# Brushes with the divine? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585 "2013-06-09T21:12:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/461 "2013-06-20T22:38:14Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Yes. We are creatures in 4 dimensions. God is beyond that. How do you know that? > [@](#): > > Theirs is not the only opinion, nor ever the majority opinion, and has been increasingly less so since the mid-19th Century. I wasn’t talking about opinions. I’m saying Calvinists have scripture that says what they say. It has nothing to do with how many people like those verses. > [@](#): > > Yes, and many other -isms. See above. So you like numbers on your side. You’re one of those go with the flow kind of Christians. > [@](#): > > Biblically, it’s usually heads of state whose hearts are hardened. Why would a loving God do that? > [@](#): > > For Jacob and Esau the whole concept revolves around the fact that they are twins whose future was predetermined by birth order, and therefore who would inherit. The phrase in Romans that God says “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have rejected” is based on their actions after birth, not before. Please cite the verse that gives that extra meaning with regards to actions of Jacob and Esau? I don’t see it in my Bible. And great cherry picking right there with regards to Romans 9:13. You managed to find the only translation that doesn’t say God “hated” Esau: > **[Romans 9:13 - God's Sovereign Choice](https://biblehub.com/romans/9-13.htm)** > > So it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. > [@](#): > > Okay, I’ll have to read more on determinism before I can answer that. There’s a level of scientific inquiry here I am not familiar with, and I do not like to argue from a point of ignorance where there is information available. OK, you seem to like Sam and this is pretty current. You don’t even have to buy his book: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/pCofmZlC72g/maxresdefault.jpg "Sam Harris on "Free Will"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g) ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/462 "2013-06-20T22:41:33Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Um, Jonah chose to run, and look where it got him. 3 days in the belly of a whale, then right where God wanted him. Do you think that’s a true story BTW? > [@](#): > > Abraham, sure. Andrea Yates was declared certifiably insane, and I have never said that every claim of mystical experiences are genuine. Abraham would likely have been declared insane today, and neither of us have any more reason to doubt Yates’ experience as your experience, and hers did have a Biblical type precedence. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/463 "2013-06-20T22:43:36Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > I don’t want to get in the middle of this discussion (because I can see where it has led - even though I have had my own encounters with the divine)… What happened? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/464 "2013-06-20T22:51:52Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > I quoted the Psalms. The scriptures contain plenty of references to both man’s insignificance before God, and God’s mercy and grace towards mankind. God is not obligated to mankind. But you have agreed the Bible is full of errors. You even think entire books in the Bible are false. So what makes you so sure the Psalms and your other references are correct? Careful eisegesis? ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/465 "2013-06-21T02:55:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes. We are creatures in 4 dimensions. God is beyond that. > How do you know that? This is disingenuous of you. I was explaining the viewpoint that God is outside of time, and found Flatland a fit analogy. > [@](#): > > Biblically, it’s usually heads of state whose hearts are hardened. > Why would a loving God do that? It’s typically OT, and it is to demonstrate His power to the people of Israel. > [@](#): > > For Jacob and Esau the whole concept revolves around the fact that they are twins whose future was predetermined by birth order, and therefore who would inherit. The phrase in Romans that God says “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have rejected” is based on their actions after birth, not before. > Please cite the verse that gives that extra meaning with regards to actions of Jacob and Esau? I don’t see it in my Bible. And great cherry picking right there with regards to Romans 9:13. You managed to find the only translation that doesn’t say God “hated” Esau: > > [Romans 9:13 So it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."](http://biblehub.com/romans/9-13.htm) 27th Chapter of Genesis. Jacob’s actions lead to him becoming the eponymous leader of Israel, and Esau’s initial anger becomes the hallmark of Israel’s rivals, the Edomites (founded by Esau). See also Malachi 1:2-3. Romans quotes Malachi. The word translated “hate” in a majority of modern English translations is transliterated "shane’ " The word’s usage throughout the OT doesn’t translate to “hate” as much as a lesser degree of love or regard; or indifference. The love/hate dichotomy causes “hate” to be a better reading IF the work is being read to a congregation, but for textual study, rejection comes closer. The Knox Bible doesn’t call it “hate” either. > [@](#): > > Okay, I’ll have to read more on determinism before I can answer that. There’s a level of scientific inquiry here I am not familiar with, and I do not like to argue from a point of ignorance where there is information available. > OK, you seem to like Sam and this is pretty current. You don’t even have to buy his book: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g) Thank you very much. My problem with this is a physical one: I’m hard of hearing as I’ve gotten older, and wear hearing aids. They’re good for one-on-one, but unless I have closed captioning I don’t even enjoy TV. And besides, with text I can go at my own pace and trace thoughts back and forth. But I do seriously appreciate the offer. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/466 "2013-06-21T03:43:46Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > This is disingenuous of you. I was explaining the viewpoint that God is outside of time, and found Flatland a fit analogy. I’m sorry, so that’s just an abstract viewpoint, not a view that you hold? > [@](#): > > It’s typically OT, and it is to demonstrate His power to the people of Israel. OK, but what about the people who’s hearts he hardens? Are just supposed to forget about them? I take it your God had to harden hearts against Israel, because those people would have otherwise been friendly and reasonable? > [@](#): > > 27th Chapter of Genesis. Jacob’s actions lead to him becoming the eponymous leader of Israel, and Esau’s initial anger becomes the hallmark of Israel’s rivals, the Edomites (founded by Esau). See also Malachi 1:2-3. You mean when Jacob steals his brothers birthright? None of that backs up your claim that God hated Esau only after the fact for his actions. Hey, do you take literal the part where Jacob fooled his father into thinking he was his hairy brother by covering himself in goat skins? That just sounds like fiction to me. > [@](#): > > Romans quotes Malachi. The word translated “hate” in a majority of modern English translations is transliterated "shane’ " The word’s usage throughout the OT doesn’t translate to “hate” as much as a lesser degree of love or regard; or indifference. The love/hate dichotomy causes “hate” to be a better reading IF the work is being read to a congregation, but for textual study, rejection comes closer. The Knox Bible doesn’t call it “hate” either. I know, you liberal Christians are all fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and can translate manuscripts better than the professionals. You must have an advanced degree in philogy. Where did you study? > [@](#): > > My problem with this is a physical one: I’m hard of hearing as I’ve gotten older, and wear hearing aids. They’re good for one-on-one, but unless I have closed captioning I don’t even enjoy TV. And besides, with text I can go at my own pace and trace thoughts back and forth. But I do seriously appreciate the offer. Ahh, a physical limitation on your will. Well you can go old school: [http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/complete.html#chapter153](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/complete.html#chapter153) [http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/complete.html#chapter306](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/complete.html#chapter306) If you think about it, free will just doesn’t make any sense. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/467 "2013-06-21T10:46:49Z")
> [@](#): > > This is disingenuous of you. I was explaining the viewpoint that God is outside of time, and found Flatland a fit analogy. > I’m sorry, so that’s just an abstract viewpoint, not a view that you hold? I am reasonably certain that I’ve stated repeatedly it is a view I hold, and one that follows from scholarly inquiries into the nature of God back into pre-Christian interpreters of the scriptures. It is a viewpoint predicated on the idea that God exists, however, so since we’ve been over the fact that there is no evidence of God’s existence that you will accept, this is a dead end for us. > [@](#): > > It’s typically OT, and it is to demonstrate His power to the people of Israel. > OK, but what about the people who’s hearts he hardens? Are just supposed to forget about them? I take it your God had to harden hearts against Israel, because those people would have otherwise been friendly and reasonable? It’s a literary device. The OT is big on making points through telling stories. Given a God whose power is irresistible, the narrators needed a reason why God didn’t just use Egypt’s Pharaoh as his puppet (for example), and the reason they came up with was God’s hardening of the heart. > [@](#): > > 27th Chapter of Genesis. Jacob’s actions lead to him becoming the eponymous leader of Israel, and Esau’s initial anger becomes the hallmark of Israel’s rivals, the Edomites (founded by Esau). See also Malachi 1:2-3. > You mean when Jacob steals his brothers birthright? None of that backs up your claim that God hated Esau only after the fact for his actions. Hey, do you take literal the part where Jacob fooled his father into thinking he was his hairy brother by covering himself in goat skins? That just sounds like fiction to me. As above, the Bible relates its ideas through stories. A good many stories in the OT are after-the-fact explanations of why Israel doesn’t get along with its neighbors. > [@](#): > > Romans quotes Malachi. The word translated “hate” in a majority of modern English translations is transliterated "shane’ " The word’s usage throughout the OT doesn’t translate to “hate” as much as a lesser degree of love or regard; or indifference. The love/hate dichotomy causes “hate” to be a better reading IF the work is being read to a congregation, but for textual study, rejection comes closer. The Knox Bible doesn’t call it “hate” either. > I know, you liberal Christians are all fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and can translate manuscripts better than the professionals. You must have an advanced degree in philogy. Where did you study? And again you criticize academic analysis with a mocking tone. Why? The OT was written in Hebrew, the NT in Greek, and an awful lot of the early commentaries and writings of the Christian Community were in Latin. It is, therefore, necessary to have some facility with these languages to do proper study. My cites for the above explanation of one Hebrew word in this instance are conservative scholar William Wilson’s _Old Testament Word Studies_, 1870, and archaeologist and philologist Jeff A Benner’s _Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, Ancient Letters, Words and Roots Defined Within Their Ancient Cultural Context_, 2005. It’s not just my opinion. > [@](#): > > My problem with this is a physical one: I’m hard of hearing as I’ve gotten older, and wear hearing aids. They’re good for one-on-one, but unless I have closed captioning I don’t even enjoy TV. And besides, with text I can go at my own pace and trace thoughts back and forth. But I do seriously appreciate the offer. > Ahh, a physical limitation on your will. Well you can go old school: > > [http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/volt...tml#chapter153](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/volt...tml#chapter153) > > [http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/volt...tml#chapter306](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/volt...tml#chapter306) > > If you think about it, free will just doesn’t make any sense. Thank you. I’ll be studying on these and Harris this weekend, when I have more time. ---
**Author:** ![Cyros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a698b9/32.png) [@Cyros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyros)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/468 "2013-06-21T13:19:28Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > It’s a literary device. The OT is big on making points through telling stories. Given a God whose power is irresistible, the narrators needed a reason why God didn’t just use Egypt’s Pharaoh as his puppet (for example), and the reason they came up with was God’s hardening of the heart. Seems to be an odd literary device. “Why didn’t God use Pharaoh as his puppet?” “I know, we’ll have him harden Pharaoh’s heart!” “But doesn’t having God short circuit Pharaoh’s will kind of make Pharaoh his puppet?” “Bah, no one will notice that, and it reads so dramatically!” ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/469 "2013-06-21T13:50:37Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > I am reasonably certain that I’ve stated repeatedly it is a view I hold, and one that follows from scholarly inquiries into the nature of God back into pre-Christian interpreters of the scriptures. It is a viewpoint predicated on the idea that God exists, however, so since we’ve been over the fact that there is no evidence of God’s existence that you will accept, this is a dead end for us. OK, and we have both agreed that there is no evidence that you would accept either, except for that song you heard which, if I am not mistaken, may as well have come from Zeus. Anyway, you stated that your God lives in 5th or higher dimensions. So what makes you think that you know his address? From the Bible I would think that the Christian god is everywhere, walked through earth with some frequency, and even showed Moses his backside. > [@](#): > > It’s a literary device. The OT is big on making points through telling stories. Given a God whose power is irresistible, the narrators needed a reason why God didn’t just use Egypt’s Pharaoh as his puppet (for example), and the reason they came up with was God’s hardening of the heart. OK, I understand. Literally, God hardening peoples hearts casts him in a bad light, so that parts fiction. What’s that word you use for cherry picking, eisegesis? So all that didn’t really happen? What percent of Bible stories do you estimate actually happened? What percent of miracles? I asked you the latter before, and you ignored it. So is the number less than 1% or something? > [@](#): > > As above, the Bible relates its ideas through stories. A good many stories in the OT are after-the-fact explanations of why Israel doesn’t get along with its neighbors. OK, but you made a claim that God only hates Esau because of his actions and not before. I asked you for a cite and you have only pretended to give one. Please honestly give one, or honestly admit that you cannot. > [@](#): > > And again you criticize academic analysis with a mocking tone. Why? Because you obviously went out of your way to cherry pick the far minority, but slightly more flattering viewpoint. See: New International Version (©2011) Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” New Living Translation (©2007) In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.” English Standard Version (©2001) As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” New American Standard Bible (©1995) Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009) As it is written: I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau. International Standard Version (©2012) So it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” NET Bible (©2006) just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010) As it is written: “I have loved Jacob and I have hated Esau.” GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995) The Scriptures say, “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.” King James 2000 Bible (©2003) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. American King James Version As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. American Standard Version Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Douay-Rheims Bible As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. Darby Bible Translation according as it is written, I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau. English Revised Version Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Webster’s Bible Translation As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Weymouth New Testament This agrees with the other Scripture which says, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” World English Bible Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Young’s Literal Translation according as it hath been written, ‘Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.’ > **[Romans 9:13 - God's Sovereign Choice](https://biblehub.com/romans/9-13.htm)** > > So it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. > [@](#): > > The OT was written in Hebrew, the NT in Greek, and an awful lot of the early commentaries and writings of the Christian Community were in Latin. It is, therefore, necessary to have some facility with these languages to do proper study. What facility do you have in these languages? Are you fluent, or like most liberal Christians do you just have a dictionary? > [@](#): > > My cites for the above explanation of one Hebrew word in this instance are conservative scholar William Wilson’s _Old Testament Word Studies_, 1870, and archaeologist and philologist Jeff A Benner’s _Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, Ancient Letters, Words and Roots Defined Within Their Ancient Cultural Context_, 2005. It’s not just my opinion. You cherry picked your experts. Don’t think you are fooling anyone. What facility do you have in those languages BTW? Are you fluent, or like most liberal Christians do you just have a dictionary? > [@](#): > > Thank you. I’ll be studying on these and Harris this weekend, when I have more time. You are responding to stimuli. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/470 "2013-06-21T14:53:53Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s a literary device. The OT is big on making points through telling stories. Given a God whose power is irresistible, the narrators needed a reason why God didn’t just use Egypt’s Pharaoh as his puppet (for example), and the reason they came up with was God’s hardening of the heart. > > OK, I understand. Literally, God hardening peoples hearts casts him in a bad light, so that parts fiction. What’s that word you use for cherry picking, eisegesis? So all that didn’t really happen? What percent of Bible stories do you estimate actually happened? What percent of miracles? I asked you the latter before, and you ignored it. So is the number less than 1% or something? Eisegesis is not cherry-picking, it’s studying the scriptures with your mind already set as to what you will, and the finding it. Cherry picking is searching the scriptures and only selecting the ones you like, and ignoring the rest, and typically derives from eisegesis. You’ve asked a lot, actually, and many of your requests, such as this one are highly time-consumptive if I were to do it right. And it is problematic: what about the Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes? That’s just about all poetry and advice, and as such not subject to what happened or not. You want a quick guess, fine. I’d say about 20-to-30% of the OT would hold up, and around 75% of the NT. YMMV. > [@](#): > > As above, the Bible relates its ideas through stories. A good many stories in the OT are after-the-fact explanations of why Israel doesn’t get along with its neighbors. > > OK, but you made a claim that God only hates Esau because of his actions and not before. I asked you for a cite and you have only pretended to give one. Please honestly give one, or honestly admit that you cannot. Genesis 25: Esau sells his birthright for red pottage. Genesis 27: Esau plots to kill Jacob, and Jacob has to flee for his life. > [@](#): > > And again you criticize academic analysis with a mocking tone. Why? > > Because you obviously went out of your way to cherry pick the far minority, but slightly more flattering viewpoint. See: In the interests of space I’ve edited out your many translations and version that do, indeed, use “hate” here. I have already explained why I chose the one saying “rejected” instead. I use a multitude of translations when I study. > [@](#): > > The OT was written in Hebrew, the NT in Greek, and an awful lot of the early commentaries and writings of the Christian Community were in Latin. It is, therefore, necessary to have some facility with these languages to do proper study. > > What facility do you have in these languages? Are you fluent, or like most liberal Christians do you just have a dictionary? A dictionary? I’ve got a dozen or so and other lexical tools to go with 'em. I rely on them more heavily for Hebrew than I do Latin, but my koine Greek’s not half bad, if I do say so myself. And I know each one’s strengths and weakness, and utilize them accordingly, and have studied the languages now for twenty years. > [@](#): > > My cites for the above explanation of one Hebrew word in this instance are conservative scholar William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, 1870, and archaeologist and philologist Jeff A Benner’s Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible, Ancient Letters, Words and Roots Defined Within Their Ancient Cultural Context, 2005. It’s not just my opinion. > > You cherry picked your experts. Don’t think you are fooling anyone. What facility do you have in those languages BTW? Are you fluent, or like most liberal Christians do you just have a dictionary? See above. I didn’t cherry pick these works. We just got through a very long move into a new house, and not everything’s unpacked, or I’d have included Chambers, who is pretty much the standard go-to source for nearly all Protestant Bible students for Hebrew. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/471 "2013-06-21T15:20:06Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Eisegesis is not cherry-picking, it’s studying the scriptures with your mind already set as to what you will, and then finding it. I didn’t say “Turn left”-I said “Turn the opposite of right”. I’m sorry, but am I the only one who isn’t already a believer that can’t see much of a difference between his two definitions? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/472 "2013-06-21T15:45:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I didn’t say “Turn left”-I said “Turn the opposite of right”. > I’m sorry, but am I the only one who isn’t already a believer that can’t see much of a difference between his two definitions? I don’t see any difference. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/473 "2013-06-21T16:00:02Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Eisegesis is not cherry-picking, it’s studying the scriptures with your mind already set as to what you will, and the finding it. Cherry picking is searching the scriptures and only selecting the ones you like, and ignoring the rest, and typically derives from eisegesis. Yes, sanitation engineer is different from a garbage man. > [@](#): > > You’ve asked a lot, actually, and many of your requests, such as this one are highly time-consumptive if I were to do it right. And it is problematic: what about the Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes? That’s just about all poetry and advice, and as such not subject to what happened or not. You want a quick guess, fine. I’d say about 20-to-30% of the OT would hold up, and around 75% of the NT. YMMV. Quick guess is all I wanted. Is your estimate just regarding stories, or miracle instances as well? > [@](#): > > Genesis 25: Esau sells his birthright for red pottage. Genesis 27: Esau plots to kill Jacob, and Jacob has to flee for his life. Aren’t all men sinners? You still don’t have a cite that says God hated Esau because of his actions rather than who he was. Just admit it. > [@](#): > > In the interests of space I’ve edited out your many translations and version that do, indeed, use “hate” here. I have already explained why I chose the one saying “rejected” instead. I use a multitude of translations when I study. I know rejected sounds nicer than hated. Rejected is still pretty rough, a loving God maybe should have just forgiven Esau, especially since all his actions were predestined before he was even born. > [@](#): > > A dictionary? I’ve got a dozen or so and other lexical tools to go with 'em. I rely on them more heavily for Hebrew than I do Latin, but my koine Greek’s not half bad, if I do say so myself. And I know each one’s strengths and weakness, and utilize them accordingly, and have studied the languages now for twenty years. Great, you have a lot of dictionaries. > [@](#): > > See above. I didn’t cherry pick these works. Yes you did. I imagine a lot (maybe most) of cherry picking is subconscious, so you might not have even been aware of it. Maybe you could trade in some of your dictionaries for some psych books. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/474 "2013-06-21T16:07:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I didn’t say “Turn left”-I said “Turn the opposite of right”. > I’m sorry, but am I the only one who isn’t already a believer that can’t see much of a difference between his two definitions? It’s a degree of specificity. For instance, with the eisegetical approach of one who doesn’t believe in the possibilty of miracles (as the Jesus Seminar, for example), the reader will go through the scriptures and interpret each one in accordance with that view, thereby discounting any miracles he/she finds and preferring those scriptures that have a lack of the miraculous (such as Proverbs). It applies not just to verses, but chapters and entire books. Cherry-picking, on the other hand, indicates you are going into the scriptures and picking out those individual verses or sets of verses that endorse your position, and ignoring everything else. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/475 "2013-06-21T16:12:22Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > It’s a degree of specificity. For instance, with the eisegetical approach of one who doesn’t believe in the possibilty of miracles (as the Jesus Seminar, for example), the reader will go through the scriptures and interpret each one in accordance with that view, thereby discounting any miracles he/she finds and preferring those scriptures that have a lack of the miraculous (such as Proverbs). It applies not just to verses, but chapters and entire books. > > Cherry-picking, on the other hand, indicates you are going into the scriptures and picking out those individual verses or sets of verses that endorse your position, and ignoring everything else. So it’s a specialized form of cherry picking coupled with reinterpretation. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/476 "2013-06-21T16:25:54Z")
- Great, you have a lot of dictionaries. \* \*Yes you did. I imagine a lot (maybe most) of cherry picking is subconscious, so you might not have even been aware of it. Maybe you could trade in some of your dictionaries for some psych books. [/QUOTE] \* I have dictionaries, too, and telling your opponent that he needs psychiatric help doesn’t fall under the definition of “debate.” I realize Kable only wants his own off-topic questions answered, but again what is the motivation for the mockery and contempt? If liberal/progressive people also have religious faith, however misguided you believe them to be, but do not seek to prevent anyone from being married, turn back the clock regarding discrimination or blur the lines of separation between church and state, why this strident need to demonstrate that all believers are fools? There is so much foolishness about, after all. It fascinates and puzzles me that this board finds all religious belief so infuriating. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/477 "2013-06-21T16:28:37Z")
