![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/07\/Liar.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>,\u00a0who was\u00a0\u201craised Presbyterian\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cChristians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute . . . I\u2019ve heard the good stuff, and it\u2019s not very good.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Such confusion would indeed be\u00a0predictable<\/em>, seeing that Bob himself admitted\u00a0(2-13-16<\/a>):\u00a0\u201cMy study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I\u2019m researching at the moment.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes if I am able, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.\u00a0It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that, rest assured that he either\u00a0hasn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0replied, or didn\u2019t\u00a0inform<\/em>\u00a0me that he did.\u00a0But don\u2019t hold your breath.<\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog (just prior to his\u00a0banning<\/em>\u00a0me from it), his opinion was as follows:\u00a0\u201cDave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn\u2019t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he\u2019s writing about.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And on 10-25-18, utterly oblivious to the ludicrous irony of\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0making the statement, Bob\u00a0wrote in a combox<\/a>\u00a0on his blog:\u00a0\u201cThe problem, it seems to me, is when someone gets these clues, like you, but ignores them. I suppose the act of ignoring could be deliberate or just out of apathy, but someone who\u2019s not a little bit driven to investigate cognitive dissonance will just stay a Christian, fat \u2018n sassy and ignorant.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Again,\u00a0Bob mocks some Christian in his combox on\u00a010-27-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou can\u2019t explain it to us, you can\u2019t defend it, you can\u2019t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It\u2019s clear you have nothing.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And again\u00a0on the same day<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf you can\u2019t answer the question, man up and say so.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And on\u00a010-26-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cyou refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>And\u00a0again<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou\u2019re<\/i>\u00a0the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. Again, on 6-30-19<\/a>, he was chiding someone who (very much like he himself and my 35 critiques) was (to hear him<\/em> tell it) not backing up his position: \u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d<\/span> Yeah, Bob<\/em> could!\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 35 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning. As of 7-9-19<\/a>, this is how Bob absurdly rationalizes his non-response to these 35 articles: \u201cHe\u2019s written several blog posts titled, in effect, \u2018In Which Bob Seidensticker Was Mean to Me.\u2019 Normally, I\u2019d enjoy a semi-thoughtful debate, but I\u2019m sure they weren\u2019t.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or search \u201cSeidensticker Folly #\u201d in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n In his article,\u00a0George Washington Couldn\u2019t Tell a Lie \u2026 But God Can<\/a> (4-21-18; update of post from 8-11-14), Bible-Basher Bob provides a potpourri of ridiculous lies: all for the purpose of \u201cproving\u201d that the God revealed in the Bible is a liar. Let\u2019s take each whopper in turn:<\/p>\n We can\u2019t even get out of the Creation story without seeing God lie. God says to Adam, \u201cYou must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die\u201d (Genesis 2:17). Adam doesn\u2019t, and he lives to be 930 years old.<\/span><\/p>\n Bodie Hodge, in his article, \u201cTime of Death\u201d<\/a> (Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions: Volume 1<\/em>: 10-20-08), explains this:<\/p>\n The Hebrew phrase in English is more literally:<\/p>\n \u201cTree knowledge good evil eat day eat die (dying) die\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Hebrew is \u201cdie die\u201d (muwth<\/i>\u2014muwth<\/i>) with two different verb tenses (dying and die), which can be translated as \u201csurely die\u201d or literally as \u201cdying you shall die,\u201d indicating the beginning of dying\u2014an ingressive sense\u2014and finally culminating with death. At the point when they ate, Adam and Eve began to die and would return to dust (Genesis 3:19<\/cite>). If they were meant to die right then, God would have used\u00a0muwth<\/i>\u00a0only once, as is used in the Hebrew to mean dead, died, or die, not beginning to die or surely die as die-die is used in Hebrew. . . .<\/p>\n [T]he Hebrew word\u00a0yom<\/i>\u00a0for day in Genesis 2:17, . . .refers directly to the following action\u2014eating\u2014not the latter \u201cdying die.