https://www.logos.com/product/155993/the-library-of-hebrew-bible-old-testament-studies-2016
If you haven't placed an order for this, please do.
And this...
https://www.logos.com/product/166095/library-of-hebrew-old-testament-studies-2018
Thanks.
If only life were more Methuselahic and we had a few more lifetimes worth of years to read all that good stuff. Alas! We can only hope to have Logos in Heaven.(FL: what are your longevity plans?)
Excellent title-ing choice.
I like the one 'Even God Can Not Change the Past'. If the Diety can see and manage the future, then changing the present (2nd Peter) is changing the Diety's past. But that's speculating (doctrine-ing).
Thanks for the 2 I'd missed.
Added:
Checking up on the Hebrew Encyclopedia prepub (going nowhere) led to an Eisenbraums prepub that included 'Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew'. I really wish FL would sell books no one wants (maybe a challenging business model). Amazon's used is 7 times the prepub. Anyway a review is quite interesting regarding the possible intrusion of arabic:
https://www.amazon.com/Grammar-Samaritan-Hebrew-Recitation-Comparison/product-reviews/1575060477
I like the one 'Even God Can Not Change the Past'
Which, of course, must mean you enjoy reading Peter Damian. See Peter Damian in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or for the source see Letter 119 in Peter Damian:Letters 91-120. Yes, the 11th century Peter Damian began the great discussion on the limits of omnipotence with the question "can God restore virginity?"
YHWH can do whatever He wants to do--including restoring virginity. As far as changing the past, there's no reason He would ever want to or need to.
Regarding the LHBOTS collections, I don't see a 2017 version. Were they on vacation? There are many 2019 singles available on Logos, seems about time to create a 2019 collection.
I bought the Bloomsbury Bundle some time back, and I keep finding unpurchased titles floating around in the Logos bibliosphere that I would have expected to be in that collection. Can anyone from FL explain what criteria for inclusion in that bundle is/was? What years were covered? What exclusions were applied, if any? Thanks.
I like the one 'Even God Can Not Change the Past' Which, of course, must mean you enjoy reading Peter Damian. See Peter Damian in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or for the source see Letter 119 in Peter Damian:Letters 91-120. Yes, the 11th century Peter Damian began the great discussion on the limits of omnipotence with the question "can God restore virginity?"
Well, your comment got me to thinking. My databases have bunches of chronological pattern detections. Coding is exhausting. But I'd never looked at what gods do. Just off the top of my head, future-knowledge seems like the mid-bronze. One I've always been curious about is communications pecking order (eg Moses vs Aaron)... direct communication trumped dreams. Paul had to know that.
Your first statement may be true but presented as an assumption rather than a conclusion it is an uninteresting approach to a logician. Your second statement is also presented as an assumption but is more problematic as it assumes knowledge of God's mind that is not a matter of revelation. To give you a hint as to why Peter Damian is worth reading:
In Damian's view, omnipotence consists of God's power to bring about anything that is good. A contradictory state of affairs would be nothing and evil, and therefore the ability to bring it about is not included in omnipotence
This means that for the question of virginity, start with the concept of "good" and it's relationship to God. Then consider the broader issue of undoing that which is done, beginning with the logical presupposition of the excluded middle. Now mind you, not all logicians agree on what his final position was ... but it started a debate that was productive for several hundred years. Which is why I recommended it for reading ... essential to the Erasmus humanism ...
YHWH can do whatever He wants to do--including restoring virginity. As far as changing the past, there's no reason He would ever want to or need to. Your first statement may be true but presented as an assumption rather than a conclusion it is an uninteresting approach to a logician.
Your first statement may be true but presented as an assumption rather than a conclusion it is an uninteresting approach to a logician.
It's not presented as an assumption, but rather as a fact to be accepted. Why? HE SAID SO. Psa. 115:3 NASB
Your second statement is also presented as an assumption but is more problematic as it assumes knowledge of God's mind that is not a matter of revelation.
Actually, I find it is a subset of the first statement, but it may need fleshing out for the sake of clarity. I find that humans make constant declarations about "what must be"...even about YHWH. Because YHWH has no rules that He must follow, He can will "loop holes" into existence as needed--actually, He doesn't really need loop holes. The only criterion He abides by is His own will. So, back to point 1 we go. That said, if He, for His own reasons, wanted a person to experience "losing virginity" for some purpose, and then, after that experience, He wanted to "restore virginity" to the person, He can make it happen with a word just as easily as the universe was brought into creation. He doesn't have to "reverse time"; He need only (if necessary) restore the physical structure and perform a Jedi mind trick that restores the mind & memories of all knowledgeable parties to the former state. Any folks insisting that such actions aren't really "restoring virginity" need only solace themselves with the fact that the only One who needs to feel satisfaction is YHWH. In other words, it is sufficient IF HE SAYS IT'S SUFFICIENT. He answers to none. I am quite certain that arm chair theologians often require more of ':Elohhiym than He requires of Himself...but His will forever prevails.
As far as "logicians" and logic are concerned, the logic of YHWH is not the logic of humans, nor is it the logic of the church. There is very little overlap, and the Bible addresses that condition, too.
YHWH can do whatever He wants to do--including restoring virginity. As far as changing the past, there's no reason He would ever want to or need to. Your first statement may be true but presented as an assumption rather than a conclusion it is an uninteresting approach to a logician. It's not presented as an assumption, but rather as a fact to be accepted. Why? HE SAID SO. Psa. 115:3 NASB
Ironically, you just presented it as a conclusion, rather than an assumption:
Premise 1: God said x in Ps. 115:3.
Premise 2: What God says is true.
Conclusion: X is true.
Originally, you omitted premises one and two.
Further reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/#NonModSyl
(I wish we had The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in Logos/Verbum, even though there would be impractical aspects of this...)
Which part of "don't discuss theology" do you not understand? I swear it feels like you are baiting me, although I know that is not your intent - you do come across as sincere. And I am very baitable on the subject of logic - to my detriment.
I don't know if this section of Poythress is in Logos but it does show that you are not providing commonly agreed upon facts but elements of the theology/epistemology you espouse. https://frame-poythress.org/creation-and-mathematics-or-what-does-god-have-to-do-with-the-numbers/
YHWH can do whatever He wants to do--including restoring virginity. As far as changing the past, there's no reason He would ever want to or need to. Your first statement may be true but presented as an assumption rather than a conclusion it is an uninteresting approach to a logician. It's not presented as an assumption, but rather as a fact to be accepted. Why? HE SAID SO. Psa. 115:3 NASB Ironically, you just presented it as a conclusion, rather than an assumption: Premise 1: God said x in Ps. 115:3. Premise 2: What God says is true. Conclusion: X is true. Originally, you omitted premises one and two.
Not sure how or where the assessment of "ironic" comes in. I said it was a fact to be accepted (conclusion, so you say) and not an assumption. You said that my statement was a conclusion and not an assumption. A = A
Can a tautology be ironic?
Fwiw, I don't believe Premise 2. What YHWH says isn't always true. Hassaattaan and the anti-messiah are both proxies of His intermediate will, though not of His ultimate will. They are His enemies, but also His lackeys and pawns. They accomplish His will while intending to exercise their own. Their intention, evil in His sight, is manipulated into ultimate good. But, in the process of manipulating them, He also engages in the actions and activities that they employ in the process of trying to accomplish their own will. So He employs lies and deception according to the principle of Godly justice--in the measure you measure, it will be measured back to you, i.e. deceivers shall be deceived. Ergo, phenomena like the Strong Delusion and commissioned lying spirits. The question, of course, is how long has the strong delusion been active...because, yes, it is already active, and, yes, it is oh so strong. If anyone is unaware that it is currently active, it's virtually certain that person is its victim.
Also, you and MJ (and occasionally others) both make continuing jabs and insinuations that I am a rube in the critical thinking department. Aside from teaching it when I was a classroom teacher, I studied reasoning under Gerald Nosich, who is one of the principles of the Foundation for Critical Thinking. Most important class I ever took (well, as important as my Hebrew classes). The thing is, as I said, human logic and the church's logic are NOT YHWH's logic. Most assumptions made about ':Elohhiym's intentions are erroneous, which is precisely why He initiates the "working of error", i.e. the Strong Delusion. When the logics are not compatible, employing logic cannot produce proper results. Only YHWH's logic works in attempting to understand YHWH.
As I've said more than a few times, it is impossible to understand the Bible from a human perspective, but that is pretty much the only perspective any human ever employs--thus all the talk about "salvation" and "blessing" as assumed "givens". But the Bible can only be understood from YHWH's perspective because it is HIS Book revealing His intentions. Most Christians (and Jews, for that matter) assume that all it takes to see things from His perspective, which they naturally assume they already do, is to effectively turn the checker board around and see His "perspective". That doesn't work...because when you actually get off your duff and walk around to His side of the table, you suddenly realize He's playing 7-D chess. Two entirely different, barely-overlapping logics.
[Now, if you want to see something "ironic", it's the fact that the spell-checker lights up when you pluralize "logic"...as if there can only be one logic. Kinda tells the whole story, right there.]
https://www.logos.com/product/155993/the-library-of-hebrew-bible-old-testament-studies-2016 If you haven't placed an order for this, please do. And this... https://www.logos.com/product/166095/library-of-hebrew-old-testament-studies-2018 Thanks.
I looked through the titles and found a couple I would be interested in reading, but I'm not going to buy the whole lot for those few titles. Too bad I can't bid on only the titles I want.
YHWH can do whatever He wants to do--including restoring virginity.
Oh, I just have to respond to this. [:P][C] I think this all boils down to how we define omnipotence. Does omnipotence mean nothing is impossible for God? Or does it mean God has the power to do everything that is possible? For example, do you think it is possible for God to do something that contradicts his nature - like deciding to stop existing entirely? I don't think this contradicts Psalms 115 either. He does whatever he pleases - within the realm of possibility.
The deep theological epistemological conclusions can never exhaust this one anthropological conundrum:
Who’s on first😳🤓?
Oh, I just have to respond to this. I think this all boils down to how we define omnipotence. Does omnipotence mean nothing is impossible for God? Or does it mean God has the power to do everything that is possible? For example, do you think it is possible for God to do something that contradicts his nature - like deciding to stop existing entirely? I don't think this contradicts Psalms 115 either. He does whatever he pleases - within the realm of possibility.
I don't think speaking about "contradicting His nature" is as apropos as speaking about "contradicting His will". To speak about His nature is, at least as the notion is generally understood, is to speak about "the way He 'is' in a way He can't resist, deny, or overcome"...sort of like the scorpion stinging the frog who is ferrying him across a river, such that they both drown and die. I see no evidence that ':Elohhiym is susceptible to such "limitations or obligations of nature". Rather, He just does whatever He wants to do. The question "yeah, but CAN He do things He doesn't want to do?" is specious, fatuous, and null. It's even more absurd than asking if a square can be a circle.
To restore virginity, (as I indicated above, one possible way would be that) He need only restore any physical apparatus concerned and remove awareness that virginity was ever compromised. Done. In such a resultant state, no one has any reason to even postulate that the condition was "in question". Done and done. Energy necessary: if any required, merely a breath.
Regarding the "realm of possibility"...ANYTHING THAT HE WANTS TO DO IS POSSIBLE.
Which part of "don't discuss theology" do you not understand?
