christ-on-a-stick

Hi Kevin,

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back on this one, I've been a busy bee as well

You wrote: Do you have any scriptural reference for your assurance that the babies and "not-yet-accountable" were taken right into the bosom of God? From my studies it seems that the "age of accountability" is a popular doctrine among many Christians despite having no clear scriptural support. Does this seem like "justice" to you? Furthermore does it not contradict your above assertion that the babies and children would go straight to heaven? After all, this was still the time of the "Old Covenant", so wouldn't these babies and children be tainted by the sins of their fathers and deserving of punishment, not everlasting life? You couldn't be more wrong about people not "understanding" it. It's just that we understand it as, frankly, an absurd attempt to reconcile the obvious contradictions between the OT & NT, and clear examples of God's "changing morality".

On the topic of the "Old Covenant" vs. "New Covenant", what do you make of this verses - Jesus' words?

Matthew 5:18-19 - "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

One last thing for the moment - concerning the hardening of Pharoah's heart, you wrote: And Debbie T responded: I agree and would be very interested in your answer to this as well.

Thanks!

Lauri

Lobstrosity

Seriously, Spurly, you're making up facts not in evidence. The passage could have easily read:

"And the LORD said unto Moses...: I will allow him to harden his heart; he shall not let the people go."

Exodus 4:21 (Spurly revision V2.1)

It does not say this. Please, for the love of god, actually read the words:

"And the LORD said unto Moses...: but I will harden his heart, [so] that he shall not let the people go."

Exodus 4:21 (The real version)

The God is the subject of the verb "harden." God is doing the hardening, not the pharaoh. This is clear as day. Furthermore, God is doing the hardening specifically SO THAT THE PHARAOH WILL NOT LET THE PEOPLE GO. That's what the passage explicitly states! In the future, when the pharaoh's heart actually hardens and the people aren't let go, is there any doubt that you're witnessing God in action?

Spurly, your argument here is a slippery slope for Christians everywhere. I could apply the same argument to Genesis. It turns out God didn't actually create the universe. What Genesis is really saying is that God foresaw the creation of the universe and allowed it to happen. I guess it turns out that God doesn't actually do anything in the Bible, he just sits back and lets everything happen on its own.

spurly

Here's where the problem comes in between your interpretation and mine. As I stated earlier, I am about as far from being a Calvinist as white is from black.

I see God, from the very beginning, offering all of his creatures free will, and the freedom of choice. It's up to them whether or not to serve him. It always has been that way from Adam and Eve, and it will be that way to the very end. God does not make those choices for us. That is a theological fact. I know some will dispute it, but nonetheless it is true.

Thus, when God said he would harden Pharaoh's heart, there has to be something else involved. God will not purposely harden someone against himself. So what else is involved. Upon further study you find it. Pharaoh hardened his own heart first. We read about his foreknowledge that it is going to happen before it actually happens, but Pharaoh, like all of mankind had the choice. And he chose to harden his heart against God.

In Exodus 8:15 we are told that "Pharaoh hardened his heart". In Exodus 8:32 we read, "Pharaoh hardened his heart". In Exodus 9:34, "He and his officials hardened their hearts". It is clear from each of these cases where the actual hardening took place that Pharaoh hardened his own heart against God. Then God used a man with a hardened heart for God's glory and honor.

Again, here is the progression. Pharaoh was given a choice to let God's people go, or to keep them as slaves. Pharaoh hardened his heart, kept them as slaves, and challenged the God of the universe. God used him, even though his heart was hard, to bring glory to himself.

God's foreknowledge that he was going to do this does not mean that he was the first cause. Pharaoh was given a choice. He refused.

Kevin (who believes that one has to look at the totality of bible doctrine, and not pick and choose what fits ones personal views)

christ-on-a-stick

and ???? There "has to be" - because otherwise it does not fit your personal views????

Eek.

(BTW whenever you have a chance I will look forward to your replies to my questions too )

Asha'man

Spurly,

The answer to this problem is simple: the story of the Exodus was created before the ancient Jews were monotheistic.

The original text referred to gods, plural. Yahweh wasn't the only god around, he was just the tribal god of the Jews. Yahweh was pushing for freedom for his people, and the other gods were working against him.

However, when later editors removed all references to other gods, the story stopped making sense. God was now working against himself, and the only apparent reason was to show off his power.

christ-on-a-stick

Asha'man,

That is fascinating... I did not realize that. It certainly makes more sense (er, that it *doesn't make sense ) in light of that.

Gregg

And Pharaoh is still just a plaything of the gods either way.

Gregg

Magus55

As spurly has mentioned,

God does not hardened people's hearts if they are willing and repentant. The meaning of God saying he will harden the pharoah's heart is that he was giving the Pharoah over to his sin. It's the old testament precursor to Romans 1:18-32.
The pharoah would have NEVER obeyed God no matter what, God just let him have what he wanted and God used the Pharoah's own stubborness and pride to fulfill his purpose for the Jews. God did not force the Pharoah to act like that, the Pharoah basically said, nope i will never bow to you! I will stick with my own gods. So God said, ok if thats what you want, have it your way.

You will also notice, the plagues of Egypt get progressively worse, had the Pharoah not been so stubborn and taken heed of God's warnings about his wonders, he could have prevented the bad plagues. The plagues were: staff became a serpent, water turned to blood, river brought forth frogs, dust became lice, swarm of flies, livestock died, boils, rained hail and fire, storm of locusts, darkness, and then he sent the Angel of Death.

If you read it, God stopped each plague, and this didn't all happen in a day - it happened over weeks. The Pharoah had plenty of time to let the Jews go, but he refused. Once the boils came, the Pharoah tried to trick God, he said he would apologize to God and let the Jews go if God would stop the plagues, God did so and the Pharoah turned right around, hardened his heart again and said - nah nevermind - i'm not letting them go. The Pharoah brought the plagues on himself and his people. The pharoah was evil, convining and vindictive.

Since God also created life, he has the right to take it away. God decides when its your time to go, and its on his time, not yours. Since God knew the Pharoah would be stubborn, coniving, and harden his own heart, God had every right to send the angel of death immediately, but he gives everyone plenty of chances, which is why he sent multiple progressive plagues to show that the Pharoah would never give them up until the final plague.

Magus55

Care to show where you found that? Abraham was the first Jew, and he reguarded Yahweh as a single God, multiple gods were never reffered to in relation to the Jews.

Gregg

Magus, the argument here is that the Hebrew priesthood edited many Biblical stories to reflect current theology. As Hebrew theology evolved from a form of polytheism (the gods other people worship exist, but they're nowhere near as powerful as our tribal god, and they don't demand exclusive worship) to pure monotheism, various scripture stories were edited accordingly.

So, before you can use the Bible itself to refute the argument that the Jews once accepted the existence of other gods, you'll have to discount the argument that the scriptures have ever been edited or redacted in any substantial way. Otherwise, you're using circular reasoning.

I'm not really interested in researching this right now--maybe someone else can do it? But I know that plenty of historians and Biblical scholars make a pretty good case for the scriptures being heavily edited and redacted over time, and for the Jews having originally believed in the existence of other gods, while regarding their god as the most powerful one.

Gregg