This article was buried among Atty. Llasos' other posts filled with pictures, I never saw it immediately but then again, I was also busy lately at work. The title of that article sure is catchy to the gullible. Kapatas' words are in brown with violet as highlight.
I don’t see anything wrong with this. It is perfectly natural to clarify oneself when someone is misinterpreting you. What is wrong with you is that you are expecting that I should have included my clarificatory statements early on. But the problem is that my statements were directed to the ADD people and not to you. That’s why when you appeared out of nowhere and started misinterpreting my statements, of course I have to set things straight and clarify why Eliphaz though unrighteous previously, was not really an evil person. The key here is by considering the later events which include Eliphaz being forgiven by God.
What Kapatas doesn't realize is that his principles to defend his stand are all made up after being exposed. Yes, he was talking to the ADD there but it seems he forgot the principle of consistency when he was at it. Let's keep things in perspective. Why does the Ang Dating Daan members want Eliphaz to be unrigtheous? Simple, to prove that Job 22:15 is wrong:
Kung kakampi ka kay Eliphaz na Temanita, magiging kalaban ka na rin ng Dios. Nagkaroon ng “assessment” ang Dios kung sino ang nagsasalita ng matuwid. Sa assessment ng Dios, ang nagsasalita nang matuwid ay si Job. Kung gusto mong kumampi kay Eliphaz na Temanita sa pakikipagtalo niya sa matuwid na tao na si Job, kalayaan mo yan dahil may kalayaan kang kumampi sa kalaban ng Dios.
[Translation: If you will side with Eliphaz the Temanite, you will be an enemy of God. God made an assessment of who was speaking rigtheously. In God's assessment, Job was speaking righteously. If you want to side with Eliphaz the Temanite in his debate with Job, who is righteous, that's your freedom because you have freedom to side with God's enemy.]
Hindi puwedeng maging batayan na hindi namatay agad si Eliphaz na Temanita at pinarusahan ng Dios kaya tama ang mga sinabi niya sa Job 22:15 sapagkat may mga masama na humahaba ang buhay sa kasamaan AYON SA BIBLIYA.
[It is not an acceptable basis that Eliphaz didn't die immediately and was punished by God so that what he said in Job 22:15 is right because there are evil people who live longer because of evil.]
This prompted Kapatas' to defend the moral standing of Eliphaz:
Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao.
[Eliphaz was wrong, yes, but that doesn't mean that he is really an evil person.]
At pang huli, hindi pinarusahan ng Diyos si Eliphaz. Walang nasusulat na pinarusahan siya. Eh sabi ng bibliya ang masama ay walang pagsalang parurusahan.
[And lastly, God didn't punish Eliphaz. It's not written that he was punished. The Bible says that the wicked will not go unpunished.]
The ADD has only one objective in saying Eliphaz is evil: to prove Job 22:15 is wrong. Now ask yourself this question, why would Kapatas be defending the moral standing of Eliphaz against the ADD if Kapatas believes that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous at sometime"? It is sure pointless, unless Kapatas wants to defend that Job 22:15 is correct by saying Eliphaz is not unrigtheous. He could have ignored the ADD argument about Eliphaz and just focused on the truthfullness of Job 22:15. He could have also said something to the ADD, "Yeah he is somehow wicked but that doesn't mean Job 22:15 is wrong." But Kapatas never did that and had to to defend Eliphaz to prove that Job 22:15 is a true statement.
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)
So what’s your take on this Rodimus? You’re not even touching this. How come you’re silent on this?
I showed to you that there is no contradiction between me and Atty. Llasos because we are talking about Eliphaz on two different periods of time. Just admit that you failed to consider the time element that’s why you arrived into an erroneous conclusion that the good lawyer and I were contradicting each other. You’re not just reading well.
Oh yes I was reading. I was reading well enough to include why you're defending Eliphaz against the ADD to prove that Job 22:15 is true.
Eliphaz sinned and was forgiven. King David sinned and was forgiven. That’s why even though they were unrighteous at some point, they were not really evil. Particularly if you will consider the later events that have transpired which involve God forgiving their sins. It is in this line of thinking that I drew the statement in question.
And we keep asking what's the line that divides unrighteous and evil?
Who said that Eliphaz was unrighteous at the outset? Eliphaz became unrighteous when, during his conversation with Job, he failed to say right things about God. That’s according to God Himself. Do you doubt God’s testimony?
Like I said, I have an understanding of Job 42:7 that it different than yours. Your problem is you were defending the character of Eliphaz against the ADD who are discrediting his statement in Job 22:15 by asserting he is unrighteous. If you have known, before being exposed, that he "became unrighteous" there's no point of you defending Eliphaz.
Moving on, this was his response to the question on what line divides evil and unrighteous.
Evil and unrighteous are usually being used interchangeably. But there is world of difference between initially unrighteous/unrighteous at some time and really evil/really unrighteous.
But the problem is, both you and Atty. Llasos never stated in your articles that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous". It was plain unrighteous and evil.
When I asserted that he is further betrayed by this statement:
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.]
He responded:
Eliphaz was initially unrighteous when he failed to say right things about God during his conversation with Job. But when God commanded Eliphaz to make an offering as a recompense for his sin [i.e. failing to say right things about God], and he complied and was later forgiven [Job 42:8-10], it is only right to say that Eliphaz is not really evil.
The problem here is you didn't disclose that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous" for not saying the right things about God. As I have mentioned, that rule didn't appear until I exposed your contradiction. You hide behind the reason you were talking to the ADD, but you most certainly didn't have that principle before.
And speaking of talking to the ADD, keep in mind that the ADD wants Eliphaz unrighteous so that his statement in Job 22:15 would be wrong. For what reason would Kapatas be arguing that Eliphaz isn't really evil? Obviously, to prove Job 22:15 is correct.
Kapatas keeps on forcing the issue that I made an analysis of Job 22:15:
Oh yes you made an interpretation out of my statements which you’ve taken out of context. Question: Who made the interpretation that Job 22:15 is wrong? Who made the analysis? Di ba ikaw [Wasn't it you]?
Let me respond with a question: Since you admitted that I made an analysis of YOUR statement, would I make an analysis of your statement if you didn't make a statement?
The answer is obviously no, therefore I never really made an analysis, especially my own conclusion that Job 22:15 is wrong. If you find my analysis unfavorable, it's because you made an unfavorable statement. You put garbage in, you get garbage out.
On sola scriptura:
I haven’t claimed that I’m better in Sola Scriptura than you. Why should I do that when I believe it’s a heretical, man made teaching invented by Martin Luther? It’s nice to be poor in anything evil.
Oh thanks for admitting. Now the people will know you that when you discuss the topic with them you really don't have idea what the topic is. Thus, you misrepresent all the time.
Ha ha ha… It only shows how shallow and dinky your reading comprehension is. It is very obvious that I’m not referring to the “act of analysis” per se but rather to your own “particular analysis” wherein you’ve concluded that Job 22:15 is wrong when in fact the bible doesn’t make affirmation that said verse is indeed wrong. Isn’t that a violation of sola scriptura? Do you get it now?
Yeah I do get that you really don't have an idea what sola scriptura is. The violation of sola scriptura is when other sources are considered equal to the Bible's authority, not when a person makes a right or wrong analysis.
Don’t you get it? When God said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him [Job 42:7], it only shows that: (1) There are errors in what Eliphaz had said about God in his conversation with Job. (2)But it also means that NOT ALL of Eliphaz’s statements about God are wrong. That’s why when you asked me whether Job 5:13 is wrong or right, it doesn’t affect my position in any way. God didn’t make an affirmation that all of Eliphaz’s statements concerning Him were wrong. So it means that there are also correct statements of Eliphaz concerning God. But if ever there will be wrong in the statements of Eliphaz, it can be found primarily in what he said about God. It is already a given that there are errors in what Eliphaz had said about God during his conversation with Job. [Job 42:7] That’s why I still maintain what I had said earlier that it is your fallible interpretation of Job 42:7 that badly needs reassessment.
Yeah I got those. But you also have to consider this: You never disclosed that until you were exposed. There is only one reason why you defended Eliphaz as not being evil, and that is to refute the ADD in their argument that Eliphaz is wrong in Job 22:15 because he is wicked.
Now, to conclude that Job 22:15 is wrong is quite shocking for a sola scriptura believer like yourself. There is no verse in the bible that states that Job 22:15 is wrong and yet based from your analysis said verse is wrong. If it isn’t “going beyond what was written” I don’t know what is. Clearly, you violated your own teaching.
Ah forcing the issue again. Please read the similar response above.
During the time when Eliphaz failed to say right things about God, was he righteous or not?
I already have answered this question. In fact you have an answer for it:
Nakagpagsalita siya ng hindi matuwid patungkol sa Diyos pero hindi talaga siya masama.
[He just said something not right about God but he is really not evil.]
There you have it.
I don’t see anything wrong with this. It is perfectly natural to clarify oneself when someone is misinterpreting you. What is wrong with you is that you are expecting that I should have included my clarificatory statements early on. But the problem is that my statements were directed to the ADD people and not to you. That’s why when you appeared out of nowhere and started misinterpreting my statements, of course I have to set things straight and clarify why Eliphaz though unrighteous previously, was not really an evil person. The key here is by considering the later events which include Eliphaz being forgiven by God.
