just and right for God to spare Nineveh, because there were 120,000 little children who could not DISCERN between their right hand and left hand, and much cattle.

These little children were just as innocent as cattle that have no concept of sin.

Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

That little children do not understand between good and evil is shown several times in scripture;

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Children are not born knowing good from evil, it takes time for their minds to mature and they can understand these concepts. Until a child is mature enough to understand right from wrong, God does not hold them accountable as sinners.

By the way, Isa 7:16 utterly refutes Total Inability and shows even children at some point can refuse evil and choose good.

 

[DHK]

When I hear anybody go on, and on, and on, and on trying to disprove what the scriptures simply say, then I know it is time to head for the door.

Do you remain in ignorance?

Deu 1:39 very simply and plainly says that God would allow the children of the Jews to go in and enter the promised land because they had no knowledge between good and evil in that day.

It is you that rambles on and on trying to say this scripture does not really mean what it simply and plainly says.

Nobody is fooled, that is, nobody that is honest.

You refuse to even try to understand the meaning of this verse, nor its context. It is complete denial. You take the position of an atheist: "I will not believe no matter what the evidence is." Shame!

First, do you know that there are two different words used for "children" here?
Young's gives the best literal translation:

Deu 1:39 `And your infants, of whom ye have said, For a prey they are, and your sons who have not known to-day good and evil, they go in thither, and to them I give it, and they possess it;

The first word "taph" generally means little children. It can mean from 0-20, but it is mostly used in the sense of "little child," "infant," etc. That is what the word is referring to here.

The second word, bane, has a wide variety of meanings: including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (Strong's).

The third point to consider is the word "today." It is only "today" they have not known good and evil--not yesterday, not tomorrow, not at any other period in their lifetimes--only today.
That is significant because it gives the context which is entering into the Promised Land. It means: "good or evil" about today's knowledge concerning entering into the Promised Land. These sons, grandsons, daughters, etc., were not part of that decision. They were kept apart from making it.

This verse is the same as in Ezekiel. It means that the children are not accountable for the sins of the parents. The parents were held accountable here, and they would perish. The children would enter into the promised land.

Hebrews 3:16ff teaches the same thing.
Hebrews 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
--Quite descriptive language isn't it? Their parents' carcasses fell in the wilderness. The children did not pay for their parents' sins. They entered into the Promised Land because they were not part nor privy of the decision and rebellion of their parents. That is the teaching of the verse.
Put it into its proper context and you will understand it.

 

[Winman]

Do you remain in ignorance?

I could ask you the same.

You refuse to even try to understand the meaning of this verse, nor its context. It is complete denial. You take the position of an atheist: "I will not believe no matter what the evidence is." Shame!

I refuse to listen to pure baloney. I even showed you notable commentators who interpreted this scripture exactly as I did. It is you that refuses to listen.

So, now I am an atheist because I do not agree with your convoluted interpretations of scripture?

First, do you know that there are two different words used for "children" here?
Young's gives the best literal translation:

Deu 1:39 `And your infants, of whom ye have said, For a prey they are, and your sons who have not known to-day good and evil, they go in thither, and to them I give it, and they possess it;

The first word "taph" generally means little children. It can mean from 0-20, but it is mostly used in the sense of "little child," "infant," etc. That is what the word is referring to here.

Exactly, as the first commentary said, children who are just learning to walk. How old is that?

The second word, bane, has a wide variety of meanings: including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (Strong's).

That is not the definition used here, none of the commentators I showed believed this definition.

The third point to consider is the word "today." It is only "today" they have not known good and evil--not yesterday, not tomorrow, not at any other period in their lifetimes--only today.
That is significant because it gives the context which is entering into the Promised Land. It means: "good or evil" about today's knowledge concerning entering into the Promised Land. These sons, grandsons, daughters, etc., were not part of that decision. They were kept apart from making it.

None of the commentators came up with this convoluted explanation of yours. They ALL said these children did not understand between good and evil in that day and were therefore not accountable.

