That’s right people, as I was working on a PC this morning I overheard the lesson that the teacher was giving. It consisted primarily of the history of the Hebrews in Egypt and The Exodus that followed. There has been no archaeological evidence of a great mass of people leaving Egypt, decimating their army, wandering the desert and settling in Canaan. Yet this teacher taught it as though it were proven fact. I got particularly irritated when he switched from saying “their god” (the Hebrews’ god) to, simply, “God”. In removing “their” he went from objective (“This is what they believe.”) to subjective (“This is how it is.”) He made many references to their “Covenant with God”. Now, this isn’t just offensive to atheists. It would be offensive to Sikhs, Hindus, Pagans, Wiccans and many other religions as well. This is the same teacher who, at Easter time, put up a wall hanging with the three crosses on Calvary on it. This is a blatant endorsement of one particular religion, especially seeing as how Easter actually has it’s roots in Paganism, which is where Christianity cribbed it from. As a final annoyance, when I had gotten his PC back in working order he proclaimed “Praise God!” I, justifiably, asked “What about my credit?” To which he responded “Praise You!” I just nodded my head and smiled. Sometimes that’s all you can do.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
Tags: Church/State, Exodus, Historicity, School
April 11, 2008 at 8:02 am |
re: your post on my blog
Tell you what – present your argument/question in a manner that is intelligent, rational, educated and does not involve lifting material from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible and vomiting it up without any sort of attempt to understand the context of the verses and I’ll be happy to answer you.
April 11, 2008 at 11:23 am |
My question is why did you refuse to allow my comment? Did the verses I quoted offend you? I made no judgment on the verses, I merely quoted them with very little commentary. I stuck to the issue, while you hurled insults. I allowed you to post comments attacking me personally, while you refused to allow me to post comments that quoted your own book. By denying my comment are you saying that you do find those verses offensive? Would you have allowed me to post them if I had posted the whole chapter? Also, I did not get them from the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. I got them from BibleGateway. Why do you make reference to vomiting something up? Usually someone vomits something up because the thing makes them ill. Do these verses make you ill?
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
April 11, 2008 at 11:26 am |
For those curious as to what verses I quoted, they are:
Ezek. 23:20:
“20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.”
2 Kings 18:27:
“27But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”
and Psalm 137:9:
“9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
I made no negative comments about the Bible or Christianity. I simply posted the quotes.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
April 19, 2008 at 9:05 pm |
Oh, right. You were just innocently perusing through Bible Gateway and just happened upon these verses.
Gee, dishonest much?
Anyway, do you have a point?
April 20, 2008 at 11:06 am |
What was dishonest? I merely told you were I found the verses. I notice that you are still avoiding the question. Do those verses offend you? If so, why? If not, why not? I genuinely want to know your opinion on the matter. I have given you the courtesy of answering your questions while being civil. All I ask is that you extend me the same courtesy.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
June 13, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
“For the Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.” [Hebrews 4:12,13]
Although you openly mock God and His Word by severely misrepresenting it out of context, I really hurt for you. You have been so deceived by the lies of this world. You ask, how can this narrow-minded Christian judge my deception? Because, Starbix, you not only reject God’s Word but you veraciously attack it.
This life is so short and fleeting, I am just ravished every time I read a blog or rant from atheists. I just don’t know how you can take everything in creation for granted? Do you really believe that everything around you came from nothing? That each day the big rock we live on sits at precisely the correct position to host human life? That complexity of the human brain came from raw chance? That the immense complexity of conception is a happen-chance result of the big bang? Or how do you explain the deep groaning of our souls for something better in life: for true love. Do you ever wonder what is waiting for you the second after that sack of muscle in your chest pumps blood, the liquid essence of life, for the last time? I challenge you just to take a few minutes and ponder these questions.
Now, I need to change proverbial gears to provide an accurate defense of the Truth and the hope of the world. With 1 Peter 3:15,16 as my foundation:
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”
Now, Starbix, I will put the verses that you took out of context into a proper light.
Starting with Psalm 137:9, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” Psalm 137, in its entirety, is a deeply moving Psalm expressing love for Jerusalem and hate for her enemies. Psalm 137 indicates an exilic or postexilic setting. That is, it was written sometime during or just after the inhabitants of Judah were carried into Babylon by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar. A captive from Jerusalem is lamenting his own misfortune, and the desolation of his holy city, Jerusalem. Various psalms contain appeals to God to pour out His wrath upon enemies. This group of Psalms (for example, Psalm 55, 59, 69, 79, 109, 137) has been called “imprecatory,” meaning that they contain prayers for the destruction of the wicked. The writer desires the sudden destruction of enemies (Psalm 35:8), the breaking of their teeth (Psalm 58:6), and the massacre of their children (Psalm 137:8-9). The imprecatory psalms have presented difficulties in that it is hard to see how these psalms can be reconciled to New Testament teachings. There is seen in them spirit of revenge, a desire to see one’s enemy crushed in a way that contradicts the teachings of Jesus (for example, Matthew 5:43-48). There are a number of New Testament statements that seem amazingly similar to the imprecatory psalms. In Matthew 18:6 we are told about offending little ones. It would be better, Jesus said, to have a millstone cast around one’s neck and be drowned in the sea, than to offend a little one. In Galatians 1:8-9 we are told that if one preaches any other gospel, let him be accursed. The Apostle James says, “Your gold and silver shall eat your flesh like fire” (James 5:3). And in 2 Peter 2:12 we read that false teachers, like brute animals, shall utterly perish in their own corruption. Jesus himself made imprecatory statements (Matthew 23:32-36). The saints in heaven utter imprecatory prayers (Revelation 6:10).
However, the Old Testament and the New Testament teach the duty of God’s people to withold retribution from our enemies who persecute us because retribution is the Lord’s and His alone. This particular Psalm is a cry out to God for the destruction of his enemies, and since he is fallen and living in a sinful world he is not totally able to control his yearnings for his enemies destruction for what they have done to him, his family, and his nation. Regardless, God has the final say. He has, is, and will continue to exact His holy wrath on His enemies who are stubborn in their wicked ways and wallow in their sin. God’s holiness demands the blood of the sinful. If you want to learn more about sin and how it separates man from God read the book of Romans. Or if you want more description about how God WILL deliver the justice that His holiness demands read Revelation, one example is Chapter 14 verses 19 and 20.
You still reading? I hope so, I am doing this out of genuine care and hope that you will read this.
To address your quotation of Ezekiel 23:20 I do not understand what your question could possibly be…did you even read the 23rd chapter in its entirety? This passage is describing the lawlessness and destruction of prostitution and pervasive sexual sin. God gives these wayward women over to their vile corrupted sin-filled souls. The verse’s intense verbal imagery is supposed to evoke the utter tastelessness and abomination it is before God’s all-seeing eyes. Sexual sin as we sin in 1 Corinthians 6:18 is extremely dangerous as it is a sin against our own body, which should be the vessel of God on this earth. “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.” You seem to sound like an adult with the language and syntax you used in this posting, so I would imagine that you could use your maturity to understand the rationale of this verse, and not the juvenile approach.
I hope these responses have adequately responded to your questions. Let me know if you have any other questions. I’d also just like to let you know that I am praying for you.
In His Grip,
Alex
Psalms 97
June 16, 2008 at 10:35 am |
“you not only reject God’s Word but you veraciously attack it.”
Via Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: ve·ra·cious
Pronunciation: \və-ˈrā-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin verac-, verax — more at very
Date: circa 1677
1 : truthful, honest
2 : marked by truth : accurate
Thank you for your accurate observation.
Now that we’ve cleared that up, let’s move on. You say that the quote about smashing babies against rocks is ok because it was only what the guy wanted to do because of what had been done to him. How then do you justify the Tenth Plague? After making sure that Pharaoh would refuse Moses’ requests to “Let my people go!” by hardening his heart, God decides to murder every firstborn in all of Egypt. Let’s make sure we’re clear on this: God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then, because of the aforementioned hardened heart which God caused, God decided to murder anyone and everyone who had the misfortune of being born first to their parents. That includes infants, toddlers and even animals who could not have oppressed the Hebrew people or supported the Pharaoh. They were the definition of innocence and your god murdered them in cold, premeditated blood. This is the god that you hold up as the source of love and morality? This god is nothing more than a petty, sadistic and vindictive thug.
I’d rather, instead of you praying for me, that you do something more useful for your fellow man. Go volunteer at a battered women’s shelter, donate your clothes to a thrift store, donate blood or just buy a homeless person a meal. People need real help, not useless whispers to an invisible man in the sky.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
June 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
Starbix,
I’m sorry that I was off by one vowel, I meant an “o” instead of an “a”, in spelling the word ‘voraciously’:
Main entry: vo·ra·cious
Pronunciation: \vȯ-ˈrā-shəs, və-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin vorac-, vorax, from vorare to devour; akin to Old English
Date: 1635
1 : having a huge appetite : ravenous
2 : excessively eager : insatiable
I was using the 2nd usage. Now that this small typo is actually cleared up, we can move forward. I understand how this small error could greatly misrepresent my argument. Regardless, I would appreciate it if you would not focus your energy on fixing my minor spelling errors in the future. I usually type a lot of text and there are bound to be some errors.
Even still, I am thankful that you seem to have a genuine desire to participate in a civil exchange of ideas on your blog. And by civil, I mean a dialog with respect and decency. However, if you choose to continue arguing with me I cannot guarantee that you will not be offended by some of the scripture I will cite. The Word of God is very offensive to enemies of The One True God; but, I harbor no animosity towards you for your beliefs, only genuine care to correctly exposit the Bible and it’s claims.
I will not water down the express words and ideas of the Truth nor will I back away from any tough questions on the Word because I believe it to hold up to the highest of scrutiny. I am a highly educated law student who has investigated the Bible and it’s claims personally and exhaustively. I had my doubts, but I researched it and the Truth became evident and I now believe every word of it to be the inspired Words of God.
Now, to address the ten plagues, Pharaoh’s heart of stone, and God’s perfection.
Exodus 9:12 (NIV) reads, “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.” From this verse alone it is understandable that one could be under the impression that God forced His will on pharaoh. However, that is not the case. The root of most misunderstandings and fallacious assertions against Biblical passages is a lackluster attention to context.
In order to understand Exodus 9:12, let us look more closely to the events leading to this text. During the first 5 plagues falling on Egypt, the Bible clearly indicates that it was pharaoh who hardened his heart:Exodus 7:13 (NIV) “Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.” (see also Ex 14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:7,34,35; and 13:15). God having the foreknowledge of our actions knew how pharaoh would react, but in those texts the hardening of pharaoh’s heart is not attributed to God, but on pharaoh himself!
Could pharaoh have repented during these plagues and been saved? Absolutely, as the book of Exodus clearly indicates that those plagues had an impact on the people of Egypt as when the Exodus occurred, Ex 12:38 (NIV) “Many other people went up with them.” Even pharaoh’s magicians confessed: Ex 8:19 “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not listen, just as the LORD had said. But pharaoh is the one who resisted the Lord!
Now from plague 6 and on, the Bible always attributes the hardening of pharaoh’s heart to God. Why?
Pharaoh had plenty of opportunities to repent and give his heart to the Lord. But there is a point where one crosses the road to perdition and no return seems possible, as one refuses to listen to the Lord. At that moment, God leaves you to your own devices and you suffer the consequences. If only one would listen to God’s voice, He would welcome one back, not as a stranger, but as a son of His.
This is confirmed in Psalms 81:8 (NIV) “Hear, O my people, and I will warn you–if you would but listen to me, O Israel!” The Lord longs for a relationship with you. He desires your happiness! But how can you be blessed if you have turned your back to God and go forward in your evil desires?
What happens when you don’t listen to your loving Heavenly Father, as Pharaoh did?
Psalms 81:11-12 (NIV) “But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices.” He gives you over to your stubborn heart to follow your own evil devices. He takes full responsibility. He wants you to turn away from your path of self-destruction, but He won’t force you. The choice is really yours. This is what is meant by hardening Pharaoh’s heart.
Now to address your ad hominem attacks on God’s character. As you so affectionately named God, ” a petty, sadistic, and vindictive thug.” First I will attack the premises of this argument: that the young men, toddlers, infants, and animals whom God killed during the 10 plagues were the “definition of innocence”. I must respectfully say that you are wrong. Innocence is defined by the respected Merriam Webster as, “freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil” and as “freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense.”
Everyone is born with original sin. Once Adam and Eve ate of the tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, every single person was born into a world plagued by the curse of evil, or more commonly known as sin. No one is innocent as they are indeed acquainted with evil being born into corrupted flesh which is damned to a certain death as a result of original sin.Through this genetic defect we all inherited death — both physical and spiritual – and were separated from God. And it is only through Jesus Christ, we all have the ability to conquer this genetic defect – sin and death – and be reconnected to God eternally. This reconciliation between God and man is possible through the Christ’s imputation of his Righteousness on those who believe in Him and Him alone. However, the young do not yet possess the mental capacity to understand their sin nature and turn to Christ, or in the Old Testament: The Most High who commanded animal sacrifice and strict obedience.
Now I know you may be wondering then, would God send all those children He slew into eternal damnation? No. The children were killed before they were conscious and fully functioning, rational men and women. This answer is founded on precedent in the Bible. “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.” (Deuteronomy 1:39). God sends the children of the children of Israel into the land because they did not have enough understanding to reject God. God kills the firstborn of the families in Egypt as a punishment on the families. Yes, God does keeps the children from growing and living their lives, but it is truly God’s grace as these children will go to heaven. The children are being held from a likely pagan upbringing in the evil land and are ushered into the presence of God to live with him forever in eternal bliss.
God is perfectly justified in killing the youth of Egypt. His perfection demands it. God is perfect in grace and justice. You cannot have the one without the other if you are perfect. The blood of the evil’s young is demanded by God’s perfect justice. Although God ordered the extermination of children, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. You want to say that God is the murderer? The people of Egypt practiced infant sacrifices. Even more shocking for any Pharaoh sympathizers, Pharaoh himself wanted to murder all the male children in Egypt! Do you remember how Pharaoh himself wanted Moses thrown into the Nile River? If not, read Exodus 1:22. God exacts perfect retribution and is above the reproach of the very titles that fit the wicked ruler, Pharaoh.
In conclusion, I will not stop praying for you. God is not an invisible man in the sky. He is mighty to save. He is the intimate Creator. He abounds in love. He is long-suffering with His enemies yet He exacts perfect justice on behalf of His persecuted sons and daughters when it is necessary. It must be sobering to read about The Living God, for it truly is a terrifying position to be in the hands of an angry God. The word greek translation of the word for God’s “anger” in Romans means to “seethe at the mouth”. This righteous anger is absolutely necessary to counterbalance His immense grace on sinners like me. I will continue to pray for you, interceding for His mercy to hold Him from giving you over to your heart of rejection as He did to Pharaoh.
And if you really are concerned as to what I am doing with my free time to help my fellow man, I offer free help to financially underprivileged families in mitigating with the IRS, working at the inner-city mission, and sponsoring food for children. Don’t worry about me, I am trying to live my life each day as Christ would have me, “offering my life as a living sacrifice to others for God” (Romans 12:1). I will, and may very likely have to (in this fast degenerating world that is growing more and more in viscous hatred for Christians) die for my faith in Christ.
Do not be deceived, I believe that the biggest single cause of Atheism in the world today is Christians. Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and then walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. This is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable. If all the professed Christians in the United States would really devote their lives to Christ the world would be a different place. And I, a firm believer in Christ am willing to die to make it known if only one person would become saved as a result of it. As Jesus said himself, the greatest thing a man could do for his friends is lay down his life (John 15:13).
I’m praying for you, Starbix.
In His Perfect Hands,
Alex
Psalms 97
June 20, 2008 at 9:42 am |
First off, calling it an ad hominem attack is inaccurate. Ad hominem means “argument against the man”. Numbers 23:19 says “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” You can’t claim an attack to be an “argument against the man” when the subject, by his own admission, “is not a man”.
You are still ignoring the fact that Pharaoh was not able to make the decision which led to the slaughter of children because your god took that decision away from him. Whether he would have made the decision or not doesn’t matter. He didn’t get the chance to. Your god took away his free will. It doesn’t matter if he would have done it anyway, the fact is that he didn’t do it! Your god made the decision which led to him murdering all those children.
“Yes, God does keeps the children from growing and living their lives, but it is truly God’s grace as these children will go to heaven. The children are being held from a likely pagan upbringing in the evil land and are ushered into the presence of God to live with him forever in eternal bliss.”
So it’s okay that your god took away their “right to life”? You think it makes it better because they will go to Heaven instead of having a “likely pagan upbringing”? Your god couldn’t think of any other way to keep them from being raised in the Egyptian religion? How about sending them to leave with the Hebrews? At least then they’d have the chance to choose. Now I have to ask: Would you support the killing of my 2 1/2 and 5 year olds because my wife is planning to raise them in a mix of Buddhism and Paganism? They are in the same spiritual state according to you.
“I am trying to live my life each day as Christ would have me”
Does that mean you hate your family? (Luke 14:26) Do you “tread on serpents and scorpions”? (Luke 10:19) Do you “Take therefore no thought for the morrow”? (Matthew 6:34) Do you do all that charity work while others are watching? (Matthew 6:1) Do you call anyone, including your own dad, father? (Matthew 23:9)
By the way, concerning the Bible passage in your signature, if your god is the “Lord of the whole earth” then why does 2 Corinthians 4:4 say “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”? Also, doesn’t that chapter contain confirmation that your god is not the only god? It says “worship him, all ye gods.” This very clearly states that there are gods other than the bully you worship.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
June 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
Hey Starbix,
I am a law student from Alex’s class and am checking this blog out as I am also an atheist. Alex said I might find his dialogue with you interesting, as we have been discussing Christianity. I am awaiting his responses to some of your prompts, however I would just like to make a few comments…
I am fully aware of the Latin translation of ad hominem and you are absolutely dead wrong in refuting the claim which was leveled against you. You could not be any more guilty of ad hominem argumentation.
Your accusatory labels and titles for God consist of replying to an argument, who the Bible declares God to be, by attacking and appealing to a characteristic of the person rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. You affectionately call God a “bully” and “thug” with no support other than select verses severely taken out of context. You don’t even read the surrounding verses, let alone the chapter. In conclusion, the evidence for your claims is null and void; your childish claims against God stand ipso facto. Therefore you are guilty of the logical fallacy: ad hominem.
Now that I gave you an introduction to logic and reasoning 1L, I will be blunt with you. I read through your arguments with Alex and you have had the opportunity to respond intelligently 3 times, but you resort to regurgitated rhetoric. You have presented countless verses out of context and do not even approach key arguments of the atheist school of thought.
Maybe you should reevaluate your religious skepticism as it is obvious that you have not given God a fair shake. Maybe you should actually read the context of the scriptural claims you make instead of making spelling error corrections, ignorant rebuttals to claims, and petty derogatory nicknames for God. If you would like to act your age and not your shoe size, you might actually All adults, especially parents, understand that unsupported name-calling is absolutely childish…isn’t that something you one should punish his/her kid for?
I am absolutely repulsed by your futile attempt to be an apologist for atheism as you seem to cough up other people’s theories and words without researching it for yourself. Wouldn’t you say it is a pretty important topic to study for yourself?
June 22, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
Correction (2nd to last paragraph):
*** “If you would like to act your age and not your shoe size, you might actually refrain from name-calling while arguing. All adults, especially parents, understand that unsupported name-calling is absolutely childish…isn’t that something one should punish his/her children for?”
sorry for any confusion.
June 22, 2008 at 9:15 pm |
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and overlook the fact that you are both posting from the exact same IP address as that could be the Gateway IP for your school. I’ll also overlook the fact that the two of you used the exact same adjective to describe my description of the god of the Bible.
If I were you I’d demand a different law teacher. If you’d do even a little research yourself you’d know that the argumentum ad hominem is used in reference to an attack being made against the proponent of the argument and not the subject of the argument itself. Also, you seem to be the one making ad hominem attacks against me. Saying something like “act your age and not your shoe size” sure sounds like a personal attack to me.
