Exodus 7-12(the Egyptian Plagues) demolishes the Christian Doctrine of Free Will

------------------ 1. Understanding Hebrew Idioms It is fortuitous that my opponent was first to breach the subject of Hebrew interpretation and idiom. For that is precisely what this argument is built upon. Let me start by expressing my joy at hearing Bullinger's "the bible doesn't say, what it means" apologetic. It is consistently curious to me how proponents of the bible, will point out that hundreds of thousands of men were intently involved in ensuring an accurate interpretation of scripture, and that God himself guards his inspired word, only to then claim that it has been misinterpreted, or that Greek verses Hebrew interpretation leads to unfortunate words like Hades replacing Shoal. It appears as if God isn't guarding his word as closely as claimed, leading to an document that is unsupportable as the word of God? That aside, this example in Exodus is actually a case in which the word hardened is used with intent. There are two different Hebrew words that differentiate the two phrases. First is chazaq (H2388) and the other one is kabad kabed (H3513) – that's one word. God hardened Pharaoh's heart - 7:3; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8 = chazaq Pharaoh hardened his own heart - 8:15,32; 9:34, 10:3 = kabad kabed In order to properly interpret the differences a contextual reading of other biblical verses utilizing these Hebrew words is required. *Chazaq* is used 290 times in the bible, examples of it are as follows: Genesis 19:16 And while he lingered, the men *laid hold* upon his hand. . Genesis 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and *hold* him in thine hand; Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man *force* her, and lie with her: Jdg 3:12 And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD *strengthened* Eglon the king of Moab against Israel When one examines the instances of the use of the word Chazaq it quickly becomes clear that it is clearly a verb, used with the intent of showing action on behalf of the subject. Examples of *kabad kabed* are as follows: Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very *grievous* Gen 34:19 And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's daughter: and he *was more honourable* than all the house of his father. 1Sa 2:30 . .. Be it far from me; for *them that honour* me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed It is clear that Kabad Kabed is an adjective that describes the nature of the subject, and that the two words are not interchangeable. We can tell by the intended use of both words where God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart, and where it was simply a hard heart being Pharaoh's own fault. This renders my opponent's argument of misinterpretation false. Bullinger's contention that "I will Harden his Heart" really means I will allow Pharaoh to harden his heart is patently falsified, but the use of the Hebrew word Chazaq in conjunction with Yahovah in the text. It is clear that the writer of Exodus purposely wanted the reader to understand that God was directly involved in Pharaoh's decisions which is strengthened by God's initial statement to Moses and Aaron. Exodus 7:2-5 "2 You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. 5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it. " Clearly God hardened Pharaoh's heart to display his power to the Egyptians supported by; Exodus 7:5 And the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it. What becomes very clear is that God considered the death of Egyptian Children as a requirement for convincing the Egyptian people that he was God, and actively hardened Pharaoh's heart in order to accomplish it. 2. Not enough evidence to demolish In this rebuttal my opponent states that one section of scripture cannot effectively refute doctrine. This is clearly not the case. Many Christian doctrines hinge on single instances of scripture, and Christians are continually arguing amongst themselves over the weight of the cited verses and accounts. The doctrine of rapture theology is sole based on 1 Th 4:13-17 yet many other verses appear to contradict the notion of pre tribulation rapture. The doctrine of Free Will however is a little different than Christian arguments about escaping the wrath of their God. Free Will talks to the nature of God himself, and must be supported by God in EVERY INSTANCE in his interaction with mankind in order to be truth for all mankind. God cannot provide disproportionate free will to mankind, and remain perfect and benevolent and, most importantly, just. Which is why Bullinger's apologetics were required in the case of Pharaoh. If God interferes with the free will of one man/woman in human history, then the claims of his perfect justness are untrue. If it is established that God interfered with Pharaoh's free will, then the free will doctrine CANNOT stand, because it states that God gives ALL men free will. Therefore this one instance in scripture, can most definitely demolish the entire doctrine. ------------------ Rebuttal to opponent's conclusion: It quickly becomes apparent that the contender is the one who has been mislead about Hebrew idioms. His reliance on Bullinger's (it doesn't mean what it says) apologetic was done at the expense of actual study and translation of the Hebrew words themselves, which provide proof of the purposed intent of the writer. It is apparent that God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart, as the text implicitly states. Basically, my opponent relies on Bullinger's interpretation of the intent of the writer, instead of what the writer actually wrote, engaging in semantic apologetics. A valiant effort that falls short when the Hebrew is actually studied in full. Semitic use of metonymy is not a perfectly viable explanation because of the specific use of two different Hebrew words, with different meanings in specific instances. It is clear that the contender has either adjusted the doctrine of free will to allow God to apply it non unilaterally or doesn't understand the definition of the doctrine of free will which requires just application by a perfectly just God in every case. I excitedly await my opponents reply. ------------------ Round 3 preview: What is the meaning inherent in the instances where God hardened Pharaoh's heart and Pharaoh's heart was hard on his own volition? ------------------ Sources: The Bible Genesis 19:16 Genesis 21:18 Deuteronomy 22:25 Jdg 3:12 Gen 18:20 Gen 34:19 1Sa 2:30 Exodus 7:2-5 1 Th 4:13-17