Just Something I Read

His "change of mind" as you describe it is going directly against the Scripture where Jesus was as a lamb slain before the foundations of the world.

God in His Sovereignty knew all along man would sin.

Tell me, did God grieve because of man's sin, or was it because His only Begotten would die on the Cross as the Propitiation for man's sin and shed His Blood as the redemptive payment?

One must remember, Jesus in his humanity was never subject to it.

 

Good thing we have the KJV to show us without going off into a tirade of sorts explaining it away with the use of the rules of grammar.:laugh:

I'm so glad the word "yet" is where it is in the KJV!:thumbsup: I had never even begun to question the Bible until I read other versions!

 

Like that tirade you went on when it was shown you misunderstood where the KJV said "meat offering". You though it was an offering of flesh. :laugh:

 

Hi Harold,

Scripture can not go against Scripture. Here in Genesis it clearly states that God "repented" that He had made man and that it "grieved" Him at His heart.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Personally I believe both are true that God was sorry that He made man and it grieved Him at His heart though He knew full well that this would happen and had made the provision outside the realm of time with the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ. God had stepped out of eternity and entered the stream of time in the Garden of Eden. The time had now come to grieve and be sorry that He had made man as the depravity of unfoldedand became mainfest in the time continuum.

Yes, we are told in Revelation that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. Presumably this means that God does not view or interact with time in the same manner as we do. Genesis 6:6 cannot contradict this passage and both must be true.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.​

I have no idea how this works but I believe both are true simply because the Scripture declares both to be true. In addition, for God to "repent" and then feel remorse does not diminish His omnipotence or detract from His omniscience neither damage His sovereignty.

I believe the same for Jesus, that He could change His mind (being human as well as God) and that within the scope of His omnipotence, omniscience and sovereignty especially with consideration of the Kenosis.

Again I don't know all the details as to how this works, but on the other hand, I am a person who believes that a virgin became pregnant and had a baby who was/is God come in the flesh.

Well, the text tells it all Harold, we need only to read it:

5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.​

God is still grieved by our sin:​

Ephesians 4
29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.​

We should probably pay attention to the content of these passages (be kind to one another, etc...) as well as referring to them in the debate as to the nature of our God lest we, His very children, repeat history.

HankD

 

You don't even understand the Bible where the meat offering and what all it includes. If that's a tirade, I'll tirade my parade.

 

um, repenting is a change of action, not a simple change of mind.

I'm afraid too many get all caught up in secular reasoning and fail to understand that God says this will happen if that happens.

A good word study is the term "peradventure".

God's choices are all final and the only exceptions to them are if man will repent.

God doesn't change His mind, it's already made up. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish". This is an ultimatim which has two conclusions. God does not change his mind, but our repentence changes the conclusion.

God "repented"/ changed his action. God also has the Son who as The sacrificial lamb was as a lamb slain before the foundations of the world. It wasn't as if God had to make alterations to the proceeding events in time to adjust to man's actions, they are all predecided.

Jesus predecided not to go up to the feast as of yet, for his time had not yet come to do so. Not once did Jesus say he wasn't going and then decided, "Whatever, I'll go up now, although I didn't want to before, or as if I hadn't already planned on it.":sleeping_2:

 

The lack of understanding is entirely yours. In 17th century English "meat" simply meant food in general. It did not mean animal flesh as it does today. In fact, the word "meat" in the KJV is NEVER used to refer to animal flesh. The fact that you claimed the offerings of the OT had meat in them, based on your reading of the KJV, demonistrates you complete lack of understanding of the language of the KJV.

 

It meant both animal and vegetable, or do you think there are other food sources?

You could not be more wrong. Not everyone was a vegetable farmer, some were herdsmen and owned no land, take Abraham for instance........

One day, and it might take as long as eternity for you to see it, secular reasoning is an attribute coupled to, or should I say, SHACKLED TO, those who try to make valid wrong interpretations.

 

I'd comment, but your lack of understanding becomes more self-evident every time you post.

