Possibly the Post of the year?????
[ context ]
:first:Originally posted by 1Way
This is the tenor of this entire debate. Demonstrated by correlating (hypothetical) example.
General overview
OV
The open view (more so) reasons by quoting God's word and rests it’s case on that. We literally accept it without violating it's contextual development.
Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).
God’s word says that He repented from it (changed His mind) and did not do what He said He would DO.
CV
The closed view (more so) reasons extra biblically and rests their case primarily on sources other than what is specifically provided by scripture. They reject (void of meaning) entire portions of scripture that deny their view and they also violate the context by doing so. And they effectively make God out to be a liar in order to maintain their views as being more authoritative. All while claiming “spiritual” correctness.
Concerning His previous spoken honest intended course of action (What God said He “was going to DO”).
Who cares about what God said about Him changing His intended course of action by not doing what He said He would do, the closed view maintains that God can not change even if God says He does, so we are right and that is that.
Specific arguments
OV
1 God’s word is true and authoritative
It is a clear case of divine repentance against complying
with what God said and/or thought He was going to do
So what do the words mean then if they don’t literally mean what they literally say?CV
- Jonah 3:10 subsection part b
... and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.
It does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla) and it does not mean (bla bla bla, wha wha wha, bla wha bla), man changed and therefore God simply did not need to punish them, so God did not change and that is that.
OV
That does not tell me what those specific words mean, it tells me that you are ignoring and perhaps violating them instead. If you do not have a suitable (specific) biblically provided replacement meaning for the text in question, then you have no standing to effectively deny it’s literal meaning.
CV
Oh, it means what it says alright, but there’s simply no Change in God.
OV
You mean where God says thatyou mean THAT means that
- He did not do what He said He would do, and He did not do it,
CV
- He DID DO what He said He would DO? And He did do it?
God always gets His will done, it all happened with out any change in God. Your wrong and we’re right, stop trying to confuse us with details.
:doh:
OV
2 The context denies the prophesy message was conditional
It was honestly going to be a national disaster and
it was honestly going to be brought upon them
It could not have been a conditional warning of possible destruction as in “shape up or else”. God described the prophesy with the following contextual build up. This is the truth, and you are in error for violating scripture. Please reconsider the following.
The prophesied “overthrow” was said to be:And remember, God recorded this account after the fact of it all happening. He would not have allowed the context to be falsifying what actually did happen.
- understood as lethal (3:9)
- A national disaster (3:10)
- that God would “bring upon them” (3:10)
- correlated with God’s anger verses His lovingkingness (4:2)
- correlated with God doing harm (4:2)
If a nation repents from doing great wickedness, and puts their faith in God for their very lives, that is a good and righteous thing, it is not harmful, it is not a demonstration of God’s disapproving anger, it is not a national disaster that was brought upon them. So every single contextual consideration about God’s prophesy contradicts the idea that it was conditional, including the conclusive example, that God said concerning that prophesy of intended course of action, that He did not do it, God did "not" comply with what He said He would do.
CV
No, since God sent Jonah ahead of time, the condition is only obvious, get real and read your bible, we’re right and your wrong. They repented which is what God ordained the entire time, they were overthrown, so God accomplished His intentions.
OV
You argue that God did overthrow Nineveh by their repentance. But God said that concerning what He said He would do, He did not do it, so if the prophecy was primarily or literally to get them to repent, and they did repent, they why did God lie when He said that He did not accomplish what He said He would do?
CV
God does not lie, and He does not change, your wrong, we’re right. Actually, it was a conditional prophesy, that is why we know that God never changed His mind, since it was conditional, there was no possible way for God to reverse from complying with His prophesy. It was a shape up or else conditional prophecy, why else would God send His prophet 40 days in advance if He only had in mind destroying them.
OV
The conditionality rests within God, His word was not conditional, it was honest and truthful just as is described in scripture. For God’s nature to hold conditionality, necessarily means He can change depending upon what happens with newly brought about circumstances.
CV
No, the condition was not in God, it was in His word. God did do what He said He would do.
OV
3 The law of non-contradiction and moral integrity
It’s dishonest to contradict the truth
even if you use a lie to cover up a lie
to cover up a lie
Surely you can see the dishonesty in:Making double statement that this was an issue of intended action, it was unequivocally an issue of honest course of action.
- Absolutely and perfectly knowing that you will not do something
and then- lying by saying you will do it anyway
and then- lying again (after the fact of you not doing it) by saying, that you repented and did not do what you (honestly) said you would do, and you did not do it.
CV
No, it just was not, we don’t care what you think it means, your wrong, we’re right, God never intended on destroying them.
OV
No, your wrong for violating what God’s word plainly says, along with violating the entire context involved, and for promoting your manmade traditions that contradict scripture, voiding scripture and replacing it’s meaning with nothing (scripturally and contextually) fitting.
CV
We’ve already answered all your questions, just because you don’t like them does not mean their wrong.
OV
You have? Then what does Jonah 3:10 subsection part b specifically mean?
CV
(go back to the beginning and replay the same story without ever answering the question about what those words mean.)
:doh:
Conclusion
What a state of affairs! I love it that this is going on in the thread who’s entire quest is over one single bible conformity challenge, and yet not one single closed theist has even come close to answering it.They are absolutely terrified of the text because it is in direct contradiction against their beliefs and thus it perfectly denies their viewpoint, so they just ignore and violate it because there is no middle ground on this issue. As long as they believe they are right (i.e. their false manmade presupposition of classic divine immutability), then they can not agree with God repenting as is literally and repeatedly described in scripture. The two ideas are contradictory and can not be reconciled.
Conform your faith to the bible!!! :up:
Don’t violate against the bible
because of manmade tradition! :down:
[ context ]