“Your accusatory labels and titles for God consist of replying to an argument, who the Bible declares God to be, by attacking and appealing to a characteristic of the person rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”
I did, indeed, present evidence against the claim. Read what I wrote about the 10th Plague. God controlled someone so that they would make a decision which led directly to God murdering innocent children.
“you have had the opportunity to respond intelligently 3 times”
I’d take a math class to go along with that law class if I were you. Alex commented only twice. That gives me only two times to, as you put it, respond intelligently.
“you resort to regurgitated rhetoric”
Could you point out what I said that you consider “regurgitated rhetoric”? I used my own words. If I used arguments that have been used before it is because they are accurate criticisms. I didn’t just copy and paste them into my reply. I have been critically examining the Bible for several years and uncritically examining it for many more years before I became an atheist.
“key arguments of the atheist school of thought”
What arguments would that be? It’s kind of hard for there to be an “atheist school of thought” when atheism is merely a position on one particular issue: the existence of a god.
“Maybe you should reevaluate your religious skepticism as it is obvious that you have not given God a fair shake.”
Curious words coming from an atheist. Why should I give God a fair shake? What makes you think that I haven’t in the past?
“I am absolutely repulsed by your futile attempt to be an apologist for atheism as you seem to cough up other people’s theories and words without researching it for yourself. Wouldn’t you say it is a pretty important topic to study for yourself?”
Who ever said I was trying to be an apologist for anything? I was disputing Alex’s claims about the god of the Bible. What does that have to do with atheism? You can reject the Bible and still believe in a god. I happen to not believe. What theories have I coughed up? Whose theories are they? Support your claims. Surely they teach you that in law class. As I’ve already stated, I have researched it myself.
So I’ll just wait here for “Alex” to show up and actually refute my arguments. Thanks for stopping by.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
June 22, 2008 at 11:37 pm |
Hey jackass,
You ever laid foot inside a law school? When you are on a wireless network everyone has the same internet protocol through a little thing we daft youngsters call a network layer protocol. I know technological terms like these blow your prehistoric 1950s childhood brain, but, Id like you to sit tight and try not to panic as I dissect your incoherent and puerile brain mass.
You are damn guilty of ad hominem. You are a lunatic. Why don’t you stroll over here to Cornell and explain to Mr. John J. Barceló III (J.D. Tulane University, S.J.D., Harvard Law School) why your argument is not ad hominem. Just because you know how to translate Latin doesn’t qualify you for any merit on the topic of logical reasoning…but it does leave you as an ignorant fallacious partaker.
It is ad hominem because you are attacking the character of God with childish nicknames W I T H O U T any viable support for such claims. See an online dictionary or some 12 year old’s geocities site for more help in getting your head out of your ass on the topic.
Tangential comment: I find it funny that you also try and start all of your posts with some kind of slight at the author. I.E. You try and make some backhanded inference that Alex wrote this. Hahaha. He is too busy right now with his dual majors and the summer class finals that are up right now…but I wish he would attack you like this in his defense. In all honesty, you do not bring half of the atheistic meal to the table in your discourse with Alex. You should see what we spring on him in the law classes. Your argument is like a child’s play toy wrapped in your opponent’s quotations with sly comments.
Following that tangent, you think it doesn’t sound like an atheist to talk about giving God a fair shake, huh? Well, you are a half-baked atheist. You must have spent the majority of those critical and noncritical years nursing at passages from the atheist’s bible.
What I mean when I say regurgitated is that you bring up the silly argument about Pharaoh, that is atheism 101. Stop wasting mine and alex’s time with comments slandering his character. Why not throw some my way, you ass. I have half a mind to make it a habit to get on here and teach you for your shallow understanding of what you profess to so greatly understand.
Alright, until later “Starbix”…as I am not sure if you are just a punk psuedo-atheist as a part of nonconformist culture.
June 24, 2008 at 10:13 am |
For the record: I was born in 1980, so the “prehistoric 1950s childhood brain” comment doesn’t apply.
Are you trying to illustrate a textbook case of an ad hominem attack? So far all you’ve offered has been insults supported by no evidence to counter my claims. It doesn’t matter how much you type in CAPS or space out the letters in a word. You still haven’t given any reason why the argument about the 10th Plague is incorrect, you’ve merely asserted that it’s incorrect. Tell me why I’m wrong. Give evidence.
Could you tell me who wrote the Atheist’s Bible? What school teaches Atheism 101? Both an “Atheist Bible” and “Atheism 101″ would simply consist of the phrase “Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.”
You are still mistaking Biblical Criticism for atheism. The two are separate concepts.
When did I slander Alex? Show me a quote that could be considered a slander against him.
I’m a “punk psuedo-atheist”? Are you really using the “No True Scotsman” argument? Please, give some hard evidence to support your claims and not just resort to attacking the person rather than the argument.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
June 27, 2008 at 1:32 pm |
i dont no how i was of topic starbix i thougth you had ast ALEX about the tenth plague? i thought you where talking about the killing in the old testament Genocide,so i give you a reply to that topic, and you are telling me my reply is to long, my first reply i gave you was on the topic of genocide,the other one was not in fact me i coped it from some where and pasted it hoping it might help,i could understand you for deleting it if you want to, but even the 2 comment was still talking about genocide,but thats here nor there,but you want me to keep my post small,thats all so understandable,but there are other post here that are long as well and they are not erased wy my first one?.and i did not think that it mad a big difference if i give you 5 short paragraph’s or 1 long one,but how ever i will try to kepp them short for you.thx
June 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm |
What about the children?
IF this will help on the Tenth plague
Small children did not share the guilt of their parents. The Bible describes small children as not knowing right from wrong (Is 7:15-16), and in some cases, this meant that they were spared the earthly punishment their elders received. For example, when the Israelites sinned during their wanderings in the desert, God forbid the adults from entering the promised land, but gave it to their children who were too young to be held responsible (Dt 1:34-39). The Bible also clearly teaches that one person is not held guilty for another’s sin (Ezek 18). Therefore, the children who were killed would not face the same punishment in the afterlife as their parents.
Why were the children killed, if they weren’t guilty? Apparently, they were considered as morally neutral, since they weren’t yet old enough to be held accountable or to have done much right or wrong. While not as corrupt as their parents, they were part of the society that was judged, and shared its earthly (though not its eternal) fate. (Conversely, the family of a righteous person sometimes shared their relative’s protection from earthly destruction; see Josh 6:22-25, Gen 19:12-13.) Often, when someone did something wrong and was punished while on earth, only the evildoer themselves was punished. However, when a person or a society committed massive evil, that evil was punished by the destruction of the entire family or city; in such cases, only those who had actively demonstrated their integrity could be saved (14:13-20). See also Does God punish children for their parents’ sins?
June 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm |
Couldn’t the children have died painlessly?
Why didn’t God translate the children into heaven instead of having them die by the sword? Since the children lived in a world affected by sin, they faced its earthly consequences (Rom 5:12-14). Only a few righteous people were translated into heaven, namely Enoch (Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2 Ki 2:11). As noted above, since the children had not shown themselves to be righteous, they were not spared the common fate of death.
