User Tag List

Page 2 of 239 FirstFirst 123451252102 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 3574

Thread: ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

  1. #16
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    "Yadda Yadda Yadda" ידע

    And even Attah עתּה

    Let's play a game of 'take little words and build a huge doctrinal position on them.'

    I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.

    Look at those two little Hebrew words Attah and Yadda. Do a bit of concordance work and also put them together. Because either of them can be debated as to meaning, your 'Now I know' is but one possible way of understanding the text.

    Examples:

    "Whereas I know" <- totally legitimate translation

    "Now I acknowledge" <- Yep, you guessed it, legitimate.

    "Now I answer" <- Yep, same.

    "Now I declare"

    "Now it is so"

    "Now I make known"

    "Now I instruct"

    'Whereas' is also appropriate in place of those 'now's'

    Even translated 'now I know' doesn't carry the same meaning between us so that it cannot be used as a proof text because we disagree. OV reads the passage and sees the test as discovery for God. E4 is correct, that the assumption is entirely within acceptable exegesis to expect that a test is not there for God to see what would happen, but for Abraham to see what would happen.

    A couple of thought provokers: 1) When in history did God EVER ask for a human sacrifice that He followed through on? (tie them together here)
    2) Did the animal in the thickets appear magically? Did it happen to get caught right at this moment? Did God in present knowledge know it was there? (Think about verse 14).
    3) We agree human sacrifice is detestable to God and that God either knew He or Abraham would keep it from happening. What then, is at the heart of this demand? Certainly not Isaac but something instead for Abraham. I believe the result was to teach Abraham something, Not for God to learn something: That a relationship with God demands all of our allegiance. God had nothing to learn here. He is as committed to Abraham before and after. He isn't even wondering whether Abraham will follow through because He has already determined to make Isaac the object of inherited blessing. One way or the other, this sacrifice would NOT in fact take place. Rather, I believe it is specifically a picture of Christ. That God is revealing to Abraham a picture of His love for His own Son AND His creation. "Now I know (where I didn't before)" is quite deflating to both of these two primary concerns and is detrimental in taking focus from them. I believe it a poor misuse of the text for using it for such limited assertion.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  2. #17
    Silver Member Nang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,808
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 2,224 Times in 1,604 Posts

    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    257367
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    "Yadda Yadda Yadda" ידע

    And even Attah עתּה

    Let's play a game of 'take little words and build a huge doctrinal position on them.'

    I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.

    Look at those two little Hebrew words Attah and Yadda. Do a bit of concordance work and also put them together. Because either of them can be debated as to meaning, your 'Now I know' is but one possible way of understanding the text.

    Examples:

    "Whereas I know" <- totally legitimate translation

    "Now I acknowledge" <- Yep, you guessed it, legitimate.

    "Now I answer" <- Yep, same.

    "Now I declare"

    "Now it is so"

    "Now I make known"

    "Now I instruct"

    'Whereas' is also appropriate in place of those 'now's'

    Even translated 'now I know' doesn't carry the same meaning between us so that it cannot be used as a proof text because we disagree. OV reads the passage and sees the test as discovery for God. E4 is correct, that the assumption is entirely within acceptable exegesis to expect that a test is not there for God to see what would happen, but for Abraham to see what would happen.

    A couple of thought provokers: 1) When in history did God EVER ask for a human sacrifice that He followed through on? (tie them together here)
    2) Did the animal in the thickets appear magically? Did it happen to get caught right at this moment? Did God in present knowledge know it was there? (Think about verse 14).
    3) We agree human sacrifice is detestable to God and that God either knew He or Abraham would keep it from happening. What then, is at the heart of this demand? Certainly not Isaac but something instead for Abraham. I believe the result was to teach Abraham something, Not for God to learn something: That a relationship with God demands all of our allegiance. God had nothing to learn here. He is as committed to Abraham before and after. He isn't even wondering whether Abraham will follow through because He has already determined to make Isaac the object of inherited blessing. One way or the other, this sacrifice would NOT in fact take place. Rather, I believe it is specifically a picture of Christ. That God is revealing to Abraham a picture of His love for His own Son AND His creation. "Now I know (where I didn't before)" is quite deflating to both of these two primary concerns and is detrimental in taking focus from them. I believe it a poor misuse of the text for using it for such limited assertion.


