bfniii

in my previous post regarding that census, i provided at least 4 responses to questions you raise about it being the same or different. shall i repost them? additionally, i asked if you had any further reservations so that we can discuss them as well.

i think it is a different census, if that's what you mean.

if it is a different census, then it has no bearing on 2 sam and 1 chronicles 21.

there's no avoidance. i asked you to discuss any further reservations you may have about that census.

yes, it does clash. hence, it is different. my claim is not unsupported as i provided responses to your objections. i can discuss it further if you need to.

i will elaborate more:

there are infinte reasons why joab could have reversed position but the most obvious and pertinent one is that he saw the motive behind each one. the first one he didn't like, the second he did like. therefore, the qualification of meeting his character is fulfilled.

we have no indication from the text that any such reversal was sudden.

of course none of that means that he wasn't capable of being prideful nor does it mean that he didn't actually exhibit it. it just means he didn't on the whole. it is unreasonable to expect that someone of his stature wouldn't exhibit pride at all in his entire life.

i'm not sure that this is analogous. this census does not seem to the be the zenith of his morality.

while it might be out of character for him to be humble, what is most puzzling is that you later admit david accepted responsibility for his pride. you even note the humility. so at this point we not only see that david was certainly not immune to pride but we even fulfill your humility criteria by your own admission.

apparently, it's not relevant to the story.

what we need to address here is why you introduce the criteria that if the bible mentions israel's sin in other instances, it must be so in this instance as well.

now that is definitely excluded middle. the exclusion is that the reason wasn't pertinent to the story.

one problem with this comparison is that the first set of circumstances will probably be a simplification in at least a few cases. it would be exceedingly difficult to catalog every situation to expound an unequivocable template.

another problem is why your standard precludes the bible from being able to describe this situation differently than others? are added steps enough to make the story one of injustice?

i missed where there is a contradiction.

this claim presupposes that israel didn't deserve God's anger. please explain this presupposition.

not the census, david's pride. david even admitted such.

in what verse(s) does God order the jebusites exterminated?

the traditional belief is that God allowed the temptation making God the indirect source of the temptation.

not for christians apparently. could you elaborate on your objections?

let's address why you think there should be more description of the interaction.

i think the confusion here is that temptation is immoral. let's discuss that first.

i think it is a little of both. there are times when satan just grabs anything he thinks God gives him. there are other times when he appears much more wiley. but it does become sophistry because even when he is wiley, God allowed Him to be so in regards to whomever satan is after.

on the contrary, satan's machinations were allowed by God. in that sense, God did not prevent satan but enabled. God merely let him loose a little, to use your analogy, and david was tempted.

i guess not. if it were different, he might be God's equal.

2 sam introduces an identical element just prior to this occurence. therefore, the implication of "total" (which is also implied by the chronicler) is not unreasonable.

not exactly. chapter 23 is a psalm. it could be that this is his "last" psalm making this anecdoctal and thus not interrupting the chronology of 21-24. it also could be that these were the "last words" of the psalm from chap 22. in other words, the conclusion. either way, the actual death of david isn't mentioned. since there is no "of his life" in 23:1, there is no need to make such an assumption.

uriah is not mentioned in chap 24. therefore, he would not have needed to come back to life post chap 23. maybe i misunderstood your point. if so, please clarify for me.

not exactly. i addressed this in another response to you and have now responded with clarification to your objections about the famine.

our interaction has been pleasant and productive. thank you for your time.

John A. Broussard

Perhaps I missed your answer. If so, I would appreciate you pointing out where you answered the following:

If I understand you correctly, hell doesn't matter to an individual once they've become a christian, it's just one of the inducements that god uses to get a person to become a christian.

Is my interpretation of your answer correct? Please clarify.

Thank you.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Bfniii: I notice that you conveniently avoided replying to my post #172 even though you replied to other peoples' posts. Why is that?

Sven

You entirely missed the point. The point is what the text suggests, not what other explanations are still possible.

What was what like? :huh:

Translation: You think he has another overall plan as stated here in clear words and force-fit your thoughts on the text, although it says the exact opposite.

As are you, since you always can invent another ad-hoc answer. Problem is, it's only a "no-lose" for you - because nobody else falls for this clap-trap.

How do you determine this from the OT?

non sequitur

So you claim that god could negate free will, but doesn't choose to?

This raises the interesting question if god does know the future or not. Taken the plain meaning of "omniscience", "omni" should include the future.

As I said, this isn't about which interpretation is possible, it's about what the text suggests.

We have a clear picture:
(1) A says to B: don't do this
(2) B does it nevertheless
(3) A punishes B

Taken at face value, the most obvious conclusion is that A really did not want B to do it. Again: You think he has another overall plan as stated here in clear words and force-fit your thoughts on the text, although it says the exact opposite.

