Where in the Bible does God decree everything ?

[civic]

i am not calvinist or arminian so I dont know if calvinism
considers types in its exegesis..

so, to clarify, esau is a type..
we can look at politicians and world leaders today
and see that type everywhere....
being very successful and powerful
yet having no connection to God,
rather, only interested in own Self and advancement.

they believe in many types and in fact stretch some that have no confirmed types in the N.T.

proper exegesis is if its a type then its affirmed in the N.T. if one is claiming it to be a type in the O.T. of Christ for example.

 

[e v e]

they believe in many types and in fact stretch some that have no confirmed types in the N.T.

proper exegesis is if its a type then its affirmed in the N.T. if one is claiming it to be a type in the O.T. of Christ for example.

once in a different forum, someone said that esau was a type of Christ..

except God Himself says He hated esau!

Since I won't join any church, I don't follow proper exegesis... so I was unfamiliar with your point about the OT
and don't worry about that distinction.

I work with a researcher and we translate for ourselves, from original languages, and use every and all types of exegesis..
A reason is that it seems most modern exegesis derived from aristotle, and I once traced the christian type of exegesis
straight back to that. a book on that form of christian exegesis was referred to me by someone (an evangelical!) on another forum.
However it has so many references to the greeks as its justifications...so I had to put it down.
plus, that exegesis does not allow cross reading against other texts
even though only scripture would confirm of course in any cross reading...
and then there is the fact that the vatican limited the books of what was the canon.
Except I do not follow the vatican idea...plus i know from various bible scholars
who posted on another forum that they admit to 'cutting and pasting.' and even
a tradition of cutting and pasting!

So right there by the vatican many books were dropped out of exegesis..
and of course I read them and find them helpful. * carefully though since
discerning what esau wrote versus what comes from God... *
The thing is to see what esau inserted and wrote, or if a line is typical esau,
or to see if the line is from God.

So, I don't accept any of the vatican councils and only listen to God's opinion..
a soul has to be their own translator without anything in between..
even theology experts.

 

[e v e]

for example I was told that etymology was not an allowed exegesis,
by someone on a forum... well.. sorry but for me it IS allowed.

 

[e v e]

the thing is, the term nations is typically referring to God's enemy.
Much modern Christian exegesis does not know this, since it refuses to look at the root of words
and to note the pagan roots, which are not His.

So when I see the word nations, immediately that is a clue
we are not talking about God's people, and that the line has been corrupted
if it 'seems to be' stated as about God's people... well. no.

And the use of terms then as synonyms, messes things up,
in translating, since pagan terms are then interposed.
But without knowing the root, the subtle corruptions creep in.

 

[e v e]

I never saw God anywhere say that exegesis had a specific process, if that is what calvinists think..
(I do not know if they do.)
The only thing He wants is that souls understand His Words, what He really said.

And following tradition or human rules on that, set up by theology 'experts'
is like going into a deep spelled state of confusion...

 

[e v e]

i read literally, so view all He said as having to do with us right now..
not a dusty history...
such that types must refer to literal realities, not empty symbols....
so when He talks about Leviathan or the evil Queen of heaven,
that is Literal, but the context is Transcendent, referring to the other reality.
Can that other reality (as of the evil realm) affect us? Yes...
otherwise why He would talk about it? He doesn't talk
nonsense or just to talk...but EVERY word He says
is meant for us and represents something real, in past, present or future,
and often times all of these at once.....

all His words conform to His Character, and
work together to the same Goal,
which is for us to understand
what He really said and to bring us Home.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

for example I was told that etymology was not an allowed exegesis,
by someone on a forum... well.. sorry but for me it IS allowed.

It depends. It's a logical fallacy to do what Rick Warren did with his "Porpoise Driven Life" (joke intended). When interpreting this passage:

Phil 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

He points out that the Greek word for "works" in "who works in you" is energeo, so he says what it really means is that it is God who energizes you. What he fails to mention is that the Greek word for "to do" in "to will and to do" is ALSO energeo. And it makes no sense to say, "It is God who energizes you both to will and to energize for His good pleasure." That's cherry picking a Greek word to push your interpretation while ignoring the same word used differently.

I see crap like that everywhere, often pushed by people like Beth Moore and whatserface Meyer.

 

[e v e]

It depends. It's a logical fallacy to do what Rick Warren did with his "Porpoise Driven Life" (joke intended). When interpreting this passage:

Phil 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

He points out that the Greek word for "works" in "who works in you" is energeo, so he says what it really means is that it is God who energizes you. What he fails to mention is that the Greek word for "to do" in "to will and to do" is ALSO energeo. And it makes no sense to say, "It is God who energizes you both to will and to energize for His good pleasure." That's cherry picking a Greek word to push your interpretation while ignoring the same word used differently.

