IF GOD SO LOVED "EVERYONE", THEN WHY DID HE HATE ESAU?

[Eddie Ramos]

It seems like John 3:16 is by far the most widely memorized verse among people who know anything about the Bible because it speaks about God loving the world. While this verse may seem like "good news" to everyone who reads it, it does not stand alone from the rest of the scriptures. No verse does.

So, as most people are glad to memorize that verse, what happens when they come across a verse like this?:

Romans 9:13 (KJV) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Malachi 1:2-3 (KJV)
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD.
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD:
yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Psalms 5:5 (KJV)
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight:
thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 11:5 (KJV)
5 The LORD trieth the righteous:
but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalms 5:6 (KJV)
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing:
the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

How does John 3:16 look in light of these passages? Did God change? No, God does not change (Malachi 3:6). This teaches us that we can't just focus on John 3:16 and conclude that God's love for the world, in the giving of his Son, is actually not referring to every individual in the world (because there are passages that tell us about God hating others), but rather John 3:16 is referring to certain people within the world. These certain people are also known as God's beloved which means to be loved.

1 John 4:10-11 (KJV) 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.

The beloved are thise who were chosen for salvation, those who were called to be saints.

Romans 1:7 (KJV) 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

My question for this thread is: Can you see that the Bible, on one hand, speaks of God's love in conjunction with those whose sins were laid on Christ? And on the other hand, can you see that those who were hated, are those whose sins were not laid upon Christ? This is what it means to be hated. It means that you have to pay for your own sins by your own death.

[Eddie Ramos]

It is only "overstepping" if you assume that your hermeneutic is the correct method. ..

Allowing the bible writers to point out types and antitypes HAS to be the only correct hermeneutic because they were inspired if God.

So if, for example the tar pictures/represents -> the ransom, Jesus or one of the bible writers (who were fully aware that Noah covered the ark in tar) needed to say so. Paul for example wrote extensively about biblical patterns, from family dramas to the items in the tabernacle...he was more than capable of drawing a parallel between the tar on the ark and the ransom.

Paul knew the root meaning of the word tar, he knew the root meaning of the word ransom/atonement. He (or any other bible writer) could have written a verse explaining the link/spiritual significance of the tar but nobody did. What were they waiting for? You?

I know YOU have drawing a parallel ...but you are not inspired of God and your posts are not part of the bible canon. The lexical link is interesting and sheds some light on how the word should be understood but from there to imply some "spiritual significance" on the tar is to assume the role of bible writer rather than student.

We (who take our hermeneutics from the bible not internet posts) need scrcripture to do what you so eloquently have done. If it doesn't, then your conclusion is based on your own man-made hermeneutics rather than the word of God.





JW

First, you keep alluding to the Bible writers as if they were the ones who had anything to do with what words were written down. The Bible teaches us that the writers were merely tools used by God to put pen to paper. Therefore, whenever we're referring to what was written, it's best to say, "this is what God said", or " what is God trying to tell us here?", etc.

Secondly, you continue superimposing your hermeneutic on the scriptures, yet ironically, still, without providing any scriptures to so do. You continue to declare that in order to understand the spiritual meaning of a passage (the type and figure) that it must clearly be spelled out by "the writer" every time. Where does the Bible teach you that God wrote the Bible so as for it to be clearly understood by the reader? Did not I provide countless of scriptures on this thread that teach otherwise? That without parables the Word of God did not speak?(Mat 13:34) That parables require interpretation?(Prov 1:6) That the law (the Word of God) is spiritual?(Rom 7:14) That the Words given by God are to be spiritually discerned?(1 Cor 2:14) That the Word of God speaks in parables so that it cannot be understood by those who do not have the Spirit of God?(Mk 4:11) That spiritual understanding is foolishness to the natural man? (1 Cor 3:12-14). That it's God's glory to conceal words in order that the true children of God would seek them out?(Prov 25:2). That spiritual understanding is what we ought to be filled with if we're true children of God?(Col 1:9) And that God gives us plenty of examples that spiritual understanding is the understanding of that which is concealed within the plain historical text.(1 Cor 10:1-4; Gal 4:21-30; Rev 11:8; 1 Peter 2:4-6).

