(August 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: As for those who think that modern translations are there to cover up anything are showing their ignorance. They do not study the process of modern translation and that we find the meaning to words that the KJ translators did not know and had to make an intelligent guess.

An intelligent guess??
Your god gave his divine word to a bunch of sand farmers and then left it up to everyone else to GUESS at it for 2000 years???

Your god is such a worthless little impotent turd of a deity.

(August 10, 2012 at 6:54 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: As for those who think that modern translations are there to cover up anything are showing their ignorance. They do not study the process of modern translation and that we find the meaning to words that the KJ translators did not know and had to make an intelligent guess.

An intelligent guess??
Your god gave his divine word to a bunch of sand farmers and then left it up to everyone else to GUESS at it for 2000 years???

Your god is such a worthless little impotent turd of a deity.

Don't shoot the one who sent the messenger!

---

(August 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 7:05 am)spockrates Wrote: It is likely more accurate than the King James version, but the choice of words is so--19th century. Let's also consider one of the most popular versions of the 21st century--Today's New International Version:


9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.'"

(Ezekiel 14:9)

It seems, then that the deception of Ezekiel might be described as God prevailing against the one who misrepresented himself as God's spokesperson, and he prevailed by enticing the imposter in some way. Do you agree? If so, in what way did God entice the false prophet?

I'm thinking that the context of the surrounding verses paints a picture of a the fake prophet deceiving the Jewish people by assuring them that they will be able to defend themselves against the invading military forces. This contradict's God's message that they will not prevail against them. So in what way would you say God deceived, prevailed against, or enticed the false prophet?

Yes I agree, prevail can carry the same meaning as entice and I believe in this case entice is probably the better word, it makes the verse easier to understand.

As for those who think that modern translations are there to cover up anything are showing their ignorance. They do not study the process of modern translation and that we find the meaning to words that the KJ translators did not know and had to make an intelligent guess.

Agreed. Modern translators have the advantage of access to thousands more extant ancient manuscripts. Sure, the King James English has a poetic sound to it, something like Shakespeare, but it was not based on the latest scholarship.

---

GodsChild:

So there now appears to be no contradiction. Hebrews says God never lies; Ezekiel says God entices the liar. The liar does the lying; God does the enticing. Since Enticing is not lying, the two passages do not disagree. Agreed?

But I do not think we should breath a sigh of relief just yet. For it seems we have jumped out of the frying pan, only to land in the fire! Please let me explain:

It seems to me the false prophet described in Ezekiel sinned by misleading the ancient Jewish people to their harm. They could have listened to Ezekiel and surrendered to the invading armies. As it was, they listened to the imposter and resisted the invaders and suffered their full wrath, with only a few survivors escaping Jerusalem. Now God says that he was the one who enticed this false prophet. To what did God entice him, if not to sin by lying to the ancient Jewish people? The upshot, it seems is that the book of Ezekiel now appears to contradict another biblical book. For we now understand Ezekiel to have meant this,

“‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.'"

(Ezekiel 14:9)

But a New Testament author writes this,

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone...

(James 1:13)

The burning question that now consumes us: Is the enticing of Ezekiel the same as the tempting of James? If so, how is this not a contradiction? (At this point, I have no idea how we will save ourselves from getting burned by this one, but I suppose that with God all good things are possible! Let us pray for wisdom and see where the God of Wisdom takes us.)

@ Spockrates, I do not believe we have a contradiction here, God would have had to place the lie in the heart of the false prophet to have tempted him, the lie was already there. This prophet wanted to boost his ego and God allowed that very thing to happen, God did this to prove to His people that He is their God and that He knows best.

IOW "enticing is not tempting" as a chaser to "deceit is not deception". Spock.....remember all those times I kept mentioning that there were no contradictions in fiction......lol.

GC knows not only what was in some persons heart thousands of years ago and what he desired, he knows the specifics of what god did about it and why. Who's telling a narrative in third person omniscient now?

(August 13, 2012 at 8:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: IOW "enticing is not tempting" as a chaser to "deceit is not deception". Spock.....remember all those times I kept mentioning that there were no contradictions in fiction......lol.

GC knows not only what was in some persons heart thousands of years ago and what he desired, he knows the specifics of what god did about it and why. Who's telling a narrative in third person omniscient now?

Well, I can't speak for GC, but it seems to me that we have not answered the question, "Is all deception telling a lie?" I'm thinking a soccer player who fakes right and kicks to the left deceives the goalie when he scores a goal. He does so without saying a word, and you, or I could not logically accuse him of being a liar. Do you see that not all deception is the same as telling a lie?

---

(August 13, 2012 at 5:47 am)Godschild Wrote: @ Spockrates, I do not believe we have a contradiction here, God would have had to place the lie in the heart of the false prophet to have tempted him, the lie was already there. This prophet wanted to boost his ego and God allowed that very thing to happen, God did this to prove to His people that He is their God and that He knows best.

While it might be true that the imposter first sinned on his own initiative and without any enticing, was this always the case? Or does God say he stepped in and took the initiative to entice the false prophet to continue the behavior?

“‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel.'"

(Ezekiel 14:9)

What do the words. "I the LORD have enticed that prophet," mean?

It seems to me, then that we have two options: We must use the King James, or New Revised Standard version, or other version, which uses the word deceived.

If a prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

(Ezekiel 14:9, New Revised Standard)

Or we use the word enticed, as in the New International Version cited above. If we hold that deceived is the correct translation, we must demonstrate that the impossible lie of Hebrews is not the same as the deception of Ezekiel.

God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.

(Hebrews 6:18)


But if we hold that enticed is the correct translation, we must show that the enticing of Ezekiel is not the same as the tempting of James.

When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone...

(James 1:13)

You see, I still don't see how we can logically say God did not deceive, or entice when God says he did deceive, or entice the false prophet.

@ Spockrates, ok let's look at both situations, you have connected the verse in Ezekiel to two different verses in the NT. Both NT verses relate to God's righteousness and this is what needs to match up to the verses in Ezekiel. I thought we agreed that when the word deceived was used in this verse that God was not lying and I pointed out that God did not tempt the prophet, the prophet already had the lie in his heart, God did not put it there, God did not tempt the prophet to sin. If God had done one He would have done the other, the translations would not matter. Also God would be working against Himself if he had done either after giving Ezekiel the true prophecy. As Christ said that a house divided can not stand, so why would Christ say this in th future if God had done such a thing in the past.

LOL, a question that has been answered countless times.

Quote:Don't shoot the one who sent the messenger!

Actually it's "don't shoot the messenger" The implication being if you must shoot someone,shoot the author of the message,it is he who is responsible. The messenger is "only obeying orders' (aka the Nuremberg defence)

ME? I say shoot 'em both.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDRAhiBtOrQ

That's what I'm talking about Pad...lol. I mean, its not like the messenger couldn't say "No..sorry, but I'm not delivering this garbage." Fuck em both.

I can't believe that the flies are still circling this particular turd of a thread.