\u201d For example Solomon used an almost identical construct in\u00a01 Kings 2:37\u00a0<\/cite>when referring to Shimei:<\/p>\n \u201cFor on the day (yom<\/i>) you go out and cross over the brook Kidron, you will know for certain that you shall surely (muwth<\/i>) die (muwth<\/i>); your blood shall be on your own head.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This uses\u00a0yom<\/i>\u00a0(day) and the dual\u00a0muwth<\/i>\u00a0just as\u00a0Genesis 2:17<\/cite>\u00a0did. In Genesis 2:17,\u00a0yom<\/i>\u00a0referred to the action (eating) in the same way that yom<\/em> refers the action here (go out and cross over). In neither case do they mean that was the particular day they would die, but the particular day they did what they weren\u2019t supposed to do. Solomon also understood that it would not be a death on that particular day, but that Shimei\u2019s days were numbered from that point. In other words, their (Adam and Shimei) actions on that day were what gave them the final death sentence\u2014it was coming, and they would surely die as a result of their actions. Therefore, the day in Genesis 2:17 was referring to when they ate (disobeyed), and not the day they died.<\/p>\n The rationalization that \u201cdie\u201d only meant that Adam and Eve had been immortal before eating the fruit won\u2019t work. Remember that God had to exile them from the Garden so they wouldn\u2019t eat from the Tree of Life.<\/span><\/p>\n In a second related paper<\/a>, Bob digs in even further:<\/p>\n Apologists respond that this instead means that they will die\u00a0eventually,<\/em>\u00a0that this introduced physical death and they would no longer be immortal. But the text makes clear that they never were immortal. They were driven from the Garden so they wouldn\u2019t eat from the Tree of Life.\u00a0That\u2019s<\/em>\u00a0what makes you immortal.<\/span><\/p>\n The Keil and Delitzsch Commentary<\/em> explains this alleged discrepancy<\/a>:<\/p>\n [T]he man had not yet eaten of the tree of life. Had he continued in fellowship with God by obedience to the command of God, he might have eaten of it, for he was created for eternal life. But after he had fallen through sin into the power of death, the fruit which produced immortality could only do him harm. For immortality in a state of sin is not the \u03b6\u03c9\u03b7\u0300 \u03b1\u03b9\u0313\u03c9\u0301\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 , which God designed for man, but endless misery, which the Scriptures call \u201cthe second death\u201d (Revelation 2:11<\/a><\/span>;\u00a0Revelation 20:6<\/a><\/span>,\u00a0Revelation 20:14<\/a><\/span>;\u00a0Revelation 21:8<\/a><\/span>). The expulsion from paradise, therefore, was a punishment inflicted for man\u2019s good, intended, while exposing him to temporal death, to preserve him from eternal death.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now it\u2019s true that Genesis does not describe in great depth<\/em> all of these elements: physical death, spiritual death, and the Christian doctrine of original sin. The New Testament develops it much further, as I have written about<\/a>, although King David is aware of it: \u201cBehold, I was brought forth in iniquity,\u00a0and in sin did my mother conceive me.\u201d (Psalm 51:5, RSV), and so is Moses, in the book of Genesis itself: \u201cthe imagination of man\u2019s heart is evil from his youth\u201d (8:21).<\/p>\n It is standard biblical hermeneutics to interpret less clear portions of the Bible by means of clearer related cross-references. Nevertheless, there are several more Old Testament passages that describe the fallen condition of man, as a result of Adam and Eve\u2019s rebellion (which Christians believe implicated all mankind: 1 Corinthians 15:22: \u201cin Adam all die\u201d). Here are other similar texts:<\/p>\n Job 15:14 <\/strong>(RSV)\u00a0What is man, that he can be clean?\u00a0Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?<\/p>\n Psalms 14:2-3<\/strong>\u00a0The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,\u00a0to see if there are any that act wisely,\u00a0that seek after God.\u00a0[3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt;\u00a0there is none that does good,\u00a0no, not one.<\/p>\n Ecclesiastes 9:3<\/strong>\u00a0This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that one fate comes to all; also the hearts of men are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.<\/p>\n Jeremiah 17:9<\/strong>\u00a0The heart is deceitful above all things,\u00a0and desperately corrupt;\u00a0who can understand it?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n God\u2019s solution to all this misery is salvation through the blood of Christ and His free gift of grace: received with repentance:<\/p>\n Romans 5:6-11\u00a0<\/strong>While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.\u00a0[7] Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man \u2014 though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.\u00a0[8] But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.\u00a0[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.\u00a0[10] For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.