    Heh . . .Lon is one of the best biblical "THINKERS" I have ever read.

    No kidding . . .

    Good luck OVT'ers, answering this intellectual challenge!

    Nang
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

  3. #18
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56720
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    "Yadda Yadda Yadda" ידע

    And even Attah עתּה

    Let's play a game of 'take little words and build a huge doctrinal position on them.'

    I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.

    Look at those two little Hebrew words Attah and Yadda. Do a bit of concordance work and also put them together. Because either of them can be debated as to meaning, your 'Now I know' is but one possible way of understanding the text.

    Examples:

    "Whereas I know" <- totally legitimate translation

    "Now I acknowledge" <- Yep, you guessed it, legitimate.

    "Now I answer" <- Yep, same.

    "Now I declare"

    "Now it is so"

    "Now I make known"

    "Now I instruct"

    'Whereas' is also appropriate in place of those 'now's'
    Let's plug these in. Then I'll demonstrate why they don't work as a possible foil:

    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for whereas I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

    Not substantially different from "now I know." Given that the following clause starts with "since", we have a cause of God's knowing, which is the action which has just taken place. Doesn't help.

    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I acknowledge that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
    Again, unless God is living in denial of His eternal knowledge, by not acknowledging what he knows, this isn't substantively different, either.

    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now I answer that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
    Makes no sense. No one asked God a question or said anything to Him regarding fearing Him, so there is nothing to answer.

    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now I declare that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
    The verb, here, is in the Qal, not the Piel. Yda doesn't mean "declare" in the Qal.

    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now it is so that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
    That's simply not a valid translation. Yda refers to knowing. This would require another verb.

    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now I make known that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
    Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.

    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for Now I instruct that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
    Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.

    Even translated 'now I know' doesn't carry the same meaning between us so that it cannot be used as a proof text because we disagree. OV reads the passage and sees the test as discovery for God. E4 is correct, that the assumption is entirely within acceptable exegesis to expect that a test is not there for God to see what would happen, but for Abraham to see what would happen.
    Then the text would say, "Now you know...."

    A couple of thought provokers: 1) When in history did God EVER ask for a human sacrifice that He followed through on? (tie them together here)
    Up to this point, there wasn't an established ritual of worship. God asked Abraham to do some unusual things, including moving half way across the populated world. Christ would be the only one.

    2) Did the animal in the thickets appear magically? Did it happen to get caught right at this moment? Did God in present knowledge know it was there? (Think about verse 14).
    Apparently it was there all along, but Abraham either didn't notice it, or disregarded it as irrelevant to his task.

    3) We agree human sacrifice is detestable to God and that God either knew He or Abraham would keep it from happening. What then, is at the heart of this demand? Certainly not Isaac but something instead for Abraham.
    Or from him.

    I believe the result was to teach Abraham something, Not for God to learn something: That a relationship with God demands all of our allegiance.
    Again the text has God saying, "now I know..." There may be some implied learning by Abraham, but that doesn't change what the text says.

    God had nothing to learn here. He is as committed to Abraham before and after. He isn't even wondering whether Abraham will follow through because He has already determined to make Isaac the object of inherited blessing. One way or the other, this sacrifice would NOT in fact take place. Rather, I believe it is specifically a picture of Christ. That God is revealing to Abraham a picture of His love for His own Son AND His creation. "Now I know (where I didn't before)" is quite deflating to both of these two primary concerns and is detrimental in taking focus from them. I believe it a poor misuse of the text for using it for such limited assertion.
    Wow.. That's quite a stretch. Given that you have no serious purpose for God saying "Now I know...", and thus no exegetical explanation, your attempt to tap dance around it by pointing out other things that may be germane to the story is odd at best.

    The fact is that the text does not change. It says "Now I know..." The meaning here is clear.

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  4. #19
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    Taking things at face value supports Open Theism and conflicts with a settled view. Change your view, not the Word.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  5. #20
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    Ya know, you've done this before and let's just say the Hebrew didn't come with vowel points, those were later added 'for pronouncement!'
    Nice assertion, keep trying to rip my language degree, I don't mind. I'm game.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Let's plug these in. Then I'll demonstrate why they don't work as a possible foil:

    He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for whereas I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."

    Not substantially different from "now I know." Given that the following clause starts with "since", we have a cause of God's knowing, which is the action which has just taken place. Doesn't help.
    It certainly reinforces my claim to your neglect: If it is at all dubious for assertion, it is not a great proof text, but an assertion. The weight of proof is in your court as the usurper and wow, all you've done is called into question interpretation, not proved a lick of anything.

    (Sorry, I'm trying to hold back candor, but your lame attacks on my scholasticism are illaudable if amusing).


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Again, unless God is living in denial of His eternal knowledge, by not acknowledging what he knows, this isn't substantively different, either.
    "Whereas"


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Makes no sense. No one asked God a question or said anything to Him regarding fearing Him, so there is nothing to answer.
    An answer: to respond to an act or motion is well within parameters. <singsong> "You are asserting, you are asserting...."

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    The verb, here, is in the Qal, not the Piel. Yda doesn't mean "declare" in the Qal.

    A Jewish translation doesn't require the 'now' so that a declaration of what is known is within translation parameters. You really should have acquiesced the point rather than trying to tenaciously give false hope to others. You know it and I know it.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    That's simply not a valid translation. Yda refers to knowing. This would require another verb.
    Try a derivative like "its a fact" or "it is true." Now you are just being silly.



    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.
    Like chapter devisions, you are assuming Massoretic points are inspired. They are helpers and mostly for pronunciations, not what you are trying to do with them for theological parring. Honestly, with what you seem to be compensating for something in your language assertions here.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.
    "You are asserting, you are asserting...."


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Then the text would say, "Now you know...."
    Did I say each and every one is proper translation? No, I said that each of them are ways these words are understood. In order for it to fit, you have to use context of the other Hebrew words (same in English). So rather than "Now you know..." It'd be 'whereas it's known...'

    Your objection is silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Up to this point, there wasn't an established ritual of worship. God asked Abraham to do some unusual things, including moving half way across the populated world. Christ would be the only one.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Apparently it was there all along, but Abraham either didn't notice it, or disregarded it as irrelevant to his task.
    Good call, that is Abraham's take. Back to the purpose God had put it there. Man, it's like He already knew something!


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Or from him.
    "...you are asserting..."


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Again the text has God saying, "now I know..." There may be some implied learning by Abraham, but that doesn't change what the text says.
    It couldn't be just OV asserting, no. We wouldn't want that.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Wow.. That's quite a stretch. Given that you have no serious purpose for God saying "Now I know...", and thus no exegetical explanation, your attempt to tap dance around it by pointing out other things that may be germane to the story is odd at best.
    See, this is one of those "I'm a better language scholar than you are" type of statements. Now I'm not saying I'm better but I think I can keep up with you here just fine and you get no points for asserting authoritative superiority over me in these texts. I believe I've shown bias and misunderstanding on your part. You can certainly do the same but it keeps others from placing false-hope in some assumed superiority. I have a deep-seated feeling you are compensating for something here. My own prowess is 2 years in the languages with some ensuing upkeep and work.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    The fact is that the text does not change. It says "Now I know..." The meaning here is clear.

    Muz
    Asserting. Your 'clear' presumes God has no prescience of man's future actions. This of course is logically problematic. He who knows the heart, knew precisely what Abraham would or would not do. Abraham seems fairly determined here to follow through. That's the best you and I can do, but God who knows the heart knows 'before' not 'now' exactly what Abraham is planning to do. We assume from the text that Abraham is single-focused. He's got the wood, the fire, and so as his servants will not interfere, they remain behind. Isaac says "where is the sacrifice?" So we guess at resolute but God would (did) know without doubt exactly what his plans were. So in reality, your 'now' was actually 'before' but of course you cannot except that as it would be an admission and denial of your OV supposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.
    What have you proved? Unless you can without doubt prove 1) that the Hebrew can only be translated your way
    2) that after doing so, can show that the meaning can only be taken your way

    You can therefore only assert with much loud supplication that this is the way it is exegeted. The best you can do is assert that you are right but I will continue to assert that the text clues assert that you are wrong.

