I reject your argument as circular.
Examples of circular reasoning are -
Circular argument fallacy examples
- Marcelo is good at communicating because he's great at talking to people.
- Dogs are called “man's best friend” because they're the friendliest animals.
- You need to do your homework because homework is required for this class.
In other words the evidence for the conclusion is the same as the conclusion itself, but in different words.
I said -
"But it did not happen, so how could it be
a fact that they were unfalsifiably going to do it?
When David asked, "Will they hand me over to Saul [and his numerically overwhelming military force]?" was he asking for a prediction of the
actual future or of the
possible most likely future IF he chose to stay in Keilah? Doesn't his question imply David did not understand the future to be fixed? Because if he had, he would have resigned himself to the
facts that Saul was coming down and the city of Keilah were about to hand him over to Saul. and would have stayed in Keilah.
God was not going to sovereignly intervene and deliver David from Saul by a miracle if David did not take the simple action of leaving Keilah. So, based on His knowledge of Saul's heart and the hearts of the residents of Keilah, the overwhelming odds were that Saul would come down and Keilah would hand David over, if he was still in the city. The Hebrew tense translated "will come down" and "will hand you over" is imperfect aspect, identifying an incompleted action, and action in process at the time being referred to. If the actions were future facts, the author could use the perfect (completed) aspect forms to refer to the future events. "The text could have said, "Saul has come down (will certainly) tomorrow and Keilah has handed you over (will certainly hand you over) after that..
How is that circular?