I see crap like that everywhere, often pushed by people like Beth Moore and whatserface Meyer.

I haven't read his work...
nor making blanket statements... : )
just that I think that the desire must be to sincerely learn what He teaches us...
and that He never contradicts himself anywhere in His Scroll = OT and NT, both.

I don't believe that the NT 'supercedes' the OT - He never contradicts Himself...
He spoke in the OT and speaks the same in the NT.

The context of the OT is the rapture, us, being saved to paradise, and restored
to Him, and in the NT the same.

 

[e v e]

It was Marcion who first invented the division of the OT and NT..
which a pope then adopted.

Marcion hated God in the OT....
So of course he wanted to 'divide' the scroll...
he rejected God of the OT and only wanted NT.

and that planted the seed of viewing one as passe dusty history..

so untrue.

God wants us to inquire the prophets

and recall that the OT rabbis did not listen to the prophets
and cursed themselves for NOT
listening...

 

[atpollard]

deleted.

 

[e v e]

it was only after the OT fathers were cursed that they
had to write the words down, and the same cursed ones
wrote them down! thus making the text, now written,
fragile to corruption = by the fleshmind, natural mind
of them... and also consider some of them
are knowingly wolves in sheep clothing!
I have seem a few of those in action
on other forums.

Remember, God knows who are His souls..
and the whole goal of the esau types is to confuse
us very much and confuse even what He said to us...
and this explains all the either/or wars about this or that
belief...

to keep us from meeting Christ.

 

[e v e]

Ferguson 2002 quotes Tertullian's De praescriptione haereticorum 30:

Since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is necessarily subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was previously united. Having been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation.

this was quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
I marked the bit about Marcion in red.

Higher on the page, Marcion's hatred of God in the OT is described.

I think that what God said in the OT is so devastating to the satanic realm and this is why
Marcion, and OT rabbis who ignored the prophets, and many others, have to dismiss
what God said to the prophets...

 

[e v e]

many, such as Marcion, hate the OT since God expresses wrath...

the context is that the satanic realm has caused His Sons and daughters to fall!
Of course He as our father is angry at those demon Nations.. and hates them (= sons of ammon , esau)
and destroys their cities... in the same way that he will Destroy this earth... and its kings etc and roll
back its sky!

and the cities of demons described are not on this earth - sodom and gomorrah for example,
refer to satanic cities...those lines have a transcendent context!
Marcion as many others, removed the true context! Many today do the same,
assuming that a this current earth context is the only context.

God is love. He is angry of what the satanic demon Nations have done to us.
So, yes, in the OT we saw many events happening in the other reality
...

 

[e v e]

So, in Ez. 30 or 31 we see His anger towards the city (of the demon nations)
sitting atop the eden trees that the satanic city makes to cry and suffer..
and His promise of the destruction of it... to free us!

that is about us.. our eden paradise that was
lost...
and describes the same as Rev...
the destruction of the satanic realm...
and our restoration to our land on the Day of the Lord...
which is also rapture
but for adam and the Nations it is Death.

 

[e v e]

The Cedar (eg. Ez 31) is always Negative and is of the evil realm,
representing their tree of knowledge of Good and evil...

 

[e v e]

Okay, so the line about the eden trees (=us!)
is at Ez. 31 16 and goes a few lines...

for it is our paradise they stole and the lines refer to now and also then..
and what He said is relevant for ever since God said it!
And says that God will destroy their city (both in the other reality and on this earth!)
not some dusty history.

 

[e v e]

There is no logic to God talking about Eden in Ezekiel if Eden
is no longer relevant! Everything He says is valid for Us now...
no word of His is simply past said... but is relevant and is His Words to us.

 

[e v e]

Anyway, above is but an example of reading and taking the OT
seriously as being the same context as Rev, same as all Christ said, and valid
right now, all He said to the apostles and that He has ever said to His souls...

 

[e v e]

Today, bible schools and teachers do NOT teach the OT as about Us, as valid,
every word spoken to you and me.. they teach it as a past history...
thus making it impotent.

So consider then....

Is God double-minded or are the bible teachers who have spread this to churches and pastors and congregations?

Who here (of the above-listed pastors, churches, teachers, academic pharisees, etc.)
have rejected His words, as did the rabbis
when they cursed themselves in the NT?
That is the real situation. God does not have 'two scrolls'...
he has one.

esaus created a false scroll as his own esau scroll
by intermixing his corruptions into God's scroll to confuse souls.

the bible 'experts' of today are often esaus, wolves in sheeps clothing
corrupting His words.
He does not inform their 'ideas' that is for sure.

 

[e v e]

Okay. I still see don't see any issue with Adam action relative to Eve.

The fact is that when Adam fell is when the situation got hopeless.

Adam was given the command not to eat. Eve was not given that command.
Adam was in charge and responsible for what happened later.