Replies

Undoubtedly he was not happy with the USA at that point.

Either that or the electorate was not happy with the Republicans. It might have something to do with that Nixon guy resigning in disgrace. But what do I know? I can't claim a lack of doubt when it comes to what is in the mind of God.

Tell, me P-Marlowe, does the candidate you vote for always win? Did you vote for Clinton? Because God "obviously" wanted him in office for eight years. How come you and millions of other Christians were so far removed from God's will that you didn't see that?

I sense you are a Deist. I also sense that you believe that God does not know the future, that he has no control over his own plans, and that he is as surprised by current events as we are. That, IMO, is pretty a frightening theological worldview. If God is not intervening is politics and controlling the destiny of the earth, then quite frankly it would appear that we are doomed.

Then we're doomed.

I can see why you might think I was a Deist, but I'm not. I'm a Catholic who believes in free will. Without free will there is no sin, and without sin, no one needs to read the Bible. If God knows what we're going to do, why does He bother giving us advice?

I don't know whether or not our decisions, including who we vote for, are "surprises" to God; I am not arrogant enough to claim knowledge of the mind of God beyond what He reveals.

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will. (Proverbs 21:1 KJV)

You accused me of not reading the Bible. This is what it says in the Bible:

פלגי־מים לב־מלך ביד־יהוה על־כל־אשר יחפץ יטנו

(I know if may come as a shock to you that King James didn't write the Bible and it wasn't originally in English.) In this sentence, the verb "to be" is implied. The clear implication of this construction is that were talking about a hypothetical state of being, i.e. if the King places his heart in the hands of God, then God can take control of it. The rest of the chapter goes on in further detail about the folly of not following what you know to be God's will in your heart. In other words, you are responsible for applying God's will to the best of your ability. If you vote Adolph Hitler into office, then that's your failure to search your heart for God's Truth, not God's decision that Hitler should be in power (seriously, would God have put Hitler in power?! Give our Lord a little credit here!).

Excuse me. I would not have bothered to post to this thread but for your use of the original Hebrew to imply that you are correct when you argue that G-d "doesn't know" what's going to happen.

I am a Noachide. I've been studying and reading the Bible in Hebrew for over twenty years. And I am horrified that you would attempt to use The Holy Tongue to imply that your position on G-d's foreknowledge is correct.

Nothing is unknown to G-d. He knows all things--past, present, and future. The fact that our small minds cannot reconcile this with free will does not change the fact. The problem is ours, not G-d's.

All things down to the smallest detail are governed by Divine Providence which is of two kinds: Hashgachat Kelalit (general providence) and Hashgachat Peratit (particular providence). Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing ever occurs that is not somehow within G-d's all-governing Providence.

Furthermore, it is a traditional Jewish belief that contained in the text of the Torah (dictated to Moses by HaShem) are encoded messages that refer to every single human being who will ever live--and not just the major things but down to the smallest detail. This was taught by the Vilna Ga'on, who was a rationalist. Once again, the fact that we cannot understand how this meshes with freewill does not change the fact that all of history, including every single event that happens, is somehow merely the unfolding of the text of the Torah.

And P-Marlow is right--you are a "deist."

Don't you dare try to use Hebrew or Judaism to imply that your denial of Absolute Omniscience has any validity whatsoever. And your use of the Hebrew in this case had nothing to do with your argument at all. Its sole purpose was to imply that your opponent was a "dumb hillbilly" (since they read the KJV) and somehow make your argument look intelligent.

And to both of you: the Bible cannot be translated. A translation of the Bible is a translation--not the Bible itself.