Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Dake and Divine Attributes

[bibleman]

First, Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion by a simple reading of the text? Where does the text say it is by "innumerable angels" that God fills the heavens? If you want to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated, then you are free to do so. However, allow others the same leeway if they desire to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated.

Second, if God "learns" then he is constantly changing. (That is the basic premise of learning) And if God is changing, then the passages that say he changes not are a lie.

Third, 1 John 3:20 plainly states that God knows, not learns about, everything. If the angels are telling him things he did not know, then these verse is also "untrue"

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. "

Perhaps I am missing something. Is there an explanation in your scripture quote? You do not make a case for how you arrive at your conclusion that "innumerable angels" are how God fills the heavens instead of it being God himself that fills them.

Next, you do not even address the fact that if God is "learning" he is changing, and if he is changing he is violating the scriptures that say he does not change. (Mal 3:6 for example) BTW - if he repents as we understand repenting, then he is changing also. Again in violation of the scripture.

Finally, you do not make any attempt to explain the passage in 1 John where we are told that God knows all things. Knows all things, not comes to know, not learns about, but knows - present perfect tense. Again if he needs angels to tell him stuff because he doesn't know it, or even if he has to go find out himself because he did not know it, then 1 John 3 is wrong.

Simply repeating passages does not prove anything

And you repeating your personal pet theories also does not prove anything, God was told things were going on in Sodom and He plainly and clearly said, "I will go down to see for myself, if what I have been told is true, if not I will know."

That is what liberals just can't get around.

Genesis 18:21 says what it says and since they do not believe it, they have to try and explain it away with their "theological theories" which are nothing really but just their excuses to doubt the Word of God.


NOT you or me but God HIMSELF said: "I will go down now,"
He was going at a certain point in time: now. Meaning of course he was NOT there when he said he would god down... or else why go down?

God said He would go down to: "SEE"
God would See something there that he was not seeing now. Thus the reason for going down.

God said he would find out: "whether"
According to Webster whether means "choice between alternatives." In other words, mayb so and maybe not. God said he was going down to see IF or IF not ) 'whether" what He had been told was true.

After going down God then says based on what He sees: "I will know."
NOT I NOW know... OR I use to know... but I "will" in the future know.

So there is really no reason to doubt God at all. It is the unbelieving sceptics that we should doubt.

AND if people refuse to believe God then what about Abraham??? Seems He was in this as well.

Genesis 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Abraham "drew near" - Thus God must have "spiritual body presence" that you can get closer to or father away from!

And Abraham tried to reason and talk to God. So God must have "ears" and a "mind" that He can hear and be reasoned with.

AND contrary to what has been said in a couple of other post God did change His mind.

He changed the level of destruction from 50
to 45
to 40
to 30
to 20
to 10.....

So really God is nothing like most of the liberal unbelievers say He is.

And on this subject just for good measure, When God was determined to destroy the Children of Israel, Moses talked him out of it, so that He changed his mind.

Exodus 32:12 (TEV) 12 Why should the Egyptians be able to say that you led your people out of Egypt, planning to kill them in the mountains and destroy them completely? Stop being angry; change your mind and do not bring this disaster on your people.
13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Remember the solemn promise you made to them to give them as many descendants as there are stars in the sky and to give their descendants all that land you promised would be their possession forever."
14 So the LORD changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

[Grandfather]

First, Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion by a simple reading of the text? Where does the text say it is by "innumerable angels" that God fills the heavens? If you want to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated, then you are free to do so. However, allow others the same leeway if they desire to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated.

Second, if God "learns" then he is constantly changing. (That is the basic premise of learning) And if God is changing, then the passages that say he changes not are a lie.

Third, 1 John 3:20 plainly states that God knows, not learns about, everything. If the angels are telling him things he did not know, then these verse is also "untrue"

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. "

Perhaps I am missing something. Is there an explanation in your scripture quote? You do not make a case for how you arrive at your conclusion that "innumerable angels" are how God fills the heavens instead of it being God himself that fills them.

