 |
|  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 6/22/2003 2:52 AM (GMT -6) |   | I've been out for three weeks so I'm way behind on this one. I just read the last page, so forgive me if I am off the mark. But it seems to me Paul that the perhaps of Jere. 26 isn't at all connected to the "if...then..." clauses of Leviticus. It's connected to a) the possibility that the people will listen and b) the possibility that God will change his mind in response to their repentance.
Jer. 26:3 It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.
Perhaps I'm missing something in your argument. Blessings
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/22/2003 12:15 PM (GMT -6) |   | GregBoyd,
My argument is simply that you can't disassociate Jer 26.3 from Leviticus. It is the final act in the culmination of the "if, then" statement. If the culmination of that statement doesn't come true, i.e. Judah listens and is relieved from all consequences for their actions, then one can do whatever they want, repent, and suffer no physical consequences for their actions. You might even take it to an extreme and say that even though Romans 6:23 says, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. repentance would/could relieve us from the ultimate physical consequences of sin, which is death. According to this view, we could have a world of sin without death and everyone would live forever, as long as they are caught up on their repentence. Of course, that view point would conflict with Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Men die because they sin and no amount of repentance will relieve men of the consequences of their sin.
Judah disobeyed for 490 years and it was mandatory that they went into captivity, just like Leviticus said.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 6/22/2003 4:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | [quote] Paul, I don't mean to DISSASSOICATE Jere. 26 from Leviticus. But the "perhaps" of Jere. 26:3 is saying MUCH more than the "if...then..." of Leviticus. God is saying that the people MAY LISTEN and he MAY change his mind. It's PARTICULAR to the specific people and situation addressed in Jere. 26. God is saying something more than "if they obey....I bless...If they disobey...I curse." He's saying THESE PEOPLE MAY listen to you. The exact same thing is done in Ezek 12:3: "PERHAPS they will understand...." -- even though, it turns out, they DON'T. If it was CERTAIN they WOULDN'T, God was lying when he told Ezekiel they PERHAPS WOULD.
See the problem?
Keep the peace, Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/22/2003 5:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | GregBoyd,
If the situation is as you say, then God lied in Leviticus. Do we have a Catch-22 situation where God lied, no matter what He does? Since I don't believe God lied, there must be a way to resolve the problem.
It might be appropriate to allow the passage that is easiest to understand to dictate the understanding of the less easy passage. With that in mind, I contend the Leviticus passage is easier to understand. The Leviticus passage isn't ambiguous about the consequences of disobedience. The "If j = d, then p = t/7 where t = time in years and 7 is the sabbatical interval." situation is clearly presented and the only thing in question is obedience. If there is disobedience, the next question is whether or not they will accept the punishment for their disobedience. Leviticus 26.41 ...if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: 42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. If J(Judah) = HH(humbled hearts) and AP(accept punishment) then R(restoration).
Then I have to ask, where is the reference to the captivity in Jer. 26.3 ff? I find making Jerusalem desolate, or in a state of rest, like Shiloh and a curse to every nation, which must be the "evil" that God would repent of. Nowhere do I find anything that would suggest the captivity would be scrapped. Surely Judah consists of more than Jerusalem and the captivity involves all of Judah?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 6/22/2003 8:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | I'm not following you Paul. Leviticus isn't a promise, but a warning. God is free to be patient and forgiving in how he cares out his warning. So he hasn't lied if he changes his mind about punishment in the light of their repentance. (cf. Jere. 18:1-10).
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/23/2003 4:30 PM (GMT -6) |   | GregBoyd,
You didn't answer about where the reference to captivity is in Jer 26.3ff. I don't see it and I think there may be a preconceived idea that the "evil" has to be the captivity.
You are quite right that Leviticus isn't a "promise", but neither is it a warning or a suggestion. It is actually the commands of God with certain penalties for disobeying those commands. Leviticus 26.43The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes. Aren't "statutes" very similar to commands, ordinances or laws? There is no inclination toward a Dr. Spock methodology here.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 6/23/2003 7:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | Paul, I don't see what captivity has to do with our understanding of God saying "they MAY understand...I MAY change my mind." That is the point of debate isn't it? You may have covered this earlier and I missed it since I jumped in late in the game on this one. If so, I apologize.