This verse is the same as in Ezekiel. It means that the children are not accountable for the sins of the parents. The parents were held accountable here, and they would perish. The children would enter into the promised land.

Ezekiel 18 repeatedly says the soul that sins shall die. It does not say a man shall die for another's sin. It also says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father. But in your view, God is a hypocrite who does not obey his own law.

Hebrews 3:16ff teaches the same thing.
Hebrews 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
--Quite descriptive language isn't it? Their parents' carcasses fell in the wilderness. The children did not pay for their parents' sins. They entered into the Promised Land because they were not part nor privy of the decision and rebellion of their parents. That is the teaching of the verse.
Put it into its proper context and you will understand it.

Caleb and Joshua did not rebel like the other adults, and they were allowed to go in. The children who did not know between good and evil in that day were allowed to go in. There is nothing complicated about this verse, but you must complicate it to attempt to explain it away.

Believe whatever you want to believe, even commentators who believe in Original Sin agree with my interpretation and disagree with yours.

I leave it up to folks to determine for themselves who is rightly interpreting scripture here, and who is not.

 

[DHK]

That is not the definition used here, none of the commentators I showed believed this definition.

None of the commentators addressed it.
Here is what Gill said:

and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil; not being at years of understanding, and which is a common description of children; it is particularly expressed "in that day", for now they were the very persons Moses was directing his speech unto, and relating this history, it being thirty eight years ago when this affair was, so that now they were grown up to years of discretion:

That is your post. I don't believe any different. Apparently you are not reading it carefully enough. Look at the first sentence again.

And your children, which IN THAT DAY had no knowledge between good and evil.
Why ignore context. It says nothing about yesterday, last month, last year, or the years before. It specifically is speaking of "that day," and that day only.
"Moses was directing his speech unto, and relating THIS HISTORY, it being 38 years ago."
It was a specific time and event which happened on one day. They rebelled on THAT day. The "good and evil" was relevant to that day only.

 

[Winman]

None of the commentators addressed it.
Here is what Gill said:

[/B]That is your post. I don't believe any different. Apparently you are not reading it carefully enough. Look at the first sentence again.

And your children, which IN THAT DAY had no knowledge between good and evil.
Why ignore context. It says nothing about yesterday, last month, last year, or the years before. It specifically is speaking of "that day," and that day only.
"Moses was directing his speech unto, and relating THIS HISTORY, it being 38 years ago."
It was a specific time and event which happened on one day. They rebelled on THAT day. The "good and evil" was relevant to that day only.

Yes, the children of Israel rebelled in one day. I understand that. And their children did not understand between good and evil in that day and so were not held accountable.

That does not change anything, it is just as I said, and just as the several commentators said;

Hence to know good and evil came to mean to be intelligent, and not to know good and evil to be unintelligent, as is a babe. The children here referred to knew nothing, and consequently could not be held as morally responsible; comp. Isaiah 7:15; Homer, ' Odyssey,' 18:228 -

It is you that refuses to listen.

 

[DHK]

Yes, the children of Israel rebelled in one day. I understand that. And their children did not understand between good and evil in that day and so were not held accountable.

That does not change anything, it is just as I said, and just as the several commentators said;

It is you that refuses to listen.

Listen to something that does make sense.
You are using this verse to prove that children do not have Original Sin and do not have a sin nature.
Now you are quoting John Gill and his commentary on the passage to defend your position. That is ridiculous; you know that don't you?
If you have read my posts in the past you will know that I have accused Gill as being a hyper-Calvinist. He was accused of his contemporaries of having some extreme beliefs. Whatever your opinion of him is, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist.
If you could ask him if this verse proved that children were innocent; that they didn't have a depraved nature, or that Original Sin didn't exist, what do you think he would answer?
Don't you think you are misrepresenting him?

The others you quoted are also Calvinists.
You have misrepresented them all.

 

[percho]

Well, people live and die and never hear the gospel, but all men mature and know right from wrong, which makes them accountable. How God deals with men who have not heard the gospel I do not know.