It’s worth noting that being killed with a sword (perhaps beheaded) was at the time one of the quickest ways for the children to die (as opposed to suffocation/strangulation, starvation, disease or being torn apart by wild animals – see Ex 23:28-29).
June 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
Why did God all the killing of the first born of Egypt?
Context is everything in biblical interpretation. The ancient Egyptians served many false gods. The Plagues that were set upon the people of Egypt were relative to the gods of the land demonstrating that God was the true God and that their gods were weak, ineffective, and false.
Plague of Turning the Nile to blood, Exodus 7:14-25. Isis was the Egyptian god of the Nile. Khnum was the guardian of the Nile.
Plague of Frogs, Exodus 8:1-5. Heget was the goddess of birth and had the head of a frog.
Plague of Gnats, Exodus 8:16-19. Set was the god of the desert.
Flies, Exodus 8:20-32. Re was the sun god. Uatchit was a god possibly represented by the fly.
Death of Livestock, Exodus 9:1-7. Hathor, goddess with a cow’s head. Apis was the bull god.
Boils, Exodus 9:8-12. Sekmet goddess that had power over disease. Sunu, the god of pestilence.
Hail, Exodus 9:13-35. Nut, the goddess of the sky. Set god of storms.
Locusts, Exodus 10:1-20. Osiris, god of crops.
Darkness, Exodus 10:21-29. Re, the sun god. Horus, a sun god. Hathor, sky goddess.
Death of firstborn, Exodus 11:1 – 12:30. Min, god of reproduction. Isis, goddess who protected children. Pharaoh, considered a god.1
The death of the firstborn (Exodus 12:29) was not only a final blow to Pharaoh and all of Egypt demonstrating the powerlessness of Pharaoh and the truth of God’s word, but it was also used as a prophetic typology. In the account of the death of the firstborn, all who had the blood of a lamb placed on their door posts would escape the judgment of God on the households. This blood on the doorpost was representative of the actual blood of Christ who is called the Lamb of God. Therefore, God allowed the firstborn to be killed as a judgment upon Pharaoh, as a proof of God’s superiority, and as a prophetic representation of the death of His Son, Jesus. It was a representation of the gospel message that the true first born of God who would later die for the sins of the world and that all who are covered by the blood of Christ will be saved from their bondage to sin. It does not mean that God is mean, especially if we realize that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). It means that God was arranging history to bear witness of the greatest act of love: the crucifixion.
June 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
wy should we ? god realy on the tenth plague about killing baby’s,when in fact god gave his (only son) to die for us on the cross
June 27, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
i hope you dont delete my answers anymore
i realy dont under stand starbix,you invited me here and sent me to your web site but you are all ways deleting my comments whats up with that,i give you a answer to the geneoligy about jesus but you did away with it i thought you where looking for answers? this answer was giving under whats wrong with the bible? you ast the ? and i give a answer and i found it gone, are you going to keep doing that or do you not want people to read the answer’s.wy ast ?if you are going to keep deleting people’s answers its not very nice it looks like your contorling everything,let the cards fall where they may ha.now you whant me to do everything threw email, its like you dont want people to read the answers to your ? its like your making the conversation look like you want it to, i hope iam realy wrong here but, you cant blamm me for thinking it the way it is going down
June 27, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
The reason I’ve been deleting them is because they are extremely long and most seem to be just copied and pasted from other sources. It doesn’t look like you’re using your own words. I don’t mind quoting every now and then, but your answers seemed to be just using other people’s words. You are also posting quite a few at a time and I won’t have time to reply to them all. Let’s pick one topic and stick with that until we get it resolved. How does that sound to you? You just give me the topic or pick one from my previous posts and we’ll start with that. I suggested doing this through e-mail because I figured that way we could stick to one topic at a time as I suggested above. It has nothing to do with me not wanting people to see your answers, it has to do with your scattershot approach to debating. Let’s try and focus on one thing at a time, ok?
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
June 27, 2008 at 10:26 pm |
that sounds good to me, i would rather you pick a top to, that way i can try to help shed some light on it the best way i no how,if you have ? about the bible maybe i can help with it,i will do my best to try
June 27, 2008 at 10:29 pm |
some times i do copy and past,some times people can explain it better than i can, long as the facts are straight on the subject useing scripture,plus there a better at spelling lol
June 30, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
as far as god taking Pharaoh heart and making it harden,was by leting Pharaoh make his own decision,and his own decision harden his own heart in that sence.it would be like you knowing your own kids nature in that respect,if they wanted something and you dont give it to them what happing’s most of the time they get mad becouse they are not getting ther way,and who do they get mad at,well the person that is standing in there way from getting what they whant,well its the same with adults but they hold the grudge,who are they to tell me i cant do it or so on,you get the idea.in that sence god by denying what Pharaoh wanted,was to keep the jewish people,and god wanted to take them out of the land,but there comes that pride thing that all great men have specialy kings who are not used to getting told what to do,so Pharaoh made his own heart hard by his own pride,how god made his heart hard was he turned him over to his own mind he new how he thought and give him his free will to choose to let them go or not,god did not take his heart and make it more evil.this has been taking out of text
June 30, 2008 at 6:32 pm |
this has been taking out of text like when people say how is god all love when he say’s he hated esua but loved jacob.well if you read the original word in greek or hebrew i forget now witch one but it means to love less,nothing to do with hate at all.now there is people who will try and make it what they whant it to say,but if you check all of those claims out in the original text or words or study it for real then it is very simple to no what most of the so called claims realy mean, and you cant change the meaning of it just like the one with esua and jacob, hated meant loved less in the orginal text its not who is right or wrong here its if you realy whant the trueth you will go looking for it,or if you hate god then i cant change your mind set,becouse right of the bat you dont like him or what he stands for,but if you have a ? i would try to do my best to help answer it for you,and if i have wrote anything here and you have taking offence to it iam sorry nothing was on purpose god bless see ya later
June 30, 2008 at 9:27 pm |
If it was Pharaoh’s decision then why does the Bible constantly refer to God hardening his heart as in these verses:
Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
Exodus 7:3
And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
Exodus 7:13
And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.
Exodus 9:12
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.
Exodus 10:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:
Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.
Exodus 10:27
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let them go.
Exodus 11:10
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
Exodus 14:4
And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD.
Exodus 14:8
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel
Exodus 14:17
I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour.
Now, what you seem to be ignoring is the fact that whether or not Pharaoh was going to make that decision, he still didn’t do it. According to the Bible, God violated Pharaoh’s “Free Will” so that he could murder all those children.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
P.S.
I realize I copy and pasted a lot, but I felt it necessary as it was directly relevant to the issue at hand.
P.P.S.
Hey Brian and Alex, where have you been? I’m still waiting for your responses.