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Laika Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003 Total Posts : 2433 | Posted 6/24/2003 6:15 AM (GMT -6) |   | Paul5388
quote:
You didn't answer about where the reference to captivity is in Jer 26.3ff. I don't see it and I think there may be a preconceived idea that the "evil" has to be the captivity.
It's interesting to look at Jeremiah 24, 25 and 26. They seem to be in reverse chronological order.
Jeremiah 24:1 "After Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away captive Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah" Zedekiah is mentioned as being king later in Jeremiah 24.
Jeremiah 25:1 "The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon)"
Jeremiah 26:1 "In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the LORD, saying"
So, change the order to chronological and you get Jer 26-->Jer 25-->Jer 24.
The PERHAPS and MAY REPENT of Jeremiah 26 turns into the I WILLs of Jeremiah 25 and the punishment is actually carried out in Jeremiah 24.
Where is the captivity mentioned in Jeremiah 26 (the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign)? It's mentioned in Jeremiah 25, (the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign) when God's chance for repentance is over
II Kings 46 shows this chronology as well:
(Jeremiah 26) Jehoiakim is king, God warns him and gives him a chance to repent, He uses conditional language (PERHAPS, MAY REPENT)
(Jeremiah 25) repentance time is over, God enacts the penalty mentioned as a possibility in Leviticus, Jehoiakim is carried off into exile, God uses determinative language (WILL)
(Jeremiah 24) Jehoiakim's son is also carried off into captivity, Zedekiah is mentioned as now being king

Edited by - Laika on 06/24/2003 12:15:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/24/2003 6:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | Laika,
I think you missed the point about the captivity. Jer 26.3ff refers to verses 3-6 and there is no mention of captivity in these verses. Of course, there also isn’t any mention of captivity in the whole 26th chapter.
Just because the first verse of Chapter 26 talks about “the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim”, verses 20-23 speak of past actions of Jehoiakim the king, events that preceded Jeremiah’s words in verses 3-6. The “beginning” only has reference to the first part of his reign, not an account from day one. Of course, the same introduction is made in Chapter 27.1 which reinforces that it is not counting from the very beginning.
The issue of “perhaps” in Jer 26.3ff only has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and is a non-issue concerning the captivity. Jer 27.17 Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon, and live: wherefore should this city be laid waste? According to Daniel 1.1-3 the captivity started in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign and if memory serve me right (which is always a question as “Old Timers” disease takes a firmer hold) there were three deportations involved, not just one (the first when Daniel was carried away, the second when Ezekiel and Jehoiakim were carried away and the last during Zedekiah’s time).
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/24/2003 6:18 PM (GMT -6) |   | GregBoyd,
I apologize for assuming that you knew we were discussing the "perhaps" of Jer 26.3ff as an opportunity for Judah to put off going into captivity. At least that's what Tom offered when I asked for a specific example of a "maybe".
I don't have a problem with Jonah's message involving a change from stated plans or even an offer to not destroy Jerusalem in Jer 26, but I totally reject the possibility that the captivity was a "maybe" after 490 years of disobedience.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Laika Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003 Total Posts : 2433 | Posted 6/25/2003 2:10 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
I think you missed the point about the captivity. Jer 26.3ff refers to verses 3-6 and there is no mention of captivity in these verses. Of course, there also isn’t any mention of captivity in the whole 26th chapter.
How do you desolate a city? Remove it's inhabitants for one.
II Kings 24
quote:
1 In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2 The LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans, bands of Arameans, bands of Moabites, and bands of Ammonites. So He sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken through His servants the prophets. {Jeremiah 26 AND 25 being part of this} 3 Surely at the command of the LORD it came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, 4 and also for the innocent blood which he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; and the LORD would not forgive.
Shows both destruction of Judah and removal of the peoples.
II Chronicles 36:
quote:
5 Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem; and he did evil in the sight of the LORD his God. 6 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against him and bound him with bronze chains to take him to Babylon.
shows doing evil followed by captivity.
The captivity is also mentioned in Jeremiah chapter 25, the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign. Looks like God is giving Jehoiakim a chance.
quote:
The “beginning” only has reference to the first part of his reign, not an account from day one.
Maybe not day one, but certainly before the fourth year. Jehoiakim ruled only eleven years, the fourth year would have been 36% of the way through his reign, too advanced to be the beginning.
quote:
Of course, the same introduction is made in Chapter 27.1 which reinforces that it is not counting from the very beginning.
Jeremiah 27 is the beginning of Zedekiah's reign, not Jehoiakim's. How does that reinforce beginning not equalling beginning? The custom combine crew I used to work for, when they told me to be up at the beginning of the day, I got up EARLY, not a third the way through the day. 

Edited by - Laika on 06/25/2003 07:55:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/25/2003 5:48 PM (GMT -6) |   | Laika,
This is how I figure Jer 26.1 and Jer 27.1 are talking about something other than an account from day one and both are dealing with Jehoiakim. Jer 26.1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word from the LORD, saying, Jer 27.1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
You can make a city "desolate" by destroying it to the point of making it uninhabitable. Seems like Ezra and Nehemiah had to undertake the rebuilding of Jerusalem that was destroyed/desolate. Babylon became desolate through its destruction by the Medes and Persians. It seems like it became the habitation of wild beasts.
I quoted Jer 25 a long time ago to reinforce the captivity as a settled fact. I seem to remember the third year of Jehoiakim, when Daniel was carried off into captivity, comes before the fourth year of Jehoiakim. The captivity had started before Jer 25 was written and probably started before Jer 26 as well. It might be a good exercise to read II Kings 24 for the sequence of events surrounding the captivity and who was king at what time. Jehoiachin was king after his father Jehoiakim and was then carried into captivity which was sixteen years after Daniel was carried off into captivity. Zedekiah reigned for eleven years and then more were carried off into captivity.
You might want to explain how Jeremiah hid a girdle by Euphrates in Jer 13. Was he a spy in Iraq for the Moussad or was he with those in captivity? Of course, we find this in Jer 13.19 The cities of the south shall be shut up, and none shall open them: Judah shall be carried away captive all of it, it shall be wholly carried away captive.
I repeat, there is no "maybe" in Jer 26.3ff concerning the captivity.
Edited by - Paul5388 on 06/25/2003 10:49:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Laika Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003 Total Posts : 2433 | Posted 6/26/2003 2:51 AM (GMT -6) |   | Paul5388 sees Jehoiakim in Jeremiah 27:1
quote:
This is how I figure Jer 26.1 and Jer 27.1 are talking about something other than an account from day one and both are dealing with Jehoiakim. Jer 26.1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word from the LORD, saying, Jer 27.1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
Jeremiah 27:1 "In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying--"
What Bible version are you using? Here: bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JER+27&language=english&version=NASB
Here's something on Zedekiah: www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0853321.html
He was the third son of Josiah to be king.
You STILL haven't explained how beginning refers to a time that is after the fourth year which was 36% of the way through Jehoiakim's reign.
Jeremiah 24 also talks about Zedekiah, the king that succeeded Jehoiachin who succeeded Jehoiakim.
Jer 26 --------------> Jer 25 ------------------> Jer 24/Jer 27 warning to Jehoiakim captivity for Jehoiakim Zedekiah is king
chronologically, some of the prophetic books are mixed up, hence the necessity to understand the timestamps placed within the chapters

Edited by - Laika on 06/26/2003 09:06:10 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 6/26/2003 6:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | Paul: I don't have a problem with Jonah's message involving a change from stated plans or even an offer to not destroy Jerusalem in Jer 26, but I totally reject the possibility that the captivity was a "maybe" after 490 years of disobedience.
Greg: I don't have a problem with the captivity being a "maybe" even after 490 years of disobedience. (Couldn't you have argued the same thing after 100 or 200 or 489 years? What's magical about 490 years?). But, in any case, I don't think this is relevant to the "maybe" of Jere. 26:3, for God specifies its about whether or not THE PEOPLE WOULD LISTEN.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/26/2003 7:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | Laika,
I am using the KJV that is available through the Onlinebible.net. The NASB I have, Lockman Foundation 1973, says in a marginal note on Jer 27.1, "Many mss. read, Jehoiakim". Are we to change the reading, like the NASB, just because the Arabic and Syriac versions read "Zedekiah"?
I don't know that your links really have much to contribute that aren't already available in II Kings 24. Jehoiachin was a grandson of Josiah, who was also a puppet of Babylon before Zedekiah was a puppet. Don't you think Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin would be more likely to be confused with each other than Zedekiah?