But scripture is clear that God does not hold little children who do not yet understand the difference between right and wrong accountable. I am not saying little children cannot do wrong things, they can, but they are not held responsible. I have already showed Deu 1:39 where God allowed the children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness to enter the Promised Land. Why? Because they had no KNOWLEDGE between good and evil in that day. This is an Old Testament figure of heaven.



Yes, they are sin free if you understand that the word "sinner" is a legal term like the word "felon". Children have the ability to do wrong things, no one denies this, but they are not charged with a crime because they do not understand their actions before God.

We have been born into a sinful world, surrounded by temptations.

No it does not. Children are not accountable until they have knowledge between good and evil. They are not condemned or separated from God.

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Note that little children have angels who ALWAYS represent them before the Father. They are not separated from God for a single moment.

At some point that only God knows, every child will mature and understand between good and evil. At this point they become accountable.



Jesus NEVER spoke evil of children, in fact, he told his disciples they must be converted and become AS little children to enter heaven. Was Jesus telling his disciples to become sinners to enter heaven? Absurd!

Now, if we must be converted to become as little children to enter heaven, then logically children cannot be sinners, because no thing that defiles can enter heaven (Rev 21:27).

Now think about that a moment and the issue is settled. Even DHK admitted that David's son went to heaven. Therefore that child must have been without sin.



If people knew the scriptures they could honestly teach that all little children who die go to heaven.



They are not sinners, this is why heaven belongs to those like little children.



It's not that gray, Deu 1:39 shows that a child must understand between good and evil to be condemned. In Jonah 4:11 God tells Jonah that he SHOULD spare Nineveh, because there were 120,000 little children there who could not DISCERN between their right hand and left hand, and much cattle. They were innocent like cattle that cannot sin.

Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?



Well thanks, but winning a debate is not really important to me, what is important to me is interpreting scripture properly. I don't care what men think, but I want to understand scripture exactly as God intended. I can say this with all my heart.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Gen 3:22



Did God intend for man to be able to know, and discern, good and evil? To have the free will to discern and be accountable for good and evil?

Isn't that what man took for himself in eating?

 

[Winman]

Listen to something that does make sense.
You are using this verse to prove that children do not have Original Sin and do not have a sin nature.
Now you are quoting John Gill and his commentary on the passage to defend your position. That is ridiculous; you know that don't you?
If you have read my posts in the past you will know that I have accused Gill as being a hyper-Calvinist. He was accused of his contemporaries of having some extreme beliefs. Whatever your opinion of him is, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist.
If you could ask him if this verse proved that children were innocent; that they didn't have a depraved nature, or that Original Sin didn't exist, what do you think he would answer?
Don't you think you are misrepresenting him?

The others you quoted are also Calvinists.
You have misrepresented them all.

I am quite aware that Gill is a Calvinist, nevertheless, he seems to contradict himself and admits little children are not guilty of sin because they lack knowledge of good and evil. Look what he says concerning Jonah 4:11 that I presented as evidence for my view;

Jonah 4:11

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city? &c.] See ( Jonah 1:2 ) ( 3:3 ) ; what is such a gourd or plant to that? wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons;
or twelve myriads; that is, twelve times ten thousand, or a hundred and twenty thousand; meaning not all the inhabitants of Nineveh; for then it would not have appeared to be so great a city; but infants only, as next described: that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand;do not know one from another; cannot distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong; are not come to years of maturity and discretion; and therefore there were room and reason for pity and sparing mercy; especially since they had not been guilty of actual transgressions, at least not very manifest; and yet must have perished with their parents had Nineveh been overthrown. The number of infants in this city is a proof of the greatness of it, though not so as to render the account incredible; for, admitting these to be a fifth part of its inhabitants, as they usually are of any place, as Bochart F5 observes, it makes the number of its inhabitants to be but six or seven hundred thousand; and as many there were in Seleucia and Thebes, as Pliny F6 relates of the one, and Tacitus F7 of the other: and [also] much cattle;and these more valuable than goods, as animals are preferable to, and more useful than, vegetables; and yet these must have perished in the common calamity. Jarchi understands by these grown up persons, whose knowledge is like the beasts that know not their Creator. No answer being returned, it may be reasonably supposed Jonah, was convinced of his sin and folly; and, to show his repentance for it, penned this, narrative, which records his infirmities and weaknesses, for the good of the church, and the instruction of saints in succeeding ages.

