God hates certain people.

[Origen]

I thought he was basing it off ancient paleo Hebrew?
Also not the words thorn or seed but the pictograph taking the shape of a thorn (wedge?) and an oblong circle for seed?
If not I stand corrected

No near eastern languages scholar accepts his claims.

Dr. Michael L. Brown, who has a Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Literature, has a video adding this nonsense you might like to watch.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

I just read the NIV version of the Scripture and it sounds like God does hate certain people, after all. No?

Absolutely.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

I think you’re trying to treat the Bible as a set of propositions in symbolic logic rather than literature. In normal human life it is possible to hate someone that you love because of some immediate situation. I guess you could translate that as disapproval, but among humans there is often an emotion like hate involved, even though you really love them.

So, you are saying that the emotion of love and hate are juxtaposed?

In which case, God wanting all people to be saved (2 Peter 3:9) is juxtaposed against his condemnation of certain people in Matthew 25:41.

You are saying that love and hate can coexist.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

It's idiomatic Hebrew.

Idiom - a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words

An excellent example can be found in Gen. 29:30.

"He [i.e. Jacob] loved Rachel more than Leah."

According to this verse both women were loved by Jacob, only Rachel was loved more than Leah. Then in very next verse it states:

"When the Lord saw that Leah was hated..."

What? Where did that come from?

On the face of it this might appear to be a contradiction. Verse 30 clearly states that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, not that he hated her. The Hebrew word for "hate" (i.e. שָׂנֵא) in such contexts is not always to be taken in an absolute or psychological sense. Give the background to this story it means that Leah was not the wife Jacob wanted. Thus Leah was not the chosen, preferred wife.

There are many other example of this type of usage in the Scriptures.

I totally disagree with this interpretation.

The love and hatred are absolute, but not on a graduated scale; otherwise, you would have to call God a liar.

 

[Origen]

I totally disagree with this interpretation.

It's not an interpretation. It's idiomatic Hebrew know by near eastern languages all over the world.

The love and hatred are absolute, but not on a graduated scale; otherwise, you would have to call God a liar.

Not evidence, only your opinion.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

It's idiomatic Hebrew.

Idiom - a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words

An excellent example can be found in Gen. 29:30.

"He [i.e. Jacob] loved Rachel more than Leah."

According to this verse both women were loved by Jacob, only Rachel was loved more than Leah. Then in very next verse it states:

"When the Lord saw that Leah was hated..."

What? Where did that come from?

On the face of it this might appear to be a contradiction. Verse 30 clearly states that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, not that he hated her. The Hebrew word for "hate" (i.e. שָׂנֵא) in such contexts is not always to be taken in an absolute or psychological sense. Give the background to this story it means that Leah was not the wife Jacob wanted. Thus Leah was not the chosen, preferred wife.

There are many other example of this type of usage in the Scriptures.

That Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Genesis 29:30) is a FALSE analogy, which cannot be used to infer the nature of God (or Jesus) himself. Because Jacob is clearly not the same as God or Jesus.

Therefore, it is completely FALSE to claim that Jacob is like God or Jesus, and therefore, God will love different groups or individual on a graduated scale.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

It's idiomatic Hebrew.

Idiom - a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words

An excellent example can be found in Gen. 29:30.

"He [i.e. Jacob] loved Rachel more than Leah."

According to this verse both women were loved by Jacob, only Rachel was loved more than Leah. Then in very next verse it states:

"When the Lord saw that Leah was hated..."

What? Where did that come from?

On the face of it this might appear to be a contradiction. Verse 30 clearly states that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, not that he hated her. The Hebrew word for "hate" (i.e. שָׂנֵא) in such contexts is not always to be taken in an absolute or psychological sense. Give the background to this story it means that Leah was not the wife Jacob wanted. Thus Leah was not the chosen, preferred wife.

There are many other example of this type of usage in the Scriptures.

That Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Genesis 29:30) is a FALSE analogy, which cannot be used to infer the nature of God (or Jesus) himself. Because Jacob is clearly not the same as God or Jesus.

Therefore, it is completely FALSE to claim that Jacob is like God or Jesus, and therefore, God will love different groups or individual on a graduated scale.

 

[Origen]

That Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Genesis 29:30) is a FALSE analogy,

According to you. I find zero reason to believe you know anything about Hebrew language, culture, or literature.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

It's idiomatic Hebrew.

Idiom - a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words

An excellent example can be found in Gen. 29:30.

"He [i.e. Jacob] loved Rachel more than Leah."

According to this verse both women were loved by Jacob, only Rachel was loved more than Leah. Then in very next verse it states:

"When the Lord saw that Leah was hated..."

What? Where did that come from?

On the face of it this might appear to be a contradiction. Verse 30 clearly states that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, not that he hated her. The Hebrew word for "hate" (i.e. שָׂנֵא) in such contexts is not always to be taken in an absolute or psychological sense. Give the background to this story it means that Leah was not the wife Jacob wanted. Thus Leah was not the chosen, preferred wife.

There are many other example of this type of usage in the Scriptures.

That "Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah" (Genesis 29:30) is still a FALSE analogy, which is significantly different from the reality of social and political world, which you are trying to justify.

Former President Bill Clinton has fathered a black son (by the model Naomi Campbell) whom he will not acknowledge on any official level because he clearly loves his wife more than Ms Campbell and he probably loves his daughter more than his son.

Rather than using the Scripture to exonerate your own situation (and the situation of an entire group of people) it actually condemns you to be castigated, just as Bill Clinton's son is also castigated by his father.

Hence, the epithet of "honour" and "dishonour" in Romans 9:21 because one group clearly has greater "honour" than the other which are "dishonoured" by comparative terms.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

Hate in context is totally different than what you are thinking, mankind has been a THORNED SEED ever since the fall for we all have given our birth rights over to pleasure, God LOVES everyone enough to redeem those who accept His Love.

God does not love them once he has made his pronouncement of "Everlasting hell", which is still "everlasting", by definition (Matthew 25:41, 46).

To outrightly condemn people whom you "love" doesn't make any sense because God is not known to pass Judgment with any degree of reservation at all.

You cannot have it both ways, for God's alleged "love" of sinners and His pronouncement of "Everlasting hell" are mutually EXCLUSIVE.

 

[Origen]

God does not love them once he has made his pronouncement of "Everlasting hell", which is still "everlasting", by definition (Matthew 25:41, 46).

To outrightly condemn people whom you "love" doesn't make any sense because God is not known to pass Judgment with any degree of reservation at all.

You cannot have it both ways, for God's alleged "love" of sinners and His pronouncement of "Everlasting hell" are mutually EXCLUSIVE.

Non Sequitur!

 

[Bouan Philippe]

I thought he was basing it off ancient paleo Hebrew?
Also not the words thorn or seed but the pictograph taking the shape of a thorn (wedge?) and an oblong circle for seed?
If not I stand corrected

There is no way that he can possibly "correct" you, since he is totally unqualified in regards to ancient languages, biblical exegesis, and hermeneutics because his alma mater and PhD have no relevance whatsoever.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

Non Sequitur!

No, it's not a Non sequitur, it is the absolute truth.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

There is no way that he can possibly "correct" you, since he is totally unqualified in regards to ancient languages, biblical exegesis, and hermeneutics because his alma mater and PhD have no relevance whatsoever.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

According to you. I find zero reason to believe you know anything about Hebrew language, culture, or literature.

It has nothing to do with knowledge of the Hebrew language, culture, or literature, BUT IT IS A FACT THAT GOD DOES NOT LOVE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE ON A GRADUATED SCALE, which is what you suggested.

However, your attempt to change the subject is itself a Non Sequitur.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

 

[Bouan Philippe]

According to you. I find zero reason to believe you know anything about Hebrew language, culture, or literature.

Also, I find zero reason to believe you know anything about ENGLISH language, culture, or literature, since you are from a developing country and are most certainly using an English language interpreter.

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

It has nothing to do with knowledge of the Hebrew language, culture, or literature

That mean absolutely nothing coming from someone who is completely oblivious concerning the Hebrew language, culture, and literature.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

It's not an interpretation. It's idiomatic Hebrew know by near eastern languages all over the world.


Not evidence, only your opinion.

I can attest that there is no "love" on a graduated scale because I am the Son of God, but you are just a mere mortal who denies the Nicene Creed and therefore deny that I am the Son of God.

God's opinion is the actual evidence to prove my point (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

I can attest that there is no "love" on a graduated scale because I am the Son of God, but you are just a mere mortal who denies the Nicene Creed and therefore deny that I am the Son of God.

 

[Bouan Philippe]

That mean absolutely nothing coming from someone who is completely oblivious concerning the Hebrew language, culture, and literature.

A Logical Non-sequitur. Because knowledge of the Hebrew language, culture, or literature would simply demonstrate that "Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah" (Genesis 29:30), but still, "God saw that Leah was hated" because God's viewpoint is not the same as Jacob's viewpoint, since God and Man are not the same in terms of their respective perceptions (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Consequently, Jesus and Jacob are not the same either in terms of their respective viewpoints, for Christ is the Son of God, but Jacob is just a mere mortal who had mostly detracted from God's viewpoint (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Having no knowledge of Hebrew is a Non sequitur, which doesn't serve to prove your point because it's impossible to compare Jesus and Jacob who are clearly not the same.

Who is more likely to be right in terms of their comparative judgment of Rachel and Leah? Almighty God, or Jacob as a mere mortal?

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk