lady, for she is
my departed one." - "What departed one?" I asked - "Why, my departed
first love," he answered. "Indeed, this is a strange affair. She said: I
shall die. And that very same moment she departed, naturally enough, by
death - else one might have insured her beforehand in the widow's
insurance. Too late! Dead she was and dead she remained; and now I
wander about, as says the poet, vainly seeking the grave of my ladylove
that I may shed my tears thereon." Thus this brokenhearted man who
remained alone in the world, though it consoled him to find her pretty
far along, if not by, yet with another man.

It is a good thing for the girls, thought I, that they don't have to be
buried every time they die; for if parents have hitherto considered a
boy child to be the more expensive, the girls might become even more so!

A simple case of infidelity is not as amusing, by far. I mean, if a girl
should fall in love with someone else and should say to her husband: "I
cannot help it, save me from myself!" But to die from sorrow because she
cannot endure being separated from her lover by his journey to the West
Indies, to have put up with his departure, however - and then, at his
return, be not only not dead but attached to someone else for all time -
that certainly is a strange fate for a lover to undergo. No wonder,
then, that the heartbroken man at times consoled himself with the
burthen of an old song which runs: "Hurrah for you and me, I say, we
never shall forget that day!"

Now forgive me, dear fellow banqueters, if I have spoken at too great
length; and empty a glass to love and to woman. Beautiful she is and
lovely, if she be considered aesthetically. That is undeniable. But, as
has often been said, and as I shall say also: one ought not to remain
standing here, but should go on. Consider her, then, ethically and you
will hardly have

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:49:27 GMT

Omni meaning "all" Wisdom... well, that's self-explanatory.

It comes from Colossians, where all wisdom is hidden in Christ.
What's so amazing about it?

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:32:49 GMT

>Muz, we all know what a "vector" is. What Stephen meant was, what does
that
>(vector) have to do with God's word?. Where do you find "vector" in
the
>Bible- where is the specific reference. What he is trying to say, what
I am
>trying to say, is that we are on a Christian newsgroup called
>christnet.theology. We are not on the newsgroup science.theory.net

I understand. I was simply trying to forward a hypothesis about how
God could be outside of the created universe and not subject to its
time, and yet not see all time as eternally present to Him.

Muz

From:	lbrty4us at aol.com
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:28:50 GMT

Steve Goltra wrote:
> It is as I said so many posts ago, Muz and lbrty4us are one and the
same.
> That is ascertained by your style, vocabulary and deceitfulness. The
> believer is told to "put on" the mind of Christ. Deceitfulness has
nothing
> to do with the mind of Christ.

.....it's really time for the guys in the while coats to come with the
straightjacket, yes? ;-) All other posters to christnet who aren't
Goltra are just one evil collective entity with many sock puppets &
fake accounts who are full of lies, right? Talk about
deceitfuness...how sad this guy is...

Hey, maybe _he_ poses as all those people just to argue with & elevate
himself, having run everyone else off in disgust? (joking, I can read
headers)

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:32:13 GMT

>Again, I will try to be clear. God never followed through, at any time
with
"brought

However, the covenant included the promise of the Land of Israel (In
fact, it is the key element), and they lost possession of the land many
times, including during the 70 years exile to Babylon.

>Typically this consisted of boys and girls below the age of majority.
In
>Israel's case, that was 20 years old. In the case of the Abrahamic
covenant,
>which is an unconditional covenant, with the only condition that
Abraham had
>to comply with was to "leave"- Genesis 12:1 tells us "1. Now the Lord
had
>said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred,
and from
>thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:"
>Abraham complied with his part. From Genesis 12:2-3 we FIND SEVEN (7)
"I
>WILLS PROVIDED BY GOD (NOT SUZERIAN-VASSEL). There are never any other
>requirements required of Abraham: "2. And I will make of thee a great
>nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt
be a
>blessing: 3. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
>curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

The covenant comes about in various parts throughout the story of
Abram/Abraham. One of the major key elements in the LAND. Did and
does Israel remain in control of the land from the time the covenant
was established until now?

>That's it, the Abrahamic covenant. Now fast forward to just one of the
times
>that God threatened to kill all of the Israelites, save Moses. Numbers
>14:1-45 tells the story. God chose to let the "little ones" enter the
land,
>into His Rest (another Bible study). What is the definition of "little
>ones"- those under 20 years old. The reference to "little ones" can be
found
>in Numbers 14:31 and the reference to who will not be allowed in the
promise
>land can be found in Numbers 14:29. The reason for this is again the
>Abrahamic blood covenant ritual [Not "Suezarian-Vassel"]- How in the
world
>anyone can you compare the berius that God shares with Abraham to a
>Suezarian-Vassel "whatever" should be very interesting- I would like
to read
>it!

The Siniatic covenant is a subsequent covenant and a fulfillment of
part of the covenant with Abraham, so, in a sense, the children of
Israel are part of two covenants and eventually part of three (four or
five, depending on whether you include the Adamic and Noahic covenants,
the other being the Davidic covenant.) The Siniatic (Mosaic) covenant
is Suezarian-Vassel in nature, and is the one formed directly with the
people of Israel. It is conditional in nature (if people of God do X,
God will do Y.)

>[Of note here is that God never has followed through with His threat
to
>kill all of His people and leave one or two men alive.

I agree. God never followed through on the threat. We're also told
why: He changed His mind.

>As I have said before, God, who had a face to face relationship with
Moses,
>tested him.

Again, you need to provide scriptural evidence for this. It's simply
not in the text, nor is it in any way implied by the text. It is not
beyond the bounds of covenant or reason for God to do exactly as He
threatened to do.

>That's it, Muz. I will not go any further on this thread. I really do
not
>expect you to follow this and I do not want to spend any more time
with it.

I understand what you're trying to say. Unfortunately, it isn't
supported by the text, and winds up being your constructed systematic
theology inserting into scripture, rather than scripture informing your
systematic theology.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:02:36 GMT

Just another thought:

When did Judah rule Israel? Joshua was from Levi. Which Judge was from
Judah? Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. It would seem that, if
this was indeed a prophecy, that God would choose from Judah, would He
not? Or did God forget? Or did God not keep a prophecy/promise to
Judah?

Not until David do we have a King from the tribe of Judah.

So, while this is later recited as prophecy, it is difficult to see how
you can make this statement in light of the events that followed.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:51:07 GMT

Sorry, I'm a bear of little brain, and have difficulty in understanding
words
like "vector" except in the sense that mosquitos are a vector of
malaria. I
never did maths beyond high school.

A vector is a point that begins a line that extends in one direction.
Michael

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:14:17 GMT

Muz, we all know what a "vector" is. What Stephen meant was, what does that
(vector) have to do with God's word?. Where do you find "vector" in the
Bible- where is the specific reference. What he is trying to say, what I am
trying to say, is that we are on a Christian newsgroup called
christnet.theology. We are not on the newsgroup science.theory.net

God bless,

Steve

P.S. I have no problem with science or current events, as long as they tie
into scripture, and the scripture can been "seen" in the science. I can
hardly see how vector ties in with God's supernatural power- omniscience,
omnipresence, & omnipotence. We don't have to figure out how God does His
work, the miracles that he performs daily in our lives, the prophecy that He
gives us, thousands of years before it is fulfilled. All we have to believe
in Him, just like Abraham did!

"Muz" wrote in message
news:LCGGd.9665$Ii4.2084@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Sorry, I'm a bear of little brain, and have difficulty in understanding
> words
> like "vector" except in the sense that mosquitos are a vector of
> malaria. I
> never did maths beyond high school.
>
> A vector is a point that begins a line that extends in one direction.
> Michael
>
>

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:05:25 GMT

Ordinary theology says that God determines all things that happen, and
there is no possibility of anything happening other than what God has
declared for every action.

Open View Theism says that the actual individual decisions are not
known because they have not been made, and the future is open.

Muz

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:58:56 GMT

Muz, are you sure that you are not related to Drewsk? "Open Theism" is pure
heresy! God is "Omniscient and Omnipresent"!

It appears that the enemies of Truth never sleep. Their new heresy is "open
theism." Open theism, also called "openness" and "the open view," is a
theology that deals with human free will and its relationship to God in
regards to the future. Open theists (OT) teach that God has granted to
mankind free will, and the future free will choices of individuals cannot be
known ahead of time by God, thus denying the Omniscience of God.

While claiming to be orthodox, proponents of this heresy make several
significant changes in the Biblical definition of the nature of God. They
also claim that God changes His mind and that He does not have an infallible
knowledge of the future. Since a growing number of so-called evangelicals
are beginning to embrace (and teach) this heresy, it poses a significant
threat to the orthodox understanding of God. For example, if God does not
know for sure what will happen in the future, then Biblical prophecy can be
wrong. This type of theology is a significant doctrinal deviation from the
Biblical definitions of the nature of God and would undermine thousands of
years of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

OT stresses the ability of man to move the hand of God through prayer.
Unfortunately, the emphasis of OT is shifted from God's ability to answer
prayer to their ability to "pray with power." Now, we are not denying the
need for prayer, but the clay is not here to change the mind of the Potter
(Romans 9:20). Their theology ends up ascribing human attributes to God, and
divine attributes to men. What ever happened to "Not my will, but thine be
done?" You can find the roots of this theology in the teachings of "The
Gospel of Self Esteem" and ""Knowing Who You Are In Christ" birthed in the
1970s. You can even trace the roots of this theology back to ancient Greece,
as it resembles Greek mythology more than it does Biblical Christianity.

God is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent!

This three-faceted definition of God is the foundation of Christianity. From
their origins, orthodox Christianity and Judaism have embraced these three
attributes of God. Now a new theology has reared its ugly head to challenge
this ancient history. Oddly, the proponents of this view claim to be
orthodox, BUT THEY LITERALLY DENY THE VERY NATURE OF GOD. Several supporters
of this view, including Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William
Hasker, and David Basinger, have even worked together on a volume titled,
"The Openness of God." Other so-called Christian teachers that share similar
views include Greg Boyd, Stephen Davis, Thomas Morris, Ted Haggard, Brent
Parsley, and Richard Swinburne.

So what's the big deal? Christianity can embrace different forms of "truth"
can't it? Not according to II Corinthians 11:4. But God would not care that
much about something like this, would He? Galatians 1:6 says He does care.

God bless,

Steve Goltra

"Muz" wrote in message
news:VESDd.1351$Ii4.1261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Ordinary theology says that God determines all things that happen, and
> there is no possibility of anything happening other than what God has
> declared for every action.
>
> Open View Theism says that the actual individual decisions are not
> known because they have not been made, and the future is open.
>
> Muz
>
>

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:33:10 GMT

This is a continuation of my post from yesterday to "Muz":

THEOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE OPEN THEISTS

1) No Biblical Prophecy Can Be Infallible If all prophecy is conditional,
then the Bible could not have authoritatively predicted where Jesus would be
born. But Micah did prophetically foretell that Jesus would be born in
Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The Bible also predicted when He would die (Daniel
9:25-27), how He would die (Isaiah 53), and how He would rise from the dead
(Psalms 16:10 cf. Acts 2:30-31). Either these predictions are infallible
or else they were just guesses on God's part. If they are infallible, then
the OTs are wrong, since according to their view God cannot make infallible
predictions. On the other hand, if it is not infallible, then God was just
guessing.

2) No Such Thing as a False Prophecy if all prophecy is conditional, then
there cannot be any such thing as a false prophecy. The Old Testament,
however, lays down tests for false prophets. One of the Biblical standards
is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If
what a prophet proclaim sin the name of the Lord does not take place or come
true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken
presumptuously." If the OTs are correct, this test cannot be applied.

3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?

The OTs' beliefs (that God does not know the outcome of the future) deny
God's omniscience and omnipotence. Their theology also contradicts the
infallibility of the Bible, which the OTs claim to believe. If all such
prophecies are conditional, then we can never be sure that they will come to
pass. Yet the Bible affirms that they definitely will come to pass.
According to the OTs, such pronouncements are not infallible, and they may
be in error. They believe that God is only guessing, so it is reasonable to
assume that some guesses will be wrong. At least they credit God with being
a "really good guesser."

4) God Cannot Guarantee Victory over Satan Since OTs teach that God does not
know the future, then it is logical to assume that there is no guarantee of
ultimate victory over evil. The Bible predicts that Satan will be defeated,
but the OT teaches that God could not know this infallibly. If the OT is
correct, then neither God nor the Bible can be completely infallible. The
problem is, if God does not know what Satan will do, that opens the door for
Satan to have the ability to pull a fast one on God. It almost makes them
equals. Since the OTs teach that God does not know the future, there is no
way for Him to assure us that Satan won't pull the wool over God's eyes on
the Judgement Day. I can just hear their god say, "Wow! I never saw that
coming!" I guess their god has a word in his vocabulary that the God of the
Bible does not: "Whoops!"

5) It Robs God's Children of Their Confidence in His Promises One of the
consequences of making all prophecies conditional is that it undermines
confidence in God's Word. If we cannot be sure that God will keep His Word,
then it undermines our belief in His faithfulness. The Bible, however, says
we can accept God's Word unconditionally. Isaiah46:10 says that He knows
"the end from the beginning." That's why Paul could write, "It does not,
therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" (Romans
9:16).

6) It Denies God's Ability to Answer Prayer Despite the fact that OTs make
much ado of God's ability to answer prayer, their concept of God actually
undermines our confidence in God. A "god" who does not know the future will
be severely limited in his ability to do things. versus what can be done by
a God who knows every decision that will ever be made by anyone or anything.
Ironically, the OT's god, then becomes a liability to answered prayer.

God bless,

Steve Goltra

"Steve Goltra" wrote in message
news:QAZDd.1354$pZ4.948@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Muz, are you sure that you are not related to Drewsk? "Open Theism" is
> pure heresy! God is "Omniscient and Omnipresent"!
>
> It appears that the enemies of Truth never sleep. Their new heresy is
> "open theism." Open theism, also called "openness" and "the open view," is
> a theology that deals with human free will and its relationship to God in
> regards to the future. Open theists (OT) teach that God has granted to
> mankind free will, and the future free will choices of individuals cannot
> be known ahead of time by God, thus denying the Omniscience of God.
>
> While claiming to be orthodox, proponents of this heresy make several
> significant changes in the Biblical definition of the nature of God. They

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:08:58 GMT

This is my third of 4 posts to "Muz" in regards to the heresy found in open
theism:

CONCLUSION

Hermeneutics versus Greek Mythology The art and science of Biblical
interpretation is called hermeneutics. These are the basic guidelines for
interpreting Scripture, especially the difficult passages. One of the major
principles of hermeneutics is that the Old Testament is to be interpreted in
the light of the New Testament. Sometimes because of the
language/translation hurdles, we will come across a passage in the Old
Testament that is difficult to determine the entire scope of its meaning.
But when we look at a New Testament passage, dealing with the same subject,
it can shed light onto the gray areas, making them clearer and easily
understood.

A good example of this is when the Old Testament talks in anthropomorphic
terms about God. Such as He "stretched out his hand" or He took us "under
His wings." These passages use human terms to symbolically describe
something supernatural. Taken literally, God must be part bird! Problem
is, when you take these passages literally, you can also end up turning God
into a man, such as Joseph Smith and the Mormons (As man is, God once was.).
The Open Theists make the same mistake. Jesus made it very clear that "God
is Spirit" and a spirit "does not have flesh and bone." Therefore, the Old
Testament passages that refer to God in human terms are to be seen in the
light of Jesus' teachings that God is a Spirit. Thus, the Old Testament
passages that refer to Goads having wings or arms, are obviously symbolic.

Another example of taking a passage too literally: When God called out to
Adam in the Garden of Eden and asked, "Adam, where are you?" - Did He
actually not know where Adam was? Of course He knew. God was simply
demonstrating that Adam was lost.

Another area that the Open Theists can get confused is what is referred to
as a Christophany. This is a manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ.
When someone in the Scriptures refer to seeing God in a human form, that is
generally believed to be a manifestation of Jesus Christ. This is where
things can get a bit bizarre with the whole temporal/eternity issue. Since
God lives outside of time, He can manifest Himself in the Old Testament in
the form of Christ, even though Jesus had not yet received his physical
body. It's in the "Can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it?
"category. There are certain questions that a finite mind cannot answer.
The Trinity is another good example. John 1:1 says that in the beginning,
Jesus was with God, and He was God. Try wrapping a pea brain around that
one!

These are just a few of the mistakes that the OTs make. There are many
others, but suffice it to say, when you disregard the basic guidelines for
interpreting Scripture, you are going to end up with theological errors at
best, heresy at worse.

The OTs claim to believe that God is omniscient. but they also teach that He
does not know the future. You cannot have it both ways. The two beliefs
are mutually exclusive. A nomniscient god that does not know the future?
Class, can you say. oxymoron? The True God of the Bible does not live in
the temporal dimension of time. HE IS ETERNAL. No beginning. no end. The
God of Scripture says, "I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6). He also
assures us that He "knows the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10). That
is one of the reasons that we can trust Him, and His Word.

This new god of the OTs is NOT the God of the Bible, and therefore must be
rejected as such. Let us all heed the warning of Paul in I Timothy 4:1, "The
Holy Spirit explicitly says that in the latter times some will fall away
from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of
demons." This theology should be denounced for what it is: rank heresy. If
the Open Theists are going to be completely open, we suggest that they start
praying to Zeus, instead of Jehovah. At least that way, it will be easier
to pick out the Believers from the Mythologists.

"Steve Goltra" wrote in message
news:qsoEd.3073$Ii4.353@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This is a continuation of my post from yesterday to "Muz":
>
> THEOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE OPEN THEISTS
>
>

====Long quotes snipped in order to post message -- Mod.

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:09:16 GMT

This is my 4th in a series of posts on the heresy of "Open Theism" or
"Openness" or whatever they want to call it:

A few more Scriptures that speak of the Omniscience of God Psalm 139:1-4, "O
LORD, You have searched me and known me.

2) You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thoughts
from afar.

3) You scrutinize my path and my lying down and are intimately acquainted
with all my ways.

4) Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O LORD, You know it
all.

Isaiah 42:9, "Behold, the former things have come to pass, now I declare new
things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you."

Acts 2:22-23, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a
man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23) this
Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you
nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."

Acts 3:18, "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of
all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled."

Acts 15:16-18, "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is
written, AFTERTHESETHINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE
OFDAVIDWHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILLRESTORE IT,

17) SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THEGENTILESWHO
ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,

18) SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO."

Romans 8:28-30, "And we know that God causes all things to work together for
good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His
purpose.

29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to
the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called,
He also justified;and these whom He justified, He also glorified."

Ephesians 1:3-5, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in
Christ,

4) just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we
would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

5) He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself,
according to the kind intention of His will."

I Peter 1:1-2, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as
aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia, who are chosen

2) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work
of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May
grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure."

I John 3:20, "in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our
heart and He knows all things."

A warning (from God) to the National Association of Evangelicals and the
Open Theists Psalm73:9-19, "They have set their mouth against the heavens,
And their tongue parades through the earth.

10) Therefore his people return to this place, And waters of abundance are
drunk by them.

11) They say, 'How does God know? And is there knowledge with the Most
High?'

12) Behold, these are the wicked; And always at ease, they have increased in
wealth.

18) Surely You set them in slippery places; You cast them down to
destruction.

19) How they are destroyed in a moment! They are utterly swept away by
sudden terrors!"

"Steve Goltra" wrote in message
news:qsoEd.3073$Ii4.353@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This is a continuation of my post from yesterday to "Muz":
>
>

From:	Stephen.Hayes at family-news.org
Subject:	Open View Theism
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:31:43 GMT

Muz wrote in a message to Stephen Hayes:

M> From: "Muz"

M> Ordinary theology says that God determines all things that happen,
M> and there is no possibility of anything happening other than what
M> God has declared for every action.

M> Open View Theism says that the actual individual decisions are not
M> known because they have not been made, and the future is open.

So that means that God did not create time, but is bound by it?

Sala kahle

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:58:42 GMT

Muz said: "Open View Theism says that the actual individual decisions are
not
> known because they have not been made, and the future is open."

Steve's response: What "future" are you referring to?

"Muz" wrote in message
news:VESDd.1351$Ii4.1261@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Ordinary theology says that God determines all things that happen, and
> there is no possibility of anything happening other than what God has
> declared for every action.
>
> Open View Theism says that the actual individual decisions are not
> known because they have not been made, and the future is open.
>
> Muz
>
>

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:36:23 GMT

Open View Theism (subject line), the concept that God created a
universe where the future cannot be exhaustively known, and thus, in
some respects is open and determined based upon the actions of free
will agents, both God and men.

Michael

From:	Stephen.Hayes at family-news.org
Subject:	Open View Theism
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:44:53 GMT

Muz wrote in a message to Stephen Hayes:

M> From: "Muz"

M> Open View Theism (subject line), the concept that God created a
M> universe where the future cannot be exhaustively known, and thus, in
M> some respects is open and determined based upon the actions of free
M> will agents, both God and men.

How does it differ from ordinary theology, if it does?

And if it doesn't, who decided it needed a special name, and why?

Sala kahle

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:47:48 GMT

Without getting into this subject, which I think is a waste of "time", my
initial response is that God has a specific plan, that involves His timing.
Just like the birth of Messiah, this was a pre-ordained time prophesized in
Daniel. All of the Jews that knew their Old Testament knew that Messiah
would come at the exact day of Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem,
riding on a Donkey (as prophesized by Daniel). God is in control here, and
everything will happen according to His plan. We, as His free will agents,
are only along for the ride.

God bless,

Steve Goltra

wrote in message
news:9toDd.2611$Pm6.399@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Muz wrote in a message to Stephen Hayes:
>
> M> From: "Muz"
>
> M> Open View Theism (subject line), the concept that God created a
> M> universe where the future cannot be exhaustively known, and thus, in
> M> some respects is open and determined based upon the actions of free
> M> will agents, both God and men.
>
> How does it differ from ordinary theology, if it does?
>
> And if it doesn't, who decided it needed a special name, and why?
>
> Sala kahle
>
> Steve Hayes
> WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
> E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
>
> --- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
> * Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)
>

From:	Stephen.Hayes at family-news.org
Subject:	Open View Theism
Date:	Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:30:23 GMT

Muz wrote in a message to Stephen Hayes:

M> From: "Muz"

M> Stephen.H...>So that means that God did not create time, but is
M> bound by it?

M> Certainly not. It simply means that God created a universe for
M> which the dimension of time expands along a vector starting at "let
M> there be light", and each new point on the vector is the next moment
M> in time, which comes into being as time moves foward.

M> All God is doing is observing the expansion of His creation along
M> the dimension of time, omnisciently knowing each moment as it
M> occurs, and omnisciently knowing all the possibilities of the
M> future.

Sorry, I'm a bear of little brain, and have difficulty in understanding words
like "vector" except in the sense that mosquitos are a vector of malaria. I
never did maths beyond high school.

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:25:40 GMT

>I pointed out to you the inconsistencies of God's statements to Moses,
about
>how the Jews were Moses people and that Moses was the one that took
the Jews
>out of Egypt, etc. I guess that did not compute with you, or ?

I understood what you were trying to say, but it simply isn't supported
by the text. Multiple times throughout the OT, God rejects Israel
because they did not keep the covenant, and were not observing the
sabbath. Hosea takes a prostitute as a wife, and then sends her away
as a symbol of God's rejection of Israel for a time. Jeremiah 3 is the
symbolic story of how Israel left, and God was wooing her back. The
very theme of Israel's existance in the OT is judgment, rejection, and
restoraion.

You are correct in that the covenant with the Israelites is
Suezarian-Vassel, in that the powerful king (God) offers certain
things, if the Vassels (Israel) are loyal to him, and obey His
commands. And Israel agreed (Exo 24:7)

However, in Exo 32, we see Israel violating the covenant by worshipping
another god. At this point, the covenant is broken. The only covenant
that needs to be kept is the promise to Abraham, which God has stated
that He will keep through Moses. In fact, there are no inconsistencies
in God's stated course of action, and, in fact, if there were, God
would be lying to Moses about His intention. You sure you want to
adopt a view of a lying god?
(I noticed that you've dropped Jer 3:7 from the discussion.)

Michael

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:10:35 GMT

>Muz, You are a dishonest poster that is only interested in argument
for
>arguments sake. You cannot be taken seriously

Ah, yes. The Ad hominim finish. "Ad hominim and personal attacks are
the most begruding (and satisfying) admission of defeat." - me

In spite of your claims, I haven't changed positions on this. I've
simply pointed out multiple lines of reasoning as to why your assertion
about the covenant is wrong.

Let's review:

Scripture (from what you've already shown) says that God was going to
consume Israel and make Moses a great nation. There is nothing in the
context, either here or elsewhere, to suggest that God isn't serious
about His intent. In fact, God recognizes His covenant responsibility
to Abraham, and has already stated how He will honor that covenant by
producing a nation through Moses. This has been my position all along.
It is consistent with each of my responses to Steve.

Steve, on the other hand, wants us to watch his waving hands and
constructed theology about blood covenants, and insert into the text
that these 12 tribes had to enter the promised land (although no
scripture to support it), and that God gave up the right to judge
Israel when He entered into a covenant with them.

He also wants you to believe that God LIED to Moses in Exodus 32, as a
test. That God never REALLY intended to wipe out Israel, in spite of
what scripture tells us.

Apparantly, when scripture rubs Steve's theology wrong, we have to step
back from the text, and not take it "too literally." Scripture
obviously needs to be adjusted, when it conflicts with Steve's
theology. What's next Steve? Jesus wasn't serious when He said, "it
is finished"? Are we taking THAT too literally?

As for your last cite of me, I was unravelling the semantic game you're
playing with "anihilate." You are correct, in that if God had wiped
out EVERY decendent of Israel, the covenant wouldn't be kept. However,
since God had already decided to keep Moses, the descendents of Israel,
while greatly diminished in number, wouldn't cease to exist. The
covenant is just as valid through one descendent as it is through
thousands, as long as those decendents grow to be great in number
again.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:25:49 GMT

>Steve's response: For at least one week (since 1/14) I have posted
>information on the Blood Covenant ritual, where two people become one.
Part
>of the ritual involves the exchange of belts between the parties. The
belt
>did not hold anything other than their weapons. What they were saying
is
>that each party would defend the other, with their lives, to the
death.
>Then, each party exchanged their robes. By doing this they were
"putting on"
>the other covenant partner, they were becoming one by putting on the
others
>"nature".

And that's good information about the blood ritual. However, it does
little to support your contention that God could not have judged Israel
for breaking the covenant with Him by wiping all of them out except
Moses and starting over again. The covenant promise with Abraham would
still in tact, the future descendents of Abraham would still receive
the promises. You seem to be saying that God gave up sovereignty in
making this covenant!

>Since God had walked through the animals that had been cut down the
>backbone, through the pool of blood, with God (Jesus Christ) and
Abraham was
>placed into a deep sleep, God has entered into a one sided Blood
Covenant
>relationship with Abraham and his seed. This covenant is an
everlasting
>Covenant. It was continued with Isaac, and again with Jacob. Jacob had
12
>children, that created the 12 tribes. All of these tribes are part of
the
>covenant, to perpetuity. There is no way that God would ever
annihilate his
>people and only keep one person, Moses, from the tribe of Levi alive,
and
>kill everyone else. It is preposterous. God has sworn to defend them
all,
>forever

Yet, you already admitted that He killed 3000 of them in judgment. If
God can do that, what is to prevent Him from doing do to most of them?

>I hope that is clear enough for you to understand. I really don't know
what
>else to say. This is a full defense of my position. God has never
>annihilated his own people, the Jews, like He did to the heathen
people of
>Sodom and Gomorrah, and He never will.

This is a very touching appeal, but even in Exodus 32, God wasn't
threatening to annihilate all of Israel, but, rather, to rebuild the
nation of Israel through Moses. So, even if God went through with His
threat in Exodus 32, He would not have done what you are claiming.

>Like I have said, this thread is going nowhere if you cannot
understand this
>covenant relationship that God had with Abraham and his seed.

I understand what you're trying to say, but there are two problems:

1) God wasn't violating the covenant by rebuilding the nation through
Moses. Clearly the covenant is not broken by God judging a group of
people with death, as we see in the death of the 3000. Regardless of
the percentage, God's does not give up His right to judge as many as
He wishes with death, so long as the lineage of Abraham continues.

2) You're trying to defeat scripture with constructed theology. The
Scriptures tell us, without condition or other item to change the
context, that God decided to wipe out Israel and start over with Moses.
You may not like what God was about to do. You may not think that it
was consistent with the covenant, but the fact is that scripture tells
us plainly what happened.

I realize that this story provides major difficulties for your
theology, but when you engage in discussion and debate like this, your
constructed theology isn't what we consider to be inerrant. Mine
isn't, either. It would appear as though your constructed theology
needs some repair.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:31:29 GMT

Ah, so you're abandoning you position. Wonderful. Do you need more
information on Open View Theism?

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:38:39 GMT

Well, let's take these one at a time:

Psalm 139:1-4: Speaks of the present knowledge of God. However, the
use of psalms needs to be taken under the genre of poetry, which we
would expect to include hyperbole and other literary devices, which
aren't intended to be direct truth.

Isaiah 42:9: OVT acknowledges that God prophesies and declares things
that will be. God brings these things about via his omniscience of the
possibilities of the future, and His omnipotence in bringing them
about. This is NOT a claim of EDF.

Acts 2:22-23, 3:18, Acts 15:16-18: These are not things beyond God's
ability to prophesy and bring to pass.

Romans 8:28-30: There is an exegetical question, here, because all the
verbs are in the same tense, yet some have already happened, and some
have not yet happened (like being glorified.) The conclusion is that
Paul isn't making a statement about time, but that these things have or
will happen, and is NOT making a statement about WHEN.

Ephesians 1:3-5: Again, Paul isn't making a statement about time, but
the fact of predestination. You fill this with meaning regarding time
that isn't there.

I Peter 1:1-2: Chosen at salvation to be raised to eternal life.

I John 3:20: No question there. The item in question is whether our
future decisions are already factual to God, or whether their truth
value can only be known when we make the actual decisions.

A warning (from God) to the National Association of Evangelicals and
the
Open Theists Psalm73:9-19.

Those evil evangelicals!

Personally, I'm not going to presume to speak judgment for God. It's
arrogant.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:51:03 GMT

>I take it that you did not read my post on the Blood Covenant ritual?
>Abraham did not enter into a
>"Suezarian-Vassel covenant" with a King. They entered into a berius, a
>special type of blood covenant (berius), that is identical to the
diatheke
>covenant, that is found in the New Testament. In this special
covenant, God
>does all of the giving and Abrahams seed is the recipient.

These are not incompatible. Suezarian-Vassel covenants can be blood
covenants.

However, if we consider what you say as true, then you have an even
bigger problem with Exo 32, because God clearly threatens to destroy
all of Israel, and is either lying to Moses, or threatening to break
this blood covenant as you have constructed it.
Which is it? God lying, or God breaking covenant?

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:00:26 GMT

All the prophecies except the Gen 49 one are post Exodus 32.

Genesis 49 is Jacob's blessing to his children before his death. It is
not a classic prophecy. Furthermore, if you say that this is absolute
prophecy, then it is a false one.
Before the exile, the kingdom of Israel split in two, and Judah did not
rule the other 10 tribes (Judah had absorbed Benjamin by this time).

Thus, we have the concept of implied conditionality of these kinds of
blessings. Had Israel remained faithful to God, there is no doubt that
Judah would continue to reign in Israel. But, in their rebellion,
Judah did not continue to reign over his brothers.

You really need to consult the history of Israel before making these
kinds of statements, Steve!

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:21:26 GMT

>I thought that I was very, very clear in what I was posting when I
posted
>the Abrahamic Blood Covenant. In that Covenant God swares to Abraham
that he
>and his descendents (not descendent) would be participants in it.
Moses was
>well aware of this covenant.

You probably were clear, and I missed it. (Keep in mind that Moses
would have been the father of the covenant nation from that point
foward, thus producing descendents, not just a descendent. Also keep
in mind that through Isaac and Jacob, there was only one descendent per
generation.)

>Also, just to be crystal clear on this matter,
>God has never, ever, not once come against all of his people (the
Jews) save
>one or two, and annihilated them. Granted, when the law was given
three
>thousand were killed (by men, not God, but on the orders of God), but
at
>that time there were approximately 3 million Jews alive. At Pentecost
3,000
>believed and were saved and received eternal life. God has used other
>nations to judge Israel, but at the same time if those nations were to
>severe in that judgment, he came against them. When God chose Abraham,
he
>chose him and his descendents to covenant with- an everlasting
covenant. The
>Angel of the Lord has defended the Jews in battle over and over again,
>totally annihilating other nations, but the Angel of the Lord has
never,
>ever come against His Chosen people, regardless of how much idolatry
they
>were into or how backslidden they were, and annihilated them himself.

And this is your problem. You're inserting your opinion into the text.
You are correct in that God never anihilated them. However, that does
not negate the clear text of scripture in Exodus 32, where God
threatens to do just that. All the hand waving and special pleading in
the world isn't going to change what God said. And, going back to the
text, there is no indication whatsoever of a test for Moses. The text
is clear and straightforward: God was serious in His intent, and was
swayed by Moses' plea.

>I guess my problem with your position on this whole matter is that you
would
>ever even think that God would annihilate his chosen people. No matter
what
>the text says, with your understanding of Scripture and God's Covenant
>relationship with Israel, how can you come to such a conclusion. It
might be
>that you are not using your understanding of God's nature and God's
plan in
>coming to this conclusion. It might be that you are just too "literal"
in
>your reading of the text, without applying any understanding to God's
>Covenant relationship to Israel. Nicodemus had the same type of
problem

Honestly, I bring nothing to the scripture but a desire to read the
text for what it says. You're the one bringing blood covenant
definitions and emotional appeals of "how could God do that" and "God
never did what He threatened to do", etc. etc. etc. I find it
interesting that you accuse me of being "too literal" in reading the
text. I actually accept that as a compliment and a support to my
position, your attempt to tie me to Nicodemus, notwithstanding.

The problem the Pharisees had in Jesus' day was that they had a
particular view of what a Messiah was supposed to be and do, and Jesus
didn't meet their expectations. So, their problem was that they were
reading what they wanted to see in the text, rather than reading the
text and watching for the prophecies to be fulfilled. Sounds more like
you than me.

>This is what God's Word says about the Abrahamic covenant, an
EVERLASTING
>Covenant". Please note that it is quite clear that is addressed to
Abraham
>and his descendents (Jews) as an everlasting covenant, FOR THE
GENERATIONS
>TO COME:
>
>An Everlasting Covenant .
<
>between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations
to
>come, to be your God and the God of YOUR DESCENDENTS after you.The
whole
>land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an
everlasting
>possession to you and YOUR DESCENDENTS after you; and I will be THEIR
God."
>Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you
and
>YOUR DESCENDENTS after you for THE GENERATIONS TO COME.

And exactly what part of wiping out a large group or even most of
Abraham's decendents as a result of judgment against them violates this
Covenant? God is still sovereign, right? If God determined to fulfill
His covenant to Abraham through Moses (as God states He will in Exodus
32), what part of the covenant is broken? You cite the scripture and
want us to make the leap with you from the covenant given to an
implication that God can't judge His people with death, if He chooses.

You've already stated that God wiped out a smll percentage of the
populatiuon of Israel because of rebellion, what difference is there
between .1% and 99%? If God can wipe out a small part in judgment, He
can wipe out a large part in judgment, too, can He not?

Furthermore, if Moses is the only one left, and God produces more
descendents and another nation through him, where is the covenant
broken on God's part? Don't forget, now, that God was going to kill
Moses because He did not circumcize his sons, and only because Moses'
wife did it was Moses spared.

So, maybe the question come back to this: If God can use death as
judgment against His chosen leader for His people, and use it against
3,000 at one time for rebellion, why can He not use it to wipe out
almost all of Israel for Idolotry, preserving the covenant through
Moses? What part of the covenant allows God to wipe out a small part
of the descendents, but not a large part of them?

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:49:16 GMT

Steve's response: Are you for real? What Luther was doing to the Pope
and
the Catholic Church is the same thing that I am doing right now with
you. I
am showing you that scripture disagrees with most of what OT (Open
Theism)
stands for, and therefore what you believe in is false, period. Solo
Sriptura!!! Everything that you or I say must be compared to Scripture,
God's INFALLIBLE WORD. Since you conveniently do not think that the
Bible is
God's INFALLIBLE WORD, then you think you have a way to wiggle out, but
you
don't. You WILL BE JUDGED by God's WORD at the great white throne
judgment,
at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on this earth.

Excuse me, but I have affirmed that the bible IS God's infallible,
inerrant word. I also believe that your exegesis of it is flawed. I
would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:50:13 GMT

One of the problems with Open Theologists is their view of the Bible,
God's
word. Muz has this to say about God's infallible Word:
" 3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?"

This is a lie. I've never said this, nor do I have to say it, and, in
fact, I do not.

This view (Muz's view) is necessary for him because the OT (Open
Theologist)
is in the "prophecy business".

Not it's not my view, nor am I in the "prophecy business".

Whenever the OT makes a false prophecy, he does not want to be held
accountable by God's word, that exposes him as a false prophet (One of
the Biblical standards is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the
Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has
not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously." If the OTs are
correct, this test cannot be applied). Previously I posted about the
ramifications of the OT's views, one of them being "False Prophecy".

Once again, a foundlesss claim.

I am reposting this with a fairly recent example of a false prophecy
given by Ted
Haggard, who is the President of the National Association of
Evangelicals
and is Pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and
is a
practicing OT (Open Theologist):

Guilt by association is HARDLY a valid debate tactic.

2) No Such Thing As a False Prophecy

Again, patently false. This was obviously written by someone who
needed to make things up so that they could critisize OVT.

THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM WAS PERFECTLY EXHIBITED RECENTLY BY TED
HAGGARD.

I don't attend his church, nor do I subscribe to his prophecies, so I
don't see the point, here. This particular item with this person has
NOTHING TO DO with Open View Theism. You might as well critisize all
of Christianity with this guilt by association.

Notice this:

ONE OF HAGGARD'S PASTORS AT NEW LIFE CHURCH, BRENT PARSLEY, ALSO
ESPOUSES
THE HERESY OF THE OT'S (tapes available from New Life Church - 11/12/03
is a
good example).

ROFL! Guilt by association with an associate? Are you SERIOUS?

Just as the Mormon finds no problem with all of the false Propehecies of
Joseph Smith, or of the additional false prophecies of their current
President, so the OT finds no problem with their own false prophecies, or
the false prophecies of their leaders

If you want to be taken seriously, try posting real theology and
interacting with OVT, rather than this baseless attack and argument ad
hominim.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:08:41 GMT

THEOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE OPEN THEISTS

>1) No Biblical Prophecy Can Be Infallible If all prophecy is conditional,
>then the Bible could not have authoritatively predicted where Jesus would be
>born. But Micah did prophetically foretell that Jesus would be born in
>Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The Bible also predicted when He would die (Daniel
>9:25-27), how He would die (Isaiah 53), and how He would rise from the dead
>(Psalms 16:10 cf. Acts 2:30-31). Either these predictions are infallible
>or else they were just guesses on God's part. If they are infallible, then
>the OTs are wrong, since according to their view God cannot make infallible
>predictions. On the other hand, if it is not infallible, then God was just
>guessing.

In arguing against OVT, I see a common thread of denying God's
omnipotence. This is one clear example. You say that without
exhaustive divine foreknowledge(EDF), God could not have brought about
the birth of His son in Bethlahem? How weak do you think God is? You
think that without EDF Christ could not have been raised from the dead?
These are clearly both red herrings. (Have you been reading CARM?)

The fact is that OVT says that God knows all the possibilities of the
future, and knows how He can act to bring about His prophecies. It is
OVT's embracing of both omniscience and omnipotence that make this
possible. You seem to want to deny omnipotence.

>2) No Such Thing as a False Prophecy if all prophecy is conditional, then
>there cannot be any such thing as a false prophecy. The Old Testament,
>however, lays down tests for false prophets. One of the Biblical standards
>is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If
>what a prophet proclaim sin the name of the Lord does not take place or come
>true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken
>presumptuously." If the OTs are correct, this test cannot be applied.

False assumption that OVT says that ALL prophecy is conditional. This,
however, is not true. There are some that are implicitly conditional,
such as Jonah's prophecy to the Ninevites, and some that are not, such
as the prophecies about Christ.

So, this is a completely false accusation.

3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?

>The OTs' beliefs (that God does not know the outcome of the future) deny
>God's omniscience and omnipotence. Their theology also contradicts the
>infallibility of the Bible, which the OTs claim to believe. If all such
>prophecies are conditional, then we can never be sure that they will come to
>pass. Yet the Bible affirms that they definitely will come to pass.
>According to the OTs, such pronouncements are not infallible, and they may
>be in error. They believe that God is only guessing, so it is reasonable to
>assume that some guesses will be wrong. At least they credit God with being
>a "really good guesser."

This is built upon previous statements shown to be false. OVT embraces
God's omniscience and omnipotence. It is the arguer, here, that has
denied omnipotence.

>4) God Cannot Guarantee Victory over Satan Since OTs teach that God does not
>know the future, then it is logical to assume that there is no guarantee of
>ultimate victory over evil. The Bible predicts that Satan will be defeated,
>but the OT teaches that God could not know this infallibly. If the OT is
>correct, then neither God nor the Bible can be completely infallible. The
>problem is, if God does not know what Satan will do, that opens the door for
>Satan to have the ability to pull a fast one on God. It almost makes them
>equals. Since the OTs teach that God does not know the future, there is no
>way for Him to assure us that Satan won't pull the wool over God's eyes on
>the Judgement Day. I can just hear their god say, "Wow! I never saw that
>coming!" I guess their god has a word in his vocabulary that the God of the
>Bible does not: "Whoops!"

This is your denial of omnipotence, and your red herring. Do you
honestly think that God is not wise enough to keep Satan from pulling
the wool over His eyes? You apparantly deny that God is all-wise, as
well. And you accuse OVT of denying God's attributes?

The fact is that when we believe, all the elements of our salvation are
completely in God's hands. There is nothing Satan can do to prevent
the believer who dies from being saved. Nothing. And EDF is not
required to complete it.

>5) It Robs God's Children of Their Confidence in His Promises One of the
>consequences of making all prophecies conditional is that it undermines
>confidence in God's Word. If we cannot be sure that God will keep His Word,
>then it undermines our belief in His faithfulness. The Bible, however, says
>we can accept God's Word unconditionally. Isaiah46:10 says that He knows
>"the end from the beginning." That's why Paul could write, "It does not,
>therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy" (Romans
>9:16).

OVTs say that God knows the end from the beginning. Because He knows
all the possibilities of the future, He knows what He will do to arrive
at His end from the beginning. EDF not required. Furthermore, while
Romans 9:16 is taken out of context, salvation does NOT depend on the
works of men. Never has, never will, so there is no issue with Romans
9:16.

>6) It Denies God's Ability to Answer Prayer Despite the fact that OTs make
>much ado of God's ability to answer prayer, their concept of God actually
>undermines our confidence in God. A "god" who does not know the future will
>be severely limited in his ability to do things. versus what can be done by
>a God who knows every decision that will ever be made by anyone or anything.
>Ironically, the OT's god, then becomes a liability to answered prayer.

Ah, the biggest red herring of all, and the final and most complete
denial of omnipotence. A God who knows all the possibilities of the
future is the BEST one to ask about what one should do, because He is
able to guide us into the best possible situation.

If God has EDF, then prayer becomes POINTLESS, because the future is
already fixed, and nothing, not even prayer, can change it! If God
ordained that you were going to murder someone, you will murder them.

The fact is that prayer only takes on real meaning in OVT.

BTW, if you cut and paste from someone's site, it's appropriate for you
to cite them.

Muz

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:36:41 GMT

One of the problems with Open Theologists is their view of the Bible, God's
word. Muz has this to say about God's infallible Word:
" 3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?"

This view (Muz's view) is necessary for him because the OT (Open Theologist)
is in the "prophecy business". Whenever the OT makes a false prophecy, he
does not want to be held accountable by God's word, that exposes him as a
false prophet (One of the Biblical standards is whether or not the prophecy
comes to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaims in the
name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the
Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously." If the OTs are
correct, this test cannot be applied). Previously I posted about the
ramifications of the OT's views, one of them being "False Prophecy". I am
reposting this with a fairly recent example of a false prophecy given by Ted
Haggard, who is the President of the National Association of Evangelicals
and is Pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and is a
practicing OT (Open Theologist):

One of the Biblical standards is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass.
Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord
does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.
That prophet has spoken presumptuously." If the OTs are correct, this test
cannot be applied. In the Old Testament time, false Prophets were stoned to
death. Today, we are only called to expose them. God will take care of them
at the Great
White Throne Judgment for the lost......

2) No Such Thing As a False Prophecy

If all prophecy is conditional, then there cannot be any such thing as a
false prophecy. TheOldTestament, however, lays down tests for false
prophets. One of the Biblical standards iswhetheror not the prophecy comes
to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaimsin the nameof
the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has
not spoken.That prophethas spoken presumptuously." If the OTs are correct,
this test cannot be applied.

THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM WAS PERFECTLY EXHIBITED RECENTLY BY TED HAGGARD.
HAGGARD IS NOT ONLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
EVANGELICALS (www.nae.net ) HE IS ALSO THE PASTOR OF THE 10,000 MEMBER NEW
LIFE CHURCH IN COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO (www.newlifechurch.org ). HAGGARD
RECENTLY GAVE A FALSE PROPHECY (WORLDWIDE) STATING THAT GOD WOKE HIM IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND SAID "If you can get a million Christians to pray,
then Sadaam Hussein will go into exile and there will be no war in Iraq."
SHORTLY AFTER HAGGARD PROCLAIMED (on the 700 Club) THAT THEY HIT A MILLION
PRAYERS. THEN, THE WAR STARTED! HAGGARD THEN SIMPLY PROCLAIMED THAT HE DID
NOT GIVE A FALSE PROPHECY...GOD JUST CHANGED HIS MIND! FOR THOROUGH
DOCUMENTATION OF HAGGARD'S FALSE PROPHECY, GO TO: www.in-sheeps-clothing.org
....

ONE OF HAGGARD'S PASTORS AT NEW LIFE CHURCH, BRENT PARSLEY, ALSO ESPOUSES
THE HERESY OF THE OT'S (tapes available from New Life Church - 11/12/03 is a
good example).

Just as the Mormon finds no problem with all of the false Propehecies of
Joseph Smith, or of the additional false prophecies of their current
President, so the OT finds no problem with their own false prophecies, or
the false prophecies of their leaders.

God bless,

Steve Goltra

"Muz" wrote in message
news:ZTwEd.3373$pZ4.2261@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> THEOLOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE OPEN THEISTS
>
>>1) No Biblical Prophecy Can Be Infallible If all prophecy is conditional,
>>then the Bible could not have authoritatively predicted where Jesus would
>>be
>>born. But Micah did prophetically foretell that Jesus would be born in
>>Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The Bible also predicted when He would die (Daniel
>>9:25-27), how He would die (Isaiah 53), and how He would rise from the
>>dead
>>(Psalms 16:10 cf. Acts 2:30-31). Either these predictions are infallible
>>or else they were just guesses on God's part. If they are infallible, then
>>the OTs are wrong, since according to their view God cannot make
>>infallible
>>predictions. On the other hand, if it is not infallible, then God was just
>>guessing.
>
> In arguing against OVT, I see a common thread of denying God's
> omnipotence. This is one clear example. You say that without
> exhaustive divine foreknowledge(EDF), God could not have brought about
> the birth of His son in Bethlahem? How weak do you think God is? You
> think that without EDF Christ could not have been raised from the dead?
> These are clearly both red herrings. (Have you been reading CARM?)
>
> The fact is that OVT says that God knows all the possibilities of the
> future, and knows how He can act to bring about His prophecies. It is
> OVT's embracing of both omniscience and omnipotence that make this
> possible. You seem to want to deny omnipotence.
>
>>2) No Such Thing as a False Prophecy if all prophecy is conditional, then
>>there cannot be any such thing as a false prophecy. The Old Testament,
>>however, lays down tests for false prophets. One of the Biblical standards
>>is whether or not the prophecy comes to pass. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "If
>>what a prophet proclaim sin the name of the Lord does not take place or
>>come
>>true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken
>>presumptuously." If the OTs are correct, this test cannot be applied.
>
> False assumption that OVT says that ALL prophecy is conditional. This,
> however, is not true. There are some that are implicitly conditional,
> such as Jonah's prophecy to the Ninevites, and some that are not, such
> as the prophecies about Christ.
>
> So, this is a completely false accusation.
>
> 3) The Bible is Infallible? Says Who?
>

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:01:45 GMT

>Steve's response: I really wonder if you are serious about this, or
are just
>trying to be difficult, or maybe like I said before- too literal. You
read
>the words, but lack the spirit of understanding of what the words
mean. The
>Tribe of Levi was prophesized entry into the promised land, along with
the
>rest of the 12 tribes.-Abrahamic Covenant- Promise of the land Gen
12:3;
>Promise of the land repeated Gen 13:14-17; Abram's descendents to
inherit
>the land from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates River- Gen 15:18-21
[this
>will be fully fulfilled in the Millennium Isaiah 27:12; Jacob given
the
>promises of the Abrahamic Covenant Gen 28:14; The Future of the 12
Tribes,
>as prophesized by Jacob- Gen 49:1-28; Prophecy that the scepter,
referring
>to the future Messiah, would come from the tribe of Judah- Gen
49:10-12; GOD
>APPOINTED MOSES DELIVERER OF ISRAEL-Ex. 3:10; God promised that Moses
>would
>lead Israel out of Egypt- Ex. 6:1-8

Please show us in Genesis where God promises Abraham that 12 tribes
will enter Israel. (Hint: It's not there. The promise is for his
DESCDENTS. Moses' offspring would be Abraham's DESCENDENTS.)

I realize that God promised that Moses would lead Israel out of Egypt,
and by Exodus 32, Moses had ALREADY DONE THAT.

>It should be quite clear to you that you have no position in this
matter.

Actually, I do. All of this hand waving about blood covenants and
promises to Abraham about 12 tribes entering Israel is just that: hand
waving. Yes, the covenant is important generally, but it has no
bearing on God's actions in Exodus 32.

>God would never annihilate the Israelites, his blood covenant partner,
ever.

This is a nice assertion, but God isn't threatening to annihilate the
Israelites. He's threatening to rebuild their nation through Moses.

>You have no understanding of the importance of the Blood Covenant. The
Old
>Testament is the "Old Blood Covenant" and the New Testament is the
"New
>Blood Covenant". God's plan for fallen man! 12 tribes entered the
land, 12
>Apostles were chosen by Christ, and in the New Heaven and New Earth
Christ
>reveals to us in Revelation 21-that the great city, the holy
Jerusalem,
>descending out of heaven from God, will have the following....

The importance of the blood covenant is found in the crucifixion of
Christ, who established the New Covenant in His blood. In Exodus 32,
there was no promise of 12 tribes entering Israel, in fact there is no
reason for us to believe that God isn't serious about His threat in
Exodus 32.

And you still haven't answered the question: Is God lying to Moses in
Exodus 32 in threatening to start over with Moses?

>Try and use scripture, instead of sarcasm and flawed human logic when
>posting. It would be a breath of fresh air.

I go back to Exodus 32, where we've been stuck for quite some time.
God makes a statement about His intentions. There is no indication of
a test, no languge to suggest anything other than God's intent to judge
the people of Israel. If you have a non-literal interpretation of this
section that doesn't include God lying to Moses, I'd be glad to hear
it, but you'll have to explain how God expressing a clear intent to
Moses that He never intends to follow through isn't lying.

I realize that your systematic theology has problems with the biblical
exegesis of this passage, however, we cannot go using our own
constructed systematic theology to go thwarting and ignoring the clear
text of scripture. If you have an EXEGETICAL reason (meaning something
in this passage, not some constructed theology) to read this passage
differently, let's hear it. But if you cannot refute the clear
exegesis of this passage, then you ought to be reviewing your
constructed theology, not trying to do your best to ignore or explain
scripture away.

Muz

From:	Stephen.Hayes at family-news.org
Subject:	Open View Theism
Date:	Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:29:41 GMT

Muz wrote in a message to All:

M> From: "Muz"

M> What do you guys think of it?

What is "it"?

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

--- WtrGate v0.93.p9 Unreg
* Origin: Khanya BBS, Tshwane, South Africa [012] 333-0004 (8:7903/10)

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Wed, 4 Jan 2005 21:07:13 GMT

faint-hearted fear,

Like to a chill tide, sounding as it goes,

Runs through all orders of the Commonweal!

And - while the foe without are mightily

Advantaged - we ourselves within the gates

Work for our own destruction! Whoso shares

With womankind his fortunes, let him look

For the like issue! Whatso'er he be,

Man, woman - or some despicable thing

Halfway betwixt them both - that from henceforth

Fails in most strict obedience to my will,

The damning pebble shall his lot decide,

And he shall publicly be stoned to death!

It longeth to a man - let womankind

Keep their own counsel and not mell with ours -

To manage matters in the world outside.

- From "Seven Against Thebes" by Aeschylus

- Women try their luck; men risk theirs.

- Men grin and bear it; women grin and wear it.

- A man cannot call a woman his own until he has controlled her shopping
habits.

- The most difficult intelligence test is the understanding that women
have no consciousness.

- The consciousness of woman is part of the imagination of man.

- You haven't conquered a woman till she's had a thought.

- We have emancipated women, but they remain slaves looking for their
masters all the same.

- Men create the spaces for women to flow.

- A woman can be defined as someone who cannot understand what a
generalization is.

- Women: the maintenance class.

- Some women like the title "Ms." because they think it means
"Mistress".

- Where there is no love or lying there can be no woman.

- Women never do anything wrong

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:05:19 GMT

None of that, however, is in conflict with Open View Theism.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:37:54 GMT

Anthropomorphism is clearly an OT fixture, as this author points out.
However, if we're going to say that X is a man-only trait that is
representing something of the nature of God, then we also need to
express what that item anthropomorphizes into. This is something of a
fishing red herring, which doesn't really explain anything, nor does it
make any direct accusation.

Furthermore, asking questions that one already knows the answer to is a
common tactic for determining the response of the person being asked.
Just because God asked "where are you?" doesn't mean He didn't already
know. However, when we come to verses like Gen 22:12 or Jer 3:7, where
God says "Now I know", or "I thought she would come back to me, and she
did not", He is making a direct statement about His knowledge, rather
than using a rhetorical device.

Open View theists have no problem with Christophany or with the
Trinity.

Furthermore, the claim that OVT denies omniscience is spurrious. What
OVT claims is that God only knows the possibilities of the future, and
that the actual future is determined by all free will agents, including
God, angels, and men.

Clearly this author does NOT have a grasp of what it means to be OVT,
or it's claims.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:25:15 GMT

>Please note Moses' punishment for not doing what God had instructed
Him to
>do, for not BELIEVING GOD, and for not treating God as Holy in the
site of
>the Israelites-it wasn't annihilation, it wasn't excommunication, it
was
>denial of entry into the promised land. Also of note is that Moses was
also
>taking the credit with God for fetching the water, when it was
actually God
>that was doing all of the work.

However, the judgment was that Moses wouldn't enter the promised land.
Imagine that! A descendent of Abraham not receiving the promise of the
covenant!