You see, even Gill knows these little children were not guilty of actual sin. He admits it. He even says there was "reason" for pity and sparing mercy.

So, it is not I that is inconsistent, I am perfectly consistent with what the scripture is actually saying, it is Gill that is inconsistent with his own doctrine. If Original Sin is true, and all men sinned with Adam in the garden, then children are just as sinful as adults and deserve no special mercy or pity.

The problem is, there is a point where you have to actually confess what scripture is REALLY saying, and this scripture has God saying he SHOULD spare Nineveh because of these innocent little children and cattle, which also cannot conceive of sin. You can't simply ignore scripture and explain it away all the time, even Calvinists know this on occasion.

God is telling Jonah he SHOULD spare Nineveh, not that he just decided to be nice. He is saying that it is JUST and RIGHT to spare Nineveh, because there are many innocent little children who do not deserve to be slain like the adults.

Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

This question from God demands a YES answer, so God is saying he SHOULD spare Nineveh because of these innocent children and cattle.

It is you, and many Calvinists that are inconsistent with scripture. I am consistent with what scripture is REALLY saying.

 

[Iconoclast]

Listen to something that does make sense.
You are using this verse to prove that children do not have Original Sin and do not have a sin nature.
Now you are quoting John Gill and his commentary on the passage to defend your position. That is ridiculous; you know that don't you?
If you have read my posts in the past you will know that I have accused Gill as being a hyper-Calvinist. He was accused of his contemporaries of having some extreme beliefs. Whatever your opinion of him is, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist.
If you could ask him if this verse proved that children were innocent; that they didn't have a depraved nature, or that Original Sin didn't exist, what do you think he would answer?
Don't you think you are misrepresenting him?

The others you quoted are also Calvinists.
You have misrepresented them all.

:thumbsup: Oh Yes he has. Thank you for being objective DHK:wavey:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Winman.....I am going to throw the towel in for you...DHK is thrashing you

And what does the very next post after yours say?


Quote:

I score this one for Winman!

Winman....Dude is just being kind....his post is trying to correct your error...Dude is a softy..he cannot stand by and watch this without trying to help you....think of it like an intervention.....Dude believes in original sin..Winman.We all do...the church does......

 

[Winman]

:thumbsup: Oh Yes he has. Thank you for being objective DHK:wavey:

Winman....Dude is just being kind....his post is trying to correct your error...Dude is a softy..he cannot stand by and watch this without trying to help you....think of it like an intervention.....Dude believes in original sin..Winman.We all do...the church does......

He believes in Original Sin for the same reason I did for years, because that is what I was taught.

The problem is, the more and more I studied scripture, the more and more I ran across scripture that did not agree with Original Sin, in fact, it outright contradicted it. For example;

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

I noticed in Luke 15 that Jesus told three parables about lost sinners, except none of them were originally lost. This did not make sense, according to Original Sin, everyone is originally lost.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

I noticed in the story of the prodigal son, that not only did Jesus say he was not lost originally, when he repented, Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. That doesn't make sense, according to Original Sin, everyone is born dead.

So, I started noticing scripture everywhere that contradicted Original Sin, like 1 Peter 2:25

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

I noticed that Peter said Christians are now RETURNED to Jesus in 1 Pet 2:25. That didn't make sense, according to Original Sin, we are all born separated from God. You cannot return someplace you have never been.

I could go on and on, I could probably show you a hundred scriptures that all contradict Original Sin. But I don't think you would listen. You prefer to let others think for you and tell you what the scriptures say. Easy.

Of course, on the judgment day, you won't be able to lean on your "teachers" you've heaped to yourself.

Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Good luck.

 

[DHK]

I am quite aware that Gill is a Calvinist, nevertheless, he seems to contradict himself and admits little children are not guilty of sin because they lack knowledge of good and evil.