\u00a0[11] Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Israel and Judah allied to fight the country of Aram across the Jordan River in 1 Kings 22. King Ahab of Israel consulted his 400 prophets and was assured of success. Prophet Micaiah was the sole holdout, but his prophecy turned out to be correct\u2014the battle was lost and Ahab was killed. How then had the 400 other prophets gotten it completely wrong? Micaiah tells us that Yahweh wanted Ahab to die and authorized a spirit to cause the prophets to lie to lure him into the battle.<\/span><\/p>\n The Keil and Delitzsch Commentary <\/em><\/a>states:<\/p>\n The manner in which the supernatural influence of the lying spirit upon the false prophets is brought out in Micah\u2019s vision is, that the spirit of prophecy ( \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7 \u05d4\u05e0\u05d1\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 ) offers itself to deceive Ahab as \u05e9\u05c1\u05e7\u05e8 \u05e8\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7 in the false prophets. Jehovah sends this spirit, inasmuch as the deception of Ahab has been inflicted upon him as a judgment of God for his unbelief. . . .<\/p>\n As he would not listen to the word of the Lord in the mouth of His true servants, God had given him up ( \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u0301\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd ,\u00a0Romans 1:24<\/a><\/span>,\u00a0Romans 1:26<\/a><\/span>,\u00a0Romans 1:28<\/a><\/span>) in his unbelief to the working of the spirits of lying. But that this did not destroy the freedom of the human will is evident from the expression \u05ea\u05bc\u05e4\u05ea\u05bc\u05d4 , \u201cthou canst\u00a0persuade<\/em>\u00a0him,\u201d and still more clearly from \u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05db\u05dc \u05d2\u05bc\u05dd , \u201cthou wilt also be able,\u201d since they both presuppose the possibility of resistance to temptation on the part of man.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a common way of expressing God\u2019s judgment and His providence. Romans 1 (mentioned above), explains it:<\/p>\n Romans 1:18-25<\/strong>\u00a0For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.\u00a0[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.\u00a0[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;\u00a0[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.\u00a0[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,\u00a0[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.\u00a0[24]\u00a0Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,\u00a0[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that the onus lies upon the people who \u201csuppress the truth\u201d and are engaged in \u201call ungodliness and wickedness\u201d\u00a0(1:18). They choose in their own free will to disobey God, then<\/em><\/strong> the text says that \u201cGod gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity\u201d (1:24). In other words, He didn\u2019t cause<\/em> their rebellion; He only allowed<\/em> them in their free choices, to rebel.<\/p>\n Likewise, in the present scenario, God allowed the false prophets (see Deut 8:22) to lead Ahab astray, and this led to his judgment, which was inevitable (by Ahab\u2019s own choice to be wicked and rebellious). Ahab chose to believe them. It was the false prophets who lied to Ahab, not God. The same dynamic is seen in the juxtaposition between Pharaoh freely hardening his heart, which is then applied to God<\/em>\u00a0(in a limited sense) doing it (which means that He allowed<\/em> it, in His providence; He didn\u2019t ordain<\/em> it). I explain this<\/a> at length, in two papers<\/a>.<\/p>\n A fourth similar example occurs in the book of Job. Satan comes to God and challenges Him to allow him to torment Job. God responds, \u201cBehold, he is in your power; only spare his life\u201d (2:6; cf. 1:12). So it is clear that Satan is behind the direct persecution of Job. But later, the text refers to \u201call the evil that the LORD had brought upon him\u201d (42:11); that is (properly interpreted, with knowledge of the multitude of Hebrew literary devices), allowed<\/em> in His providence. Then it is reported (now literally) that God \u201crestored the fortunes of Job, . . . and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before\u201d (42:10) and \u201cblessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning\u201d (42:12).<\/p>\n Bob himself virtually makes this same argument for me in his next section (I am answering as I read, so I didn\u2019t see this before i wrote the above):<\/p>\n Remember how God hardened Pharaoh\u2019s heart to prevent him from doing the right thing (Exodus 9:12)? We see the same thing in the New Testament. 2 Thessalonians predicts that \u201cthe lawless one\u201d will deceive during the end times. To people caught by the lie, \u201cGod sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness\u201d (2 Thess. 2:11\u201312).<\/span><\/p>\n We see something similar when Paul describes God\u2019s frustration at the people who don\u2019t get it. \u201cGod [gives] them over in the sinful desires of their hearts\u201d (Romans 1:24).<\/span><\/p>\n Explained above . . . 