And where does the bible teach that everything must be clearly spelled out, every time, in order to make biblical connections? Did I not also provide many passages as examples of where God holds us by the hand to teach us spiritual truths concealed within historical accounts and laws? Did not Christ explain to his disciples that parables require interpretations that only the Word of God (Christ) can interpret? And after holding them by the hand a few times and explaining specific parables, that God expected them to grasp the concept and apply it for themselves? Yet because they didn't yet grasp it, he rebukes them:

Matthew 15:15–17 (KJV 1900)
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Mark 8:16–21 (KJV 1900)
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember? 19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. 20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. 21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?


Matthew 16:6–11 (KJV 1900)
Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. 8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? 9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? 11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

When God teaches his children truths from the scriptures, he expects them to learn the way he has taught them to be able to see these truths and apply it to the rest of the scriptures. This is how one grows into spiritual maturity and is weaned from the milk of the Word onto the meat of the Word.

Hebrews 5:11–14 (KJV 1900)
Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age (them that are perfect), even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Those who insist on having it all spelled out are the same as those who are unskillful in the Word of righteousness and can only see that which is clearly spelled out. These truths anyone can see for that very fact, because they are clearly spelled out. One does not need the Spirit of God to make those connections. But the rest of the Bible, which is to be spiritually discerned in the same manner, is another matter altogether. This is why so many religious folks are opposed to it, because they cannot grasp how the Bible could contain more spiritual truth than that which is clearly spelled out. Yet when the bible student follows God's examples as he has laid out in the scriptures and does the same to the rest of the Bible, then a whole world of spiritual truth opens up to us. And it all points to the very same truth of some aspect of the gospel message.

So, any hermeneutic that sets these kinds of limits on the reader, do so with no biblical authority, yet they believe they are keeping you "safe" from error. When in fact, they are doing the exact opposite. And what adds more to the irony of this king of hermeneutic is that whenever the WTS wants to ignore the very method they've developed, the do so in order to arrive at a truth that isn't clearly spelled out in the scriptures. If you would please explain here who the 144,000 are in the book of Revelation 14 and show us how the WTS came up with their explanation of who they are. And based on the hermeneutic you insist on following (which you say is biblical), then please, along with your explanation of who they are, show us where the Bible makes the "clear connection" (which you insist that there must be) of who they represent.

[Eddie Ramos]

If 'heavens' includes the idea of God's dwelling place, it's the opposite: it's saying the heavens do contain God. This is what holding onto there being only one definition per term forces you into, but this can be avoided by seeing that Biblical terms have multiple meanings.

Well, everything that relates has to be taken into consideration. I didn't quote every relevant passage but spoke about it in general terms having taken it all into consideration. The Bible tells us that God dwells in the heavens, that the heavens are his dwelling place. This means that God fills his entire creation (the heavens and the earth) but is not confined to it.

Jeremiah 23:24 (KJV 1900)
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill the heavens and earth? saith the LORD.

This is why we can use a theological word like "omnipresent" to describe God, because we know that he is present everywhere at all times. Not just on earth but in the heavens as well. This is why God uses the word heavens as a plural word. Thus, God is not like man that can be confined into a dwelling place. God is a spirit and an ever present being in every aspect of his creation. So, our job is to try and understand how the heavens are his dwelling place yet they cannot contain him, rather than try and separate the word "heavens" into separate meanings to exclude the sky and outer space and only think that his dwelling place is in the third heaven. But because God fills the heavens and the earth, he can make reference to heaven in plural form (heavens) every time and it be in perfect harmony with the rest of the scriptures. But I understand your reluctance in the acknowledgement of each word having one general meaning because that would take us back to may other words that we've spoken about on which you would have to change your position on, which in turn would adversely affect the doctrines you hold. But if truth is what we're truly after, then this should never be a problem, but rather welcomed.

You said Jesus’ crucifixion on earth (since it’s spoken of in the Bible) was an allegory of the Lamb being slain before the earth was made. But the Lamb being slain before the earth was made is spoken of in the Bible, so it must be an allegory of some other event, to remain consistent. Above you allegorize about the other parts of the passage, but not this event. Which event is the slaying of the Lamb that occurred before the earth was made an allegory of?