> [@](#): > > You’ve asked a lot, actually, and many of your requests, such as this one are highly time-consumptive if I were to do it right. And it is problematic: what about the Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes? That’s just about all poetry and advice, and as such not subject to what happened or not. You want a quick guess, fine. I’d say about 20-to-30% of the OT would hold up, and around 75% of the NT. YMMV. > > Quick guess is all I wanted. Is your estimate just regarding stories, or miracle instances as well? Stories. The miraculous would be down around 5-to-10% as an offhand estimate. > [@](#): > > Genesis 25: Esau sells his birthright for red pottage. Genesis 27: Esau plots to kill Jacob, and Jacob has to flee for his life. > > Aren’t all men sinners? You still don’t have a cite that says God hated Esau because of his actions rather than who he was. Just admit it. 1. Esau rejected his birthright for red pottage. [Note: the name “Esau” in Hebrew means hairy, but it also has an etymologial connection with the word “red”, which the original hearers would have picked up on, but is necessary lost in the translation.] 2. This wasn’t just any old birthright. Jacob took it and became Israel, and the founder of the nation of those to whom God had made his covenant. 3. By rejecting his birthright, Esau rejected God. > [@](#): > > In the interests of space I’ve edited out your many translations and version that do, indeed, use “hate” here. I have already explained why I chose the one saying “rejected” instead. I use a multitude of translations when I study. > > I know rejected sounds nicer than hated. Rejected is still pretty rough, a loving God maybe should have just forgiven Esau, especially since all his actions were predestined before he was even born. There are over a hundred English translations. They fascinate me, and I’ve got a very good working knowledge of most of them. So, when I went to examine the passage in Romans, I found great uniformity, but with a few versions that departed from the average. Out of curiosity, I checked out why they would have departed. In the NLT’s case (the one I quoted), the translators decided instead of going straight from the Greek as everyone else did, they considered the fact that Romans quotes Malachi, and examined the word used there, which they rendered “rejected”. Since, as I said above, the cause of God’s displeasure is Esau’s rejection of his birthright, and, by extension, God and his covenant, God has rejected him in return. > [@](#): > > A dictionary? I’ve got a dozen or so and other lexical tools to go with 'em. I rely on them more heavily for Hebrew than I do Latin, but my koine Greek’s not half bad, if I do say so myself. And I know each one’s strengths and weakness, and utilize them accordingly, and have studied the languages now for twenty years. > > Great, you have a lot of dictionaries. And 20+ years of study. Oh, and I took classical Greek in college and Latin in High School, if you require a more formal approach. > [@](#): > > See above. I didn’t cherry pick these works. > > Yes you did. I imagine a lot (maybe most) of cherry picking is subconscious, so you might not have even been aware of it. Maybe you could trade in some of your dictionaries for some psych books. Ah, because you disagree with your idea of Christianity, all study of its religion and scripture is pointless and worthless, is that it? Is there any field where you have specialized knowledge? Do you read or speak more than one language yourself? ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/478 "2013-06-21T16:29:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So it’s a specialized form of cherry picking coupled with reinterpretation. Eisegesis applies to the whole Bible; cherry picking takes out a few verses. ---
**Author:** ![Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/prof.pepperwinkle/32/13627_2.png) [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Prof.Pepperwinkle)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/479 "2013-06-21T16:30:52Z")
> [@huck](#): > > - > > Great, you have a lot of dictionaries. \* > \*Yes you did. I imagine a lot (maybe most) of cherry picking is subconscious, so you might not have even been aware of it. Maybe you could trade in some of your dictionaries for some psych books. - > [@](#): > > I have dictionaries, too, and telling your opponent that he needs psychiatric help doesn’t fall under the definition of “debate.” > > I realize Kable only wants his own off-topic questions answered, but again what is the motivation for the mockery and contempt? If liberal/progressive people also have religious faith, however misguided you believe them to be, but do not seek to prevent anyone from being married, turn back the clock regarding discrimination or blur the lines of separation between church and state, why this strident need to demonstrate that all believers are fools? > > There is so much foolishness about, after all. It fascinates and puzzles me that this board finds all religious belief so infuriating. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585/480 "2013-06-21T16:32:18Z")
> [@Prof.Pepperwinkle](#): > > Eisegesis applies to the whole Bible; cherry picking takes out a few verses. So you’re not cherry picking the words with a specific goal in mind-you’re cherry picking the _definitions_ with a specific goal in mind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brushes-with-the-divine/660585.md?page=25)