>The Lord's anger has waxed hot against the Israelites many times, but
he has
>never slayed them, never wiped them out and left just one man because
they
>are the people of the promise, the blood covenant partners of God
Almighty.

So, you're saying that God isn't sovereign over His people to judge
them when they break the covenant? Again, you're right that He never
did it. However, either it was an option for God to act as He did in
Exo 32, or He lied to Moses. Which is it?

>However, he has destroyed entire cities because of their iniquity-
Sodom &
>Gomorrah to name two. At the same time, God's word tells us that he
sends
>his Prophets to witness of his coming judgment (Just like He sent
Jonah to
>Nineveh as an example of His mercy). Amos 3:7 tells us of what God
does to
>warn of impending judgment: " 7. Surely the Lord God will do nothing,
but
>he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Pssst... Did God reveal to Moses what He was going to do? Sounds
like God already fulfilled that requirement in Exo 32.

Muz

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:14:36 GMT

Steve:>Well Muz, it is just as I thought. I answered your post, line by
line with
>Scripture, and this is the one post you do not respond to. I will try
it
>again, just to illustrate my point (that you will not respond):

Sorry, I missed it. Hopefully we can reduce this discussion into a
single post, rather than several in one thread, so we find them all.

>Muz, you are misquoting scripture and are having trouble understanding
God
>and His infallible Word. Specifically you said:
>>"Well, it would seem that there is scriptural evidence for both. God
>>pledges to Moses that He will destroy Israel and start over with him
>>(Moses), and Mosos prevails upon God to change His mind. In Jeremiah
>>3:7, we're told that God thought that Israel would return to Him, and
she
>>did not. Both seem to be clear evidence from the mouth of God of what
you
>>say cannot be."

>Steve's response:
>God did not PLEDGE to Moses that He would destroy Israel and start
over with
>Moses. God was TESTING Moses, and Moses passed the test in flying
colors!
>Specifically, God SAID to Moses (NO PLEDGES, REMIND YOU- Exodus
32:10-11)
>"10. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against
them,
>and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
11.
>And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy
wrath wax
>hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land
of
>Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Check out the whole
story on
>this matter in Exodus 32:1-35.

Been there, studied the story. Without inserting any theology into the
text, there is no basis for saying that God was testing Moses.

In fact, in verse 14, we see a clear statement about God: "14 So the
Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His
people." This directly opposes what you have said about this verse.
If you have a SCRIPTURAL basis arising from a BIBLICLAL THEOLOGY of
THIS TEXT, for saying that this was a test, please lay it out for us,
because the words of this story do NOT support your assertion.

Steve>Also, you make the false statement that God thought Israel would
return to
>Him, and she did not. That is FALSE. God's word tells us that He TOLD
Israel
>to return to Him. This is specifically what God's infallible Word says
in
>Jeremiah 3:7: " And I said after she had done all these things, Turn
thou
>unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw
it."

Well, if we read a 20th century translation, we see a clearer rendition
of this verse.:

"6 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you
seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and
under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. 7 "And I thought,
'After she has done all these things, she will return to Me'; but she
did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it"

The King James is a good translation, but because the english is 400
years old, and its foundation is a greek text based upon 33
manuscriptrs, rather than several thousand, it is quirky at times.
More modern translations make this verse clearer.

And what is clear is that God thought Israel would return, and it
didn't.

Muz

From:	Steve Goltra
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:40:58 GMT

Dear Muz: Thank you for replying to my post. In regards to Moses being

tested by God, I offer my own understanding about this matter here

[Exodus 32:7-8].And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy
people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted them
selves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded
them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have
sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt [Exod. 32:7-8].

God did not redeem Israel because they were superior, greater, or better
than any other nation. They were none of these things. God said, "I knew
you were a stiff necked people."

[Exod. 32:9-10]. And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people,
and, behold, it is a stiff necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that
my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will
make of thee a great nation [Exod. 32:9-10].

This was a real TEMPTATION to Moses. God is saying, "Moses, I will use you
like I used Abraham, and I will make of YOU a great nation and I will still
be able to make good my covenant with Abraham." Now notice what Moses does.
He realizes that this is just a test, he realizes it and offers one of the
greatest examples of true and honest and earnest prayer in all of Scripture.

[Exod. 32:11]. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why
doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out
of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? [Exod.
32:11].

God asks Moses to "remember." God says, "Moses, get thee down, for thy
people that thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt have corrupted
themselves." Moses, in his prayer, talks back to God and says- "Lord, I
think You made a mistake. I do not recall bringing any people out of
Egypt. And they are not my people; they are Your people. You brought them
out of Egypt and You did it with a mighty hand. I could not bring them out.
You have made a mistake, Lord." Can you imagine talking to God like that?
Moses did, when he prayed to the Lord earnestly.

[Exod.32:12] Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did
he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from
the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil
against thy people [Exod.32:12].

Then Moses tells the Lord, "You brought Your people out of the land of
Egypt, but suppose that You do not take them into the land. The Egyptians
would say that You were able to lead them out of Egypt but not able to take
them into the land. They are Your people, Lord. You promised to bring
them into the land."

Next, Moses gives God a third reason for turning aside from His wrath
against the Israelites.

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by
thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars
of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your
seed, and they shall inherit it for ever [Exod. 32:13].

Moses continues, [Exod. 32:13]."Lord, remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel;
You made a promise to them. You promised to multiply their seed and give
them a land. "

[Exod. 32:14].And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto
his people Exod. 32:14].

This final verse above is written for nothing more than our edification.
God never needs to repent- that is only for us mud balls down here. At this
point, Moses has indeed passed God's test and God continues to use him as a
"type" of Christ, just as "Joseph" was a type of Christ also.

In regards to your statement about the newer versions being superior to the
King James, I will have to differ here from your view. The newer versions
do not rely on the Textus Receptus, but instead have substituted the corrupt
text used in the Catholic Bible- the Latin Vulgate Bible- that relied only
on the Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph . Rasmus had the Vaticanus B & the
Sinaiticus Aleph in his possession, but chose not to use either as they were
indeed corrupt. This corruption in the newer versions today is leading to
the heresy and apostacy that is rampant in the Church, and that has created
your own view of "OPEN THEISM". By looking at God's promises in the Old
Testament to Abraham and understanding that were based upon God's covenant
with Israel, NOT with the performance of the Jewish people-(the salvation of
the Jewish people was based upon God's covenant with Israel, not with
Israel's performance of anything.), then you would understand that your
"NEWER VERSION" of the Bible was not correct, that it was in error. You
would understand that God would never wipe out his people and replace them
with one man, Moses, to start all over.

Gods word tells us that he sustains, governs and cares for the world He has
created. - Matthew 6:26, 28-30 reveals to us- "Behold the fowls of the air:
for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your
heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?..... And why
take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they
grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29. And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of these.

30. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is,
and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye
of little faith?

Matthew 10:29-30 gives us more insight- "29. Are not two sparrows sold for
a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your
Father.

30. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

I can go on and on about this, but this will have to do for now.

God Bless,

Steve Goltra

"Muz" > wrote in message ...

"Muz" wrote in message
news:ghaFd.5303$Ii4.2225@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Steve:>Well Muz, it is just as I thought. I answered your post, line by
> line with
>>Scripture, and this is the one post you do not respond to. I will try
> it
>>again, just to illustrate my point (that you will not respond):
>

From:	Muz
Subject:	Re: Open View Theism
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:10:59 GMT

Trivia question: Were Isaac and Ismael the only sons of Abraham?

A: No:

Gen 25:1 Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2
And she bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak
and Shuah. 3 And Jokshan became the father of Sheba and Dedan. And
the sons of Dedan were Asshurim and Letushim and Leummim. 4 And the
sons of Midian [were] Ephah and Epher and Hanoch and Abida and Eldaah.
All these [were] the sons of Keturah. 5 Now Abraham gave all that he
had to Isaac; 6 but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts
while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac
eastward, to the land of the east. 7 And these are all the years of
Abraham's life that he lived, one hundred and seventy-five years.

(Did you ever wonder if Jacob, when he was courting Rachel, ever said,
"Hey, baby... Want to be the mother of a might nation?") ;o)

Muz

From:

Muz