The beginning can be anything up to 50% of the time of reign with the ending being anything more than 50% to the actual end. When one begins his reign at 25 years of age, wouldn't you expect there to be much more than 3-4 years or even 11 years in his total reign? Can we say G.W. Bush is beginning his presidency if we expect him to be reelected?
This is a quote from Josiah's day, II Kings 23.27 And the LORD said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there. Do you want to continue to argue that God's "will" to send Judah into captivity wasn't set before Jer 26.3ff? He didn't say "Maybe I will if they don't repent".
GregBoyd,
No, you couldn't argue after 100 years or whatever, since it wasn't an issue until 490 years. However, it must be admitted that it was written for all to see and hear for that 490 years and they had no excuse for their disobedience.quote: But, in any case, I don't think this is relevant to the "maybe" of Jere. 26:3, for God specifies its about whether or not THE PEOPLE WOULD LISTEN.
What is relevant is what value you put on "it". You say 'it" is the captivity and I say "it" is the destruction of Jerusalem. The captivity is non-negotiable, it was probably already happening, but the destruction of Jerusalem is negotiable and didn't necessarily have to happen if they would listen.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Laika Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003 Total Posts : 2433 | Posted 6/27/2003 2:30 AM (GMT -6) |   | Paul5388
quote:
I am using the KJV that is available through the Onlinebible.net. The NASB I have, Lockman Foundation 1973, says in a marginal note on Jer 27.1, "Many mss. read, Jehoiakim". Are we to change the reading, like the NASB, just because the Arabic and Syriac versions read "Zedekiah"?
So KJV has this chronology: Jeremiah 24 Zedekiah is king Jeremiah 25 Jehoiakim is king Jeremiah 26 Jehoiakim is king Jeremiah 27:1-11 Jehoiakim is king Jeremiah 27:12-22 Zedekiah is king (second term?)
quote:
The beginning can be anything up to 50% of the time of reign with the ending being anything more than 50% to the actual end. When one begins his reign at 25 years of age, wouldn't you expect there to be much more than 3-4 years or even 11 years in his total reign?
He reigned eleven years:
II Kings 23:36 Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem.
II Chronicles 36:5 Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD his God. 6: Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon.
Are you saying that he reigned more than eleven years, that he reigned over Jerusalem while a captive in Babylon?
Now Jer 26 it is the beginning of his 11 year reign and in Jer 25 it is the fourth year of his reign. Why use fourth? Why differentiate that time from beginning? If scripture had only used beginning and ending, you could make a case, but because another time qualifier, fourth, being used, it narrows beginning down to... beginning.
quote:
Can we say G.W. Bush is beginning his presidency if we expect him to be reelected?
If someone said, "GW did 'a' in the beginning of his presidency" and someone else said, "GW did 'b' in the fourth year of his presidency", you would place 'b' chronologically before 'a'.
So how shall we begin this discussion?

Edited by - Laika on 06/27/2003 08:00:55 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/27/2003 5:02 PM (GMT -6) |   | Laika,
quote: Jehoiakim
He whom Jehovah has set up, the second son of Josiah, and eighteenth king of Judah, which he ruled over for eleven years (B.C. 610-599) His original name was Eliakim (q.v.). On the death of his father his younger brother Jehoahaz (= Shallum,)#Jer 22:11 who favoured the Chaldeans against the Egyptians, was made king by the people; but the king of Egypt, Pharaoh-necho, invaded the land and deposed Jehoahaz #2Ki 23:33,34 Jer 22:10-12 setting Eliakim on the throne in his stead, and changing his name to Jehoiakim. After this the king of Egypt took no part in Jewish politics, having been defeated by the Chaldeans at Carchemish #2Ki 24:7 Jer 46:2 Palestine was now invaded and conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim was taken prisoner and carried captive to Babylon #2Ch 36:6,7 It was at this time that Daniel also and his three companions were taken captive to Babylon #Da 1:1,2 Nebuchadnezzar reinstated Jehoiakim on his throne, but treated him as a vassal king. In the year after this, Jeremiah caused his prophecies to be read by Baruch in the court of the temple. Jehoiakim, hearing of this, had them also read in the royal palace before himself. The words displeased him, and taking the roll from the hands of Baruch he cut it in pieces and threw it into the fire #Jer 36:23 During his disastrous reign there was a return to the old idolatry and corruption of the days of Manasseh. After three years of subjection to Babylon, Jehoiakim withheld his tribute and threw off the yoke #2Ki 24:1 hoping to make himself independent. Nebuchadnezzar sent bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, and Ammonites #2Ki 24:2 to chastise his rebellious vassal. They cruelly harassed the whole country (comp.) #Jer 49:1-6 The king came to a violent death, and his body having been thrown over the wall of Jerusalem, to convince the beseieging army that he was dead, after having been dragged away, was buried beyond the gates of Jerusalem "with the burial of an ass, " B.C. 599 #Jer 22:18,19 36:30 Nebuchadnezzar placed his son Jehoiachin on the throne, wishing still to retain the kingdom of Judah as tributary to him.
