>>17930771
The biggest problem with your model is that you made God contingent by giving him parts that can incarnate
>God's ability to speak being torn from him.
Yes and? He can still speak through Jesus
>translations
Jesus and the disciples had zero problem with quoting the Septuagint which was a translation. And even then your NT is most definitely not written in the language of Jesus and the disciples.
>its an incredibly broad word
Both Hebrew and Greek use it to mean because, in the Hebrew is even implies a causal link. The LXX's difference is irrelevant, it is the same word and this is why those translators used it. Furthermore taking a look at Gill's Exposition makes it clear that it is talking about an impossibility
>this title or character of the Lord is given, "the Strength of Israel"; hence HE CANNOT LIE, which is the effect of weakness; nor repent or change his mind, as men do, when something unforeseen arises, which hinders the execution of their first design, and which through weakness they cannot surmount
>highlight
"If he were, he might change his mind.”
>At that point you might as well say
In your paradigm you have no way to trust God, that's the point. No wonder so many of you became gnostic
>Just as you didn't choose to chop off your hand, neither will he choose to lie.
Not analogous. It was not written for me to do that (qadr) so it never was a possible world. What is stopping God from never actualizing it? You are just saying he doesn't but you simply cannot trust anything you know about him because you reject his attribute of al-Ḥaqq/The Truth
>that passage is used to argue for Jesus being God
Nope, verses can be used as evidence in any context. And in this one by refusing a sane understanding you make yourself equal to Jesus. The author does not disagree with me because he absolutely is not using it in the same sense you are.
>any different
Yes but if I explain again for the nth time you will call it a "label" and straw man us