He doesn't contradict himself at all. He is perfectly consistent with his own theology. You won't look past your own blinders and try to force your own theology into a Calvinists position. That is deliberate misrepresentation. You can't see the meaning in the KJV.
Look again in Young's:

Deu 1:39 `And your infants, of whom ye have said, For a prey they are, and your sons who have not known to-day good and evil, they go in thither, and to them I give it, and they possess it;
--Gill, using the KJV, which says "that day" emphasized that they had not known good and evil on "that day." Young makes this even more clear.
"Your sons who have not known today good and evil."
It is not speaking of times past--not yesterday, not last month, not last year. It was speaking of the ignorance of that day and that day alone. It was that one day event that was being referred to. Gill doesn't contradict this. And this doesn't contradict Original Sin or the depravity of man.
--There are many things that we keep secret from our children that they have no knowledge of. That doesn't make them innocent in all things. Surely you can figure that out.

Look what he says concerning Jonah 4:11 that I presented as evidence for my view;

You see, even Gill knows these little children were not guilty of actual sin. He admits it. He even says there was "reason" for pity and sparing mercy.

So, it is not I that is inconsistent, I am perfectly consistent with what the scripture is actually saying, it is Gill that is inconsistent with his own doctrine. If Original Sin is true, and all men sinned with Adam in the garden, then children are just as sinful as adults and deserve no special mercy or pity.

1. Jehovah called Israel, children.
2. Jesus called his disciples, children.
3. John used the term "children" all throughout his first epistle (my little children)
4. The NT refers us to children of God and sometimes to a child of the devil.

Here God refers to these children as His. He is using his "children" in his foreknowledge that they will turn to him. The children are not infants. The are his children in the sense of:
1. children of God, his creation.
2. children of God, his own by salvation (because he knew they would repent).
--To read into this context "infants" is an absurd interpretation.

The problem is, there is a point where you have to actually confess what scripture is REALLY saying, and this scripture has God saying he SHOULD spare Nineveh because of these innocent little children and cattle, which also cannot conceive of sin. You can't simply ignore scripture and explain it away all the time, even Calvinists know this on occasion.

God is telling Jonah he SHOULD spare Nineveh, not that he just decided to be nice. He is saying that it is JUST and RIGHT to spare Nineveh, because there are many innocent little children who do not deserve to be slain like the adults.

Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

This question from God demands a YES answer, so God is saying he SHOULD spare Nineveh because of these innocent children and cattle.

It is you, and many Calvinists that are inconsistent with scripture. I am consistent with what scripture is REALLY saying.

Here is what Walvoord and Zuck say on this passage:

The 120,00 were adults, who were as undisciplined or undiscerning as children, thus picturing their spiritual and moral condition without God. (In that case the total population may have been about 300,000). The figure of 120,000 for Nineveh proper accords with the adult population of Nimrod (Gen.10;11,12; also known as Calah, a suburb of Nineveh) ...Nineveh's walls enclosed and area of twice that of Calah.

Their commentary (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, gives much more recent archeological evidence that back up their claims.)
This interpretation makes more sense.
Concerning spiritual things they didn't know their right from their left.
That makes sense doesn't it. How many adults do you know (saved or unsaved) that don't know their right from their left? Common sense Winman; common sense!
A principle of interpretation or hermeneutics:
Where common sense makes no sense it is nonsense!
Don't give an interpretation that is nonsense.

 

[Winman]

He doesn't contradict himself at all. He is perfectly consistent with his own theology. You won't look past your own blinders and try to force your own theology into a Calvinists position. That is deliberate misrepresentation. You can't see the meaning in the KJV.
Look again in Young's:

Deu 1:39 `And your infants, of whom ye have said, For a prey they are, and your sons who have not known to-day good and evil, they go in thither, and to them I give it, and they possess it;
--Gill, using the KJV, which says "that day" emphasized that they had not known good and evil on "that day." Young makes this even more clear.
"Your sons who have not known today good and evil."
It is not speaking of times past--not yesterday, not last month, not last year. It was speaking of the ignorance of that day and that day alone. It was that one day event that was being referred to. Gill doesn't contradict this. And this doesn't contradict Original Sin or the depravity of man.
--There are many things that we keep secret from our children that they have no knowledge of. That doesn't make them innocent in all things. Surely you can figure that out.
1. Jehovah called Israel, children.
2. Jesus called his disciples, children.
3. John used the term "children" all throughout his first epistle (my little children)
4. The NT refers us to children of God and sometimes to a child of the devil.

