Jacob Loved, Esau Hated

[HammondCheese]

Esau was despised, rejected of God, damned.

Heb 12:16 ? Heb 12:17 (KJV)
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.


Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Not as far as this passage is concerned.  You are committing blatant eisegesis.  There is zero mention here about Esau being despised OR damned.

And the 'rejection' here simply refers to Esau's inability to reverse the losing of his inheritance of the seed of blessing by giving up his birthright to Jacob.  Also, this is only an example given of a profane person.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Why accuse me of "blantant eisegesis" , when I used an alternative passage to give the bigger picture?

Burning someone forever in the Lake of Fire is hatred.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Okay, maybe I overstated.  That passage still has nothing to do with God's hatred or damnation.

And according to Rev, you're not allowed to reference verses outside of Romans 9 to explain it.  He, along with everyone else, STILL hasn't responded to my multiple references to Genesis 25:23.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ransom]

And no, I'm not interested in what you have to say about Romans 9 or any other passage in Scripture...  And I'm pretty certain I'm not alone.

So, that's one vote in favour of my reviving that old Romans 9 post. Anyone else?

 

[FSSL]

And no, I'm not interested in what you have to say about Romans 9 or any other passage in Scripture...  And I'm pretty certain I'm not alone.

So, that's one vote in favour of my reviving that old Romans 9 post. Anyone else?

Vote 2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

And according to Rev, you're not allowed to reference verses outside of Romans 9 to explain it.  He, along with everyone else, STILL hasn't responded to my multiple references to Genesis 25:23.

I have replied. You don?t read.

When the hatred of Esau is defined by the author as an ?object of wrath,? in the very same chapter/context, it is safe to say that takes precedence over any usage of a word that another author used.

You say you are against eisegesis. Importing the meaning of the word ?hate? from another context and telling us that meaning must be the same here is classic eisegesis.

 

[prophet]

And according to Rev, you're not allowed to reference verses outside of Romans 9 to explain it.  He, along with everyone else, STILL hasn't responded to my multiple references to Genesis 25:23.

I have replied. You don?t read.

When the hatred of Esau is defined by the author as an ?object of wrath,? in the very same chapter/context, it is safe to say that takes precedence over any usage of a word that another author used.

You say you are against eisegesis. Importing the meaning of the word ?hate? from another context and telling us that meaning must be the same here is classic eisegesis.

Mal 1:1 ? Mal 1:5 (KJV)

Malachi
? The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.
I have loved you, saith the Lord.
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord:
yet I loved Jacob,
And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished,
but we will return and build the desolate places;
thus saith the Lord of hosts,
They shall build, but I will throw down;
and they shall call them, The border of wickedness,
and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.
And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say,
The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.


Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Yep!

 

[prophet]

And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Yep!

"Edom, whatever you try to do, I'm going to destroy" - God

It's not just "less blessed than Israel", that's absurd.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

And according to Rev, you're not allowed to reference verses outside of Romans 9 to explain it.  He, along with everyone else, STILL hasn't responded to my multiple references to Genesis 25:23.

I have replied. You don?t read.

When the hatred of Esau is defined by the author as an ?object of wrath,? in the very same chapter/context, it is safe to say that takes precedence over any usage of a word that another author used.

You must have used an invisible font.  So let's hear it again.  How do you interpret Rom 9:13 in light of Genesis 25:23?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

And according to Rev, you're not allowed to reference verses outside of Romans 9 to explain it.  He, along with everyone else, STILL hasn't responded to my multiple references to Genesis 25:23.

When the hatred of Esau is defined by the author as an ?object of wrath,? in the very same chapter/context, it is safe to say that takes precedence over any usage of a word that another author used.

And therein lies the problem...  You interpret Scripture as if Paul was the author of Romans and Moses was the author of Genesis.

There is only ONE Author of God's Word.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

Malachi
? The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.
I have loved you, saith the Lord.
Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord:
yet I loved Jacob,
And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished,
but we will return and build the desolate places;
thus saith the Lord of hosts,
They shall build, but I will throw down;
and they shall call them, The border of wickedness,
and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever.
And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say,
The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.


Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

Thank you for reinforcing my point with God's Word...  Finally. 

God, through Malachi, is addressing 'the nation of Israel' (descendants of Jacob) and comparing their blessing to His indignation towards 'the nation of Edom' (descendants of Esau)...  And that's precisely what Paul is referencing to all that be in Rome...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Yep!

"Edom, whatever you try to do, I'm going to destroy" - God

It's not just "less blessed than Israel", that's absurd.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

We're clearly not going to agree on the definition of 'hate' in these passages, so just stop...  Both of you.  We can all agree in caveman terms, "Love good.  Hate bad."

I'm making the argument that both God and Paul are speaking of two 'nations', not two 'individuals'... And Romans 9 itself has absolutely nothing to do with the fallacy of predestination of the individual believer, but rather sets the stage for the transition beginning in verse 30 when he brings the Gentiles into the conversation which I outlined earlier regarding 'the righteousness of faith' vs. 'the law of righteousness'.

That was the whole premise of this thread I started to address Calvinism in the first place.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[prophet]

And I hated Esau,
and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Yep!

"Edom, whatever you try to do, I'm going to destroy" - God

It's not just "less blessed than Israel", that's absurd.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

We're clearly not going to agree on the definition of 'hate' in these passages, so just stop...  Both of you.  We can all agree in caveman terms, "Love good.  Hate bad."

I'm making the argument that both God and Paul are speaking of two 'nations', not two 'individuals'... And Romans 9 itself has absolutely nothing to do with the fallacy of predestination of the individual believer, but rather sets the stage for the transition beginning in verse 30 when he brings the Gentiles into the conversation which I outlined earlier regarding 'the righteousness of faith' vs. 'the law of righteousness'.

That was the whole premise of this thread I started to address Calvinism in the first place.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I agree with everything except a fallacious attempt to rebrand hate (or fear, the other popular private interp victim).

That's why I said "Edom" instead of Esau...i was giving your nation notion a nod.

Unlike most you'll meet, I find the meaning completely obtainable in the English Bible, and by it's original def. in English, etymology being most important, since English is a conglomerate new tongue.

Esau, the individual, however..married daughters of the Syropheonician Empirical Clan, the Hittites.
He despised his birthright, and so God accepted his 'tude, and rejected him.

Did God foreknow and so predestin it?
Yup.
Did God choose for Esau?
Nope.

Grabbing popcorn now, Calvinists head exploding in 3...2...1

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[HammondCheese]

I agree with everything except a fallacious attempt to rebrand hate (or fear, the other popular private interp victim).

That's why I said "Edom" instead of Esau...i was giving your nation notion a nod.

Unlike most you'll meet, I find the meaning completely obtainable in the English Bible, and by it's original def. in English, etymology being most important, since English is a conglomerate new tongue.

Esau, the individual, however..married daughters of the Syropheonician Empirical Clan, the Hittites.
He despised his birthright, and so God accepted his 'tude, and rejected him.

Did God foreknow and so predestin it?
Yup.
Did God choose for Esau?
Nope.


Grabbing popcorn now, Calvinists head exploding in 3...2...1

I agree wholeheartedly on your position regarding the English Bible...  And a particular vein on the side of my forehead becomes quite prominent when someone tries to correct the English with Greek or Hebrew.  If the lexicon definition of a word or phrase contradicts the English definition, the error is in the lexicon.

I realize on the surface that it sounded like I was being guilty of that very thing when referencing 'miseo' for 'hate', but even the 1828 Webster's Dictionary has the same meaning in English (see below).

But you are spot-on in this post.  Enjoy your popcorn...  Haha

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Twisted]

If the lexicon definition of a word or phrase contradicts the English definition, the error is in the lexicon. 

Riplinger warned of the potential errors of lexicons.

Tarheel would even agree with that one.

 

[HammondCheese]

If the lexicon definition of a word or phrase contradicts the English definition, the error is in the lexicon. 

Riplinger warned of the potential errors of lexicons.

Tarheel would even agree with that one.

I never did get around to reading her books, but I'll have to check out what she says about it.  From what I've heard, she did a very good job.  At a glance, New Age Versions appeared to be full of textual contradictions and comparisons which is great, but I don't need convincing in that area.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

I agree wholeheartedly on your position regarding the English Bible...  And a particular vein on the side of my forehead becomes quite prominent when someone tries to correct the English with Greek or Hebrew.  If the lexicon definition of a word or phrase contradicts the English definition, the error is in the lexicon.

LOL! While you pop a vein in your head, the corners of my mouth rise up. Since you know neither Greek nor Hebrew, your apparent physical distress is misplaced.

Apparently, according to an English dictionary, "Love" must mean that God hated Jacob less. That means contradictions don't really create a problem for you.

 

[FSSL]

Riplinger warned of the potential errors of lexicons.

Since she doesn't know Greek and Hebrew, and I don't know how to make chocolate chip cookies from scratch, I suppose that her recipes also have the potential of errors.

 

[FSSL]

We're clearly not going to agree on the definition of 'hate' in these passages, so just stop...  Both of you.  We can all agree in caveman terms, "Love good.  Hate bad."

Since you focused on the phrase for the title of this thread and offered no constraint to the argument in your OP, why should we stop?

I'm making the argument that both God and Paul are speaking of two 'nations', not two 'individuals'...

I know. And as I said above, as you did not read my post... "Whenever the names Jacob and Esau are mentioned, it doesn't mean that the writer of Scripture meant "nations."

And Romans 9 itself has absolutely nothing to do with the fallacy of predestination of the individual believer, but rather sets the stage for the transition beginning in verse 30 when he brings the Gentiles into the conversation which I outlined earlier regarding 'the righteousness of faith' vs. 'the law of righteousness'.

That was the whole premise of this thread I started to address Calvinism in the first place.

Your premise was not established. If you want to constrain the discussion to only part of the context, you should have done so. Your title belies this.

 

[illinoisguy]

Riplinger's rejection of lexicons was not original with her - it appears that she picked that up from Ruckman.

www.ruckmanism.org/lexicons

 

[Ransom]

Riplinger's rejection of lexicons was not original with her - it appears that she picked that up from Ruckman.

I didn't know that, but can't say I'm surprised. It's the logical outcome of Dead Petey's "correct the English with the Greek" garbage.