What Kapatas doesn't realize is that his principles to defend his stand are all made up after being exposed. Yes, he was talking to the ADD there but it seems he forgot the principle of consistency when he was at it. Let's keep things in perspective. Why does the Ang Dating Daan members want Eliphaz to be unrigtheous? Simple, to prove that Job 22:15 is wrong:
Kung kakampi ka kay Eliphaz na Temanita, magiging kalaban ka na rin ng Dios. Nagkaroon ng “assessment” ang Dios kung sino ang nagsasalita ng matuwid. Sa assessment ng Dios, ang nagsasalita nang matuwid ay si Job. Kung gusto mong kumampi kay Eliphaz na Temanita sa pakikipagtalo niya sa matuwid na tao na si Job, kalayaan mo yan dahil may kalayaan kang kumampi sa kalaban ng Dios.
[Translation: If you will side with Eliphaz the Temanite, you will be an enemy of God. God made an assessment of who was speaking rigtheously. In God's assessment, Job was speaking righteously. If you want to side with Eliphaz the Temanite in his debate with Job, who is righteous, that's your freedom because you have freedom to side with God's enemy.]
Hindi puwedeng maging batayan na hindi namatay agad si Eliphaz na Temanita at pinarusahan ng Dios kaya tama ang mga sinabi niya sa Job 22:15 sapagkat may mga masama na humahaba ang buhay sa kasamaan AYON SA BIBLIYA.
[It is not an acceptable basis that Eliphaz didn't die immediately and was punished by God so that what he said in Job 22:15 is right because there are evil people who live longer because of evil.]
This prompted Kapatas' to defend the moral standing of Eliphaz:
Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao.
[Eliphaz was wrong, yes, but that doesn't mean that he is really an evil person.]
At pang huli, hindi pinarusahan ng Diyos si Eliphaz. Walang nasusulat na pinarusahan siya. Eh sabi ng bibliya ang masama ay walang pagsalang parurusahan.
[And lastly, God didn't punish Eliphaz. It's not written that he was punished. The Bible says that the wicked will not go unpunished.]
The ADD has only one objective in saying Eliphaz is evil: to prove Job 22:15 is wrong. Now ask yourself this question, why would Kapatas be defending the moral standing of Eliphaz against the ADD if Kapatas believes that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous at sometime"? It is sure pointless, unless Kapatas wants to defend that Job 22:15 is correct by saying Eliphaz is not unrigtheous. He could have ignored the ADD argument about Eliphaz and just focused on the truthfullness of Job 22:15. He could have also said something to the ADD, "Yeah he is somehow wicked but that doesn't mean Job 22:15 is wrong." But Kapatas never did that and had to to defend Eliphaz to prove that Job 22:15 is a true statement.
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)
So what’s your take on this Rodimus? You’re not even touching this. How come you’re silent on this?
I showed to you that there is no contradiction between me and Atty. Llasos because we are talking about Eliphaz on two different periods of time. Just admit that you failed to consider the time element that’s why you arrived into an erroneous conclusion that the good lawyer and I were contradicting each other. You’re not just reading well.
Oh yes I was reading. I was reading well enough to include why you're defending Eliphaz against the ADD to prove that Job 22:15 is true.
Eliphaz sinned and was forgiven. King David sinned and was forgiven. That’s why even though they were unrighteous at some point, they were not really evil. Particularly if you will consider the later events that have transpired which involve God forgiving their sins. It is in this line of thinking that I drew the statement in question.
And we keep asking what's the line that divides unrighteous and evil?
Who said that Eliphaz was unrighteous at the outset? Eliphaz became unrighteous when, during his conversation with Job, he failed to say right things about God. That’s according to God Himself. Do you doubt God’s testimony?
Like I said, I have an understanding of Job 42:7 that it different than yours. Your problem is you were defending the character of Eliphaz against the ADD who are discrediting his statement in Job 22:15 by asserting he is unrighteous. If you have known, before being exposed, that he "became unrighteous" there's no point of you defending Eliphaz.
Moving on, this was his response to the question on what line divides evil and unrighteous.
Evil and unrighteous are usually being used interchangeably. But there is world of difference between initially unrighteous/unrighteous at some time and really evil/really unrighteous.
But the problem is, both you and Atty. Llasos never stated in your articles that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous". It was plain unrighteous and evil.
When I asserted that he is further betrayed by this statement:
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.]
He responded:
How come? I said those statements in consideration of the fact that Eliphaz though initially unrighteous [he failed to say right things about God], responded positively to God’s command to make an offering as a recompense for his transgression. That’s why at the beginning I said: Is there an evil person who is obedient to God's order? My statement in question takes into account Eliphaz’s later act of compliance to God’s command and God’s forgiveness. For this, Eliphaz is not really evil. But this does not mean that he is righteous when he failed to say right things about God during his conversation with Job. He is unrighteous, initially. But when he was called and he responded and was forgiven thru the prayers of Job, he was purified. For this, you cannot say that he is really evil.
Eliphaz was initially unrighteous when he failed to say right things about God during his conversation with Job. But when God commanded Eliphaz to make an offering as a recompense for his sin [i.e. failing to say right things about God], and he complied and was later forgiven [Job 42:8-10], it is only right to say that Eliphaz is not really evil.
The problem here is you didn't disclose that Eliphaz was "initially unrighteous" for not saying the right things about God. As I have mentioned, that rule didn't appear until I exposed your contradiction. You hide behind the reason you were talking to the ADD, but you most certainly didn't have that principle before.
And speaking of talking to the ADD, keep in mind that the ADD wants Eliphaz unrighteous so that his statement in Job 22:15 would be wrong. For what reason would Kapatas be arguing that Eliphaz isn't really evil? Obviously, to prove Job 22:15 is correct.
Kapatas keeps on forcing the issue that I made an analysis of Job 22:15:
Oh yes you made an interpretation out of my statements which you’ve taken out of context. Question: Who made the interpretation that Job 22:15 is wrong? Who made the analysis? Di ba ikaw [Wasn't it you]?
Let me respond with a question: Since you admitted that I made an analysis of YOUR statement, would I make an analysis of your statement if you didn't make a statement?
The answer is obviously no, therefore I never really made an analysis, especially my own conclusion that Job 22:15 is wrong. If you find my analysis unfavorable, it's because you made an unfavorable statement. You put garbage in, you get garbage out.
On sola scriptura:
I haven’t claimed that I’m better in Sola Scriptura than you. Why should I do that when I believe it’s a heretical, man made teaching invented by Martin Luther? It’s nice to be poor in anything evil.
Oh thanks for admitting. Now the people will know you that when you discuss the topic with them you really don't have idea what the topic is. Thus, you misrepresent all the time.
Ha ha ha… It only shows how shallow and dinky your reading comprehension is. It is very obvious that I’m not referring to the “act of analysis” per se but rather to your own “particular analysis” wherein you’ve concluded that Job 22:15 is wrong when in fact the bible doesn’t make affirmation that said verse is indeed wrong. Isn’t that a violation of sola scriptura? Do you get it now?
Yeah I do get that you really don't have an idea what sola scriptura is. The violation of sola scriptura is when other sources are considered equal to the Bible's authority, not when a person makes a right or wrong analysis.
Don’t you get it? When God said that Eliphaz has failed to say right things about Him [Job 42:7], it only shows that: (1) There are errors in what Eliphaz had said about God in his conversation with Job. (2)But it also means that NOT ALL of Eliphaz’s statements about God are wrong. That’s why when you asked me whether Job 5:13 is wrong or right, it doesn’t affect my position in any way. God didn’t make an affirmation that all of Eliphaz’s statements concerning Him were wrong. So it means that there are also correct statements of Eliphaz concerning God. But if ever there will be wrong in the statements of Eliphaz, it can be found primarily in what he said about God. It is already a given that there are errors in what Eliphaz had said about God during his conversation with Job. [Job 42:7] That’s why I still maintain what I had said earlier that it is your fallible interpretation of Job 42:7 that badly needs reassessment.
Yeah I got those. But you also have to consider this: You never disclosed that until you were exposed. There is only one reason why you defended Eliphaz as not being evil, and that is to refute the ADD in their argument that Eliphaz is wrong in Job 22:15 because he is wicked.
Now, to conclude that Job 22:15 is wrong is quite shocking for a sola scriptura believer like yourself. There is no verse in the bible that states that Job 22:15 is wrong and yet based from your analysis said verse is wrong. If it isn’t “going beyond what was written” I don’t know what is. Clearly, you violated your own teaching.
Ah forcing the issue again. Please read the similar response above.
During the time when Eliphaz failed to say right things about God, was he righteous or not?
I already have answered this question. In fact you have an answer for it:
Nakagpagsalita siya ng hindi matuwid patungkol sa Diyos pero hindi talaga siya masama.
[He just said something not right about God but he is really not evil.]
There you have it.
Sa madaling salita, nagpapalusot na lang si Kapatas.
ReplyDeleteRight you are, bro.
ReplyDelete