God requires man to HUMBLE THEMSELVES

[Presby02]

The context is lying like a man changing his mind.

Next fallacy

NOPE. He cannot lie nor change His mind.

Keep making things up

 

[Presby02]

Already addressed Num 23:19

why are you ignoring the context?

God cannot change his mind in a way which would be contrary to truth he has established

Jeremiah 18:7–10 (ESV) — 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.


the context there i think you have to understand according to its context and the analogy of the faith. What we have is um that you have king balak who has hired balaam to curse the people of israel that god said he was going to bless and balaam is saying look god's not a liar. i'm not he's not going to change his mind because he they haven't done anything to merit this he said he's going to bless them he's not going to turn around and curse them and so i think what happens when you're when you're looking at these is you're taking these texts where god says here is why i'm not changing my mind here i'm not willing to do it and then you take that and you make that an ontological claim and you claim that that's the didactic statements of just of the text and i don't see how that's actually supported either with the immediate language the grammar the word choice the sentence structure the literary device or genres Paraphrase Warren McGrew to Tyler Vela

You don't go to Jeremiah 18 to get the context of Numbers 23. LOL

 

[TomL]

And you ignore mine that clearly say He does not change His mind.

Sorry that is false I addressed it according to context while you just ripped the sentence from its context both and far

 

[civic]

NOPE. He cannot lie nor change His mind.

Keep making things up

Nope man lies changing his mind God does not lie.

God changes His mind without lying unlike man.

Next

 

[Presby02]

Sorry that is false I addressed it according to context while you just ripped the sentence from its context both and far

You never stated nor proved any context.

 

[civic]

Sorry that is false I addressed it according to context while you just ripped the sentence from its context both and far

Yes like they do with a single word to form an entire doctrine. It’s the only way tulip works - ripping a verse from the context

 

[TomL]

You don't go to Jeremiah 18 to get the context of Numbers 23. LOL

newsflash this was the context of Num 23

the context there i think you have to understand according to its context and the analogy of the faith. What we have is um that you have king balak who has hired balaam to curse the people of israel that god said he was going to bless and balaam is saying look god's not a liar. i'm not he's not going to change his mind because he they haven't done anything to merit this he said he's going to bless them he's not going to turn around and curse them and so i think what happens when you're when you're looking at these is you're taking these texts where god says here is why i'm not changing my mind here i'm not willing to do it and then you take that and you make that an ontological claim and you claim that that's the didactic statements of just of the text and i don't see how that's actually supported either with the immediate language the grammar the word choice the sentence structure the literary device or genres Paraphrase Warren McGrew to Tyler Vela debate

and btw scripture must be consistent with both its near and far context

 

[civic]

newsflash this was the context of Num 23

the context there i think you have to understand according to its context and the analogy of the faith. What we have is um that you have king balak who has hired balaam to curse the people of israel that god said he was going to bless and balaam is saying look god's not a liar. i'm not he's not going to change his mind because he they haven't done anything to merit this he said he's going to bless them he's not going to turn around and curse them and so i think what happens when you're when you're looking at these is you're taking these texts where god says here is why i'm not changing my mind here i'm not willing to do it and then you take that and you make that an ontological claim and you claim that that's the didactic statements of just of the text and i don't see how that's actually supported either with the immediate language the grammar the word choice the sentence structure the literary device or genres Paraphrase Warren McGrew to Tyler Vela debate

and btw scripture must be consistent with both its near and far context

Yep the context exposes the error in his doctrine

 

[TomL]

Yes like they do with a single word to form an entire doctrine. It’s the only way tulip works - ripping a verse from the context

It's an invalid approach

 

[Presby02]

Sorry that is false I addressed it according to context while you just ripped the sentence from its context both and far

No you didn't. You never mentioned the texts in psalms. You run off to Jeremiah to find the context in Numbers 23? That's laughable.

 

[Presby02]

newsflash this was the context of Num 23

the context there i think you have to understand according to its context and the analogy of the faith. What we have is um that you have king balak who has hired balaam to curse the people of israel that god said he was going to bless and balaam is saying look god's not a liar. i'm not he's not going to change his mind because he they haven't done anything to merit this he said he's going to bless them he's not going to turn around and curse them and so i think what happens when you're when you're looking at these is you're taking these texts where god says here is why i'm not changing my mind here i'm not willing to do it and then you take that and you make that an ontological claim and you claim that that's the didactic statements of just of the text and i don't see how that's actually supported either with the immediate language the grammar the word choice the sentence structure the literary device or genres Paraphrase Warren McGrew to Tyler Vela debate

and btw scripture must be consistent with both its near and far context

You quoted me Warren McGrew?

Spare me. You will have to do much better.

 

[Presby02]

Yes like they do with a single word to form an entire doctrine. It’s the only way tulip works - ripping a verse from the context

 

[TomL]

You quoted me Warren McGrew?

Spare me. You will have to do much better.

Content not person

I also quoted myself

deal with the content of the argument not your opinion of the person

 

[civic]

You quoted me Warren McGrew?

Spare me. You will have to do much better.

He knows Calvinism better than you

 

[TomL]

No you didn't. You never mentioned the texts in psalms. You run off to Jeremiah to find the context in Numbers 23? That's laughable.

You quoted no texts in Psalms stating God cannot change his mind

while ignoring

God stated to repent (Change mind)

Gen 6:6,7; Exo 32:12, 14; Deut 32:36 ; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam 15:11, 29, 35; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Psa 106:45; Jer 15:6; 18, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 4:2;

 

[civic]

You quoted no texts in Psalms stating God cannot change his mind

while ignoring

God stated to repent (Change mind)

Gen 6:6,7; Exo 32:12, 14; Deut 32:36 ; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam 15:11, 29, 35; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Psa 106:45; Jer 15:6; 18, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 4:2;

Yes making a mountain out of a molehill

 

[TomL]

You never stated nor proved any context.

Now you are just fabricating showing you are a man

the context there i think you have to understand according to its context and the analogy of the faith. What we have is um that you have king balak who has hired balaam to curse the people of israel that god said he was going to bless and balaam is saying look god's not a liar. i'm not he's not going to change his mind because he they haven't done anything to merit this he said he's going to bless them he's not going to turn around and curse them and so i think what happens when you're when you're looking at these is you're taking these texts where god says here is why i'm not changing my mind here i'm not willing to do it and then you take that and you make that an ontological claim and you claim that that's the didactic statements of just of the text and i don't see how that's actually supported either with the immediate language the grammar the word choice the sentence structure the literary device or genres

 

[Presby02]

Now you are just fabricating showing you are a man

the context there i think you have to understand according to its context and the analogy of the faith. What we have is um that you have king balak who has hired balaam to curse the people of israel that god said he was going to bless and balaam is saying look god's not a liar. i'm not he's not going to change his mind because he they haven't done anything to merit this he said he's going to bless them he's not going to turn around and curse them and so i think what happens when you're when you're looking at these is you're taking these texts where god says here is why i'm not changing my mind here i'm not willing to do it and then you take that and you make that an ontological claim and you claim that that's the didactic statements of just of the text and i don't see how that's actually supported either with the immediate language the grammar the word choice the sentence structure the literary device or genres

Sorry, I don't read Warren McGrew who never actually deals with the text nor quotes it.

 

[Presby02]

You quoted no texts in Psalms stating God cannot change his mind

while ignoring

God stated to repent (Change mind)

Gen 6:6,7; Exo 32:12, 14; Deut 32:36 ; Judges 2:18; 1 Sam 15:11, 29, 35; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15; Psa 106:45; Jer 15:6; 18, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 4:2;

I sid post two however which you totally ignored.

We also have Romans 11:29 that tells us God will always be good because HE NEVER CHANGES.

 

[Presby02]

He knows Calvinism better than you

Maybe. That does not make him right.