2 Thessalonians (also written by St. Paul) expresses precisely the same dynamic as we see in Romans 1 and the other three examples above. Men rebel in their wickedness (\u201cthey refused to love the truth and so be saved\u201d: 2:10). Then it is stated (as a forceful hyperbolic manifestation of God\u2019s providence and His permissive will) that \u201cGod sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,\u00a0so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness\u201d (2:11-12).<\/p>\n It\u2019s not a contradiction. This way of speaking is common in the Bible. When Paul talks about wicked men, he is being literal; but when He talks about God, it is hyperbolic and a form of sarcasm. 2:10 makes it quite clear what caused their damnation: \u201cthose who are to perish, because they refused<\/em><\/strong> to love the truth.\u201d Even 2:12 again reiterates that man\u2019s rebellion was the cause of the demise of the damned: not because God willed and ordained it from all eternity.<\/p>\n The Jewish opponents of Jesus saw his miracles. They didn\u2019t believe, not because the evidence was poor or because they didn\u2019t understand or because they were stubborn. No, they didn\u2019t believe because God deliberately hardened their hearts (John 12:37\u201340). John says, \u201cHe has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n But why harden the hearts of bad people? Were they going to do bad things on their own accord or not?<\/span><\/p>\n Coffman\u2019s Commentaries on the Bible<\/em><\/a>, in its treatment of the Old Testament passage cited in John 12 (Isaiah 6:9-10) states:<\/p>\n What is prophesied in this passage is the judicial hardening of Israel in their rebellion against God. The prophecy is stated in different forms. Here it appears imperatively; but in other places the prophecy is referred to as self-accomplished as in\u00a0Acts 28:27<\/span>, or as having occurred passively as in\u00a0Matthew 13:13-15<\/span>. Here, as Dummelow pointed out, \u201cThe result of Isaiah\u2019s preaching is spoken of as if it were the purpose of it.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n The classical example from the Bible is that of Pharaoh, of whom it is stated ten times that \u201cPharaoh hardened his heart \u2026\u201d after which it is said that, \u201cGod hardened Pharaoh\u2019s heart.\u201d God never hardened anyone\u2019s heart who had not already hardened his own heart many times. Thus it was said of this prophecy that Israel had themselves shut their ears, closed their eyes, and hardened their hearts.<\/p>\n Thus we may say that God hardened Israel, that Israel hardened themselves, and further, that Satan hardened their hearts. \u201cThe god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving\u201d (2 Corinthians 4:4<\/span>). The \u201cblinding\u201d of this passage and the \u201cstrong delusion\u201d of\u00a02 Thessalonians 2:11<\/span>\u00a0KJV<\/span>, and the \u201cworking of error\u201d (2 Thessalonians 2:11<\/span>, ASV) are all designations of exactly the same condition described here as \u201chardening.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The key to understanding lies in the parallel passage of Acts 28:27, which the commentary above describes as \u201cself-accomplished\u201d rebellion. This shows the same dynamic as the \u201chardened hearts\u201d passages. In the overall context of Acts 28, we don\u2019t see the language of God deliberately blinding them, etc. We see their own choices<\/em> causing these things. Hence, we see references to \u201cothers disbelieved\u201d (28:24); then the Isaiah passage is cited, but in a milder fashion, followed by \u201cLet it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen\u201d (28:28). In other words, these hearers would not<\/em> listen. It was their fault; they were rebellious. God didn\u2019t cause<\/em> that.<\/p>\n Likewise, here is how Jesus put it in Matthew 13:13, 16: \u201cThis is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. . . .\u00a0their eyes they have closed . . . But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.\u201d If one looks at the larger context of John 12:37-40, one can also see that it is man\u2019s rebellion, not God\u2019s foreordination, that causes the disbelief and wickedness:<\/p>\n John 12:37, 47-48<\/strong>\u00a0 Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him; . . . [47] [Jesus] If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.\u00a0[48] He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus was wrong when he predicted an imminent end: \u201cTruly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened\u201d (Matthew 24:34). The end of the world obviously didn\u2019t happen in the first century. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n This may not be a deliberate lie like we saw from God but rather a false statement, but the result is the same when it comes from an omniscient being.<\/span><\/p>\n This is an old chestnut of anti-theist atheist polemics. A plausible explanation (where Jesus would be referring both<\/em> to His hearers\u2019 generation and the end times) is explicated by Glenn Miller at the wonderful Christian Thinktank<\/em> site:<\/p>\n [W]hen we notice the structure of the ending in Matthew and Mark, we see how some of the items lay out.<\/p>\n The ending has four points:<\/p>\n Now, the Lesson of the fig tree (Point 1) can only be a reference to the destruction of the Temple\/City. It draws a distinction between \u201call these things\u201d and \u201cit is near\u201d\u2013all these things cannot logically then contain the 2nd Advent [which is the \u201cit\u201d in \u201cit is near\u201d-cf. D.A.Carson, EBC, in. loc.; and William Lane in NICNT (Mark):478: \u201cThey (all these things<\/i>) cannot refer to the celestial upheavals described in verses 24-25 which are inseparable from the parousia<\/em> (verse 26) and the gathering of the elect (verse 27). These events represent the end and cannot constitute a preliminary sign of something else.\u201d]<\/p>\n With this \u201cend\u201d of the end-time continuum being identified in Point 1 (as the \u201cthese things\u201d question of the disciples), Jesus then solemnly announces WHEN this \u2018beginning of the end-times\u2019 will occur\u2013within that generation (Point 2). With this, He has answered the initial question of the \u2018these things\u2019\u2013the immediate historical context of the question of the destruction of the temple.<\/p>\n He then turns (in point 3 above) to describe the \u201cother end\u201d of the end-times continuum\u2013the destruction of the universe (cf. 2 Peter 2.10:\u00a0But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.<\/i>). Here Jesus is pointing back to those descriptions of the very end, as in Mt 24.29:\u00a0\u201cImmediately after the distress of those days \u201c`the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.\u2019<\/i>\u00a0and Lk 21.25f:\u00a0On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken.<\/i>\u00a0He points out that the Great End will be certain, as the continuance of His word is certain (yes!).<\/p>\n And then we have Point 4\u2013the comment that no one but the Father knows the time of the Very-End. [The subsequent parables by Matt in 24.42ff and Luke in 12.39ff, which use the \u2018thief\u2019 image, connect this piece\u2013via the 2 Peter quote above\u2013with the Great-End, and NOT with the destruction of the Temple.]<\/p>\n So we have a reasonable structure for the ending sequence-(Point 1) pay attention to the beginning of signs; (Point 2) some of you will definitely see these beginnings; (Point 3) the Big-End pointed to by these signs will surely come; and (Point 4) but none of you can know when (with the implications that are immediately drawn in several of the texts to watchfulness, faithfulness, and industry.)<\/p>\n Thus, [F.F.] Bruce summarizes the same conclusion reached here . . .:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus, as in Mark, foretells how not one stone of the temple will be left standing on another, and the disciples say, \u2018Tell us, (a) when will these things be, and (b) what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?\u2019 (Matt. 24:3). Then, at the end of the following discourse, Jesus answers their twofold question by saying that (a) \u2018this generation will not pass away till all\u00a0these things<\/i>\u00a0take place (Mtt 24.34) while, (b) with regard to his coming and \u2018the close of the age\u2019, he tells them that \u2018of\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0day and hour no one knows\u2026\u2019 [Hard Sayings of Jesus<\/em>, IVP, 1983, 229-230]<\/p>\n This would yield a very nice Hebraic parallelism:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u00a0(A) Pay attention to my words\u2013they come before (pre-announce)\u00a0these things<\/i>\u2013the beginning of the end-times (destruction of Temple) (\u201cOn\u2026was Jesus mistaken about this 2nd Coming?\u201d<\/a>: 10-22-96)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For related in-depth analysis of this general subject matter, see my papers:<\/p>\n Debate with an Agnostic on the Meaning of \u201cLast Days\u201d and Whether the Author of Hebrews Was a False Prophet<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Last Days\u201d:\u00a0Meaning in Hebrew, Biblical Thought<\/a><\/p>\n In a<\/span>\u00a0recent post<\/strong><\/a>, I noted that God bragged that he had deliberately given his people bad laws:<\/span><\/p>\n So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts\u2014the sacrifice of every firstborn\u2014that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord (Ezekiel 20:25\u20136).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As always (shown by multiple analogous examples above), the primary causation of all this is man\u2019s rebellion. It\u2019s no different in this larger passage:<\/p>\n Ezekiel 20:8<\/strong>\u00a0But they rebelled against me and would not listen to me; they did not every man cast away the detestable things their eyes feasted on, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt.<\/p>\n Ezekiel 20:13\u00a0<\/strong>But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness; they did not walk in my statutes but rejected my ordinances, by whose observance man shall live; and my sabbaths they greatly profaned.