Why must it be an allegory of some other event? There is only one gospel truth, therefore it all points to the same thing, the gospel message. When people read the Bible at face value, they see a man named Christ which was born of a virgin and caried out his earthly ministry before being put to death on the cross, then dying and resurrecting. This is the gospel. So, they attribute this period of time to the time when Christ made payment for sins. Then as they keep reading, they come across Rev 13:8 and read about a lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world. And while they can make the connection between Christ being the lamb, in their minds, this can't be talking about Christ actually dying from the foundation of the world because they read about his death on the cross in the 4 gospels, thousands of years after the world was created.

So, the spiritual meaning was (and has been) hid since this was first written. That the cross of 33 A.D. pointed to what actually took place before God created the world. Namely that Christ was slain for the remission of sins. And he is typified by a slain lamb. So, this is where the Bible interprets the Bible (by comparing spiritual with spiritual), or, this is how Jesus (the Word of God) explains his parables. So, while Rev 13:8 sheds light on a spiritual truth, we have much, much more to examine before fully grasping just how that could be the case as well as how it harmonizes with the "apparent fact" that Jesus paid for sins on the cross of 33 A.D. This is where the principle of Isaiah 28:9-13 comes in. We can only fully understand something like this by examining line upon line of the scriptures, here a little and there a little. In other words, by examining every aspect of the scriptures in order to arrive at a conclusion that harmonizes with the Bible as one cohesive truth.

Because the "princes of this world" are linked with those who crucified Christ. And the nation of Israel were consistently referred to a "princes". Also, the world "world" is not the "earth" of even "land", but it's referring to an age, "the princes of this age (or period of time)".

It’s not just the Jews that are linked with crucifying Christ in the Bible; it's the Romans as well (Matt 27:26, 35/Mk 15:15, 24-25/John 19:16, 18, 23). It’s not just the nation of Israel that is consistently referred to as princes in the Bible, but Gentiles as well (Gen 12:15, 25:16, etc.).

Christ had not come to the judgment seat of Pilate had he have not been delivered by his own people, the Jews. Pilate insisted that he was innocent and wanted to release him, but the Jews insisted, so Pilate gave them what they wanted. So, while on one hand, you're correct, both Jews and Romans (gentiles) had part in Christ's crucifixion, it was the Jews (the princes of this world) who delivered him up to be crucified in the first place. God puts it this way:

John 19:11 (KJV 1900)
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

The Jews conspired together with Judas (not the Romans) to deliver Christ to be put to death. Therefore they carry the greater sin, as we can read next.

Acts 3:13–15 (KJV 1900)
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. 14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; 15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Historically speaking, it would have been the Roman soldiers that killed physically Christ, but God is pinning the death of Christ on the Jews. This harmonizes perfectly with 1 Cor 2:8 because if the nation of Israel had known who Christ was, they would not have crucified him. And in contrast we can look to Peter, who knew who Christ was, and tried to defend him from being put to death because he was completely against it. But he was actually going against the will of God by taking that position. This is why God blinded the nation of Israel, for the purpose of them not knowing who he was in order that they may have justification in their blindness to crucify Christ and thus carry out the perfect will of God.

John 12:37–41 (KJV 1900)
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: 38 That (this is the reason why they didn't believe.....) that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, 40 He (meaning God) hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. 41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

Do you see how if they had seen and understood who Christ was, then that would have meant that they were no longer blinded, but converted and saved (healed).

So, when God makes reference to the princes of this world not having crucified the Lord if they had known who Jesus was, we can be sure that it's referring specifically to the nation of Israel, not to the Romans. Like I said, Pilate wanted to release him, but had him put to death at the insistence of the Jews. Therefore, they crucified Christ.

[The Tanager]

This is why we can use a theological word like "omnipresent" to describe God, because we know that he is present everywhere at all times. Not just on earth but in the heavens as well. This is why God uses the word heavens as a plural word.

…

So, our job is to try and understand how the heavens are his dwelling place yet they cannot contain him, rather than try and separate the word "heavens" into separate meanings to exclude the sky and outer space and only think that his dwelling place is in the third heaven.

