Here's the thing, Chuck: You accused me of eisegesis and yet offered no proof other than your apparent differing interpretation. I, then, turned the accusation around hoping to wring that interpretation from you. Instead, you got hung up on the turn around instead of simply taking the opportunity to share your view. I find that curious or, rather, found it curious until reply #331.

Happy now?

You're a fool if you expect me to admit that I accused you wrongly when I, in fact, did no such thing. You are indeed reading your interpretation into the text.

You are correct that we have nothing further to discuss. You are willfully blind and dishonest and happily so.

Your appeals to emotionalism are not helpful.

Please allow me to change my plea from *Innocent*, to *Guilty-as-charged*. I was indeed intellectually dishonest by ignoring Jehu's intent when promising a sacrifice to Baal. Thank you for pointing out my error.

No, I don't. Enjoy your time at the gym.

"But your intiial response was intellectually dishonest and you know it, don't you?"

I know no such thing. It was you who accused me of reading into the text, which I clearly think you, yourself, are guilty of. I merely turned the accusation around.

Do you really believe that God rewarded Jehu for sinning?

Scripture goes on to tell us that God rewarded Jehu for fulfilling prophecy, NOT how he fulfilled it.

Do you really believe that God rewarded Jehu for sinning?

Yes, I thought your use of it was indeed poor.

"Let us do evil that good may come." Sound familiar? What was Paul's judgement of such people?

Interesting word, *cunning*. It is important to note that Jehu did not lie to the servants of Baal. He promised a sacrifice to the false god and delivered on that promise. It is also important to note that Jehu was an evil king. The lesson being that the rain falls on the good and the bad. And yet the bad is not, therefore, excused by God. Jehu was still accountable for his actions.