July 1, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
Why Did God Harden Pharaoh’s Heart? now iam going to give you a long one here but it is very importent to read all of it becouse it has the best answer fir this ? witch needs alot of explaining so please be patiant thx iam going to copy and past it for you
July 1, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
When we read the passages like Exodus 9:12, 10:20, of “The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh”, it is quite easy to come to erroneous conclusions if we aren’t careful. But the truth is, the Lord was not making Pharaoh do evil, the Lord was “allowing” him to do evil. That’s an important distinction that changes the whole picture. Pharaoh (as is all of mankind) was by nature desperately wicked. That is what normally proceeds from the heart of man since the fall of Adam. Hard and obstinate is the normal condition of the heart.
Matthew 15:19
“For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:”
Only God truly understands the total depravity of man’s heart against Him. From Adam’s fall it is not conditioned to receive God’s Word, but hardened as a stone in carnality to reject it. The only thing that keeps man from acting on all of the depravity in his heart is God’s hand in the restraint of sin. Otherwise carnal man would soon destroy himself. This stony nature of the heart is illustrated in such scriptures as:
Ezekiel 11:19
“And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:”
Without God’s interference, man’s heart is a stony heart, where it’s hardened to God. But God is determined that His will and purpose be done on earth, and so God places His hand of restraint upon man that His will be carried out to His glory. What man generally doesn’t understand is that he is not in control in this world, God is. And God makes his rain to fall on the wicked as well as well as on the just. The light of day shines both on the just and upon the unjust unless God takes it away that it be darkened. That little kindliness that most men have is because of God’s hand of restraint to keep his wicked heart from becoming totally obstinate or hardened to the point where he will do all of the depraved things which are therein. His hand of restraint is what softens man’s heart that it isn’t “continually” as wicked as it desires to be.
Jeremiah 17:9
“The Heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it?
I the Lord search the heart, I try the reigns, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doing.”
The heart is deceitful above all, and who can know it? Certainly not man, for he thinks that he is a good fellow. But God knows better! He tried the reigns of Pharaoh’s heart and it was found wanting, and by removing His hand of restraint, Pharaoh’s heart returned to it’s darkened typically Obstinate (hardened) state. This God does as judgment, that He might give him according to his evil ways. The Wickedness that would come out of man’s heart if not restrained of God would be continually evil. The same continually evil thoughts for which God destroyed the world in Noah’s day.
Genesis 6:5
“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
God made a covenant that He would not destroy the earth as He did in flood of Noah’s day, and so restrains sin in man that the world be not destroyed till He has fulfilled His will and purpose and Christ return. Without God’s hand of restraint softening the heart, man would soon destroy himself. But not a sparrow falls to the earth without God’s Sovereign will being done. Even the very hairs of our head are numbered. Ordinarily, God restrains sin within the life of carnal or natural man, because God is building His Church and the wickedness of man will not be allowed to thwart this process. And the method of this Sovereignty over man is His hand of restraint. The carnal man knows little or nothing of this action on God’s part, but God is working in the world continually that His will (and not our own) be done. A biblical example is when Abimelech, King of Gerar, wasn’t told that Sarah was Abraham’s wife, and so he took her to himself. The Lord came to him in a dream warning him (Genesis 20:1-6) about this. The King was quite upset because he hadn’t touched her and didn’t know that she was Abraham’s wife. He said, “..I had not come near her, and I didn’t know she was this man’s wife, etc., etc.” And here God reveals the mystery to us as He declares,
Genesis 20:6
“..Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; For I also withheld thee from sinning against Me: Therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.”
You see, while King Abimelech may have “thought” it was all his doing not to touch this Woman out of the goodness or integrity of his heart, the Lord lets us know that it wasn’t that the king was good, it was truly because God Himself was at work and put integrity in the heart. He did this restraining without the King’s knowledge preventing what he had in his heart from coming to fruition in sin against God. That is not a statement to take lightly. In order to get His will done on earth, God restrains the evil of man’s heart.
Moreover, when we become Saved, God makes His abode with us and He becomes ruler of our lives, continually restraining us from evil. He is the one responsible for all the working of Good or integrity in us. He softens the Believers heart to the point where we will finally live for Christ and do His will. He takes full responsibility for this, lest any man should boast.
Philippians 2:13
“For it is God which worketh in you both to WILL and to DO of His good pleasure.”
Hebrews 13:21
“Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen”.
Some have this misguided idea of a God sitting in heaven worrying about if man will be too evil and destroy the world, or not good enough to get the job done of building His Church before the great wickedness come. Nothing could be further from the truth! He is not sitting back idle waiting to see what wicked man will do next, it is He who is in control. Not a feather falls to the ground unless it be known ahead of time of God. God is always at work in the world restraining evil in wicked man, and working in believers to do good, so that His will and purpose might be made manifest.
In this same way, God was restraining Pharaoh from sinning. As Kings go, Pharaoh was a wicked king in many ways, but he also certainly had many good qualities about him. He was a typical Pharaoh that reigned over Egypt. But now as God comes through Moses to ask that the children of Israel be let go, God is releasing His restraint of sin in Pharaoh, that his heart would be in it’s normal unreasonable and deceitful state. In this hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, the Glory of God will be seen in the signs and wonders for generations to come.
Exodus 7:3
“And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.”
He is going to let Pharaoh be a figure, or a “type” of a kingdom of bondage which held the Lord’s people captive, and show in Pharaoh someone who is completely rebellious against God (Which is exactly what Pharaoh was by nature when not restrained). By God removing His hand of restraint, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened to it’s natural state. It’s not that God made him do anything, God simply stopped restraining him and let him do what he wanted. And in this, God can show His Glory in the signs and wonders which He manifested. The sin of the hardened heart, was truly Pharaoh’s. And indeed God says so.
July 1, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
Exodus 8:15
“But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.”
The most findamental law of sound hermeneutics is that the scriptures cannot contradict each other, thus we cannot ask who really did the hardening, for a query such as this sets scripture against scripture. Rather, we are ablidged to ask ‘how’ were Pharaoh and God both responsible for the hardening of His heart. It was Pharaoh who hardened his heart, but it was God who took off the restraints and allowed it. God uses this language that He hardened his heart to show that He is Sovereign, He was in charge, and it was for His purposes that this was allowed. In other words, it’s to illustrate to us that God is allowing Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened that He might work out the plan of the Salvation of man in it. Indeed, it was He that made Pharaoh’s heart hardened ‘by’removing His hand of restraint of his sin. He indirectly hardened it, as this was His judgment and He takes responsibility for this hardening. A judgment upon Pharaoh and a Blessing for generations to come.
Allow me to make a practical analogy. If one were physically holding someone back from committing a crime, and he told him he’d let him go and he should not henceforth commit crimes. And when he let him go, He committed crimes again, is that man responsible for another man’s sin simply because he no longer physically restrained him? The answer of course is no, not at all! Every man is responsible for his own sin. When he took away his hand of restraint, the sinner did what he wanted to do all along. This man was under no obligation to physically prevent anyone from sinning, and neither is God. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. This is the principle at work here. Each man is responsible for his own actions. In my analogy, it was one man’s Grace that he was holding him back. Likewise, it is God’s Grace which restrains sin in man. Unmerited favor.