…

But I understand your reluctance in the acknowledgement of each word having one general meaning because that would take us back to may other words that we've spoken about on which you would have to change your position on, which in turn would adversely affect the doctrines you hold. But if truth is what we're truly after, then this should never be a problem, but rather welcomed.

I’m not reluctant to acknowledge each word has one meaning just to hold onto my current beliefs. Your case isn’t convincing, either because it is weak or because I’m making a mistake. We were being friendly with each other; can we keep it that way so that the focus is on the discussion?

I agree with you that God is omnipresent, so that’s irrelevant to what I was just critiquing you on. You have said that God includes every aspect of the meaning every time a word is used. For the reasons I’ve given, I think you are inconsistent in your application of this to support your beliefs. I see nothing here that counters that.

Why must it be an allegory of some other event?

Because you said everything in the Bible is a parable and it’s in the Bible. If this isn’t a parable, then your case for all the rest being parable/allegory loses the support you offered for believing it to be so. You seem inconsistent here.

Christ had not come to the judgment seat of Pilate had he have not been delivered by his own people, the Jews. Pilate insisted that he was innocent and wanted to release him, but the Jews insisted, so Pilate gave them what they wanted. So, while on one hand, you're correct, both Jews and Romans (gentiles) had part in Christ's crucifixion, it was the Jews (the princes of this world) who delivered him up to be crucified in the first place.

This seems like more inconsistency. ‘Crucified’ here doesn’t mean the actual crucifying, but delivering Jesus up to be crucified; yet I’m sure other times the Bible talks about Jesus’ crucifixion you would say it doesn’t mean just Jesus being delivered up, but actually being crucified. Here you are using a term to mean two different things, which goes against your belief that the term only has one meaning whenever it is used.

[Eddie Ramos]

I’m not reluctant to acknowledge each word has one meaning just to hold onto my current beliefs. Your case isn’t convincing, either because it is weak or because I’m making a mistake. We were being friendly with each other; can we keep it that way so that the focus is on the discussion?

My comment was not meant as sarcasm, but sometimes we have to be direct with an observation. If I came across as being disrespectful, then I apologize, as that was not my intention. But after trying to explain the same things from various angles, I made the comment of reluctancy as an observation.

I agree with you that God is omnipresent, so that’s irrelevant to what I was just critiquing you on. You have said that God includes every aspect of the meaning every time a word is used. For the reasons I’ve given, I think you are inconsistent in your application of this to support your beliefs. I see nothing here that counters that.

Ok, then instead of me trying to explain it many different ways, then could you explain why the word "heavens" is always plural?

Why must it be an allegory of some other event?

Because you said everything in the Bible is a parable and it’s in the Bible. If this isn’t a parable, then your case for all the rest being parable/allegory loses the support you offered for believing it to be so. You seem inconsistent here.

But I did explain this parable in my previous post. You're the one who insisted that this must be referring to another event and I told you that everything in the bible spiritually points to the same event, the gospel message. And I'm not the one who said that everything in the Bible is a parable, God is. This means that because the Word of God did not speak without parables, and parables are spoken for the express purpose of concealing spiritual truth from the unsaved, that the Word of God is full of hidden spiritual truth. Revelation 13:8 is a perfect example of this for the reasons I explained in my previous reply to you. The spiritual truth concealed in the language of the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world, opens the scriptures up to discover so much more spiritual information that God had kept sealed till the time of the end. And now, in light of that passage, when we go back and re-read statements that we have glanced over in times past, we can see more and more confirmation that payment for sins did indeed take place before the world began rather than at the time of the cross, which makes the cross of 33 A.D. a demonstration of what had already been accomplished.

Here is just one passage that can be better understood in light of the truth Rev 13:8 was concealing:

Genesis 3:22 (KJV 1900)
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Which one of the godhead did man become as when they became sin? Well, if Christ didn't take upon himself the sins of his people till thousands of years later, then it can't be him here. Yet, of the godhead, the whole Bible tells us that it was only Christ who knew no sin yet became sin for his people (2 Cor 5:21). In other words, Christ knew good and evil. But because Christ already made payment for sins from the foundation of the world, that means that he became sin, died and rose again, all before he created the world. Now, Genesis 3:22 has perfect harmony with the only person of the godhead to have known good (no sin) and evil (sin). And after mankind sinned, they became like one of the godhead (they became like Christ), in the aspect of knowing good and evil.

