Maybe you can and maybe you can't

I’m commenting on this post:

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2012/04/deuteronomy-3014-so-that-you-can-do-it.html

I was just quoting the passage, so I find it odd to be accused of over interpretation. Perhaps Steve’s comment is better addressed to the ESV translators (and others who translate similarly) than to me. But the ESV translators were aware of the Hebrew and the context.

This is Dan is cute mode. But as I pointed out, he's guilty of overinterpretation when he lays so much weight on the meaning of a single multivalent Hebrew verb.

Other translations render it “so that you may do it”. While may sometimes means permission as in “mother may I” or uncertainty, as in “it may rain”, neither of these senses make sense of the verse. It’s not as if God is now removing sanctions against morality, or guessing if they will obey or not. Rather, may is equivalent to “can” and expresses ability or capacity.

"May" doesn't have the same nuance as "can." Maybe you can do it, and maybe you can't. In addition, as I mentioned before, the tense of the Hebrew verb has a wider semantic range than Dan's two renderings.

No doubt accessibility and intelligibility are part of why the Jews are able to obey, but they are not the only factors. In particular, when the passage says the word is in their heart, it teaches the enablement runs deeper than having the written law. Men love darkness rather than light; so the issue isn’t just in our understanding, it’s in our desire or heart. So when God enables His chosen and redeemed people to obey, the enablement is internal rather than just external.

That it's in their "heart" is just a picturesque way of saying they know it. Bible writers often favor concrete images over abstract nouns. The "heart" stands for man's mental life. So that's still about accessibility and intelligibility rather than enablement.

Many people believe when such alternatives are presented to a person with responsibility for the outcome, the implication is that it’s up to him.

Of course, if predestination is true, then what many people (allegedly) believe about such alternatives is also predestined. Predestined beliefs about hypothetical consequences. Hence, Dan's reply does nothing to refute my analysis.

However, my primary argument was with relation to the word choose rather then the hypothetical outcomes.

As my analysis pointed out, Dan has grossly oversimplified what his own prooftext actually says. Once again, Dan isn't refuting my analysis.

He can't legitimately detach or compartmentalize the word "choose" from the overall structure of the text.

There is some truth to this though it doesn't seem to damage my point. Sometimes in this life God even allows the wicked to prosper (Psalm 73) though we know that each person will have to answer for himself on judgment day.

That's not responsive to my argument. As I demonstrated, the text isn't about individual choices, but the aggregate choices of a corporate body (Israel), where the majority effectively chooses for the minority, in spite of the minority. The minority lacks freedom of choice inasmuch as it can't choose the desired consequences. For the majority robs the minority of that opportunity. If the majority is disobedient, then both groups suffer the same dire consequences, despite what the minority preferred.

The passage says "so that you can do it". That's a statement of ability. It does not say they thought they could but they really couldn't nor does it say they hypothetically could obey but in reality they could not.

Dan is just rehashing his original argument while failing to engage the counterargument. He hasn't made any progress. He shot his wad on the first round and has nothing in reserve.