Next, you do not even address the fact that if God is "learning" he is changing, and if he is changing he is violating the scriptures that say he does not change. (Mal 3:6 for example) BTW - if he repents as we understand repenting, then he is changing also. Again in violation of the scripture.

Finally, you do not make any attempt to explain the passage in 1 John where we are told that God knows all things. Knows all things, not comes to know, not learns about, but knows - present perfect tense. Again if he needs angels to tell him stuff because he doesn't know it, or even if he has to go find out himself because he did not know it, then 1 John 3 is wrong.

Simply repeating passages does not prove anything

And you repeating your personal pet theories also does not prove anything, God was told things were going on in Sodom and He plainly and clearly said, "I will go down to see for myself, if what I have been told is true, if not I will know."

That is what liberals just can't get around.

Genesis 18:21 says what it says and since they do not believe it, they have to try and explain it away with their "theological theories" which are nothing really but just their excuses to doubt the Word of God.


NOT you or me but God HIMSELF said: "I will go down now,"
He was going at a certain point in time: now. Meaning of course he was NOT there when he said he would god down... or else why go down?

God said He would go down to: "SEE"
God would See something there that he was not seeing now. Thus the reason for going down.

God said he would find out: "whether"
According to Webster whether means "choice between alternatives." In other words, mayb so and maybe not. God said he was going down to see IF or IF not ) 'whether" what He had been told was true.

After going down God then says based on what He sees: "I will know."
NOT I NOW know... OR I use to know... but I "will" in the future know.

So there is really no reason to doubt God at all. It is the unbelieving sceptics that we should doubt.

AND if people refuse to believe God then what about Abraham??? Seems He was in this as well.

Genesis 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Abraham "drew near" - Thus God must have "spiritual body presence" that you can get closer to or father away from!

And Abraham tried to reason and talk to God. So God must have "ears" and a "mind" that He can hear and be reasoned with.

AND contrary to what has been said in a couple of other post God did change His mind.

He changed the level of destruction from 50
to 45
to 40
to 30
to 20
to 10.....

So really God is nothing like most of the liberal unbelievers say He is.

And on this subject just for good measure, When God was determined to destroy the Children of Israel, Moses talked him out of it, so that He changed his mind.

Exodus 32:12 (TEV) 12 Why should the Egyptians be able to say that you led your people out of Egypt, planning to kill them in the mountains and destroy them completely? Stop being angry; change your mind and do not bring this disaster on your people.
13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Remember the solemn promise you made to them to give them as many descendants as there are stars in the sky and to give their descendants all that land you promised would be their possession forever."
14 So the LORD changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

And God himself said he changes not. So, Houston we have a problem.

[bibleman]

And on this subject just for good measure, When God was determined to destroy the Children of Israel, Moses talked him out of it, so that He changed his mind.

Exodus 32:12 (TEV) 12 Why should the Egyptians be able to say that you led your people out of Egypt, planning to kill them in the mountains and destroy them completely? Stop being angry; change your mind and do not bring this disaster on your people.
13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Remember the solemn promise you made to them to give them as many descendants as there are stars in the sky and to give their descendants all that land you promised would be their possession forever."
14 So the LORD changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

And God himself said he changes not. So, Houston we have a problem.

No problem at all.

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".

[Ironman]

First, Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion by a simple reading of the text? Where does the text say it is by "innumerable angels" that God fills the heavens? If you want to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated, then you are free to do so. However, allow others the same leeway if they desire to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated.

Second, if God "learns" then he is constantly changing. (That is the basic premise of learning) And if God is changing, then the passages that say he changes not are a lie.

Third, 1 John 3:20 plainly states that God knows, not learns about, everything. If the angels are telling him things he did not know, then these verse is also "untrue"

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. "

Perhaps I am missing something. Is there an explanation in your scripture quote? You do not make a case for how you arrive at your conclusion that "innumerable angels" are how God fills the heavens instead of it being God himself that fills them.

Next, you do not even address the fact that if God is "learning" he is changing, and if he is changing he is violating the scriptures that say he does not change. (Mal 3:6 for example) BTW - if he repents as we understand repenting, then he is changing also. Again in violation of the scripture.