Christ had not come to the judgment seat of Pilate had he have not been delivered by his own people, the Jews. Pilate insisted that he was innocent and wanted to release him, but the Jews insisted, so Pilate gave them what they wanted. So, while on one hand, you're correct, both Jews and Romans (gentiles) had part in Christ's crucifixion, it was the Jews (the princes of this world) who delivered him up to be crucified in the first place.

This seems like more inconsistency. ‘Crucified’ here doesn’t mean the actual crucifying, but delivering Jesus up to be crucified; yet I’m sure other times the Bible talks about Jesus’ crucifixion you would say it doesn’t mean just Jesus being delivered up, but actually being crucified. Here you are using a term to mean two different things, which goes against your belief that the term only has one meaning whenever it is used.

If you look up the word "crucify", you'll see that it's Strong's G4717 and it's always translated as "crucify" in the KJV. But the general meaning of the word is what we should be looking for, not necessarily what the English translated words are (as they can vary greatly depending on which version you read as well as on the translators theological position). So, as we begin to study each passage in which God placed this word, we come to the general meaning of the word to mean "to put to death".

2 Corinthians 13:4 (KJV 1900)
For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.

This verse helps us see the contrast between being crucified (put to death) and then living by the power of God. But the word "crucify" doesn't just speak of the putting to death of someone's physical life, but also the spiritual aspect of putting to death. Again, the same general meaning, but the application in this case can be for the physical as well as the spiritual.

Galatians 2:20 (KJV 1900)
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Galatians 5:24 (KJV 1900)
And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.


The elect of God were said to have been crucified with Christ, meaning, that when Christ died, that all those whom he died for were with him (spiritually) and when was buried, the elect, likewise were buried with him (spiritually) and when he rose, the elect also rose with him (spiritually).

Colossians 2:12–13 (KJV 1900)
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Upon salvation taking place, the born again child of God was now to crucify the lusts, affections and desires of his fleshly ways. This means he was to put those desires to death.

Romans 6:6 (KJV 1900)
Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Romans 8:13 (KJV 1900)
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Colossians 3:5 (KJV 1900)
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

There is no inconsistency in how the Bible defines words, only in our limited understanding of those words which God has decided to use. But if we acknowledge the scriptures to rightfully be its own dictionary as well as its own commentary, then we can be sure that we're standing on a sure foundation, on which we can build firm doctrines.

[JehovahsWitness]

IS GOD OMNIPRESENT ?

No, when the bible says God in the heavens it means he dwells in heaven and not on earth. God is not omnipresent.

OMNIPRESENT This is generally taken literally to mean that God is present everywhere, in all things. This is not a biblical teaching. Some define omnipresence "minimally" as in there is no place to which God's knowledge and power do not extend, this is biblically accurate but not what most people mean when they speak of God's omnipresence.

Does the bible say God is everywhere?

MATTHEW 6:9a

Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified

1 KINGS 8 :30

Hear in heaven Your dwelling place; and when You hear, forgive

• Is God able to be in everything if he so chose? Yes, YHWH is omnipotent so He has the power to do anything; that however does not mean that he chooses to do everything.

• Since the bible says God's spirit can go anywhere and God is a spirit , doesnt that mean God is everywhere? No, Gods spirit refers to his power not his person. It is the active energy he can use to achieve any purpose. Like the electricity sent out by the power plant, God does not have to leave his fixed location just because he can send out his energy to anywhere in the universe.

RELATED POSTS

Why is God depicted in Genesis as searching for Adam and Eve?
viewtopic.php?p=1052715#p1052715

Is God omnipresent?
viewtopic.php?p=1114062#p1114062

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

GOD, OMNISCIENCE and ... OMNIPOTENCE

[The Tanager]

My comment was not meant as sarcasm, but sometimes we have to be direct with an observation. If I came across as being disrespectful, then I apologize, as that was not my intention. But after trying to explain the same things from various angles, I made the comment of reluctancy as an observation.

Thank you for clarifying your intention.

Ok, then instead of me trying to explain it many different ways, then could you explain why the word "heavens" is always plural?

In the Bible, the Hebrew term for it is always plural, but the Greek word isn’t. There are perhaps a few words this is done with. I haven’t done extensive research of this, but some of the examples I keep coming across are: waters (mayim), heavens (shamayim), faces (panim), and lives (chayyim).

Some say this is because of being so massive, they have honorary plural status. Some (and I find this more convincing at the moment) say this is because of their multiplicity; how they are always changing. Water is always moving, flowing, changing. In the sky the clouds constantly move, shapes form, patterns develop. Individual human faces are constantly changing with nostrils flaring, eyes moving, etc. Life is also constantly changing. Thus, we need a plural form to capture their multifaceted essence.

This also occurs with Elohim, or God, Who is multifaceted, never being contained in our boxes of explanation, as it were. As you say, the heavens can’t contain Him. Heavens, then, also makes sense here to refer to God’s dwelling place, where His Spirit is, which is everywhere, because He is so multifaceted.

How does your view account for the singular and plural use of heaven/heavens by God in the New Testament? Why didn’t God remain consistent by only using “heavens” in the plural when using the Greek language?

But I did explain this parable in my previous post. You're the one who insisted that this must be referring to another event and I told you that everything in the bible spiritually points to the same event, the gospel message.

You also said this:

Let's take Jesus' words always being in parables one step further. Not only did everything Christ verbally spoke was in the form of parables, but also everything that he did and everything that was done in the scriptures as a whole because, essentially, the whole Bible was spoken by God to be written down.

If everything Jesus did and said and everything done and spoken of in the Bible has a hidden truth behind it, then so does the Lamb’s slaying before the foundation of the world because it is spoken of in 13:8. This means that the gospel message would have to be something other than anything directly taught in the Bible (teaching or event spoken of). The alternative is that the Bible is made up of direct teachings as well as parables. You seem to believe this, at least based on viewing the Lamb’s slaying as a direct teaching. But to do this, you need to drop your claim that everything in the Bible is an allegory of some hidden truth.

If you look up the word "crucify", you'll see that it's Strong's G4717 and it's always translated as "crucify" in the KJV. But the general meaning of the word is what we should be looking for, not necessarily what the English translated words are (as they can vary greatly depending on which version you read as well as on the translators theological position). So, as we begin to study each passage in which God placed this word, we come to the general meaning of the word to mean "to put to death".

…

This verse helps us see the contrast between being crucified (put to death) and then living by the power of God. But the word "crucify" doesn't just speak of the putting to death of someone's physical life, but also the spiritual aspect of putting to death. Again, the same general meaning, but the application in this case can be for the physical as well as the spiritual.

…

So, to maintain your view that each Biblical term only has one meaning, whenever it is used, you’d have to conclude that the Jews and Romans were putting to death their fleshly desires when they nailed Jesus to the cross. You don’t believe that. You use Strong’s G4717 in two distinct ways. This term has two distinct meanings. Thus, your support for sugkrino only meaning “compare” is gone.

[Eddie Ramos]

My comment was not meant as sarcasm, but sometimes we have to be direct with an observation. If I came across as being disrespectful, then I apologize, as that was not my intention. But after trying to explain the same things from various angles, I made the comment of reluctancy as an observation.

Thank you for clarifying your intention.

Ok, then instead of me trying to explain it many different ways, then could you explain why the word "heavens" is always plural?

In the Bible, the Hebrew term for it is always plural, but the Greek word isn’t. There are perhaps a few words this is done with. I haven’t done extensive research of this, but some of the examples I keep coming across are: waters (mayim), heavens (shamayim), faces (panim), and lives (chayyim).

Some say this is because of being so massive, they have honorary plural status. Some (and I find this more convincing at the moment) say this is because of their multiplicity; how they are always changing. Water is always moving, flowing, changing. In the sky the clouds constantly move, shapes form, patterns develop. Individual human faces are constantly changing with nostrils flaring, eyes moving, etc. Life is also constantly changing. Thus, we need a plural form to capture their multifaceted essence.

This also occurs with Elohim, or God, Who is multifaceted, never being contained in our boxes of explanation, as it were. As you say, the heavens can’t contain Him. Heavens, then, also makes sense here to refer to God’s dwelling place, where His Spirit is, which is everywhere, because He is so multifaceted.

How does your view account for the singular and plural use of heaven/heavens by God in the New Testament? Why didn’t God remain consistent by only using “heavens” in the plural when using the Greek language?

But I did explain this parable in my previous post. You're the one who insisted that this must be referring to another event and I told you that everything in the bible spiritually points to the same event, the gospel message.

You also said this:

Let's take Jesus' words always being in parables one step further. Not only did everything Christ verbally spoke was in the form of parables, but also everything that he did and everything that was done in the scriptures as a whole because, essentially, the whole Bible was spoken by God to be written down.

If everything Jesus did and said and everything done and spoken of in the Bible has a hidden truth behind it, then so does the Lamb’s slaying before the foundation of the world because it is spoken of in 13:8. This means that the gospel message would have to be something other than anything directly taught in the Bible (teaching or event spoken of). The alternative is that the Bible is made up of direct teachings as well as parables. You seem to believe this, at least based on viewing the Lamb’s slaying as a direct teaching. But to do this, you need to drop your claim that everything in the Bible is an allegory of some hidden truth.

If you look up the word "crucify", you'll see that it's Strong's G4717 and it's always translated as "crucify" in the KJV. But the general meaning of the word is what we should be looking for, not necessarily what the English translated words are (as they can vary greatly depending on which version you read as well as on the translators theological position). So, as we begin to study each passage in which God placed this word, we come to the general meaning of the word to mean "to put to death".

…

This verse helps us see the contrast between being crucified (put to death) and then living by the power of God. But the word "crucify" doesn't just speak of the putting to death of someone's physical life, but also the spiritual aspect of putting to death. Again, the same general meaning, but the application in this case can be for the physical as well as the spiritual.

…

So, to maintain your view that each Biblical term only has one meaning, whenever it is used, you’d have to conclude that the Jews and Romans were putting to death their fleshly desires when they nailed Jesus to the cross. You don’t believe that. You use Strong’s G4717 in two distinct ways. This term has two distinct meanings. Thus, your support for sugkrino only meaning “compare” is gone.

Ok, well, thanks anyway for letting me share my position from the scriptures.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Rose2020 in post #2]

You literally contradicted yourself in the span of three sentences.

[Tulipbee]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #1]

Ah, the divine sitcom of divine love and celestial hatred – a theological paradox that has us all scratching our heads in heavenly confusion! Gather 'round, dear audience, as we unravel the cosmic comedy presented by Eddie Ramos, the celestial stand-up provocateur.

So, here's the cosmic conundrum: John 3:16, the golden ticket to celestial love – "For God so loved the world." A verse that echoes in the cosmic corridors of Christian memory. But wait, enter Romans 9:13 – "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Cue the celestial eyebrow raise!

Eddie Ramos, our theological jester, points to the cosmic tension, quoting Psalms like a scriptural stand-up routine. "The foolish shall not stand in thy sight; thou hatest all workers of iniquity." Psalms 5:5 – divine hate or divine comedy?

Now, let's unpack this celestial riddle: John 3:16 versus divine hatred. Did God switch channels, or is there a divine twist in the plot? Eddie suggests that the beloved are the chosen ones, the VIPs of salvation, whose sins were laid on Christ – a cosmic love story.

Romans 1:7 unveils the beloved of God, called to be saints. Ah, the plot thickens – salvation's VIP list revealed! It seems divine love is reserved for those with a backstage pass to redemption.

Eddie throws a cosmic question into the ring: Can you see the divine sitcom playing out? Love intertwined with sins laid on Christ, and hatred reserved for those with sins unpaid. A celestial comedy of divine justice, where cosmic payment takes center stage.

So, dear audience, grab your theological popcorn and fasten your celestial seatbelts. The divine comedy unfolds, leaving us pondering the cosmic dance of love and hate in the celestial theater of salvation.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #1]

Jehovah loved Esau LESS. That is what "hate" means in many instances. Jehovah didn't hate Esau in the way that we usually think of "hate."