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

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Eddie Ramos
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:30 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

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

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

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

Post #71

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 am
Lastly, the 8 souls in the ark represent the elect who were saved by Christ dying on their behalf for their sins.
No, Peter says the ark represents BAPTISM. To the best of my knowledge, scriptures make no reference to the TAR coating the ark representing something, so there is no reason to believe it does.
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

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

Post #72

Post by The Tanager »

Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amAgain, when you study types and figures in the scriptures, it is evident that they can be used to typify more than one thing. To claim "inconsistency" because definitions don't follow the same suit, is to assume they must do so in order for it to satisfy our own logical way of doing things….
I’m not saying definitions are inconsistent because they act differently than types/figures. The inconsistency I pointed out was in saying sugkrino could only have one definition, while shamayim and erets have multiple definitions.
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amNow, you gave a good example here by using the word "heavens" as meaning multiple things (the earth's atmosphere, outer space, or where God dwells (the third heaven). And that is correct, so perhaps I should clarify my position. When I said that there is one meaning for a word God has given, I meant that there is one general meaning. Let's take a look at the word "heaven" (šāmayim). This word is most commonly translated as "heaven" and on occasion, it's translated as "air". Here is the first time the KJV does it:
Why is this one general meaning and not three general meanings? How would you phrase the one general meaning that accounts for the multiple meanings above?
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amThat was a demonstration (a parable) of the time when he actually did pay for sins by dying and raising again, and that was at the point of the world's foundation. Now, this in itself is a huge topic we can discuss, but this truth is understood by the many contradictions that we face in the bible if we hold to payment for sins having taken place at the cross.
Ok, so you are saying everything is a parable. Are you referring to Revelation 13:8 here?
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amThe whole context is about whose words they are speaking with. It's not with enticing words of man's wisdom. They aren't speaking with words from the wisdom of men. But what is being spoken is in demonstration of the Spirit and power.
I’m not saying Paul isn’t using words; I’m saying he’s saying the message he’s giving in words is that it’s more about the Person of Christ, then his attempt at putting it in language. It’s like what CS Lewis said about theories of the atonement. They are well and good, but the theory points to the act itself and the act is more true than our attempts to explain it in a formula.

I didn’t see a response to this point: if an allegorical approach is the focus of 1 Cor 2, then verse 9 would be saying that no one had ever seen, heard, or had in his heart an allegorical interpretation prior to this time. People before this time knew of and used the allegorical hermeneutic. Why would God be saying this when it’s not true?
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amWhen we look up the word "spiritual" (Strong's G4152), we notice that it's always translated as "spiritual", that's because it comes from the word "Spirit". And when we look up the examples of how God uses the word "spiritual" in regards to Biblical understanding, we see that he refers to the law (the whole Bible) as "spiritual" (Rom 7:14). We see that the Holy Ghost teaches by comparing "spiritual with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13). And then we see God using this very same word to teach us about historical events and what spiritual truth they were hiding (1 Cor 10:3-4). I explained this to you earlier about the rock and the water in the wilderness. It was an actual historical event that concealed a spiritual truth. And then we notice that the bible admonishes us to be filled with spiritual understanding (Col 1:9). Now, whether you want to refer to something as spiritual or as an allegory, it's the same thing as far as the Bible is concerned. I use the word "spiritual" because the Bible uses that word more than the word "allegory". But both use historical accounts which conceal spiritual (allegorical) truth.
So, you’ve been saying that “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” is a definition of allegory and that is why 1 Cor 2:13 is teaching your allegorical approach. But now you are saying “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” is equivalent to saying “comparing allegory with allegory” since spiritual and allegory are synonyms. That’s a bit confusing.

Your overall case here seems to rely on your view that one Biblical term always has the same meaning, which I don’t see valid reasons for, but perhaps your response above on that will shed some light on the reasonableness of that.
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amAgain, you are superimposing what it should be in order to satisfy your understanding of the pitch when you say…
Why aren’t you superimposing what you think the allegorical meaning should be in order to satisfy your understanding?

User avatar
Eddie Ramos
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:30 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

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

Post #73

Post by Eddie Ramos »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:48 pm ..... the point remains however that they established the pattern directly from scripture ; note the following : "Through Ezekiel, Jehovah speaks of the Messianic Shepherd as “my servant David.”​—Eze 34:23, 24; 37:24, 25" - Insight on the Scriptures Vol I, p. 591 paragraph 1
EZEKIEL 34:23, 24

I will raise up one shepherd over them,+ my servant David,+ and he will feed them. He himself will feed them and become their shepherd. And I, Jehovah, will become their God,+ and my servant David a chieftain among them.+ I myself, Jehovah, have spoken
EZEKIEL 37:24, 25
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition)
24 “‘“My servant David will be their king,+ and they will all have one shepherd.+ They will walk in my judicial decisions and carefully observe my statutes

So there the bible directly gives us liscence by specifically calling the Messiah David to use the later as a type. Not by saying David means beloved in the original language and YHWH declared he loved Jesus so that must be be a type, but by an explicit scripture that calls the coming One "David".

CONCLUSION : If your point is that one can establish types without specific (as in a clear link without the need to know the original Greek or Hebrew of a word) to the antitype you are still wrong.


JW
I suppose the real question is, are you as familiar with the very website you promote as you let on? How is it that I can find corrections to your statements by using the very website you are promoting, that yet again, continue to contradict what you say above (which I highlighted in bold letters)? Below is another excerpt from your website listing the parallels that allow JW's to see David as a type of Christ.

"David Prefigured Christ

4, 5. (a) Describe some parallels between David and Jesus. (b) Why can Jesus be called the Greater David?

4 Jesus, like David, was born in Bethlehem, some 1,100 years after David’s time. In the eyes of many, Jesus too did not look like a king. That is, he was not the kind of king that many in Israel hoped for. Yet, like David, he was Jehovah’s choice. He, like David, was beloved by Jehovah. * (Luke 3:22) In Jesus’ case too, ‘the spirit of Jehovah became operative upon him.’

5 The parallels between the two continue. For instance, David was betrayed by his counselor Ahithophel, and Jesus was betrayed by his apostle Judas Iscariot
".

And here is the link:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines ... r-Solomon/

The bottom line is that the Watchtower society doesn't make the rules on biblical interpretation (no man does), yet it is those very rules to which you "bow" to instead of searching for yourself. JW's acknowledge that the Bible contains types and figures (JW's call them antitypes) yet somehow they set the limits as to what can and can't be seen as a type. That's not something a faithful Bible student would submit to. It is the Bible itself which establishes what something is a type and figure of, and correct understanding of whatever type and figure we are studying must harmonize with the Bible as a whole. This is why no one person can say they have the truth as to what means what, because anyone who truly has the Spirit of God withing them can examine anything that is being taught with he scriptures to see if those things are so.

User avatar
Eddie Ramos
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:30 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

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

Post #74

Post by Eddie Ramos »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 3:19 pm
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 am
Lastly, the 8 souls in the ark represent the elect who were saved by Christ dying on their behalf for their sins.
No, Peter says the ark represents BAPTISM. To the best of my knowledge, scriptures make no reference to the TAR coating the ark representing something, so there is no reason to believe it does.
That is incorrect, the ark does not represent basptism, the water does.

1 Peter 3:20–21 (KJV 1900)
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure (the parable) whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


And if you want to see what the ark itself spiritually represents, then you have to look past the translated text (no matter what version you use). You have to go back to the original text of the Word of God and see which word God himself chose to use to describe the covering of the ark. But if the WTS forbids you from doing this, then what I post below will be meaningless to you. Nevertheless, here it is:

Genesis 6:14 (KJV 1900)
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.


Both words translated as "pitch" are only translated as "pitch" here in this verse. Some translations say, "cover it inside and out with pitch" (ESV), which conveys the same idea. But when we look deeper, we learn that the first word "pitch (or cover) is mostly translated as "atonement" and the second word "pitch" is mostly translated as "ransom". These are the specific words God chose to use here and the serious Bible student acknowledges that every word of God is pure and thus examines why God decided to use the words that he did in the contexts that he did.

God could have easily chosen to use another sentence that he uses to illustrate to us that all that was done to the ark was that it was "waterproofed" (NLT).

Exodus 2:3 (KJV 1900)
And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river’s brink.


These words "slime" and "pitch" are not at all the sane words used in the building of Noah's ark. That is because they paint different spiritual pictures. Whatever material Noah's ark was historically covered with is irrelevant to the information God has given us, the only thing that is relevant are the words God chose to use here because those words (like every word God uses) helps us to learn what truth God is hiding within the historical context.

In this case, the ark (per the Bible) typifies the atonement of Christ that was paid with the ransom of his death for those inside the ark. We can then take this understanding to any passage of the scriptures for correction or confirmation that our understanding is in complete harmony with the rest of the scriptures. And if we take it to the book of 1 Peter 3:20-21, we can see that those inside the ark were indeed saved, not just physically, but the spiritual picture is that of salvation. As per verse 21. And the more we look, the more harmony we are given which leads us to be sure that we have understood the spiritual picture of the ark correctly.

Hebrews 11:7 (KJV 1900)
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving (this is the word "salvation") of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.


So, the only thing I can do is recommend that you not put your trust in the wisdom of men as that will always lead anyone astray.

Jeremiah 8:9 (KJV 1900)
The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

Jeremiah 17:5 (KJV 1900)
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

User avatar
Eddie Ramos
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:30 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

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

Post #75

Post by Eddie Ramos »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:45 pm
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amNow, you gave a good example here by using the word "heavens" as meaning multiple things (the earth's atmosphere, outer space, or where God dwells (the third heaven). And that is correct, so perhaps I should clarify my position. When I said that there is one meaning for a word God has given, I meant that there is one general meaning. Let's take a look at the word "heaven" (šāmayim). This word is most commonly translated as "heaven" and on occasion, it's translated as "air". Here is the first time the KJV does it:
Why is this one general meaning and not three general meanings? How would you phrase the one general meaning that accounts for the multiple meanings above?
Because every time this word "heaven" (šāmayim) appears in the entire Old Testament , it is always plural in the original text (please check me on this). Thus God is the one who refers to the "heavens" as one general meaning, not three. We are the ones who like to distinguish the sky, from outer space and from the third heaven where God dwells in order to make the context make more sense to us. But again, what matters is what word God chose to use here and how He intends for us to understand the words he chose to use. And we can only do that with the scriptures themselves, not how we think it should be defined based on our limited understanding of a context. This is why we can be sure that 1 Cor 2:13 is to be translated as "comparing" and not as "combine".
The Tanager wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:45 pm
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amThat was a demonstration (a parable) of the time when he actually did pay for sins by dying and raising again, and that was at the point of the world's foundation. Now, this in itself is a huge topic we can discuss, but this truth is understood by the many contradictions that we face in the bible if we hold to payment for sins having taken place at the cross.
Ok, so you are saying everything is a parable. Are you referring to Revelation 13:8 here?
Yes, but not only that verse, there are many verses which continue to harmonize as we continue to search for truth. Here are just a few:

Hebrews 4:3 (KJV 1900)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 9:26 (KJV 1900)
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Psalm 74:2 (KJV 1900)
Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old;
The rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed;
This mount Zion, wherein thou hast dwelt.

Proverbs 8:22–23 (KJV 1900)

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
Before his works of old.
I was set up ("poured out" like a drink offering) from everlasting, from the beginning,
Or ever the earth was.


But like I said, this is a whole other subject we can discuss in another thread if you'd like. The point was to show you that every aspect of Christ's life and work while here on earth as recorded in the gospels, was done in parables (please don't ingnore that verse).
The Tanager wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:45 pm
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amThe whole context is about whose words they are speaking with. It's not with enticing words of man's wisdom. They aren't speaking with words from the wisdom of men. But what is being spoken is in demonstration of the Spirit and power.
I’m not saying Paul isn’t using words; I’m saying he’s saying the message he’s giving in words is that it’s more about the Person of Christ, then his attempt at putting it in language. It’s like what CS Lewis said about theories of the atonement. They are well and good, but the theory points to the act itself and the act is more true than our attempts to explain it in a formula.
Thanks, but I'm not interested in what C.S. Lewis says, as they have no bearing in how we come to truth. We should only be interested in what the scriptures teach. But I think I have exhausted my explanation on this point. Again. my intent is not to try and convince, but to offer a biblical explanation as to why the scriptures are to be studied the way God has laid out if we hope to come to a harmonious truth. And as Christ himself set the example, no amount of biblical truth can open the eyes of those who can't see or hear spiritual truth, especially if they are convinced they can indeed both hear and see. And this truth, I must first apply to myself before putting it out there for everyone else, as no one is exempt from deceiving themselves into thinking they are true children of God, when they never were. That is why salvation was always an extremely personal relationship between each individual and God, because only God could give assurance of his salvation, and not we top ourselves.

Psalm 35:3 (KJV 1900)
Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me:
Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation.


Without this salvation, the spiritual truths of God's words are not possible to comprehend.

1 Corinthians 2:13–14 (KJV 1900)
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they (the words) are spiritually discerned.


The Tanager wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:45 pm I didn’t see a response to this point: if an allegorical approach is the focus of 1 Cor 2, then verse 9 would be saying that no one had ever seen, heard, or had in his heart an allegorical interpretation prior to this time. People before this time knew of and used the allegorical hermeneutic. Why would God be saying this when it’s not true?
What that portion of 1 Cor 2 is teaching us is that the scriptures of the Old Testament, which the Jews read and literally followed, was concealing within it a deeper truth that was kept secret ("hidden mystery") from the very Jews that God entrusted his word to (the princes of this world (vs 8)). The reason it was kept hidden from them was so that they would reject the messiah and crucify him, thus fulfilling the perfect will of God (vs 8). This hidden wisdom is later referred to as "the deep things of God" (vs 9). But verse 10 says that this hidden mystery of who Christ really was, was revealed to God's people "by his Spirit". Because only the Spirit of God that is within a true child of God can properly discern that which is "spiritually discerned" (vs 14). Thus this hidden wisdom, these deep things which God has hid within his Word, is referred to as "spiritual" (vs 13) and only by comparing "spiritual with spiritual" does the Holy Spirit teach.

Now, verse 9 doesn't say, "that no one had ever seen, heard, or had in his heart an allegorical interpretation prior to this time" as you stated. It has to do with the Jews (as I explained above) not being given ears to hear nor eyes to see the truth of the Word of God because they (as a nation) did not have the Spirit of God within them. I looked at the ESV translation which is where I assume you are reading from, and it says there, "But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard". But that's not what the original text says. In other words, it doesn't say "no eye hath seen", it says, "eye has not seen". And we can quickly see which translation is more faithful by comparing it to the rest of the scriptures.

Matthew 13:13–16 (KJV 1900)
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.


So, the Bible teaches us that there were eyes that have seen (meaning understood) who Christ truly was. Yet not these were very few among the nation of Israel. But as a nation, Israel was the "eye" that "has not seen", meaning they were not given eyes of understanding as to who Christ truly was. Thus, God is using the nation of Israel's blindness and lack of understanding (which was from God) as an example of what it takes to understand the truths that are hidden within his word. It takes the Spirit of God to discern the spiritual word of God.

John 6:63 (KJV 1900)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


The Tanager wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:45 pm
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amWhen we look up the word "spiritual" (Strong's G4152), we notice that it's always translated as "spiritual", that's because it comes from the word "Spirit". And when we look up the examples of how God uses the word "spiritual" in regards to Biblical understanding, we see that he refers to the law (the whole Bible) as "spiritual" (Rom 7:14). We see that the Holy Ghost teaches by comparing "spiritual with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13). And then we see God using this very same word to teach us about historical events and what spiritual truth they were hiding (1 Cor 10:3-4). I explained this to you earlier about the rock and the water in the wilderness. It was an actual historical event that concealed a spiritual truth. And then we notice that the bible admonishes us to be filled with spiritual understanding (Col 1:9). Now, whether you want to refer to something as spiritual or as an allegory, it's the same thing as far as the Bible is concerned. I use the word "spiritual" because the Bible uses that word more than the word "allegory". But both use historical accounts which conceal spiritual (allegorical) truth.
So, you’ve been saying that “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” is a definition of allegory and that is why 1 Cor 2:13 is teaching your allegorical approach. But now you are saying “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” is equivalent to saying “comparing allegory with allegory” since spiritual and allegory are synonyms. That’s a bit confusing.

Your overall case here seems to rely on your view that one Biblical term always has the same meaning, which I don’t see valid reasons for, but perhaps your response above on that will shed some light on the reasonableness of that.
You're the one who asked me to show you where the Bible ties an allegory to a spiritual meaning, and I showed you in a previous post. Thus it's God who makes the connection, not me. You didn't address the scriptures I gave you which answered your initial question, but instead you just said that to you it's confusing. I have no problem with that. It would be an impossibility for me to make "clear" something that is spiritually discerned. But I put forth the scriptures you asked of me and explained them as best as I was able. The rest is not in my hands, it never was.

1 Corinthians 3:6 (KJV 1900)
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.


The Tanager wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 9:45 pm
Eddie Ramos wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:58 amAgain, you are superimposing what it should be in order to satisfy your understanding of the pitch when you say…
Why aren’t you superimposing what you think the allegorical meaning should be in order to satisfy your understanding?
Because we can take both understandings (yours and mine and anyone else's) and see which one the Bible as a whole agrees with. This is why no part of scripture is of any private (one's own) interpretation, because the Bible (God) is the one who has final say by contradicting our understanding when we are in error, or by harmonizing with our understanding, thus confirming that we are on the right path. Therefore, to be on the side that declares that the same atonement with ransom is on both sides of the ark (meaning, that Christ paid for the sins of those inside and outside the ark) is to be in direct contradiction with the scriptures as a whole, as it is only for the sins of his people that the blood of Christ was shed (the ransom was paid). And from the very beginning of the nation of Israel, God had established that very spiritual picture of having a people for himself that God himself chose and redeemed from year to year (which typified Christ's atonement), yet this was not for the rest of the nations of the world.

And this takes us full circle back to Jacob and Esau, as Jacob is "loved" of God, meaning that God paid for his sins and Esau was "hated". Not "loved less" but hated, meaning that Christ did not pay for his sins, yet he still had to meet the demands of the same law. And that demand was a ransom for his sins payable only by death. And since Christ did not pay for his sins. he had to pay for his own. The ransom was required on both sides of the ark. And because these two individuals represent two nations and two manner of people (Gen 25:23), we can see that God also divides the true children of God (Jacob) from those who aren't (Esau).

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

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

Post #76

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Eddie Ramos wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:11 pm
You have to go back to the original text of the Word of God and see which word God himself chose to use to describe the covering of the ark.
There is nothing wrong with understanding the meaning of an original word (it is essential in translating) but when it comes to extracting an antitype (for example tar pictures ransom), there must be a scriptural indication in the bible itself, that is the Jehovah's Witness position.
Eddie Ramos wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:28 pmJW's acknowledge that the Bible contains types and figures (JW's call them antitypes) yet somehow they set the limits as to what can and can't be seen as a type. ...
Yes, the limits are as follows ...

It is the Bible itself which establishes what something is a type and figure of, and correct understanding of whatever type and figure we are studying must harmonize with the Bible as a whole.
I see that as reasonable and protective. Otherwise one can fall into endless potholes of human dogma that detracts from the clear teachings of truth. For example, nowhere does any scripture link tar with the ransom.

Where did Jesus (who probably spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek) ever make reference to the original ancient Hebrew language [rather than simply quote the words text in whatever language he was communicating] to make his point. When he explained his parables, NEVER did he say "Now to understand this parable you need to go back to ancient Hebrew (that nobody really speaks anymore) and look up the root for the verb..." Where is the biblical precedent of refering to the root meaning of words (rather than what the word meant in their scriptural context), to extract an type for a corresponding antitype?


JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

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

Post #77

Post by Eloi »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:49 am
Eddie Ramos wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:11 pm
You have to go back to the original text of the Word of God and see which word God himself chose to use to describe the covering of the ark.
There is nothing wrong with understanding the meaning of an original word (it is essential in translating) but when it comes to extracting an antitype (for example tar pictures ransom), there must be a scriptural indication in the bible itself, that is the Jehovah's Witness position.
Eddie Ramos wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:28 pmJW's acknowledge that the Bible contains types and figures (JW's call them antitypes) yet somehow they set the limits as to what can and can't be seen as a type. ...
Yes, the limits are as follows ...

It is the Bible itself which establishes what something is a type and figure of, and correct understanding of whatever type and figure we are studying must harmonize with the Bible as a whole.
I see that as reasonable and protective. Otherwise one can fall into endless potholes of human dogma that detracts from the clear teachings of truth. For example, nowhere does any scripture link tar with the ransom.

(...)

JW
I totally agree.

For example, cabalistic Jews and many other religious people believe that there are hidden messages in the Bible. To try to decipher them they use many techniques that have nothing to do with worshiping God or the purpose for which He inspired his written Word.

We can know that from what Paul says:

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Imagine that most of the time that people study the Bible would be dedicated only to trying to decipher things that are not obvious in the message but hidden between letters and words. :shock:

The truth is that Moses, the inspired writer of God's Torah, said to the israelites:

Deut. 30:11 Now this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it beyond your reach. 12 It is not in the heavens, so that you have to say, ‘Who will ascend to the heavens and get it for us, so that we may hear it and observe it?’ 13 Nor is it on the other side of the sea, so that you have to say, ‘Who will cross over to the other side of the sea and get it for us, so that we may hear it and observe it?’ 14 For the word is very near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart, so that you may do it.

User avatar
Eddie Ramos
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:30 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

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

Post #78

Post by Eddie Ramos »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:49 am
Eddie Ramos wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:11 pm
You have to go back to the original text of the Word of God and see which word God himself chose to use to describe the covering of the ark.
There is nothing wrong with understanding the meaning of an original word (it is essential in translating) but when it comes to extracting an antitype (for example tar pictures ransom), there must be a scriptural indication in the bible itself, that is the Jehovah's Witness position.
Eddie Ramos wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:28 pmJW's acknowledge that the Bible contains types and figures (JW's call them antitypes) yet somehow they set the limits as to what can and can't be seen as a type. ...
Yes, the limits are as follows ...

It is the Bible itself which establishes what something is a type and figure of, and correct understanding of whatever type and figure we are studying must harmonize with the Bible as a whole.
I see that as reasonable and protective. Otherwise one can fall into endless potholes of human dogma that detracts from the clear teachings of truth. For example, nowhere does any scripture link tar with the ransom.

Where did Jesus (who probably spoke Aramaic and possibly Greek) ever make reference to the original ancient Hebrew language [rather than simply quote the words text in whatever language he was communicating] to make his point. When he explained his parables, NEVER did he say "Now to understand this parable you need to go back to ancient Hebrew (that nobody really speaks anymore) and look up the root for the verb..." Where is the biblical precedent of refering to the root meaning of words (rather than what the word meant in their scriptural context), to extract an type for a corresponding antitype?


JW
I understand. And it would never be for me to try and convince you otherwise, as that is not my task, but only to share the Bible's own method of interpretation that the scriptures teach. Now, granted, there are many who take spiritualizing to whatever level they want in order to produce their own desired outcome. But because the Bible is like no other book in existence, and because we know that the Bible is one cohesive truth, we can be sure that any and every conclusion that anyone derives from the Bible, can be tested against the Bible for total harmony. This is God's way of exposing every false doctrine, by contradicting them. But when we arrive at a faithful and true doctrine, then everywhere we look, the Bible continues to agree with us, indicating to us that we have indeed found truth. So, the faithful Bible student doesn't concern him or herself with what methods mankind has come up with because they will never lead to a harmonious truth. The task of the faithful Bible student is to seek and search how God intended for His Word to be rightly divided.

Now, regarding your question, "Where did Jesus ever make reference to the original ancient Hebrew language to make his point.".

Every time Jesus quoted the Old Testament, or pointed someone back to what the Old Testament says, we can be 100% sure that he was pointing them back to the original words of God. And what languages we're they written in? Hebrew and Aramaic. This is the only word of God that Israel possessed at the time. They both spoke the Hebrew language and read the Hebrew language.

John 7:52 (KJV 1900)
They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.


Where else would they be searching and looking in order to find the answer? Only one place, the original Hebrew text. We also know that Christ could both speak and read in the same Hebrew language.

Luke 4:16–21 (KJV 1900)
And he (Jesus) came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.


John 7:14–15 (KJV 1900)
Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. 15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters (writting), having never learned?


So, the above, answers your first question. Here's your next observation, "When he explained his parables, NEVER did he say "Now to understand this parable you need to go back to ancient Hebrew (that nobody really speaks anymore) and look up the root for the verb..."".

I believe my previous answer corrects the notion regarding the original Hebrew language "that nobody really speaks anymore". It is very evident that since the language of the Old Testament scriptures never changed, that they both still spoke and read that very language. Thus, whenever he pointed anyone back to the Old Testament (which is written in Hebrew) in order to come to understanding, then this is Biblical precedent for us to do the same.

Luke 10:25–26 (KJV 1900)
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?


John 10:34 (KJV 1900)
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


John 8:17 (KJV 1900)
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.


Luke 24:44 (KJV 1900)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.


How many times did Christ direct us back to the Hebrew language? I believe the Bible has given you the answer. Now, please tell me how many times does God instruct us to seek out the wisdom of man in order to come to truth?

Here is your final question, "Where is the biblical precedent of refering to the root meaning of words (rather than what the word meant in their scriptural context), to extract an type for a corresponding antitype?".

I find it odd that you're questioning me, out of one side of your mouth, about Biblical proof for the use of root words in order to validate it, while from the other side of your mouth, contrasting that with your own method (or the one you've accepted), of which you have zero scriptures for. I have ample biblical precedent (as provided above) for going back to the original Word of God in order to make sure that any translation is faithful to the original Word of God and in order to see what specific words God (not the scribes he used) decided to use in every single verse because: "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him". (Prov 30:5).

And also,

Matthew 4:4 (KJV 1900)
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


This is why every word of God matters (the original words). Far more than the general meaning of a passage that the fallible translators have tried to convey. Not only does every word matter, but God even goes the extra mile to teach us exactly which 22 letters of his Hebrew alphabet were used to make up the Old Testament scriptures. This is what Psalm 119 was given to us. And the root of a word is just another word itself in the very same scriptures. This is why they are all equally important, because they are all used in the Hebrew text.

So, I can safely say with confidence that my Hermeneutic for Biblical understanding comes from a far higher authority than any presented in this thread so far. If you can't say the same about the authority you've accepted, then at the very least, you should ask yourself what scriptures were used in the development of the hermeneutic the WTS developed (or any denomination). And if no scriptures can be presented, but rather, if, "scholars, common sense, logical, and sensible" are among the words that you receive as a response for the hermeneutic you've adopted, then I hope you can see a huge problem with that.

Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV 1900)
8  For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts
.
10  For as the rain cometh down,
And the snow from heaven,
And returneth not thither,
But watereth the earth,
And maketh it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
It shall not return unto me void,
But it shall accomplish that which I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.


Proverbs 22:17 (KJV 1900)
Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise (God is the wise),
And apply thine heart unto my knowledge.


1 Corinthians 2:5 (KJV 1900)
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.


Proverbs 3:5–6 (KJV 1900)

5  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
And lean not unto thine own understanding.
6  In all thy ways acknowledge him,
And he shall direct thy paths.


There is no way to acknowledge God in all our ways if we leave his Word out of the equation. This is especially true for our method of Bible study.

User avatar
Eddie Ramos
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:30 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

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

Post #79

Post by Eddie Ramos »

Eloi wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 1:08 pm
I totally agree.

For example, cabalistic Jews and many other religious people believe that there are hidden messages in the Bible. To try to decipher them they use many techniques that have nothing to do with worshiping God or the purpose for which He inspired his written Word.

We can know that from what Paul says:

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Imagine that most of the time that people study the Bible would be dedicated only to trying to decipher things that are not obvious in the message but hidden between letters and words. :shock:

The truth is that Moses, the inspired writer of God's Torah, said to the israelites:

Deut. 30:11 Now this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it beyond your reach. 12 It is not in the heavens, so that you have to say, ‘Who will ascend to the heavens and get it for us, so that we may hear it and observe it?’ 13 Nor is it on the other side of the sea, so that you have to say, ‘Who will cross over to the other side of the sea and get it for us, so that we may hear it and observe it?’ 14 For the word is very near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart, so that you may do it.
Well, we don't have to imagine it, all we have to do is read our Bible in order to see that the writing of the Old Testament was not recorded for the sake of the Jews of that time, rather, they were written for those who would come much later.

1 Corinthians 10:10–11 (KJV 1900)
Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.


This means that those who lived during the time period of the writing of the Old Testament, not only did they not need to know the spiritual meanings behind the written word, but they weren't able to know them, because these things were to be revealed at another time in history. And of course, God gives us plenty of examples of this:

1 Corinthians 9:8–11 (KJV 1900)
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?


So, God just gave us an example of a very random law, with no context before or after it (Deut 25:4), and just explained to us that this law was concealing a spiritual truth. And the rest of 1 Cor 9 explains what that hidden spiritual truth is. And the spiritual truth always points us to some aspect of the gospel message. That means that for hundreds and hundreds of years, the nation of Israel was following the letter of the law concerning not muzzling the ox when he was treading out the corn, never realizing that God had given this law, not because he cared for the oxen, but because this law had a greater spiritual meaning within it. And God does this many times. Enough times for the serious Bible student to acknowledge that God is teaching us something here, and when we go back to the laws of the Old Testament, we can and follow the Biblical method of arriving to truth and see that every law contains spiritual truth.

God not only does this with the laws of Moses, but also with historical events. This next passage (among others) God is going to take an Old Testament historical account and bring it to our attention, but for a very important reason:

1 Corinthians 10:1–2 (KJV 1900)
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;


We all remember this account of when the nation of Israel crossed the sea. Then God talks about another point in which Moses (actually God) causes water to flow from a rock in order to provide water for the nation of Israel to drink. This was a great miracle in itself. But what if I told you that this physical historical rock was actually a spiritual rock that pointed to the lord Jesus Christ. And what if I told you that the water they drank was actually spiritual water which points to the gospel. Well, many would likely say, that's absurd. And I would agree, had it not been for God holding us by the hand and spelling it out for us in order for us to understand that this historical event was concealing a greater spiritual truth.

1 Corinthians 10:3–4 (KJV 1900)
And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Yes, this is speaking of an actual literal historical event recorded in the Bible, yet this event contained a greater spiritual truth. And as I mentioned before, God does this enough times that the Bible student gets it and realizes that not only is spiritual truth concealed within the laws God gave, but also within the historical accounts as well. And this understanding harmonizes with the verses I've been trying to keep at the forefront of these discussions.

Matthew 13:34 (KJV 1900)
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Mark 4:11 (KJV 1900)
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables:

User avatar
Eddie Ramos
Scholar
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2022 11:30 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

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

Post #80

Post by Eddie Ramos »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:49 am
..." Where is the biblical precedent of refering to the root meaning of words (rather than what the word meant in their scriptural context), to extract an type for a corresponding antitype?


JW
I did a little more digging on the site you promote and I have a question for you to consider in light of your statement above. If you don't see a biblical precedent for examining root words in order to better understand what a Hebrew word means, then can you explain how the WTS arrived at a definition of the word "Bethlehem" to mean "house of bread"? Incidentally , that is the correct definition of the word, but the only way to see that is to examine the root words. I hope you can now see both the biblical precedent and value of studying the Bible in it's original language.

Post Reply