God is under no obligation to restrain anyone from Sin, or lighten anyone that they might see. And if man’s Obstinate heart might Glorify God, then God has the Sovereign right to use it to do so. In this, God’s will and purpose shall be made known. The point being, the responsibility for the sinfulness of the Heart is man’s! While God removed His hand of restraint and hardened the Heart of Pharaoh by this action, the sin is Pharaoh’s, not God’s. We see this plainly in verses such as,
1st Samuel 6:6
July 1, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
please be patiant take your time reading them
July 1, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
Consider this text from Daniel 5:20, “But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him.” It cut Pharaoh to the heart for Moses to demand of him to let the Israelites go. In Acts 7, when Stephen preached so ably and God was blessing him with such grace to preach, didn’t the same thing happen to those Jews who were listening as did happen to Pharaoh?
I think so. Acts 7:54 says, “When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.” All Stephen did was preach the truth to them just as Moses did to Pharaoh and both the Jews who heard Stephen and Pharaoh who heard Moses had the same basic reaction.
July 1, 2008 at 9:05 pm |
It still doesn’t matter how wicked he was normally, he didn’t do it. The god of the Bible was the omnipotent acting force on Pharaoh’s decision. In his own words he unequivocally states that he performed the act which led directly to the murder of innocent children.
“The most findamental law of sound hermeneutics is that the scriptures cannot contradict each other, thus we cannot ask who really did the hardening, for a query such as this sets scripture against scripture.”
So you assume a priori that the Bible does not contradict itself? On what authority? If you say the Bible then you are guilty of circular reasoning. If you say God then where does your idea of God come from, if not the Bible? Any study of a book that assumes, in the first place, that the book itself is without contradiction is logically flawed from the start.
July 2, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
When we first read Ex 9:12 “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.” NIV, we have the impression that God forced His will on pharaoh.
Immediately we need to ask ourselves, does God do this consistently through the Bible? The answer is no. He let Adam and Eve decide for themselves if they would follow His directions or not. He let David decide for himself if he should follow his hearts evil desires or not. He let Saul decide for himself if he should persecute Christians or not.
If something is in contradiction with the rest of the Bible, then we can immediately realize that we have made the wrong conclusion, as God Heb 13:8 “is the same yesterday and today and forever.” NIV
But how should we understand Ex 9:12?
Let us look more closely to the events leading to this text.
During the first 5 plagues falling on Egypt, the Bible clearly indicates that it was pharaoh who hardened his heart:
Ex 7:13 “Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.” NIV (see also Ex 14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:7,34,35; and 13:15). God having the foreknowledge of our actions knew how pharaoh would react, but in those texts the hardening of pharaoh’s heart is not attributed to God, but on pharaoh himself!
Could pharaoh have repented during these plagues and been saved?
Absolutely, as the book of Exodus clearly indicates that those plagues had an impact on the people of Egypt as when the Exodus occurred, Ex 12:38 “Many other people went up with them.” NIV Even pharaoh’s magicians confessed: Ex 8:19 “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not listen, just as the LORD had said. NIV But pharaoh is the one who resisted the Lord!
Now from plague 6 and on, the Bible always attributes the hardening of pharaoh’s heart to God. Why?
Pharaoh had plenty of opportunities to repent and give his heart to the Lord. But there is a point where one crosses the road to perdition and no return seems possible, as one refuses to listen to the Lord. At that moment, God leaves you to your own devices and you suffer the consequences. If only one would listen to God’s voice, He would welcome one back, not as a stranger, but as a son of His.
This is confirmed in Ps 81:8 “Hear, O my people, and I will warn you–if you would but listen to me, O Israel!” NIV The Lord longs for a relationship with you. He desires your happiness! But how can you be blessed if you have turned your back to God and go forward in your evil desires?
What happens when you don’t listen to your loving Heavenly Father?
Ps 81:11-12 “But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices.” NIV
He gives you over to your stubborn heart to follow your own evil devices. He takes full responsibility. He wants you to turn away from your path of self-destruction, but He won’t force you. The choice is really yours. This is what is meant by hardening pharaoh’s heart.
Now is the time my friend to turn away from that certain path to hell. Now is the time to experience true freedom. Jesus wants to welcome you to His family. Will you let Him? Come to Him and answer His call
July 2, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
When the Lord first spoke to Moses, telling him what he must do and say in the presence of Pharaoh, He said of Pharaoh that “I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go” (Exodus 4:21).
Exodus 9:34-35 34 When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. 35 So Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the LORD had said through Moses.
The Lord used Pharaoh for HIS purpose. I honestly don’t believe for one second that God could possibly violate man in anyway. HE created us. HE can do as HE pleases with us. Whatever He would do that seems bad to us, is truly to fulfill a plan that He has. Everything is already laid out, and He knows exactly what is going to go on before it does. There is NOTHING that can surprise Him. He knows what He needs to do for the good of His plan.
July 2, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
God knows our heart. We have free will and make our own choices, however, God knows if we are close to Him. Did Jesus pick Judas because Judas was weak? Possibly, but Judas made a choice. God didn’t hardened Pharaoh’s heart, neither did God make Judas a traitor. He knows us better than we know ourselves.
July 2, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
you have to remember that pharaoh thought he was god the sun god the evning and the morning star,every one of those plagues was againts the gods of egypt,and pharaoh,look at the mind set of pharaoh first off he thought he was god and god was going to show him who was truely god the only god
July 2, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
Are you talking about the 10 plagues?? The term ‘first born’ means just that. You can be 80 years old and be the first born just as easily as you can be 1 day old.
God didn’t only command all first born “children” to be killed at the passover, he commanded all first borns, from adults to animals.
At the time Moses was born the Pharaoh ordered all the Hebrew newborns killed (not Hebrew “first borns” as one answerer said). That could be a the motive, that God was returning the Pharoah’s sin back upon the Egyptians, even killing Pharoah’s first born.
Exodus 12:12, “For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.”
The way to survive that night of the plague was published. EVERYONE knew what they had to do. Many Egyptians did exercise faith in God and did as directed. At the same time there were some Hebrews who didn’t. Regardless, there was a way provided to escape. Pharaoh was hardhearted and lost his son.
July 2, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
sorry for so many post just trying to answer the ? at hand pharaohs heart and the 10 plague
July 6, 2008 at 11:46 pm |
Whether God had done it before or after has no bearing on whether he did it this time.
“The Lord used Pharaoh for HIS purpose. I honestly don’t believe for one second that God could possibly violate man in anyway. HE created us. HE can do as HE pleases with us. Whatever He would do that seems bad to us, is truly to fulfill a plan that He has…. He knows what He needs to do for the good of His plan.”