Here God refers to these children as His. He is using his "children" in his foreknowledge that they will turn to him. The children are not infants. The are his children in the sense of:
1. children of God, his creation.
2. children of God, his own by salvation (because he knew they would repent).
--To read into this context "infants" is an absurd interpretation.
Here is what Walvoord and Zuck say on this passage:
Their commentary (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, gives much more recent archeological evidence that back up their claims.)
This interpretation makes more sense.
Concerning spiritual things they didn't know their right from their left.
That makes sense doesn't it. How many adults do you know (saved or unsaved) that don't know their right from their left? Common sense Winman; common sense!
A principle of: interpretation or hermeneutics
Where common sense makes no sense it is nonsense!
Don't give an interpretation that is nonsense.

What a bunch of baloney and misdirection. I showed Gill's commentary on Jonah 4:11 where he said;

but infants only, as next described: that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand;do not know one from another; cannot distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong; are not come to years of maturity and discretion; and therefore there were room and reason for pity and sparing mercy; especially since they had not been guilty of actual transgressions, at least not very manifest;

Gill absolutely believed Jonah 4:11 is speaking of INFANTS that cannot discern between good and evil, right and wrong, and are not come to years of maturity and discretion. He said they were not guilty of "actual transgressions, at least not very manifest" and says there was "reason" for pity and sparing mercy.

Gill absolutely hints here that he does not believe a person who cannot discern right from wrong can commit actual transgression, and is not worthy of harsh punishment. Of course, he must be careful, as he knew he was being inconsistent with Calvinism and Original Sin here. If Original Sin is true, all men, including infants are guilty of Adam's transgression and fully worthy of death.

What do you do? You mislead and misdirect by going back to Deu 1:39, even though I already showed that the Pulpit Commentary believed this passage spoke of small children just learning to walk.

Your little ones; i.e. children beginning to walk (טַפ, from טָפַפ, to trip, to take short and quick steps). And your children - boys and girls - which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil; rather, of whom [ye said] they know not today good and evil.

A principle of interpretation or hermeneutics you seem to lack is honesty in debate tactics.

I showed you Gill's interpretation of Jonah 4:11 intentionally because he was absolutely clear that he believed this scripture spoke of INFANTS.

 

[DHK]

What a bunch of baloney and misdirection. I showed Gill's commentary on Jonah 4:11 where he said;

Gill absolutely believed Jonah 4:11 is speaking of INFANTS that cannot discern between good and evil, right and wrong, and are not come to years of maturity and discretion. He said they were not guilty of "actual transgressions, at least not very manifest" and says there was "reason" for pity and sparing mercy.

Gill absolutely hints here that he does not believe a person who cannot discern right from wrong can commit actual transgression, and is not worthy of harsh punishment. Of course, he must be careful, as he knew he was being inconsistent with Calvinism and Original Sin here. If Original Sin is true, all men, including infants are guilty of Adam's transgression and fully worthy of death.

That doesn't mean Gill is write in his interpretation. If Gill is write than you should become as extreme as he is in his Calvinism. I don't just go along and agree with every book I look at. You may get your theology from commentaries; I don't.
Tell me, why aren't you a Calvinist? You keep using their commentaries. What is wrong? There is something oddly wrong with this situation!

I gave you my interpretation of the passage. It is better than Gill's, and in agreement with Walvoord and Zuck. You reject it. You want to agree with Gill, an extreme Calvinist. Just become a Calvinist Winman and be done with it!!

