You're forgetting (at least) one very crucial chapter in the Bible, Jerry.
Go read Jeremiah 18, especially the first 11 verses.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
The Timelessness of God
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Go read Jeremiah 18, especially the first 11 verses.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Derf
Well-known member
If God says that's what He was going to do, who am I to say He didn't really mean it?
If God tells no lies, why does His Word say He repented of what He was going to do to the Israelites and you say he didn't? Should I believe you over God's word?
And if Moses, who was descended from A, I, & J, were to enter the promised land, God would have fulfilled that promise. You probably wouldn't be able to see this since you've already decided it's OK to change the meaning of bible passages so that they mean the opposite of what they say.
You got some serious 'splaining to do, Jerry.
Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at these verses:
"And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it. If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them" (Jer.18:9-10).
It is obvious that the LORD had no intention of repenting of the good which would benefit them. After all, if the LORD had a change of mind about that then we wouldn't expect what is said here to ever happen:
"Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Ex.49:8-10).
These verses are obviously speaking about the coming of the Lord Jesus of the tribe of Judah-"and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" when He will reign as the King in Jerusalem.
The LORD knew that the words concerning the kingdom and the King would come to pass so when He spoke of "repenting" about that good which would benefit Israel then we can know that His words about that are not to be taken in a "literal" manner.
Derf
Well-known member
You say it's "obvious", but only when you decide before you read it what it means.
Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If the LORD had destroyed the tribe of Judah then it is obvious that this would never happen:
"Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" (Ex.49:8-10).
These verses are obviously speaking about the coming of the Lord Jesus of the tribe of Judah-"and unto him shall the gathering of the people be" when He will reign as the King in Jerusalem.
If we are to believe what you say then we must believe that the LORD would really destroy the tribe of Judah and therefore the Lord Jesus would not be the Savior of the world. Do you really believe that the LORD actually considered blotting the tribe of Judah off the face of the earth?
Do you really believe that God could not find another way to save us if He had destroyed them? See, by saying that "He didn't really mean that He would destroy them," you're really saying "God is not competent enough to work around problems." God is infinitely wise, I'm pretty sure even if He did destroy them, He would have found another way.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
If He found or chose another way then it would be contrary to prophecy....against what He already said.
Which is more important to God, love, or prophecy?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Right Divider
Body part
BOTH
It doesn't seem to me to be a matter of GOD's choosing one over the other.
GOD is love and GOD cannot lie.
Can a man change his mind about doing something?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
In other words, can a man fully intend to do something, then change his mind for no reason at all and not do it?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Yes, but if a man promises to do something and doesn't it's considered wrong and immoral and the man is then deemed to be untrustworthy.
Derf
Well-known member
You seem to have very little confidence in God's abilities, 1. to accomplish what He said He would do, despite overwhelming odds, and 2. to be able to prophecy what He's going to accomplish against those "odds". Remember that He can raise up children of Abraham from stones.
You may also be overly pessimistic about what it means for God to destroy a nation and blot out their name (note that "name" is singular). Some of the Canaanite peoples that were to be destroyed by the Israelites when taking the promised land still had some representatives left to them in Canaan, after God had told them He would drive them out: And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God [is] among you, and [that] he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites. [Jos 3:10 KJV]
And here they utterly destroyed all of the Anakim, except for those they didn't destroy:
21 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. 22 There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. [Jos 11:21-22 KJV]
While I don't pretend to know all the different options God had at His disposal, I can at least think of a couple. First, Moses might have been related to Judah through his mom's side. (Tradition doesn't support this, but sometimes tradition is wrong.) This would fit with what happened with Jesus, who was descended from David through Mary, NOT through Joseph, since Joseph wasn't His real father.
But Joseph was descended from David, and his line is presented as if it means something in the NT. Perhaps it is sufficient that Joseph adopted Him for the line from David to be continued. Then some of Moses' offspring might be counted as Judah's for certain purposes.
Finally, the law required a brother to marry a deceased brother's wife if they had no children, something Judah exercised even before going to Egypt (and before the giving of the law, interestingly enough). God was able to circumvent His own judgment of Judah's sons, in a rather interesting way (Gen 38:6ff). Do you think He wouldn't be able to figure out how to do it in Moses' case?
Oh ye of little faith!
Instead, you have to make up stuff about how God really didn't mean what He said, and Moses wrote down stuff that he must have known was untrue. How sad to treat the Word of God as if it isn't true. That's what God punished the Israelites for in Deu 9:23 23 Likewise when the LORD sent you from Kadeshbarnea, saying, Go up and possess the land which I have given you; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and ye believed him not, nor hearkened to his voice.
And you berate me about questioning God's integrity?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course you must deny what is so plain here in order to make that wild claim:
"And the LORD said unto me, Arise, take thy journey before the people, that they may go in and possess the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give unto them" (Deut.10:11).
According to the words of the LORD here the promise which He swore unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was in regard to "them." The word "them obviously refers to the "people" who entered into the land.
In order to cling to your mistaken ideas you just ignore those facts and say that the promise which the LORD swore could have been fulfilled in Moses and his descendants. That is impossible!
You must really believe that even though the LORD swore to the fathers that those people would enter the land that He later reconsidered and decided that He would break His promise and destroy those people. How can you have confidence in anything which the LORD says since you think that He might promise something and then break that promise? Why do you refuse to believe what is said here about the LORD?:
"God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind. When he says something, he does it. When he makes a promise, he keeps it" (Num.23:19).
I believe what is written at Deuteronomy 10:11. Why don't you?
You refuse to believe what Moses wrote down at Deuteronomy 10:11.
How sad!
Last edited:
jsanford108
New member
Hello there Jerry. I agree with your OP. The only thing I would add, is that God also exists in time. He exists outside of time, but can also exist in time, since He creates it. If I build a house, I can go into it. I can leave it. I exist in both places. The obvious flaw with my analogy is that God can exist in both at the same time, whereas I, a physical and mortal being, cannot.
I really like this post. It is intriguing, and provokes discussion. Well done, sir.
I really like this post. It is intriguing, and provokes discussion. Well done, sir.
Right Divider
Body part
Derf
Well-known member
I think the "them" is somewhat ambiguous, and could refer to any of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's descendants--Moses was indeed a descendant of A, I, and J, so it would still fulfill Deut 10:11. Obviously he didn't give the land to ALL of their descendants, because a number fell in the wilderness--a whole generation.
In fact, Deut 10:11 was about the time BEFORE God allowed a whole generation of those same people to die in the wilderness. So if the "them" refers to the people at that time, as you insist, then you have the same problem you're saying I do--those people died and did NOT go in to possess the land. So if that was God's promise, then He didn't keep it. You must not understand His promise.
Again, I think you're basing your interpretation on your doctrine, rather than the other way around.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't think that it is ambiguous:
Deut 10:6 (AKJV/PCE)
(10:6) ¶ And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead.