Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Dake and Divine Attributes

[Grandfather]

Allow me, I want to ensure I understand Dake's (and by default this board's) position.

1- Where possible use a simple reading of the biblical text. Simple is understood as a basic reading without any explanation beyond what the words mean in normal usage.
2 - When a simple reading of a biblical text conflicts or contradicts the simple reading of another text, allowances are made to explain some nuances that may not be understood with a simple reading in order to harmonize the two passages.

Is that a proper characterization of Dake's position on Biblical interpretation?

Here is how Dake stated it: "Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey."

As to your points:

1) Use a simple reading of the biblical text.. Simply speaking yes... But I have never heard Dake give a definition to simple as you state. Now to speak to the understanding of the words and language, yes but recognizing that Dake said: "Men are to search and study the Bible and apply their hearts to it, so they must be able to understand it" See GPFM "The Bible is the Most Simple Book to Understand".

2) No, Dake did not recognize contradictions of the Bible. When Dake talked about contradictions he always combined it with the word "seeming." Dake said: "The so-called contradictions of the Bible are unreal and imaginary." See GPFM "General Rules of Biblical Interpretation".

Just so I am clear, When God says "I change not" and another passage says God changed, repented, etc. That is only a "seemingly" contradiction because the understanding of one side of the apparent contradiction is explained in such a way that there is actually no contradiction. Is that correct?

Here is Dake's view on Mal 3:6

I Change Not

This could only refer to basic character and to keeping covenant, not to acts of judgment or mercy when needed.
God has repented or changed His mind when it became necessary because of free moral agents rebelling to the point of judgment, and this was in keeping with His character. He is absolute in holiness and justice, and is morally and divinely obligated for the good of all to judge the few or all, if need be -- or to show mercy to one and all should they meet the conditions of mercy.
God does not and cannot change His original and eternal plan and purpose, but He can and does change some ways and means of fulfilling the plan.
God does not repent of what He has promised, Num. 23:19; 1Sam. 15:29; Ps. 110:4; Jer. 4:28; Ezek. 24:14; Heb. 7:21.
God finds it necessary to change plans of blessing when men rebel and sin, Dt. 32:36; Ps. 135:14; Jer. 18:10.
God will change His mind from cursing to blessing when men turn from sin, Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13; 42:10; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9.
Finis Jennings Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1997), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under:"Chapter 3".

You've proven my point. Dake explain why a simple reading of "I can not" does not mean what it plainly states, but means while there is change there is nothing essential that is changing.

[bibleman]

Allow me, I want to ensure I understand Dake's (and by default this board's) position.

1- Where possible use a simple reading of the biblical text. Simple is understood as a basic reading without any explanation beyond what the words mean in normal usage.
2 - When a simple reading of a biblical text conflicts or contradicts the simple reading of another text, allowances are made to explain some nuances that may not be understood with a simple reading in order to harmonize the two passages.

Is that a proper characterization of Dake's position on Biblical interpretation?

Here is how Dake stated it: "Take the Bible literally wherein it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey."

As to your points:

1) Use a simple reading of the biblical text.. Simply speaking yes... But I have never heard Dake give a definition to simple as you state. Now to speak to the understanding of the words and language, yes but recognizing that Dake said: "Men are to search and study the Bible and apply their hearts to it, so they must be able to understand it" See GPFM "The Bible is the Most Simple Book to Understand".

2) No, Dake did not recognize contradictions of the Bible. When Dake talked about contradictions he always combined it with the word "seeming." Dake said: "The so-called contradictions of the Bible are unreal and imaginary." See GPFM "General Rules of Biblical Interpretation".

Just so I am clear, When God says "I change not" and another passage says God changed, repented, etc. That is only a "seemingly" contradiction because the understanding of one side of the apparent contradiction is explained in such a way that there is actually no contradiction. Is that correct?

Here is Dake's view on Mal 3:6

I Change Not

This could only refer to basic character and to keeping covenant, not to acts of judgment or mercy when needed.
God has repented or changed His mind when it became necessary because of free moral agents rebelling to the point of judgment, and this was in keeping with His character. He is absolute in holiness and justice, and is morally and divinely obligated for the good of all to judge the few or all, if need be -- or to show mercy to one and all should they meet the conditions of mercy.
God does not and cannot change His original and eternal plan and purpose, but He can and does change some ways and means of fulfilling the plan.
God does not repent of what He has promised, Num. 23:19; 1Sam. 15:29; Ps. 110:4; Jer. 4:28; Ezek. 24:14; Heb. 7:21.
God finds it necessary to change plans of blessing when men rebel and sin, Dt. 32:36; Ps. 135:14; Jer. 18:10.
God will change His mind from cursing to blessing when men turn from sin, Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13; 42:10; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9.
Finis Jennings Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text, (Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1997), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under:"Chapter 3".

You've proven my point. Dake explain why a simple reading of "I can not" does not mean what it plainly states, but means while there is change there is nothing essential that is changing.

What does "I can not" have to do with it?

[Ironman]

So did I, Genesis 18:21, I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Twist that around your mind and go for a walk praying for the Holy Spirit to help you believe what God said!

God said to Jeremiah - Can a man hide himself in a secret places so that I cannot see him? (23:24)
The psalmist wrote where can I go that you are not there (Psalm 139)
In Job God said that His eyes are on man and He sees ALL of their steps (34:21)
Proverbs 15:3 states the eyes of the Lord are in every place.

None of these passages say, imply, suggest, hint there is any agent helping God accomplish these things. To insert the assistance of any beings to aid in the accomplishment of these events is to read something into the text that is not there.

Now, I understand one must insert something in the above in order to hold a position of limited omnipresence (a contradiction in terms BTW). And I do not fault one for doing so. The problem is when someone does a similar "insertion" on the other side they are scorned and mocked. If you are going to explain why the passage I listed do not mean exactly what a simple reading suggests they mean, then allow someone the same leeway when explaining why the passages, such as the one you referenced, do not mean exactly what a simple reading suggests. I fully understand it may not lead to a position you agree with, but it arrives at that conclusion using the exact same methodology you have used to arrive at your position.

God does not bodily fill the heavens and the earth. God lives in Heaven, as Jesus, who should know more than anyone in Heaven and earth should know. Jesus clearly said in many Scriptures, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 18:14, Matthew 23:9, Luke 11:13, Mark 11:25, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 12:50, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 7:11, Matthew 18:19, Matthew 10:33, Matthew 18:10, Mark 11:26, Matthew 16:17, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 18:35, Matthew 6:14, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 10:32, God lives in Heaven). Not one of these many Scriptures even mentions, My Father who lives everywhere. Each and every one clearly states My Father who lives in Heaven.

[Grandfather]

What does "I can not" have to do with it?

Editing error… “I change not…”

[Grandfather]

Not one of these many Scriptures even mentions, My Father who lives everywhere. Each and every one clearly states My Father who lives in Heaven.

God is everywhere is different from God living everywhere. But for some reason you and I are not even discussing the same concepts.

[Ironman]

Not one of these many Scriptures even mentions, My Father who lives everywhere. Each and every one clearly states My Father who lives in Heaven.

God is everywhere is different from God living everywhere. But for some reason you and I are not even discussing the same concepts.

God is not everywhere. God goes from place to place just like any one else (Gen. 3:8; 11:5; 18:1-22, 33; 19:24; 32:24-32; 35:13; Zech. 14:5; Titus 2:13). God is omnipresent but not omni body, that is His presence can be felt everywhere
but His body is not everywhere. God wears cloths (Dan. 7:9-14; 10:5-19; God eats food (Gen. 18:1-22; Exodus 24:11).

[bibleman]

Not one of these many Scriptures even mentions, My Father who lives everywhere. Each and every one clearly states My Father who lives in Heaven.

God is everywhere is different from God living everywhere. But for some reason you and I are not even discussing the same concepts.

Well you got my curiosity up... How is God is everywhere different from God living everywhere?

[Ironman]

Grandfather.

When Jesus spoke of His Father He always said, my Father, our Father the Father, WHO IS IN HEAVEN. He never once said, my Father, our Father, the Father, WHO IS EVERYWHERE.

Where is Jesus now? Mark 16: 19, so then after the Lord had spoken unto them, HE WAS RECIEVED UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat on the right hand of God.

Where is Jesus sitting on the right hand of God the Father?? >IN HEAVEN< that's where. The Father, God, is not everywhere and Jesus is not sitting EVERYWHERE, beside the Father, God.

[Grandfather]

Grandfather.

When Jesus spoke of His Father He always said, my Father, our Father the Father, WHO IS IN HEAVEN. He never once said, my Father, our Father, the Father, WHO IS EVERYWHERE.

Where is Jesus now? Mark 16: 19, so then after the Lord had spoken unto them, HE WAS RECIEVED UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat on the right hand of God.

Where is Jesus sitting on the right hand of God the Father?? >IN HEAVEN< that's where. The Father, God, is not everywhere and Jesus is not sitting EVERYWHERE, beside the Father, God.

To answer your question directly, and I wish to do so, I need to understand the "rules" you are applying to your interpretation of scripture. More specifically, how you handle passages that are in apparent contradiction. For example, passages that say God is everywhere vs passages that say God is in a specific location. Or passages that say God has knows everything vs passages that indicate God is learning.
It is important for me to understand why people are predisposed to one answer, and not the other. In your particular case, tell me what justifies your position of explaining the "everywhere" passage as not really having the simple meaning of everywhere, but at the same moment, the "location" passages mean exactly that. Why is the reverse not possible?
Once you can make that robust defense, then I will answer you. I would enjoy engaging with you, but I want to fully understand the ground on which we are standing first, I don't want shifting principles to impede the discussion.

[bibleman]

Grandfather.

When Jesus spoke of His Father He always said, my Father, our Father the Father, WHO IS IN HEAVEN. He never once said, my Father, our Father, the Father, WHO IS EVERYWHERE.

Where is Jesus now? Mark 16: 19, so then after the Lord had spoken unto them, HE WAS RECIEVED UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat on the right hand of God.

Where is Jesus sitting on the right hand of God the Father?? >IN HEAVEN< that's where. The Father, God, is not everywhere and Jesus is not sitting EVERYWHERE, beside the Father, God.

To answer your question directly, and I wish to do so, I need to understand the "rules" you are applying to your interpretation of scripture. More specifically, how you handle passages that are in apparent contradiction. For example, passages that say God is everywhere vs passages that say God is in a specific location. Or passages that say God has knows everything vs passages that indicate God is learning.
It is important for me to understand why people are predisposed to one answer, and not the other. In your particular case, tell me what justifies your position of explaining the "everywhere" passage as not really having the simple meaning of everywhere, but at the same moment, the "location" passages mean exactly that. Why is the reverse not possible?
Once you can make that robust defense, then I will answer you. I would enjoy engaging with you, but I want to fully understand the ground on which we are standing first, I don't want shifting principles to impede the discussion.

Since you are having problems at answering a simple question, let me take a stab at it.

Ironman asked: here is Jesus now? Mark 16: 19, so then after the Lord had spoken unto them, HE WAS RECIEVED UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat on the right hand of God.

Leon answered: Jesus is now at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.

Ironman asked: Where is Jesus sitting on the right hand of God the Father?? >IN HEAVEN< that's where. The Father, God, is not everywhere and Jesus is not sitting EVERYWHERE, beside the Father, God.

Leon answered: Correct BOTH Jesus and the Father God are in Heaven. Their "spiritual presence" is everywhere but NOT their "spiritual body."

Now see, grandfather... that was not so hard was it?