Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rymmie1981 · 04-05-2004, 08:54 AM

OK, here we go again.

Quote:

ed: Actually I meant to say that God is directly responsible for the later hardenings of Pharaohs heart but the initial hardenings were by Pharoah himself as I demonstrated above.

If you assert that Pharoah hardened his own heart(which you obviously have several times throughout this thread), then you contradict the verses I quoted, specifically Rom. 9:16-18. Are you contradicting them because you don't believe the NT is inspired? Or is it out of simple human error? Either way, one would ask that you give your reasons for the contradiction.

Quote:

ed: But these verses are from the perspective of God. God is totally in control of what occurs on the earth and it was part of God's plan from the beginning that Pharoah would not let them go. But since we do not have exhaustive knowledge of how God controls the universe you cannot say that his control takes away our free will. It may appear to be a contradiction but in fact it is a paradox, just like the nature of light. Light has characteristics of both a particle and a wave, this was once thought to be a contradiction but once we learned more about light we determined that this assessment of its nature is correct. The same thing applies to how God's total control fits with man's free will. Its just that we don't know the nature of God's control.

The nature of light is not paradoxical. Allow me to give a simple explaination. (Forgive me if the chemistry terms are incorrect. Physics is more my field.) Light is released when electrons fall from a higher valence to a lower valence in their atom. When they move to a lower valence, they lose energy which is released as light. Only a certain amount of energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation. This certain amount of energy occupies a very small portion of space. We can think of it as a particle due to it's smallness. However, the "particle" is actually a standing wave of electromagnetic radiation. So, we can call this certain amount of electromagnetic radiation a particle for some purposes and a wave for others. This is not meant to be an exhaustive discourse on the properties of light. There are other complexities, but there is no paradox.

All of that to say that comparing the nature of God(which we lowly mortals cannot understand) to the nature of light(which we lowly mortals understand more fully each day) is not a good analogy. It is enough to say that we do not know how God controls everything. A paradox is when two things cannot happen concurrently within a logical framework. If you are making the assertion that God's power and our free will are paradoxical, then you are saying that your entire arguement thus far is not logical. An explanation of this position would be nice.

Quote:

ed: This just means that it was part of God's plan that Pharaoh would refuse to let the hebrews go and that he would be eventually destroyed. And yet he had free will see above about how this is a paradox. No, you cannot change God's ordained plan for you but yet you do have free will, again see above.

See above. This seems to be a pattern.

Quote:

ed: That is not what verse 22 is saying that God did. The vessels of destruction still had an important purpose for their lives and that is show the Glory and mercy of God on the undeserved vessels of mercy.

The entire passage is very clear about the purpose of the vessels of destruction. They are to show God's glory and mercy on the vessels of mercy by being destroyed. Or did I miss something where the vessels of destruction were put up on nice shelf with doilies and a spray of baby's breath and daffodils? The purpose of the passage I quoted was to prove to its readers that Pharoah was made to die in the Red Sea by the very hand of God. And, conversely, they were made to live in Heaven with Jesus by the same hand. Actually, that's the whole chapter, not just what I quoted, but feel free to read the chapter for full context.

Quote:

ed: No, you do have a choice in the matter, see above about the paradox.

I agree that I have a choice in the matter. But, I don't see a paradox since my world is based on logical rules that only change inside of a singularity.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-05-2004, 09:18 AM

Ed:

Quote:

Here God is just predicting that he will harden Pharoahs heart. Read verse 13 and you will see that Pharoah initiates the hardening himself.

Exodus 7:13: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Quote:

Actually I meant to say that God is directly responsible for the later hardenings of Pharaohs heart but the initial hardenings were by Pharoah himself as I demonstrated above.

Of course, you have not "demonstrated" any such thing.

You have merely assumed that if one translation of a verse fails to mention WHO hardened Pharaoh's heart, then Pharaoh himself did it.

God specifically hardens Pharaoh's heart in the following verses:

Quote:

Ex.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.

Ex.7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Ex.7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Ex.9:12 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Ex.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:

Ex.10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

Ex.10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.

Ex.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.

Ex.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.

Ex.14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel

Ex.14:17 I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour.

Pharaoh doesn't get the chance to harden HIS OWN heart until Exodus 8:15.

Quote:

8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

8:32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.

9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

There are also several occasions where Pharaoh's heart just hardens, with no culprit specified:

Quote:

7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.

9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.

So, the heart-hardener is:

4:21 God
7:3 God
7:13 God
7:22 Unspecified
8:15 Pharaoh
8:32 Pharaoh
9:7 Unspecified
9:12 God
9:34 Pharaoh
10:1 God
10:20 God
10:27 God
11:10 God
14:4 God
14:8 God
14:17 God

Exodus 7:13 is particularly relevant, as it's the first time that the heart-hardening actually happened (rather than God discussing his intention). Bible translations follow:

Quote:

KJV: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

NLT: Pharaoh's heart, however, remained hard and stubborn. He still refused to listen, just as the Lord had predicted.

(...note that the prediction is "But I will cause Pharaoh to be stubborn so I can multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in the land of Egypt")

NASB: Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

(...note that the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

NKJV: And Pharaoh's heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, as the Lord had said.

(...note that the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

Webster's: And he hardened Pharaoh's heart that he hearkened not to them; as the LORD had said.

Young's: and the heart of Pharaoh is strong, and he hath not hearkened unto them, as Jehovah hath spoken.

(...this implies that Pharaoh might have been at fault, but this is contradicted AGAIN by Exodus 7:3, where the lord had said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

Darby's: And Pharaoh's heart was stubborn, and he hearkened not to them, as Jehovah had said.

(...again, Jehovah had said that HE would do it)

ASV: And Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as Jehovah had spoken.

(...again, Jehovah had said that HE would do it)

RSV: Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the LORD had said.

(...again, what he SAID was that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart)

...So there you have it.

In EVERY TRANSLATION, God either SPECIFICALLY hardens Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 7:13, or Pharaoh's heart hardens in 7:13 AS GOD HAD SAID in Exodus 7:3, where GOD said that HE would harden Pharaoh's heart.

...Isn't it amazing what you learn if you actually READ the Bible?

Ed · 04-05-2004, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brettc

Quote:
Originally posted by Rymmie1981
Where is Pharoah's free will? [/B]

bc: Ex 10:16-20 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only. And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the LORD. And the LORD turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt. But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

He believed in God. He begged for forgiveness for his sins.

Not necessarily. He may have thought that they were just great magicans and he was giving them what he thought they wanted to hear to get rid of the locusts.

Ed · 04-06-2004, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Ladies and Gentlemen,

From past experience I recommend that you don't waste your time with Ed.

Ed ignores evidence contrary to his belief.
Will never concede the most obvious points.
Has his own version of bible stories.
Claims that he has shown this or that point in another thread or post but he hasn't.

Basically a total waste of time.

Ed's idea of debating is stonewalling.
His goal is to see you give up so that he can claim victory.

Ed gets beaten badly in every debate but continues as if he has the upper hand.

Again my advice is to ignore him.

Evidence?

Ed · 04-06-2004, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Funny, he tried to make the Ezekiel quote in which YHWH admits to committing evil say what it did not, failed, then tried to ignore it.

Now he tries to pretend the passage does not exist.

NOGO writes the truth. Debating with this individual is a waste of time.

--J.D.

No, all I did was put your taken out of context quote BACK in context!?!??? :banghead:

Ed · 04-07-2004, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: While many scholars do think this passage refers to rape. I think there is strong evidence that it does not and rather refers to premarital sex. Here are verses 28-29:

28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Notice it says "they are discovered" not "he is discovered". This seems to imply that they are both hiding. If it was rape just the man would try to hide it. Also the passage in Exodus 22:16 that deals with this same case:

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. "

Seduction is not exactly violently forced rape. In many cases seduction could be considered consensual.

jtb: The first verse refers to rape, the second verse refers to seduction. This is obvious. That's why the authors used different terms: he "seized" her in the first case, and "seduced" her in the second.

Not necessarily. When a man gets excited sometimes they get a little aggressive even when it is consensual and he may "seize" her.

Quote:

jtb: If rape WAS a major crime with a severe punishment, there would be a separate verse that deals specifically with rape, but there is no such law in the Bible. Rape isn't a big deal unless a married or betrothed woman gets raped.

I never said that rape was a major crime in ancient times. It was only after Christ and the church raised the status of women that rape became much more serious. The laws in the Torah are not exhaustive, Deut. 22:25-26 deals with rape and though it deals specifically with a betrothed woman the ancient judges most likely extrapolated it to other cases like rape of an unmarried woman. But even if I am wrong and verses 28-29 are talking about rape, you have to remember that in ancient times a husband was a woman's primary source of security. An unmarried non-virgin was pretty much in line for a death sentence from starvation or involuntary prostitution. So by forcing the man to marry the girl he raped and not allowing him to divorce her, it was like getting free ancient health insurance for life.

Quote:

jtb: ...But you already know all this, because we've discussed this before. You are seeking to apply a non-Biblical moral standard to the Bible, because you don't like what the Bible actually says.

Hardly. If you go up to the time of Christ, he and Paul teaches us to treat all women that are not our wife like our sisters. And although in this area God did not reveal his full teaching on the matter till the time of Christ and the Christian church, it is the same God in both the OT and the NT.

Quote:

It is still a mystery why you embrace some of the Bible's evils and reject others.

You have yet to demonstrate that evil exists.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-08-2004, 01:44 AM

Quote:

jtb: The first verse refers to rape, the second verse refers to seduction. This is obvious. That's why the authors used different terms: he "seized" her in the first case, and "seduced" her in the second.

Not necessarily. When a man gets excited sometimes they get a little aggressive even when it is consensual and he may "seize" her.

You have failed to address my point that if BOTH verses applied to consensual sex, there would be NO verse that applied to the rape of a young, single woman.

If a young, single woman WAS raped, the Hebrews would have turned to their "holy book" to see what the punishment was. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 spells it out.

Quote:

I never said that rape was a major crime in ancient times.

FINALLY we're making progress...

Quote:

Deut. 22:25-26 deals with rape and though it deals specifically with a betrothed woman the ancient judges most likely extrapolated it to other cases like rape of an unmarried woman.

Highly unlikely, for three reasons:

1. The death penalty applies to adultery, not rape.

2. If it happened in a town, the victim would be put to death if she didn't cry out: there is no need to punish her if she was single.

3. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 already covers this situation.

Quote:

But even if I am wrong and verses 28-29 are talking about rape, you have to remember that in ancient times a husband was a woman's primary source of security. An unmarried non-virgin was pretty much in line for a death sentence from starvation or involuntary prostitution. So by forcing the man to marry the girl he raped and not allowing him to divorce her, it was like getting free ancient health insurance for life.

An unmarried woman is perfectly capable of herding goats. And if she WAS in further danger from other men: well, that says a lot about the morality of "God's chosen people". Maybe if God had made rape a serious crime, this wouldn't happen...

Quote:

jtb: ...But you already know all this, because we've discussed this before. You are seeking to apply a non-Biblical moral standard to the Bible, because you don't like what the Bible actually says.

Hardly. If you go up to the time of Christ, he and Paul teaches us to treat all women that are not our wife like our sisters. And although in this area God did not reveal his full teaching on the matter till the time of Christ and the Christian church, it is the same God in both the OT and the NT.

No new LAWS to protect women were introduced in the NT.

Quote:

It is still a mystery why you embrace some of the Bible's evils and reject others.

You have yet to demonstrate that evil exists.

God-ordained genocide, rape of captives, no serious punishment for non-adulterous rape in general, human sacrifice of captives, human sacrifice of firstborn children (later rescinded).

Most of these you have admitted.

Ed · 04-08-2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rymmie1981

brettc, I never said that Pharoah didn't sin. Paul never says that Pharoah didn't sin. The point of contention is that Pharoah had no choice in the matter. In fact, let's look at your scripture and see what Exodus has to say about Pharoah's free will concerning his sin.

Pharoah believes in the LORD their God and wishes to be forgiven for his sin. He begs for forgiveness. The tone of his speech implies humility and repentence. The whole episode smacks of contrition until the last sentence where his heart is hardened.

The LORD hardens Pharoah's heart. The purpose is so that Pharoah will not let the Hebrews go. Therefore, Pharoah must have wanted to let the people go, but God decided that He wasn't done having fun and hardened Pharoah's heart. Once again, where is Pharoah's free will? Free means "without restriction". YHWH very obviously places restrictions on Pharoah's choices by hardening Pharoah's heart. This is precisely the same point that is made by Paul in Romans which I quoted earlier. Therefore, there is no free will. YHWH did the hardening. Pharoah was nothing more than clay in the potter's hands.

Following this line of reasoning out to its end, the plagues that God visited on Egypt were unnecessary, the loss of life was avoidable, and Pharoah was willing to do as Moses asked, but YHWH would not allow him to comply.

*the Uber Cross of Doom calmly goes cold as its energy is spent*

See my post above about how Pharoah could have been pretending.

Ed · 04-08-2004, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

I think this provides another possible explanation of why Christians so greatly outnumber atheists in prisons.

Biblical-literalist Christians need to convince themselves that atrocities such as baby-killing are NOT evil. They worship an evil deity masquerading as a good one. I think it's hardly surprising that, in at least some cases, their morals get screwed.

You have yet to demonstrate that evil exists. If evolution is true then these things are just natural selection and not evil, in fact they could be argued as good since they may help humans evolve to a higher level.

Ed · 04-08-2004, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Quote:

28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Ed: Notice it says "they are discovered" not "he is discovered". This seems to imply that they are both hiding. If it was rape just the man would try to hide it. Also the passage in Exodus 22:16 that deals with this same case:

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. "

Ed: Seduction is not exactly violently forced rape. In many cases seduction could be considered consensual.

ng: I find this very amusing.
I had a thread going with Ed which lasted several months.

Note here how he focuses on just one part of the text which he hopes will help his case and ignores all the other parts which are clearly against him.

So Ed sees salvation with the words
they are discovered

so it consesual. Right?

Well what about these
If a man finds a girl

seizes her and lies with her

he has violated her

This points to one and only one thing.
The man found the girl alone where she could not call for help.
He seized her against her will.
He violated her.

Cannot be clearer than that.

BUT Ed will ignore all that is against him and concentrate on the trivial.

they are discovered ... in the act.

Question?

What happens when they are not discovered?

Well the girl has a big problem.
She is no longer a virgin and is not married.
No one would want her.

There is a case where this happened if my memory is good.

Tamar!

Her brother violated her.

He found her alone.
Seized her
raped her.

Definitely not seduction. They were not discovered.

They got married.

Problem solved.

Don't expect this to have any effect on Ed.

Ed does not believe in facts..

See my post to Jack where I comment about these verses.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.