Now you’re contradicting yourself. Either Pharaoh made the decision or God did. Just because you seem to think that nothing God does is wrong does not mean that it’s the truth. Are you seriously arguing that the ends justify the means?
I emphasize the children because they are the true victims in this story. I can concede that all the adults may have oppressed or harmed the Hebrews in one way or another, but it is impossible for infants and small children to have done so.. As I said, they were innocent.
You also have not replied to my previous comment:
“So you assume a priori that the Bible does not contradict itself? On what authority? If you say the Bible then you are guilty of circular reasoning. If you say God then where does your idea of God come from, if not the Bible? Any study of a book that assumes, in the first place, that the book itself is without contradiction is logically flawed from the start.”
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
July 8, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
starbix,i dont no if i can help you,you seem to take things out of context alot,you are a very smart person,but in order to understand the bible better i think you ned to study it,there is a way i will give it to you,you may already no it but i will give it to you anyway,but here is something to think on to.-(Contextual method:) A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
July 8, 2008 at 6:02 pm |
Techniques of hermeneutics
In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers what language says, supposes, doesn’t say, and implies. The process consists of several theories for best attaining the Scriptural author’s intended meaning(s). One such process is taught by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):
Lexical-syntactical method: This method looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
Historical/cultural method: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
Contextual method: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
Theological method: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn’t make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poorer interpretation.
Special literary methods: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.
July 8, 2008 at 6:03 pm |
[edit] Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis
This particular form of theological hermeneutics, especially within the mainstream, self-declared ‘orthodox’ Protestant tradition, considers Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Thus Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics as generally understood. Within such traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. Such formulae are generally not mutually exclusive, and interpreters may adhere to several of these approaches at once. Such formulae include: [1]
Theological Group of Principles:
The Election Principle
The Historical-grammatical principle based on historical, socio-political, geographical, cultural and linguistic / grammatical context
The Dispensation Principle or The Chronometrical Principle: “During different periods of time, God has chosen to deal in a particular way with man in respect to sin and man’s responsibility.”
The Covenantal Principle: “We differentiate between the various contracts that God has made with his people; specifically their provisions, their parties and their purposes.”
The Ethnic Division Principle: “The word of truth is rightly divided in relation to the three classes which it treats, i.e. Jews, Gentiles and the Church.”
The Breach Principle: Interpretation of a certain verse or passage in Scripture is aided by a consideration of certain breaches, either breaches of promise or breaches of time.
The Christo-Centric Principle: “The mind of deity is eternally centered in Christ. All angelic thought and ministry are centered in Christ. All Satanic hatred and subtlety are centered at Christ. All human hopes are, and human occupations should be, centered in Christ. The whole material universe in creation is centered in Christ. The entire written word is centered in Christ.”
The Moral Principle
The Discriminational Principle: “We should divide the word of truth so as to make a distinction where God makes a difference.”
The Predictive Principle
The Application Principle: “An application of truth may be made only after the correct interpretation has been made”
The Principle of Human Willingness in Illumination
The Context Principle: “God gives light upon a subject through either near or remote passages bearing upon the same subject.”
Sub-divided Context/Mention Principles:
The First Mention Principle: “God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth with which that subject stands connected in the mind of God.”
The Progressive Mention Principle: “God makes the revelation of any given truth increasingly clear as the word proceeds to its consummation.”
The Comparative Mention Principle
The Full Mention Principle or The Complete Mention Principle: “God declares his full mind upon any subject vital to our spiritual life.”
The Agreement Principle: “The truthfulness and faithfulness of God become the guarantee that he will not set forth any passage in his word that contradicts any other passage.”
The Direct Statement Principle: “God says what he means and means what he says.”
The Gap Principle:”God, in the Jewish Scriptures, ignores certain periods of time, leaping over them without comment.”
The Threefold Principle:”The word of God sets forth the truths of salvation in a three-fold way: past – justification; present – sanctification/transformation; future – glorification/consummation.”
The Repetition Principle:”God repeats some truth or subject already given, generally with the addition of details not before given.”
The Synthetic Principle
The Principle of Illustrative Mention
The Double Reference Principle
Figures of Speech Group of Principles:
The Numerical Principle
The Symbolic Principle
The Typical Principle: “Certain people, events, objects and rituals found in the Old Testament may serve as object lessons and pictures by which God teaches us of his grace and saving power.”
The Parabolic Principle
The Allegorical Principle
July 8, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
Biblical hermeneutics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. that is where i got that from.think of something like this just for a instence not that its tru but in a sence that you should be afraid.if GOD was the GOD you portray him to be,and he was not a just god or loving,and did that,how much more would you be punished in the sense that god is not what i think or what scripture teaches,i would be scared man,but for me iam not, thank god he is not like that or i would be in trouble right there with ya,but thanks be to god for his mercy.but i pray you please dont close your heart off this was not all by chance that i came to your door and we have continued this far,god is calling man dont reject him,just ast him if he is real to open your eye’s to him ast him to make his self nown to you please you have nothing to loose.may god open your eye’s i will pray,i will pray for you always every time i think of you,and just so you no i have already been praying for you,may GOD BLESS YOU ALL THE DAYS OF YOUR LIFE and your wife and kids, by my friend
July 9, 2008 at 10:47 pm |
These would be the same hermeneutics about which you said: “The most findamental law of sound hermeneutics is that the scriptures cannot contradict each other”, correct?
By making such an assumption you are throwing logic and critical thinking out the window. I will have no part of it. Try again. I still await your answer to my previous reply.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams
July 16, 2008 at 9:32 am |
Sweet Jesus’ Ass!!!!
And I thought I could get long-winded!!!
LOL! I’ll see if I can muster some time to get through all of this! Yikes!
July 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
i have a couple ? i would like to ask you, 1 ? is where do you come up whith the idea of just and loving. and the 2? is your moral law where did you get it?. and the third ? is if killing a baby is any worse than killing an adult and if so why ?
July 16, 2008 at 9:10 pm |
1. Just: I believe you mean this in the sense of justice. Justice is the concept of one being punished for acts that are detrimental to another individual or the society as a whole. This is because we are social animals and our society would fall apart if individuals were allowed to act in a harmful fashion without any punishment. It is basic evolution. If a society is not cohesive and just it dies out.
Love: It is a chemical reaction in the brain that makes one individual more partial to another. There is an evolutionary benefit to love as well. Love creates close bonds and these bonds make the group more cohesive which, as stated above, leads to a greater chance of survival.
2. My “Moral Law” is thus: In any situation, do the least amount of harm as possible. I got it from observing the world around me and realizing that not everyone would like to be done unto as we would have them do unto us.
3. Killing is bad any way you look at it. It is especially wrong to kill babies because they have done nothing to harm anyone else and are defenseless.
Now, I would pose the same questions to you.
Starbix
“Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams