> No, I am reading the Bible as if it says what it means, and it means what it says.

Then please be consistent and not selective with this position. And secondly, remember that our text is a translation. We have to get back to the author's intent to know what it clearly says.

If you are being both fair and consistent, you have to admit that Pharaoh reveals a hard heart towards the people of Israel in Ex. 1.11-22. You have to admit that Pharaoh shows a hard heart towards God in Ex. 5.2. Exodus 7.13 says Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them. Exodus 7.14 says Pharaoh's heart was unyielding. Exodus 7.22 says Pharaoh's heart became hard. Exodus 8.15 says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. You did admit that Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart in 8.32. And THEN we read that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and you blame God for it all. That's not reading the Bible as if is says what it means and means what it says. God hasn't interfered with his free will but has left Pharaoh to harden his own hear. By the time in 9.12 it says for the first time "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh was resolved already to pursue the course he had freely chosen. God gave him over to it (read also Romans 1.18-32: when people exercise their free will in rebellion against God, he doesn't stop them but lets them do it. He doesn't interfere with their free will.) God is not forcing Pharaoh to be rebellious, Pharaoh has already decided that on his own. It's easy to see if we are reading the Bible as if it says what it means and means what it says.

> You can't go to some part of the bible that says what you want it to say, and then pretend that it means you can change what the bible says elsewhere. It's dishonest.

Oh, this isn't fair at all. I didn't even get close to doing this. Please be fair. Where did I go cherry picking texts and pulling them out of context to pretend it means something? Every text I gave you was earlier in Exodus pertaining to the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh. Every one. Please be fair.

> How do you know this is what the Egyptians meant? What evidence can you show?

It's in spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. "Spell 125 describes the judging of the heart of the deceased by the god Osiris in the Hall of Truth, one of the best known images from ancient Egypt, even though the god with his scales is never actually described in the text. As it was vital that the soul pass the test of the weighing of the heart in order to gain paradise, knowing what to say and how to act before Osiris, Thoth, Anubis, and the Forty-Two Judges was considered the most important information the deceased could arrive with. When a person died, they were guided by Anubis to the Hall of Truth (also known as The Hall of Two Truths) where they would make the Negative Confession (also known as The Declaration of Innocence). This was a list of 42 sins the person could honestly say they had never indulged in. Once the Negative Confession was made, Osiris, Thoth, Anubis, and the Forty-Two Judges would confer and, if the confession was accepted, the heart of the deceased was then weighed in the balance against the white feather of Ma'at, the feather of truth. If the heart was found to be lighter than the feather, the soul passed on toward paradise; if the heart was heavier, it was thrown onto the floor where it was devoured by the monster goddess Ammut and the soul would cease to exist."

My point is still firm: God doesn't interfere with humans' free will.

> You can't just overlook and discount everything that goes before, and just jump to Exodus 11.10 as if that's all the Bible is saying on the matter.

No, I am reading the Bible as if it says what it means, and it means what it says.

Ex 8:32 says this: "But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go."

This means "Pharaoh hardened his heart", because that's what it clearly says.

Ex 9:12 says this: "But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses."
This means "the lord hardened Pharoah's heart", because that's what it clearly says.

You can't go to some part of the bible that says what you want it to say, and then pretend that it means you can change what the bible says elsewhere. It's dishonest.

> And you ignored what the Egyptians meant by the phrase

How do you know this is what the Egyptians meant? What evidence can you show?

My point stands: Ex 9:12 shows that your god interferes with humans' "free" will.

> What evidence do you have that god exists at all?

You're changing the subject. If you want to talk about the existence of God, that's a very different discussion than "If God cannot stop an evil action without...etc." We are here discussing free will and YHWH's actions, not the arguments and evidence for the existence of YHWH.

> Why should I believe it? There is no evidence for it.

You're the one who brought it up as an example: "If God were doing it, I would expect...something like a burning bush, an angel with a flaming sword, or something like that."

Now you want to change the subject and talk about the evidence for theophanies 3300 years ago. The conversation at hand was free will and God's actions.

> Your god commanded genocide of children and infants more than once.

Oh my. You don't really want to discuss free will at all, do you? I don't understand why you entered in this discussion.

God didn't command genocide. Sigh. If you know any thing about the ancient world, and if you read 1 Samuel 15 carefully, you'll see that genocide is not what was going on.

> Because God acts through the works of people- 1 Samuel 25.32. Abigail acts and David says "God did this."- Nehemiah 2.4-8. The king granted his r

And these are claims, not evidence. What evidence do you have that god exists at all?

> It's just a wild guess, but I'm-a-guessing you don't believing in the burning bush or the angel with a flaming sword, as miraculous and supernatural as they are. Just a guess.

Why should I believe it? There is no evidence for it.

> Nope. Not that either.

Your god commanded genocide of children and infants more than once.

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroyall that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Sam 15:2-3

> Why are you looking at what humans do and saying "that's god".

Because God acts through the works of people

- 1 Samuel 25.32. Abigail acts and David says "God did this."
- Nehemiah 2.4-8. The king granted his requests, and Nehemiah claims God did it.
- many others

> Something like a burning bush, an angel with a flaming sword, or something like that.

It's just a wild guess, but I'm-a-guessing you don't believing in the burning bush or the angel with a flaming sword, as miraculous and supernatural as they are. Just a guess.

> How much worse would your god have to be for you to concede that he is a monster?

He would actually have to be immoral.

> Can your god perform oral sex on another man?

As you say, of course not.

> Okay then, can your god tell his followers to stab a baby to death?

Nope. Not that either.

> Now here's another place where you misunderstand. God doesn't stop it, but he certainly doesn't just sit back and watch this terrible act. He is actively at work so that murderers are stopped, arrested, jailed.

Why are you looking at what humans do and saying "that's god". You are imposing "god" on what humans do, imperfectly. If it were god doing it, I would expect something much more miraculous and supernatural than plain old police work. Something like a burning bush, an angel with a flaming sword, or something like that.

> God is no monster.

How much worse would your god have to be for you to concede that he is a monster?

Can your god perform oral sex on another man? "Oh no, he would never do that vile, sinful thing."

Okay then, can your god tell his followers to stab a baby to death?

Wow. You ignored everything I said. It's tough to have a conversation this way. You can't just overlook and discount everything that goes before, and just jump to Exodus 11.10 as if that's all the Bible is saying on the matter. How do you react to the hardness of Pharaoh's heart in chapter 1 and in Ex. 5.2? Certainly you see it.

And you ignored what the Egyptians meant by the phrase "hard heart"—that a hard heart in the Egyptian worldview meant that he had done wrong and stood guilty. Therefore, when it says God hardened Pharaoh's heart, it meant that God was pronouncing him guilty for what he was doing. You can't just ignore all that and say, "You are wrong."

In Exodus 11.9 we read that the Pharaoh would choose to refuse to listen to Moses, exercising his free will. In Exodus 11.10, God pronounces him and judges him (Pharaoh) as guilty.

> So God is not interfering with Pharaoh's free will. Not at all.

You are wrong.

"And the lord hardened Pharoah's heart". Ex 11:10. The lord is the subject, and pharoah is the object. Your god interfered with Pharoah's free will.

> wouldn't the third choice you've described above simply mean that mankind shares the same level of free will as God?

Great question, but no it wouldn't due to the differences in our natures. Since God's nature is only God, it's no restriction on his nature that he can only choose good. Since we are not God, and therefore our nature is not defined only by the good, for us to have only good as a choice is to pare away and abrogate our freedom. The two of us (God vs. humanity) are in different leagues, different definitions of nature. So it's false to claim that "we're not free because we can only choose the good would mean God isn't free either." God is free in his sphere of existence, which is a different definition and in terms that us being free in our sphere of existence. That to me would be like expecting gravity to be the same on earth as it is in the Tesla cruising through space. No, the Tesla has different rules that are part of it, even though both the Earth and the Tesla are material objects.

> ... given the absence of moral evil

The question of evil is a different discussion. Only God is eternally good and wholly righteous, so anything less than God (viz., humans or anything else that is created) is less than eternally good and wholly righteous, and therefore the absence of moral evil is impossible.

> If God restricted mankind's free will to only choosing the good, wouldn't humans live in perfect harmony and contentment?

No, this is impossible for several reasons.

1\. Since God is uncreated by definition and nature, anything that is created is less than God.

2\. Since only God is wholly good, anything less than God is susceptible to factors other than goodness, viz., evil.

3\. Since humans are created and susceptible to factors other than goodness, the perpetual absence of moral evil is a logical and existential impossibility.

4\. If God were to restrict mankind free will to only choosing the good, we would cease to be human. Our expressions of love would be false, for they would be constrained rather than offered freely. So also kindness, forgiveness, grace, mercy, etc. We would be more like Stepford wives than human beings. The harmony and contentment would not be genuine but illusory.

> You might think there's a 3rd choice: God gives us freedom to choose, but restricts that freedom so that we can only choose the good. Well, as anyone can see, that's not freedom. It's actually a subset of the first choice, and we're not human, we're not free, and it's all just a deceptive game.

Since you've stated in previous posts that God has free will yet cannot perform evil actions due to His wholly good nature, wouldn't the third choice you've described above simply mean that mankind shares the same level of free will as God? To claim we're not free because we can only choose the good would mean God isn't free either. Besides, I don't consider free will to be an innate good; as a utilitarian, I care more about the results of free will rather than free will itself. To me, the third option would seem to yield more positive results for both God and mankind than the "unlimited free will" option, given the absence of moral evil. Whether such an existence would be "meaningless" isn't a primary concern of mine since "meaning" is highly abstract. If God restricted mankind's free will to only choosing the good, wouldn't humans live in perfect harmony and contentment? Wouldn't "meaning" be unnecessary to our lives?