What, exactly, is a 'hard heart'?

[Zzyzx]

.
Christians and their literature refer to 'hard (or harden) hearts'.

People with some comprehension of modern medicine understand that the heart is a blood pump (though ancient storytellers may not have been aware).

Since substantial hardening would interfere with blood pumping, it is unlikely that the term is (now) intended to be literally applied.

So, what does it mean?

A suggestion: It appears to me that 'hard heart' refers to people who choose to not do or say what believers wish them to do or say -- or people who are not easily intimidated or coerced into believing in (or following supposed instructions of) the Bible God -- or those who oppose religionists who claim to be 'God's chosen people'

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 39 by DanieltheDragon]


All God wanted was to free Israel. If that is "manipulating or coercing Pharaoh" then so be it. It certainly incited a response in him. i.e., a hardened heart.

False, that is not all god wanted. 7:3 and 7:5 point out he wanted to multiply his wonders and signs so that the people of Egypt will know who is Lord. God did not need Pharoah to free the Isrealites, God appoints all authorities if God wanted to free the Isrealites he need simply appoint a new authority or he could have just as easily miracles them out of there without torturing and killing the people and animals of Egypt

To say anything more is to add things that simply aren't there. I'm not saying anything more than that.

So stop with your bs where one minute I'm "omitting" from the text and the next I'm "loading" it. Come on. I'm reading the text as it is in the simplest way possible.

No your doing both and it's plain as day, I did a verse by verse analysis pairing scripture to your words and highlighted specifically where you did this. Just as the above where you ommited what God wanted.

To say your not is being intellectually dishonest. Some people at least call it separating the diamonds from the dung and they admit they are doing it. That is at the very least being intellectually honest.

You yourself said in another thread that you reject the negative aspects of the Old Testament. You can't be reading the text in the simplest way possible if your interpreting the text.

Your only argument against mine is a semantic one about free will. If we exclude the term and look at what God did in simplest of terms. God engineered a situation in which he could kill people and animals. God engineered a situation where he killed and tortured animals. The goals of making himself known to Egypy and Freeing the Jews could have been done without hardening pharoahs heart...

[otseng]

So stop with your bs where one minute I'm "omitting" from the text and the next I'm "loading" it.

Moderator Final Warning

Profanity of any kind is not allowed on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[theophile]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

False, that is not all god wanted. 7:3 and 7:5 point out he wanted to multiply his wonders and signs so that the people of Egypt will know who is Lord.

The overarching context (and purpose of God) could not be clearer. See Exodus 3:7-8:

The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. 8 So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.

This is why God is there, and how God shows God is God: by freeing Israel. If God gets a little notoriety out of it too, then good for God. That is secondary.

God did not need Pharoah to free the Isrealites, God appoints all authorities if God wanted to free the Isrealites he need simply appoint a new authority or he could have just as easily miracles them out of there without torturing and killing the people and animals of Egypt

I already responded to your misreading of Romans 13. What you say here is doubtful at best. Certainly not shown.

No your doing both and it's plain as day, I did a verse by verse analysis pairing scripture to your words and highlighted specifically where you did this. Just as the above where you ommited what God wanted.

Did I miss this "verse by verse analysis"? What post is it? I'm assuming your only issue is with 7:3-4, and the emphasized "I will."

3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you.

So let's dive into this. I read it as God saying "My action will likely cause..." i.e., "My sending Moses and Aaron to demand Israel's freedom will likely cause Pharaoh's heart to harden..."

You read it as "I will directly cause Pharaoh's heart to harden through the removal of his free will."

But here's where you have to look at the Hebrew. For starters, ancient Hebrew does not have tenses like we do in English. So when God says "I will," that is not God declaring a future action of God's. Rather, this is how translators render the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb... See the following for explanation:

Each Hebrew verb also identifies the tense of the verb. In English a verb can have three tenses - past, present or future. Examples of these would be "You cut a tree" (past), "You are cutting a tree" (present) and "You will cut a tree" (future). Biblical Hebrew only has two tenses - perfect and imperfect. While the three verb tenses in English are related to time, Biblical Hebrew verb tenses are related to action. The perfect tense is a completed action while the imperfect tense is an incomplete action.

If a verb is perfect, as in completed, it is rendered in the past tense by translators. But it doesn't mean it has happened (again, it is not the same as the English tense); it could just as well mean it WILL happen in a guaranteed to happen sort of way.. The action is complete, whether it has happened yet or not, it will happen.

If a verb is imperfect, as is the case here (note it has been translated in the Future tense which is what translators do with imperfect verbs), it means there is a chance it won't happen. That it is not guaranteed. That the event is a possibility.

Hence my translation. God is not declaring a future, guaranteed action, but a likely possibility. Something that may very well happen, but may not. This is a more accurate view of the Hebrew and fits perfectly with what I say. It doesn't quite fit what you say. (If what you say is true, the verb would have been given in the perfect form, since God would have guaranteed the eventuality of Pharaoh's hard heart.)

So the question is, if you want to really get into it, why is the imperfect form of the verb used? It is because there is a chance. It is because God is predicting it based on knowledge of human behavior. It is decidedly not because God knows God will do this and has the omnipotent power to guarantee it, as per your view.

You yourself said in another thread that you reject the negative aspects of the Old Testament. You can't be reading the text in the simplest way possible if your interpreting the text.

Woah, where did I say this? I reject certain readings, absolutely. I uphold the text as we have it in its fullness. That has always been my position.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 43 by theophile]

I reject certain readings, absolutely. I uphold the text as we have it in its fullness. That has always been my position

You said something similar to this, trying to track down the post currently it was recent just can't remember which thread. Clearly I misunderstood precisely what you were saying. So sorry for the misrepresentation.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 43 by theophile]

This is why God is there, and how God shows God is God: by freeing Israel. If God gets a little notoriety out of it too, then good for God. That is secondary.

Whether it's secondary or primary is irrelevant you can't ommit it. To ommit it would be rewriting scripture.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 43 by theophile]

Quote:
God did not need Pharoah to free the Isrealites, God appoints all authorities if God wanted to free the Isrealites he need simply appoint a new authority or he could have just as easily miracles them out of there without torturing and killing the people and animals of Egypt


I already responded to your misreading of Romans 13. What you say here is doubtful at best. Certainly not shown.

Yeah I meant to address this, basically your opinion is that the text doesn't mean what it says and that we should ignore the text and make it mean something that is not said.

I am well aware of this position and it is common among religious right groups that want to assert theocracy and avoid paying taxes. This interpretation literally espouses what the verses warn you not to do. Given that neither one of us are Paul I'll just go with the "simpler" interpretation...

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 43 by theophile]

Did I miss this "verse by verse analysis"? What post is it? I'm assuming your only issue is with 7:3-4, and the emphasized "I will."

Post 31