What do you do? You mislead and misdirect by going back to Deu 1:39, even though I already showed that the Pulpit Commentary believed this passage spoke of small children just learning to walk.

It is a passage referring to one event in history and not the events before that time which they did have knowledge of.

A principle of interpretation or hermeneutics you seem to lack is honesty in debate tactics.

I showed you Gill's interpretation of Jonah 4:11 intentionally because he was absolutely clear that he believed this scripture spoke of INFANTS.

That doesn't make him right. You treat him as a god now. Just become a Calvinist Winman; become a Calvinist. Then you can swallow all of Gill's theology: hook, line and sinker and have no qualms about it.

 

[Winman]

None of the commentators addressed it.
Here is what Gill said:

[/B]That is your post. I don't believe any different. Apparently you are not reading it carefully enough. Look at the first sentence again.

And your children, which IN THAT DAY had no knowledge between good and evil.
Why ignore context. It says nothing about yesterday, last month, last year, or the years before. It specifically is speaking of "that day," and that day only.
"Moses was directing his speech unto, and relating THIS HISTORY, it being 38 years ago."
It was a specific time and event which happened on one day. They rebelled on THAT day. The "good and evil" was relevant to that day only.

This is a bogus argument. The children of Israel rebelled when Moses went up on the mountain for 40 days. The people made the golden calf and partied. This is the incident being spoken of in Deu 1:39. Yes, it was a one time event, and the little children did not know between good and evil when this event took place, so God did not curse them. The adults who rebelled were cursed, they were not allowed to enter the Promised Land.

This changes nothing. It shows God does not punish little children who cannot understand between right and wrong. Some of these little children likely danced and gorged themselves with food with their parents, nevertheless they were not held accountable because they did not understand their actions before God.

Fixating on this one event does not help your argument at all, the principle is the same.

 

[Winman]

That doesn't mean Gill is write in his interpretation. If Gill is write than you should become as extreme as he is in his Calvinism. I don't just go along and agree with every book I look at. You may get your theology from commentaries; I don't.

I simply said that at times Gill (and many other Calvinists) are inconsistent. And this commentary shows that. He seems very hesitant and reluctant to actually say these little children deserved destruction. He hints that they were not guilty of actual sin, and also hints the reason is because they lack the knowledge of good and evil.

Tell me, why aren't you a Calvinist? You keep using their commentaries. What is wrong? There is something oddly wrong with this situation!

Well, you know, that is a good point. The fact is, the vast majority of commentaries out there were written by Calvinists. I do not personally own any commentaries, so I go online. And what do you see there? Probably 90% of the commentaries were written by Calvinists.

And to their credit, this is why the Calvinists have had so much influence in the church, even non-Calvinist Baptists. Probably every Baptist pastor out there has Gill's, and Barnes's, and Matthew Henry's Commentaries. It is no wonder that Calvinism has infiltrated and influenced even non-Calvinist denominations.

I gave you my interpretation of the passage. It is better than Gill's, and in agreement with Walvoord and Zuck. You reject it. You want to agree with Gill, an extreme Calvinist. Just become a Calvinist Winman and be done with it!!

No, I read the scripture and study for myself. When Jonah says these persons cannot discern between their right hand and left hand, I KNEW that was speaking of very small children. And Deu 1:39 is the same, it speaks of "little ones".

It is a passage referring to one event in history and not the events before that time which they did have knowledge of.

Irrelevant, the principle is the same, God does not charge or punish little children who cannot understand right from wrong for sin.

That doesn't make him right. You treat him as a god now. Just become a Calvinist Winman; become a Calvinist. Then you can swallow all of Gill's theology: hook, line and sinker and have no qualms about it.

Wow, first you imply I am an atheist, now I worship Gill. You are a moderator here, and you are knowingly doing what you know is forbidden on this forum.

The scriptures clearly show little children are not born knowing good from evil, that takes time. Every child is different, perhaps one child has great discretion when they are six or seven years old, another child must be a few years older. But no very little child four or five years old truly understands right from wrong and is therefore not held accountable for sin.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Babies are not born knowing good from evil as you falsely teach.