How on Earth is this an answer? :huh:
Why on Earth is this irrelevant?

We have an even clearer picture now:
(1) A says to B: don't do this
(2) C says to B: do it
(2) B does it because of this
(3) A punishes B and C

How on earth would this make sense if A actually meant: "Please do it"?

It's not a question of allowing him to do so. It's a question how your story is supposed to make sense!!!!

I'm done with you. You just repeat your ridiculous story, which is the exact opposite of what the text says, without providing support for it in any way.

Jack the Bodiless

He seems to have skipped several, such as my post #166.

We seem to have made SOME progress. On the punishment of people for the crimes of others: rather than trying to argue that God doesn't do that, or that it's nothing more than "natural consequences", we now have the "bfniii principle", that God has a right to do this (despite saying it's wrong for humans to do so) and we have no right to judge him for it. There are still some niggling issues, like the notion that "maybe God does it for a greater good" (which might be the case in specific instances, but seems rather unlikely when applied to verses which declare the punishment of others as a general principle), and an ongoing inability to recognize that this is "unjust", as humans understand "justice".

On the Ezekiel prophecy failure: the most straightforward reading of the prophecy is that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to be the one who would conquer and permanently destroy Tyre, and nothing in the text contradicts this interpretation. Of course, this did not happen. It IS possible to read the text somewhat differently, separating Nebuchadnezzar's conquest from Tyre's permanent destruction. This creates TWO prophecy failures where there was previously one: we now have Nebuchadnezzar's failure to conquer Tyre as described in Ezekiel 26:7-11, and everyone's failure to permanently destroy the city as described in Ezekiel 26:14, 26:21, 27:36 and 28:19. After much evasion, we currently have a fantasy that history is wrong and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded, and a twisting of context to make the "permanent destruction" refer to the kingdom of Tyre rather than the city (unsupportable for three reasons: the language plainly refers to buildings, the kingdom was never overthrown by conquest, and the later verses refer to merchants lamenting the permanent demise of Tyre as a trading port).

There's also the child-sacrifice issue. In Exodus 22:29, firsborn children are included in stuff ritually devoted to God (along with first fruits etc), and Leviticus 27:28-29 describes the fate of stuff that's ritually devoted to God: humans, in particular, must be killed (no exceptions). There has been much evasion here, and a false claim that the Leviticus 27:28-29 sacrifices "entered into an agreement" (they plainly did not, as OTHERS are responsible for "devoting" humans and livestock). Also, Ezekiel confirms that child-sacrifice happened, and historians know this was a Caananite custom (and that the Jews were Caananites).

And then there's the amazing ability of Pharaoh's priests to perform miracles without magic. Much evasion here still, but I'll try to summarize: when Moses started challenging them, the Thera volcanic eruption conveniently started. Moses transformed his staff into a serpent, and the priests then did the same, exploiting a phenomenon unknown to modern vulcanologists. Next, volcanic ash started to turn the Nile into "blood": Moses quickly claimed credit for this (or reproduced the effect with a miracle) before letting the priests do the same (presumably the river cleared briefly between these occurrences). Next, frogs (presumably driven out of the polluted river): again, unaccountably, Moses decides to adopt or reproduce the impending "miracle". The following side-effects of the volcano (darkness, hail, dead cattle, bugs everywhere) Moses claims as his own, even though no miracles were required until the death of the Egyptian firstborn.

As others are dealing with other issues (such as Daniel, and the mangling of Genesis), I'll limit myself to these issues for the time being. And if an E/C thread or a Messianic-prophecies thread develops, I'll participate.

Johnny Skeptic

I am sure that we have.

If God's thoughts and ways are actually different from our own, he needs to tell us that himself. Hearsay evidence is usually considered be inappropriate in courts of law. How much more so should we distrust human proxies claiming to speak for God?

I have had better success with another approach. Some time ago I started a thread at the Theology Web about the Tyre prophecy. It was the most visited thread for number of months. It had over 6,000 views, including hundreds of posts. The skeptics weren't getting anywhere until I developed a new strategy as follows:

What about the Tyre prophecy indicates divine inspiration?
Nebby was a powerful king. He had a proven penchant for conquest. Tyre was wealthy. Tyre was in close proximity to Babylon. Such being the case, his attacks on Tyre were not difficult to predict. Oceanographers will tell us that historically, it has not been at all unusual for atolls to be become partially or completely submerged under water. There is nothing at all unusual about fisherman speading their nets to dry on islands.

James Holding never made a post in that thread. Some months later I opened another thread titled 'James Holding's article on the Tyre prophecy is fraudulent.' That got his attention and he made a number of reluctant half-hearted attempts to defend the prophecy. Regarding the mainland settlement becoming scraped like the top of a rock, that eventually became the main bone of contention. Holding claimed that the building of Alexander's bridge to the island accounted for the mainland settlement becoming scraped like the top of a rock. Holding was told that we don't know what Ezekiel meant. He might very well have meant scraped completely bare as a sign of God's power. Most historians will tell us that "like the top of a rock" is much to vague a description to be of any use to Christians. By not telling Ezekiel about Alexander, obviously God went out of his way to make certain that the fulfillment of the prophecy DID NOT indicate divine inspiration.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Bfniii: I notice that you conveniently avoided replying to my post #172 even though you replied to other peoples' posts. Why is that?

bfniii

i didn't think you could.

not that he needed to to fulfill the prophecy. all he needed to do was execute his part of the prophecy, which he did; verses 7-11.

i have asked this before. what do you mean by "failed". what are you expecting him to do other than verses 7-11?

not really.

by all accounts, the mainland was destroyed. it was completely abandoned and the monarchy deported. do you deny this?

there's no need to rewrite it. it merely mentions nebuchadnezzar's part, the actions he will execute which he did to the mainland. "you" does not refer to any one part of the land, but to the nation.

exactly! this matches perfectly what he did and what was prophecied.

right. it's not in there at all. nebuchadnezzar was not prophecied to the be the ultimate downfall of tyre at any point in ezekiel 26. the ultimate downfall is described by "i" or God.

you've never experienced any pain, suffering or injustice? wow. that's amazing.

i never said i believe that.

as i said, i haven't ignored context. just because a verse occurs after another, doesn't mean it is the consequent of the antecedent.

i haven't ignored them. i have said that God didn't promise a life free from injustice.

not always.

not necessarily. have you ever heard of a shock collar for a dog?

ugh. God does not desire to kill people. He wants everyone to go to heaven. but sometimes people don't choose that. also, the sins of people affect other people. there is pain and suffering and death in this life.

and where did the idea behind the word come from?

it depends on whose meaning you are using. what meaning are you using?

i have not suggested such. i have said that our limited existence confuses some people about what is written in the bible.

since you didn't answer the question, i take it you want to drop the point.

there most certainly is. see, i can play your game too.

i agree that he allows suffering.

you are still acting like this is unjustified.

it does not follow as such. remember the shock collar? corporeal punishment is another good analogy.

there is no such lie. it's plain and simple. there is suffering and injustice in this life. God allows it. God never promised it would be different.

one justification i have posited is that if we are all guilty of something, what difference does it make why, where or how we suffer the consequences of our actions? well, it doesn't. it's sophistry to say "i wasn't guilty of THAT crime" conveniently leaving out the "but i'm guilty of these other crimes".

on the other hand, you're right. it's unjust. but an omnipotent God can use injustice for ultimate good. right?

i guess i'm not following why you have a problem with that.

if you can't answer the charge, then i'm willing to let you off the hook.

i disagree.

you response here does not explicitly mean that children were sacrificed.

you act as though i denied it previously.

:banghead: then why did YOU bring it up?

who doesn't?

i wasn't asking for that. i was asking what specifically you were alluding to. now don't disappoint us. you brought it up, so follow through with your education of me.

as i pointed out, you are incorrect. you fail to reply to the missing words which lead to your assumption.

still no quote from you......

darn. and i went to all that trouble to show how they are relevant.

which i rebutted.

"accepted" does not mean "correct".

i did provide several points that support an early composition date. i am continuing to address the issue in responses to spin.

gerhard hasel has noted that canonization of daniel among the essenes is supported by:
1. copious amounts of the work. a fact only attributed to works that were canonized (deuteronomy, kings, isaiah, psalms)
2. attribution of authority of daniel in other works found at qumran. a formula commonly applied to canonical works.

i will visit the link you provided when this one comes to a conclusion.

there are jews today who have the same heredity that convert to christianity.

well, you did bring up the topics. i don't care if you did because obviously the moderator didn't mind. i am willing to respond right here, right now. but i can understand if you don't want to.

it's possible but not as likely as the egyptians having that knowledge since the hebrews had not lived there nearly as long, weren't as spread out and were slaves as opposed to free.

do you have a natural explanation for the last miracle?

again, not all hebrews were polytheistic.

what evidence would you be referring to?

John A. Broussard

To bfniii
Perhaps I missed your answer. If so, I would appreciate you pointing out where you answered the following:

If I understand you correctly, hell doesn't matter to an individual once they've become a christian, it's just one of the inducements that god uses to get a person to become a christian.

Is my interpretation of your answer correct? Please clarify.

If you don't wish to answer, just let me know.

Thank you.

Chili

When you are hot already why worry about things that are hot?

It seems to me that hell is having knowledge of God without the infinite peace of God.