 

Not quite. For one clear example, the "meat" that Isaac requests of Esau is referring to flesh of wild game (Genesis 27:3-4, KJV) --

Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me [some] venison;
And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring [it] to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die. ​

So, while "meat" does mean 'food' in general, the food could on some occassions be actual animal flesh (including fish).

 

Um, you seem to be one of those who cannot make a comprehensible reply without trying to be condescending.

The meat offering was not always grains. Tell us all, o mighty one, just what grains did they use in the meat offering during the great drought?
:smilewinkgrin:

 

Wrong. Actually, it consisted of of fine flour (no leaven), seasoned with salt and mixed with oil and frankincense. It was the only bloodless offerring.

 

Hi, Franklin.
I was originally referring to the Hebrew word "minchah", which the KJV translates as "meat offering", in Leviticus. A minchah is actually a tribute offering which is bloodless by definition. Minchahs in old Hebrew tradition are milled grain offerings by nature. Harold Garvey previously claimed that, since Lev. says "meat offering" that the offering included meat (animal flesh). This is due to his lack of understanding of 17th century English. The 17th century English matches the source text Hebrew, but does not match 21st entury English. The 21st century rendering of the words as "grain offering" matches the source text Hebrew.

In regards you the ch 27 that you refereince. Your'e correct that the "food" referred to can be animal flesh, in the same way that the modern word "food" may or not refer to animal flesh. What I was saying in my prior post is that in the KJV, the word "meat" is never a synonym for "flesh". It simply means "food" today. The contemporary word "food", likewise, is not a synonym for flesh.

As we speak, I'm reading this verse in the source text Hebrew. The Hebrew word here is "mat'am", which simply means "food", but has the context of food that is delicious. The reading of the word here isn't defined as animal flesh, it simply means "savory food" in general. In the Hebrew, the verse reads, "Prepare me the type of savory food I like and bring it to me to eat".

The abundance of the pot-kettle scenario in that phrase is incredibly self-evident.

 

I appreciate your point of view Harold and it is plausible. Thank you for being patient.

However, I still hold to my own premise but I will think upon this some more.

HankD

 

Hi John. I was only responding to the words you actually wrote (in context). You got a little over-zealous. I'm just tryin' to keep you 'honest', OK?

Again, this is a little over-the-top. Despite all your Hebrew explanation, we already know that the KJV "meat" spoken of here specifically refers to "venison" (wild beast) and not some ambiguous (bloodless) category of 'food' that Esau was going to acquire with his quiver & bow; AND from the overall context of the story the "meat" in Genesis 27:4 (also 7, 9, 14, etc.) primarily represents the animal component of the recipe since it was successfully substituted with the flesh of goats.

 

Thanks for your input, Franklin, and I appreciate the discussion.

 

Um, maybe you don't consider that I am not the only one who KNOWS that "meat", no matter how you define it, especially in the Hebrew, means any sort of food.

Do at least a little reseacrh beyond your normal Hebrew lexicon and see where MANY scholars refer to the meat offering as being that of multiple foods and NOT limited to grains.:sleep:

You're arguing against the KJV and it just dont make sense!:tonofbricks:

 

That's not what you said. You said that the offering in Leviticus was an offering which included animal flesh, based on the KJV rendering it a "meat offering". It's actually a grain offering devoid of animal flesh.

No, I'm arguing for the 17th century meaning of "meat offering". It's actually you who argues agains the KJV when you claim that the offering in Lev was an offering which included animal flesh.

 

No, that's where you are wrong. The meat offering is not as limited as you'd like for it to be. Several scholars disagree with you. Your view comes from the rabbinic order that agrees with you. You banging your head against a brick wall, friend.
\
The topic is about the placement of the word "yet", yet will we see you stop derailing with your railings and get back on topic?:tongue3:

 

The offering in Leviticus was a minchah, a tribute offering which is bloodless by definition. Minchahs in old Hebrew tradition are milled grain offerings by nature. That's a matter of academic fact.

The topic was actually derailed by KJVO proponents, attempting to cite the word "yet" as an avenue to espouse their single-translation-onlyist false doctrine.