Finally, you do not make any attempt to explain the passage in 1 John where we are told that God knows all things. Knows all things, not comes to know, not learns about, but knows - present perfect tense. Again if he needs angels to tell him stuff because he doesn't know it, or even if he has to go find out himself because he did not know it, then 1 John 3 is wrong.

Simply repeating passages does not prove anything

And you repeating your personal pet theories also does not prove anything, God was told things were going on in Sodom and He plainly and clearly said, "I will go down to see for myself, if what I have been told is true, if not I will know."

That is what liberals just can't get around.

Genesis 18:21 says what it says and since they do not believe it, they have to try and explain it away with their "theological theories" which are nothing really but just their excuses to doubt the Word of God.


NOT you or me but God HIMSELF said: "I will go down now,"
He was going at a certain point in time: now. Meaning of course he was NOT there when he said he would god down... or else why go down?

God said He would go down to: "SEE"
God would See something there that he was not seeing now. Thus the reason for going down.

God said he would find out: "whether"
According to Webster whether means "choice between alternatives." In other words, mayb so and maybe not. God said he was going down to see IF or IF not ) 'whether" what He had been told was true.

After going down God then says based on what He sees: "I will know."
NOT I NOW know... OR I use to know... but I "will" in the future know.

So there is really no reason to doubt God at all. It is the unbelieving sceptics that we should doubt.

AND if people refuse to believe God then what about Abraham??? Seems He was in this as well.

Genesis 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Abraham "drew near" - Thus God must have "spiritual body presence" that you can get closer to or father away from!

And Abraham tried to reason and talk to God. So God must have "ears" and a "mind" that He can hear and be reasoned with.

AND contrary to what has been said in a couple of other post God did change His mind.

He changed the level of destruction from 50
to 45
to 40
to 30
to 20
to 10.....

So really God is nothing like most of the liberal unbelievers say He is.

And on this subject just for good measure, When God was determined to destroy the Children of Israel, Moses talked him out of it, so that He changed his mind.

Exodus 32:12 (TEV) 12 Why should the Egyptians be able to say that you led your people out of Egypt, planning to kill them in the mountains and destroy them completely? Stop being angry; change your mind and do not bring this disaster on your people.
13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Remember the solemn promise you made to them to give them as many descendants as there are stars in the sky and to give their descendants all that land you promised would be their possession forever."
14 So the LORD changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

I agree with Rev. Dake, with the Word of God and with you as you clearly said it all.

[Ironman]

First, Please tell me how you arrive at this conclusion by a simple reading of the text? Where does the text say it is by "innumerable angels" that God fills the heavens? If you want to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated, then you are free to do so. However, allow others the same leeway if they desire to "read into" the text something that is not plainly stated.

Second, if God "learns" then he is constantly changing. (That is the basic premise of learning) And if God is changing, then the passages that say he changes not are a lie.

Third, 1 John 3:20 plainly states that God knows, not learns about, everything. If the angels are telling him things he did not know, then these verse is also "untrue"

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. "

Perhaps I am missing something. Is there an explanation in your scripture quote? You do not make a case for how you arrive at your conclusion that "innumerable angels" are how God fills the heavens instead of it being God himself that fills them.

Next, you do not even address the fact that if God is "learning" he is changing, and if he is changing he is violating the scriptures that say he does not change. (Mal 3:6 for example) BTW - if he repents as we understand repenting, then he is changing also. Again in violation of the scripture.

Finally, you do not make any attempt to explain the passage in 1 John where we are told that God knows all things. Knows all things, not comes to know, not learns about, but knows - present perfect tense. Again if he needs angels to tell him stuff because he doesn't know it, or even if he has to go find out himself because he did not know it, then 1 John 3 is wrong.

Simply repeating passages does not prove anything

And you repeating your personal pet theories also does not prove anything, God was told things were going on in Sodom and He plainly and clearly said, "I will go down to see for myself, if what I have been told is true, if not I will know."

What theory? I quoted scripture

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!

[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?

[Grandfather]

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.

[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".

[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?

[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".