Mr. Franz Luigi Lugena (aka Kapatas and Parabanog) wrote a response to my article once again.
Before we proceed, let me expose the strategy of Kapatas: misrepresent and force the issue. Kapatas works his way based on how he understands his opponent's position even though it is not so. You will see this later on.
This was his response when I evaluated his answer to my question if Eliphaz was unrighteous when speaking to Job:
Of course I have to clarify because you are misinterpreting my statements. When someone has taken your words out of context and pitted it against other people’s statement to make it appear that there is a contradiction when in reality there is none, it is only right to set things straight and clarify matters. Charity dictates that it should be so for the benefit of the people that can be deceived by your serpentine arguments.
When I said: “Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao,” I’m not even talking to you at that time but rather to the ADD people. I don’t even have an inkling of idea that you will be taking my statement out of context and pit it against the statements of Bro. Mars to make it appear that we are contradicting each other. So it is only natural that I have to clarify my statements. Nilalabo mo eh. Alangan namang hayaan ko.
He continues to distinguish what he said about Eliphaz with that of Atty. Llasos:
It is very obvious that Atty. Marwil and I are talking about Eliphaz on two different periods of time: Atty. Marwil on the yet to be forgiven Eliphaz, which is definitely unrighteous (Job 5:1), me on the already forgiven Eliphaz. (Job 42:8-10)
But Kapatas's illustration on King David betrays him:
Si Haring David ay nagkasala ng pangangalunya pero hindi talaga sya masamang tao.
[David sinned by committing adultery but he is really not an evil person.]
We all know David was on God's side to begin with that's why He made him King. For Kapatas to use King David for an illustration, he must be willing to admit that Eliphaz was righteous to begin with. Moreoever, Kapatas never answered what line divides evil with unrighteous. And lastly, Kapatas is further betrayed by his own statement when he was still arguing with an ADD member:
May masama ba na obedient sa utos ng Diyos? Sumunod si Eliphaz sa utos sa kanya ng Diyos so hindi talaga siya masama. Nakagpagsalita siya ng hindi matuwid patungkol sa Diyos pero hindi talaga siya masama. Patunay nga na nung inutusan siya, sumunod siya, kasama yung dalawa pang kaibigan niya.
[Translation: Is there an evil person who is obedient to God's order? Eliphaz followed God's order so he is really not evil. He just said something not right about God but he is really not evil. This was proven when he was ordered, he followed, along with his two friends.]
Considering the above and his illustration of King Daivd do you think Kapatas' considered Eliphaz unrighteous during the time when he was speaking to Job? No, these above says it all.
When I analyzed the argument of Kapatas on Job 22:15, he concluded that I made a conclusion that Eliphaz was wrong about it. This folks is where Kapatas misrepresents his opponents and forces the issue.
Your so-called “analysis” is basically your own interpretation which you have concocted after taking my statements out of context. Furthermore, you can’t use your “analysis” against me because it is contrary to your sola scriptura doctrine. The bible doesn’t make an affirmation that all statements of Eliphaz, aside from what he had said pertaining to God, are incorrect as well. For Job 22:15 to be incorrect, you must first show us verses stating as such. But for you to arrive to a conclusion that Job 22:15 is wrong for the simple reason that Eliphaz is unrighteous at that time, speaks volume about your desperation to get even. You are willing to go on greater lengths to discredit your opponent going as far as violating your core SS credo “do not go beyond what was written.” Well, I tell you Mr. Soliman aka Rodimus, you will not get away from this unscathed.
Two things:
1. I haven't made my own exegesis or interpretation of Job 22:15 to say Eliphaz was wrong. Besides, I answered your question that Eliphaz was right on Job 22:15. The conclusion I arrived was based on your erroneous and contradicting arguments. So please, don't force the issue which makes it appear that I made my own analysis of Job 22:15 to say Eliphaz is wrong.
2. I know Sola Scriptura better than you. It is you who don't know about it very well and when you argue Evangelicals about it, you always base it on your limited knowledge. And oh, analysis is violating a sola scriptura doctrine? You are refuted by the Bible:
How wonderful to be wise, to analyze and interpret things. Wisdom lights up a person’s face, softening its harshness. Ecclesiastes 8:1 NLT
The Bible commanded us to test every spirit (1st John 4:1) and even the Bereans of Acts 17:11 searched the Scripture to verify the words of Paul. So how can you do those without analyzing? Please, don't discuss your opponent's doctrine if you don't know it completely.
Lastly, this was Kapatas' reaction when I argued that he and Atty. Llasos need to reassess their interpretation of Job 42:7:
God himself said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him. So if ever there will be wrong in the statements of Eliphaz, it can be found primarily from the things that he had said pertaining to God. Now, God has made Himself perfectly clear when he said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him. He didn’t say that “practically ALL of Eliphaz’s statements about Him are wrong.” There is a world of difference between the two. How come you don’t that? I think it is you who badly needs to reassess your fallible private interpretation on Job 42:7.
What has this accomplished? Kapatas made Eliphaz a flexible person. Considering every explanation by Kapatas about Eliphaz being unrighteous when he spoke the wrong things about God, is he telling us here that Eliphaz was righteous when he spoke the right things about God (though not all were right or wrong)? Take note that's from Kapatas' point of view, not mine.
Before we proceed, let me expose the strategy of Kapatas: misrepresent and force the issue. Kapatas works his way based on how he understands his opponent's position even though it is not so. You will see this later on.
This was his response when I evaluated his answer to my question if Eliphaz was unrighteous when speaking to Job:
Of course I have to clarify because you are misinterpreting my statements. When someone has taken your words out of context and pitted it against other people’s statement to make it appear that there is a contradiction when in reality there is none, it is only right to set things straight and clarify matters. Charity dictates that it should be so for the benefit of the people that can be deceived by your serpentine arguments.
When I said: “Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao,” I’m not even talking to you at that time but rather to the ADD people. I don’t even have an inkling of idea that you will be taking my statement out of context and pit it against the statements of Bro. Mars to make it appear that we are contradicting each other. So it is only natural that I have to clarify my statements. Nilalabo mo eh. Alangan namang hayaan ko.
He continues to distinguish what he said about Eliphaz with that of Atty. Llasos:
It is very obvious that Atty. Marwil and I are talking about Eliphaz on two different periods of time: Atty. Marwil on the yet to be forgiven Eliphaz, which is definitely unrighteous (Job 5:1), me on the already forgiven Eliphaz. (Job 42:8-10)
But Kapatas's illustration on King David betrays him:
Si Haring David ay nagkasala ng pangangalunya pero hindi talaga sya masamang tao.
[David sinned by committing adultery but he is really not an evil person.]
We all know David was on God's side to begin with that's why He made him King. For Kapatas to use King David for an illustration, he must be willing to admit that Eliphaz was righteous to begin with. Moreoever, Kapatas never answered what line divides evil with unrighteous. And lastly, Kapatas is further betrayed by his own statement when he was still arguing with an ADD member:
May masama ba na obedient sa utos ng Diyos? Sumunod si Eliphaz sa utos sa kanya ng Diyos so hindi talaga siya masama. Nakagpagsalita siya ng hindi matuwid patungkol sa Diyos pero hindi talaga siya masama. Patunay nga na nung inutusan siya, sumunod siya, kasama yung dalawa pang kaibigan niya.
[Translation: Is there an evil person who is obedient to God's order? Eliphaz followed God's order so he is really not evil. He just said something not right about God but he is really not evil. This was proven when he was ordered, he followed, along with his two friends.]
Considering the above and his illustration of King Daivd do you think Kapatas' considered Eliphaz unrighteous during the time when he was speaking to Job? No, these above says it all.
When I analyzed the argument of Kapatas on Job 22:15, he concluded that I made a conclusion that Eliphaz was wrong about it. This folks is where Kapatas misrepresents his opponents and forces the issue.
Your so-called “analysis” is basically your own interpretation which you have concocted after taking my statements out of context. Furthermore, you can’t use your “analysis” against me because it is contrary to your sola scriptura doctrine. The bible doesn’t make an affirmation that all statements of Eliphaz, aside from what he had said pertaining to God, are incorrect as well. For Job 22:15 to be incorrect, you must first show us verses stating as such. But for you to arrive to a conclusion that Job 22:15 is wrong for the simple reason that Eliphaz is unrighteous at that time, speaks volume about your desperation to get even. You are willing to go on greater lengths to discredit your opponent going as far as violating your core SS credo “do not go beyond what was written.” Well, I tell you Mr. Soliman aka Rodimus, you will not get away from this unscathed.
Two things:
1. I haven't made my own exegesis or interpretation of Job 22:15 to say Eliphaz was wrong. Besides, I answered your question that Eliphaz was right on Job 22:15. The conclusion I arrived was based on your erroneous and contradicting arguments. So please, don't force the issue which makes it appear that I made my own analysis of Job 22:15 to say Eliphaz is wrong.
2. I know Sola Scriptura better than you. It is you who don't know about it very well and when you argue Evangelicals about it, you always base it on your limited knowledge. And oh, analysis is violating a sola scriptura doctrine? You are refuted by the Bible:
How wonderful to be wise, to analyze and interpret things. Wisdom lights up a person’s face, softening its harshness. Ecclesiastes 8:1 NLT
The Bible commanded us to test every spirit (1st John 4:1) and even the Bereans of Acts 17:11 searched the Scripture to verify the words of Paul. So how can you do those without analyzing? Please, don't discuss your opponent's doctrine if you don't know it completely.
Lastly, this was Kapatas' reaction when I argued that he and Atty. Llasos need to reassess their interpretation of Job 42:7:
God himself said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him. So if ever there will be wrong in the statements of Eliphaz, it can be found primarily from the things that he had said pertaining to God. Now, God has made Himself perfectly clear when he said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him. He didn’t say that “practically ALL of Eliphaz’s statements about Him are wrong.” There is a world of difference between the two. How come you don’t that? I think it is you who badly needs to reassess your fallible private interpretation on Job 42:7.
What has this accomplished? Kapatas made Eliphaz a flexible person. Considering every explanation by Kapatas about Eliphaz being unrighteous when he spoke the wrong things about God, is he telling us here that Eliphaz was righteous when he spoke the right things about God (though not all were right or wrong)? Take note that's from Kapatas' point of view, not mine.
me tagalog po ba kayong blog?
ReplyDeleteWala po.
ReplyDelete