zeke25
New Member
DogLady19,DogLady19 said:"it does not appear in Genesis 29:30 as you claim." My bad. It's the very next verse, Genesis 29:31 that uses the word "hate" (Strong's 8130)
"I find nothing in Romans 11 that gives Esau salvation" I didn't say it did. In fact, I said it had nothing to do with salvation. Read point #3 again in my post.
"I would suggest that your ever present goal of denying Almighty God the range of emotions and feelings that He is entitled to exercise and still remain righteous, is little more than wishful thinking on your part." Shame on you for such an arrogant comment. I thought we were discussing scripture, not me.
Thank you.
I'm new here, and I get the feeling there are some really nasty people here... they start off all polite, then BAM! They start attacking their fellow posters!
I'm looking for a place to discuss God's Word with others... what a shame that what I see on secular political blogs is also prevalent on a Christian blog...
I've been reading your posts, and I'm sure we can have some good lively discussion seeking the Truth. Thanks for staying on topic. :)
Sorry about missing Genesis 29:31, I should have caught that and not made an issue of it. Nevertheless, I do not agree that the word definition supports a "love - less" scenario.
DogLady said: "2) When God said he hated Esau, he was saying that he rejected him as the line that would produce God's Chosen, Israel. The rejection of Esau is temporal, not eternal. 3) The subject in Romans 9 is not about our salvation. It's about Israel."
Zeke's response: So, I have no right to disagree with you? The rejection of Esau certainly appears eternal. If you can show me some supporting Scriptures to the contrary that would be helpful. And Romans 9:13 and the connection to Malachi 1:3 means that the discussion was on "hating" and "Esau". Our discussion was not regarding the chosen line of Jacob. If you want to switch horses in mid-stream, don't lay that on me.
So now I am arrogant because I point out the obvious. This discussion is about the Scriptures and its also about your interpretation of the Scriptures, which is consistent. You have a preconceived disposition to refuse to accept that God might actually hate someone. This doesn't mean that I am attacking you. I am disagreeing with your interpretations. I do not find your position supportable with the Scriptures. I'm being frank, not nasty. If you only want to dialogue with those who agree with you, hook-line-and-sinker, then you probably don't want to talk with me anymore. But it begs the question: Why are you here?
I am here to dialogue and learn. I don't expect to find total agreement with everyone on everything. And I'm certainly not going to cry foul, every time someone disagrees with me. In fact, I post things some times begging for disagreement. I want the opposition to prove me wrong. If they can, then I need to rethink what I've written and believe. If they can't prove me wrong with Scriptures, then that strengthens my position. Iron sharpens iron, does it not?
It was nice of StanJ to weigh in and give you his mistaken opinion about me. (Since he complimented you, I guess it is okay for him to make personal observations unrelated to the subject, but I'm a nasty boo-boo and falsely accused by you of making a personal attack even though I didn't make personal attacks against you). Nevertheless,it gives me the opportunity to explain that StanJ has a serious case of the "tail wagging the dog". He doesn't get his doctrine from the Bible. He gets his doctrine from Bible Commentaries, Lexicons, and his scholars of choice. Once that is settled, then he applies all of that information to explain what the Bible should mean and that the Bible must come into agreement with these extra-biblical doctrines or be found wanting. It has never occurred to him, that the Bible determines word definitions and doctrines, and that the commentaries, lexicons, and scholars must bow to the authority of Scriptures. But since he has no spiritual discernment about the Bible, he has no choice but to resort to the "tail" and "wag" the dog with it. And don't ask for any examples. You said you read his stuff, go find your own examples.
Zeke25