I think you will notice that Jehoiakim was taken captive to Babylon in the third year of his reign along with Daniel. Therefore the captivity started as early as 607 BC, even though most count from 587 BC when the captivity was fully accomplished. Evidently, Jehoiakim had two periods as king, but the second period, after his capture, was as a vassal to Babylon, just like Jehoiachin and Zedekiah. It may well be that the first period, up to the fourth year, was considered "the beginning" and the time afterward, while a vassal, wasn't included in "the beginning".
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 6/28/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6) |   | Paul and Laika, you are involved in an interesting, if somewhat esoteric, discussion. But I can't FOR THE LIFE OF ME see what it has to do with the original question, arising from Jere. 26:3. Here the Lord says....
Jer. 26:3 It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.
The "maybe" is about whether the people will listen or not. The issue is, how can God think and speak of the future in terms of "maybes." And it relates to WHETHER THE PEOPLE WILL LISTEN.
We could just as easily talk about Ezek 12"3.
Ezek. 12:3 ....Therefore, mortal, prepare for yourself an exile’s baggage, and go into exile by day in their sight; you shall go like an exile from your place to another place in their sight. Perhaps they will understand, though they are a rebellious house.
Turns out, they don't understand. So, the question is, if God KNEW they WOULDN'T understand, wasn't he lying when he told Ezekiel PERHAPS they WOULD understand?
What's all this captivity business got to do with this?
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/28/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6) |   | GregBoyd,
Knowing you are a very busy man, let me recap again for your benefit. Where you quote, "I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.", we are debating what nature of "disaster" will be brought on them. Laika seems to be insistant, as was Tom, that the disaster is the captivity, where I am equally insistant the disaster is the destruction of Jerusalem. I have shown that the captivity was an "I will" in Jehoiakim's father's (Josiah's) day, so there isn't any way for it to be a "maybe" in Jehoiakim's day. I have shown where the captivity started in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign when Daniel was taken into captivity along with Jehoiakim. What I haven't shown is the destruction of Jerusalem that took place after Zedekiah was blinded and taken into captivity (II Kings 25.7ff). This destruction is the only "maybe" involved and it took 27 years after Jehoiakim's captivity (his reign ended at his death in Jerusalem while a vassal to Babylon) to bring about the destruction.
Stated another way, "it relates to WHETHER THE PEOPLE WILL LISTEN" and? If they do/don't listen what happens? If (maybe) j = listens then no x or if (maybe) j = not listening then x. Listening or the lack of listening is just a process to get to x or no x. Laika and I are trying to place a value on x, where x can be either the captivity or the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem didn't have to happen and could very easily have been a "maybe". The captivity was an "I will" and couldn't have been a "maybe".
Therefore, if you present Jer 26.3ff as a "maybe" concerning the captivity no one is going to believe you, but if you present it as a "maybe" concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, some could believe you. It could be that it is all about the credibility of what is presented as a "maybe".
Concerning Eze 12.3, it was delivered to those already in Chaldea (captivity) by means of a vision (Eze. 11.24), but dealt with those in Judah. Their understanding has no bearing on what will happen. Eze. 12.11 Say, I am your sign: like as I have done, so shall it be done unto them: they shall remove and go into captivity. Ezekiel was prepared with the necessary information in case they didn't understand, which he deliver to them upon seeing their lack of understanding.
Edited by - Paul5388 on 06/29/2003 12:11:05 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 6/29/2003 9:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | Paul: Therefore, if you present Jer 26.3ff as a "maybe" concerning the captivity no one is going to believe you, but if you present it as a "maybe" concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, some could believe you. It could be that it is all about the credibility of what is presented as a "maybe".
