Esau I HATED!!!!!

Is this you clinging to that wrong view of "hate your parents children and family" text over John 3??

What about "Love your Neighbor as yourself and Love God" and clinging to a "right view" of that instead of "the ways to hate and get away with it"??

I keep pointing out that the "hate" you cling to on this subject is of the type already shown regarding "hating your parents".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The quotes that we give for God loving (from the Bible) all show God Loving PEOPLE and show Him weeping over LOST people (that would be the "wicked").

Since you sometimes agree with that - then how is it you turn this around with "can God hate" as in "hate PEOPLE" -- what OTHER kind of wicked people do you see besides LOST ones??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi webdog,

No i think it was texassky that said this..and i think it was texassky i 1st addressed...and i posted it again it my last post that it was texassky i had addressed.


As to the "author of sin"..what do you mean by that? I have told you my thoughts on sin before...but not that you believe that "God is the author of sin"...i just want to know what you mean when you use this phrase.

I imply? I point to verse. Webdog..you seem smart...tell me the picture you get in Paslms 50. Maybe you see something that i do not. Again..i pointed to verses when TesasSky said

"God is love...and thats it."
or what ever her words were.

When i point to those verse..you guys go off the wall. I implied nothing...i posted 40 some verses saying yes God can hate....and now I'm TWISTING things


I think this shows how far you are into your doctrine. Its not that i preach hate...but if you post that God hates evil...and sinners...and the wicked...and do nothing but post verse...you guys go crazy.

I have Lloyd telling me to repent...
Bob telling me to forget hate...that i can not believe both hate and love..
TS says i lie.....
you say its all false...

I POSTED VERSE...

it makes you wonder

In Christ...James

 

What, my answers weren't clear enough? </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Webdog,


I did not type your name, But i did talk about your reply..

"As i said before...these only show that God can in deed HATE. It has taken many pages for you to say this one thing. The post was from a texasSky post that said..GOD IS LOVE....PLAIN AND SIMPLE. I said...he is more then just love. God can..and does hate."

so yes i saw it and you said something about it.


still waiting on rev and paslms

and...one more now...are sinners really people?
are "the wicked"..people?

thats all for now.


In Christ..James

 

Calvinists "need" to twist the quote of Romans 9 as Paul quotes Malachi 1 -- such that God "hates Esau" before the infant was born. </font>[/QUOTE] Note who is twisting what. I was careful not to go beyond what the text very literally says... just as you were not careful about reading your assumptions into my statement.

The text says that God hated Esau. I think the context and text mean that God chose and loved Jacob and rejected or hated Esau before they were born. However, I didn't make that claim above. I simply pointed out that the text says that God hated Esau.

That is simply false. There is no eisegesis involved in letting the words mean what they mean in context. That is a ludicrous accusation.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone guilty of eisegesis.

In fact Malachi 1 does not say that Esau was wicked it says the EDOM (the nation of Esau) was a "wicked people" because it is the NATION of Esau and Jacob (Edom and Israel) that is actually being addressed - NT the infant sons of Rebekkah!!

]quote]
Malach 1
God's Love for Jacob
1 The oracle of the word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have You loved us?" "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob;
3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness."
</font>[/QUOTE]Here we see a definition of hate as “Love Less” [/quote] What we don't see here in spite of your attempts to diverge is the statement "I loved Esau less because" of something he did.

Romans 4 appears to. Paul was every bit as inspired in his use of Mal 1 as Malachi was when he penned it.

Your point is worse than meaningless. You would create a contradiction between Paul and Malachi for the purpose of dismissing the meaning of Romans 9 so that you can preserve your presupposed conclusion.

Maybe, maybe not. The text could clearly also refer to both the men and the nations they fathered.

OTOH, Romans 9 is dealing with the individuals... as clearly indicated by the references to their conception, birth, and mother.

Maybe and in order to not get further off the subject, I won't argue. None the less, that is not the case contextually in Romans 9.

I do understand that this would be a very convenient argument for you if it actually applied... but it doesn't. Paul supplies the context and it isn't nations at that point in Romans 9. Verses 6 & 7 provide a transition between the nation and individuals who are "of Israel". Verse 8 dilineates between the children of the flesh and the children of promise. Note that it doesn't mention that they were one or the other by their own free will choice but goes directly into a case of how God accomplished His "purpose according to His election/choice".

Verses 11 and 12 directly declares that "not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."

You have to engage in eisegesis yourself to make that say anything other than God chose Jacob rather than Esau to receive His promise.

As you like to say, this really isn't hard. You don't have to squirm and deny and evade and twist... all you have to do is let the words say what they say.

God hated Esau... and Esau like all sinners deserved it (even if you define "hate" as "loved less"). But moreover, Jacob deserved to be hated also. He was a thief and a deceiver.

While I have the interesting opening that you have given: Do you really believe that God loves some more than others? That is an interesting claim compared to the arguments you and others on your side have made.

 

Excellent point.

One of the problems with this verse interpretation is that the Hebrew word "sane" (translated "hate") does not carry a context of withholding love. However, our English word "hate" carries a "withholding of love" connotation. There is nothing in this scripture, when read in the non-English source texts, that suggest that God did not love Esau.

 

Scott,


The problem is, When Bob reads he will come across one word...like "hate"...or "election"...and then he forgets the other words..and runs to his "E" file folder and looks for that "election file" and post the same post same verse he has for 3 months.

One or two times i sat why he dropped the "arminian" garb and he made some good replies. This hardly ever happens....for he is to much into this doctrine.

 

The quotes that we give for God loving (from the Bible) all show God Loving PEOPLE and show Him weeping over LOST people (that would be the "wicked").