<\/p>\n Ezekiel 20:16\u00a0<\/strong>because they rejected my ordinances and did not walk in my statutes, and profaned my sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols.<\/p>\n Ezekiel 20:21\u00a0<\/strong>But the children rebelled against me; they did not walk in my statutes, and were not careful to observe my ordinances, by whose observance man shall live; they profaned my sabbaths.<\/p>\n Ezekiel 20:27-28<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cTherefore, son of man, speak to the house of Israel and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: In this again your fathers blasphemed me, by dealing treacherously with me.\u00a0[28] For when I had brought them into the land which I swore to give them, then wherever they saw any high hill or any leafy tree, there they offered their sacrifices and presented the provocation of their offering; there they sent up their soothing odors, and there they poured out their drink offerings.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n All that expressed, we also see the pungent Hebrew literary expression of God \u201cgiving them up\u201d to their sins (cf. Micah 5:3; Acts 7:42; Rom 1:24-28; 2 Thess 2:11).<\/p>\n Since God has lied to us in the past, what\u2019s to stop him from doing it again? . . . That\u2019s the problem when you lie\u2014now we can\u2019t trust you about anything.<\/span><\/p>\n As I have shown, none of these alleged \u201clies\u201d has been sufficiently proven . . . But Bob<\/em> continually lies about God, Christianity, and Christians. That has<\/em> been shown in these 35 refutations of mine.<\/p>\n Which of God\u2019s current laws is also a deliberately bad law?<\/span><\/p>\n It was simply a sarcastic literary device. This is what Bob (along with the vast majority of anti-theist atheists) doesn\u2019t grasp. But Bob gives the basic idea of the true meaning of the passage in citing 20:26, having to do with child sacrifice (very similar to our abortion today).\u00a0Keil and Delitzsch\u00a0elaborate<\/a>:<\/p>\n It is perfectly self-evident that we are not to understand by these statutes and rights, which were not good, either the Mosaic commandments of the ceremonial law, as some of the Fathers and earlier Protestant commentators supposed, or the threatenings contained in the law; so that this needs no elaborate proof. The ceremonial commandments given by God were good, and had the promise attached to them, that obedience to them would give life; whilst the threats of punishment contained in the law are never called \u05d7\u05e7\u05bc\u05d9\u05dd and \u05de\u05e9\u05c1\u05e4\u05bc\u05d8\u05d9\u05dd . Those statutes only are called \u201cnot good\u201d the fulfilment of which did not bring life or blessings and salvation. The second clause serves as an explanation of the first. The examples quoted in\u00a0Ezekiel 20:26<\/a><\/span>\u00a0show what the words really mean. The defiling in their sacrificial gifts (Ezekiel 20:26<\/a><\/span>), for example, consisted in their causing that which opened the womb to pass through, i.e., in the sacrifice of the first-born. \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8 \u05db\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05e4\u05bc\u05d8\u05e8 points back to\u00a0Exodus 13:12<\/a><\/span>; only \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 , which occurs in that passage, is omitted, because the allusion is not to the commandment given there, but to its perversion into idolatry. This formula is used in the book of Exodus (\u00a0l.c.<\/em>\u00a0) to denote the dedication of the first-born to Jehovah; but in\u00a0Ezekiel 20:13<\/a><\/span>\u00a0this limitation is introduced, that the first-born of man is to be redeemed. \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8 signifies a dedication through fire (= \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1 ,\u00a0Ezekiel 20:31<\/a><\/span>), and is adopted in the book of Exodus, where it is joined to \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 , in marked opposition to the Canaanitish custom of dedicating children of Moloch by februation in fire (see the comm. on ex.\u00a0Ezekiel 13:12<\/a><\/span>). The prophet refers to this Canaanitish custom, and cites it as a striking example of the defilement of the Israelites in their sacrificial gifts ( \u05d8\u05de\u05bc\u05d0 , to make unclean, not to declare unclean, or treat as unclean). That this custom also made its way among the Israelites, is evident from the repeated prohibition against offering children through the fire to Moloch (Leviticus 18:21<\/a><\/span>\u00a0and\u00a0God lies in Garden of Eden story<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
God lies to Ahab<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
New Testament lying<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
Jesus lying<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(B) When will it occur?\u2013You know when, within your generation
\n(A\u2019) Pay attention to my words\u2013they outlast\u00a0that day<\/i>\u2013the ending of the end-times
\n(B\u2019) When will it occur?\u2013No one knows when (except the Father)<\/p>\nGod is untrustworthy<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n