Tom: You have denied the reality of "maybes" from the get-go. Whether it's Jerusalem or captivity, doesn't matter. You deny God ever faces genuine "maybes." To agree that God does face "maybes" is to embrace open theism. So what's the point in discussing what is presented as a "maybe" when you deny the reality of the category itself? Let's move on.

| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 6/29/2003 10:48 AM (GMT -6) |   | Will the layers and various ingrediants of the lasagna cook well together to create a wonderful meal?
Will the herb in the third layer change its Ph?
Its not just about that. Its not about any one thing in issolation.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/29/2003 3:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom,
Is this, "I don't have a problem with Jonah's message involving a change from stated plans or even an offer to not destroy Jerusalem in Jer 26, but I totally reject the possibility that the captivity was a "maybe" after 490 years of disobedience.", what you mean when you say, "You have denied the reality of "maybes" from the get-go"?
"Let's move on." I thought you had already moved on, since you haven't been participating in the discussion for such a long time.
But, maybe you can explain how you are going to handle those who are totally antagonistic to your beliefs, if you are having difficulty handling one who is semi-sympathetic to your cause. I can assure you, they will be much harder to deal with than I am.
Leaning on formal logic isn't going to win friends and influence people in the general populace.
POW,
There usually isn't enough of any one herb used to change the pH of anything. It's usually the citric acid in the Mozzerrela, the citric acid in the tomatos or the lactic acid in the cottage cheese that changes the pH in the lasagna. Ingredients used in larger amounts than herbs.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Tom Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 10353 | Posted 6/29/2003 6:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | Paul: Is this, "I don't have a problem with Jonah's message involving a change from stated plans or even an offer to not destroy Jerusalem in Jer 26, but I totally reject the possibility that the captivity was a "maybe" after 490 years of disobedience.", what you mean when you say, "You have denied the reality of "maybes" from the get-go"?
Tom: Let's see if you REALLY believe in "maybes" -- Question: Do you believe God faced these situations as "maybes" (i.e., not knowing the outcome)? To answer yes would make you an open theist. Still believe in "maybes"?
Paul: "Let's move on." I thought you had already moved on, since you haven't been participating in the discussion for such a long time.
Tom: Now now Paul. Be nice. PoW is coming with some lasagna if you're hungry. Just because I haven't commented doesn't mean I'm not here. By "let's move on" I just meant to suggest that there hadn't been anything new in this discussion for pages.
Paul: But, maybe you can explain how you are going to handle those who are totally antagonistic to your beliefs, if you are having difficulty handling one who is semi-sympathetic to your cause.
Tom: Don't flatter yourself by assuming people face a "difficulty" debating you. And don't assume to know what I have and have not faced on account of my beliefs.
Paul: I can assure you, they will be much harder to deal with than I am.
Tom: Who said you've been "hard" to deal with?
Paul: Leaning on formal logic isn't going to win friends and influence people in the general populace.
Tom: And abandoning logic isn't going to communicate with people either. Your comment sounds like a confession on your part that your arguments are not logically coherent. Are you admitting to having abandoned logical coherenency in this debate?

Edited by - TGB on 06/30/2003 06:10:51 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 6/30/2003 2:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | PAUL: POW, There usually isn't enough of any one herb used to change the pH of anything. It's usually the citric acid in the Mozzerrela, the citric acid in the tomatos or the lactic acid in the cottage cheese that changes the pH in the lasagna. Ingredients used in larger amounts than herbs.
TOM: Tom: Now now Paul. Be nice. PoW is coming with some lasagna if you're hungry.
pOw: No, Paul sounds like the cheff. (Tome can bring the wine.)
BTW: Tom has to tell us how the Counterfactuals are layered, and how the layers interact. (Hold the Moozi-mozzerrela.) | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Paul5388 Registered Member
 Date Joined Apr 2003 Total Posts : 295 | Posted 6/30/2003 4:32 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom,
I have been pondering your question since last night, which isn't such a long time, but long enough for me to arrive at a conclusion. In this instance I will have to side with Calvin, which is a rare happening. "Jer 26.3. if so be—expressed according to human conceptions; not as if God did not foreknow all contingencies, but to mark the obstinacy of the people and the difficulty of healing them; and to show His own goodness in making the offer which left them without excuse [CALVIN]." An anthropomorphic expression that has nothing to do with His knowledge of the future or that would constitute a lie on His part.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | 400 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:13 PM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|