Since you sometimes agree with that - then how is it you turn this around with "can God hate" as in "hate PEOPLE" -- what OTHER kind of wicked people do you see besides LOST ones??

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Hi ya Bob,


Notice you still will not say it. Its hard to say..is it not? I really mean it. But its there for us to read.

As to the lost. I think all of us is wicked...don't you? Even in the passage we have looked at we see this. rom 9..and mal 1,2,3 say BOTH nations were wicked. yet God loved one. why? ask God why

But that is the point of romans 9. God can do as he wishes...not because the JEWS were Good. Both were evil. The point was not to show hate..its to show the love of the nation that God choose.


In Christ...James

 

I have Lloyd telling me to repent...

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone guilty of eisegesis.

Like father like son.

God can't talkie the English. HaHa! The word the Word uses cannot be understood unless we learn other languages. Some God. So the bible's authority is zeroed but such a denial of English thwarts God's will: so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. As long as you know Greek and Hebrew. And we can know the Greek and the Hebrew but we are the 1% of Christianity that has been blessed by the tools.

john.

 

Last time I checked, God wasn't in the traslation business. Sane and "hate" are similar, but not exact in meaning. This is a common translation issue. Agape and "love" are similar, but not exact. Unless you're a KJVOist, this should not be new news to you.

So according to you, God can't speak Hebrew. Sorry, you can choose to accept a lie by choosing to be ignorant. You remain wrong nonetheless.

 

Hello Johnv.

Doesn't mean love does it? We have been here before are we going to lose you at the same place this time?

What this again still saying the bible can't be trusted and that the same as last time and I reject your words and disdain them.

There as bold as brass you are: RO 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." And that is the lie? By the way did you hear what happened to Edom? Where are they these days? Where's Jacob?

john.

 

Yes, we've been there before, and you failed to make your point. I wasn't talking about love. I was talking about sane. You're saying sane doesn't mean sane. In fact, sane has nothing to do with love.

You're saying the Bible in Hebrew cannot be trusted. Your choice if you choose to have disdain for scripture.

None of that has anything to do with the Hebrew word sane.

 

Hello Johnv.

Oh no I made my point when you mistakenly said that the Greek was the Hebrew and it left a doubt in my mind as to your qualifications as an expert on biblical manuscripts in their original languages. You have no degree have you? You have warrant to teach others what is not true.

Found neutral have you?

You are preaching to the converted mate only fools walk in where angels fear to tread.

The Dutch have reduced those two sentences into one word: poppycock.

I see you heard what happened to Edom then. As I see it, unlike you, it's all academic you see, action speaks louder than words. See what happened and your context is found in history. Where's Jacob?

john.

 

Last time I checked, God wasn't in the traslation business. Sane and "hate" are similar, but not exact in meaning. This is a common translation issue. Agape and "love" are similar, but not exact. Unless you're a KJVOist, this should not be new news to you.

So according to you, God can't speak Hebrew. Sorry, you can choose to accept a lie by choosing to be ignorant. You remain wrong nonetheless. </font>[/QUOTE]This whole point is moot. Whether you translate the Hebrew word as "hate" or not, you still have to deal with the Greek word.

Even IF the Greek word means "loved less" or "didn't choose" or whatever lighter definition you might apply rather than "hate", the fact remains that God chose one brother to be a patriarch rather than the other before they had done any good or evil.

God's grace is demonstrated in Romans 9 to NOT be contingent upon a person's actions or their asking for it.

 

Hi Johnv,

Before i reply, I would like a better understanding of your point.

You state...
"I wasn't talking about love. I was talking about sane. You're saying sane doesn't mean sane. In fact, sane has nothing to do with love."

Are you saying the best way to read this is that one nation is "sane" and the other is "insane"? Please do not take this the wrong way. I am just trying to see your point. Any help along these lines of understanding I would glady enjoy.


In Christ...James

 

Thank you Scott...i agree 100% How changing the word or the subject has anything to do with the context...beats me. It could have read...God loves red shirts...and hates blue shirts....and this would still be in context of the passage. Then one could say God hates some shirts.

Now you could argue..no no...its talking about colors here...not shirts. Ok fine...then God hates some colors.

wait...its not hate its love less...
ok then God loves some colors less then others.

wait in the greek the word means shoes.
ok then..God hates blue shoes

no no..i mean......


No one attacks the word "love" in this passage. Its the would hate that people hate. In context if you use "love"...then the "other word"...has to be the other side of love. Paul KNOW when he wrote this passage some would think it sounds unfair. So that is why Paul addressed this unfairness.

Now if you change the word to "paint" a better picture ...so that it seems all is fair...then Pauls words were not needed. Also...this would not fit context of mercy..no mercy.


In Christ...James

 

I've been clear about the Hebrew source word sane in the masoric, which does not infer a withholding of love.

In fact, I do have a degree. A B.A. with an emphasis in biblical history. Now, it is you who is teaching that which is not true when you insist that sane has an implication of withholding of love. You additionally adhere to untruth when you claim that God did not love Esau.

Then you must be in agreement that scripture does not assert that God did not love Esau.

I guess you didn't know I'm somewhat fluent in Dutch. The word is pappekak. However, it still stands that your contention is that we cannot trust the Hebrew OT, and that God couldn't communicate in Hebrew.

Your Edom example does not support your scripturally false contention that God withheld love from Esau, either by inference or context. It inferrs that God bestowed upon one his grace, while withholding it from another. But grace is not the issue here (indeed, God does not give grace to all, nor does He do so in like manner).

Uhhh. Not exactly. The discussion revolves around the verse that says "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated". There's a presumption by some that this verse says God did not love Esau. But, in the Hebrew, the word translated "hate" is sane (pronounced saw-nay). Sane carried no inference of withholding love, as is sometimes implied when using the word in English.