    "Adam, where art thou?"

    Did God really say: "Oh, there you are. 'Now I know.'"

    Was He really asking a question to find something out?

    How far? How far is OV willing to concede with such verses?
    When will it stop? Is it inevitably doomed to suggest God's knowledge is no more than any man? When will the proof-texting of such absurd assertions stop? What is our next concession if we don't hold a line? You eventually must draw a line that, was unacceptable interpretation in one portion, is also unacceptable in another. Surely you have sympathies with my aversion to this proof-texting? Surely you will concede that I'm well within reasonable exegesis?
    You don't want to debate me here and hypocritically call another on proof-texting from Genesis 3:9 do you?

    As you explain that God knew exactly where Adam was then, I explain that God knew exactly that Abraham feared Him. He knew exactly what was in his heart and mind. It surely was not 'now' that He knew it. As I said, 'now' is fine as a translation if we are not caught up with trying to proof-text an absurd. If we know when we use 'now' that it is not a negligence of His omniscience, it cannot mean 'now' for proof-texting.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  6. #21
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    Lon is not stupid, but can be frustrating. There are credible OT answers for all your objections.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  7. #22
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Taking things at face value supports Open Theism and conflicts with a settled view. Change your view, not the Word.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Taking things at face value supports the long-held Traditional view and conflicts with Open Theism. Change your view, not the Word.
    "...You are asserting...."
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  8. #23
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    "...You are asserting...."
    Don't tell AMR

    It is the settled view that plays the anthropomorphism card, not us. The Open view takes both motifs with a normative, literal hermeneutic (a strength), while the settled view (we do not deny the settled passages, but you deny the open passages) must resort to making things figurative to retain a preconceived view. The issue is a controlling metaphor: is creation at least partially open with a responsive, capable God, or is it fatalistically fixed with a controlling God who subordinates love, freedom and relationship? You need a paradigm shift to interpret in a balanced way.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  9. #24
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Don't tell AMR

    It is the settled view that plays the anthropomorphism card, not us. The Open view takes both motifs with a normative, literal hermeneutic (a strength), while the settled view (we do not deny the settled passages, but you deny the open passages) must resort to making things figurative to retain a preconceived view. The issue is a controlling metaphor: is creation at least partially open with a responsive, capable God, or is it fatalistically fixed with a controlling God who subordinates love, freedom and relationship? You need a paradigm shift to interpret in a balanced way.
    Alright, I give you the Genesis 3:9 challenge.

    Why was God asking where Adam was?

    By the same hermeneutic you are using in Genesis 22, it could be supposed God was clueless where Adam was couldn't it?

    I truly believe I'll agree with you but use the same for at least conceding the OV is not a superior hermeneutic in Genesis 22 because you are using mine to answer Genesis 3.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  10. #25
    Over 500 post club assuranceagent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    It is the settled view that plays the anthropomorphism card, not us.
    You can't be serious, godrulz.

    With all the passages that make clear and perspicuous statements about the attributes of God that are diametrically opposed to the positions of the OV you actually have the nerve to suggest that OVers don't play the 'anthropomorphism card?!'
    OVers don't have room in their hermeneutic for figurative statements? How then, praytell, would you handle the following:

    - Jeremiah 32:17 - Does God literally have outstretched arms by which He made the Heavens and the Earth?
    - Psalm 139:7-12 - is God truly in all places or are we to take this figuratively?
    - I John 3:20 - Does God literally know all things? Is 'all things' limited to "all that can be known" as the OVer says? And if God is in all places and knows all that can be known, then...
    - Genesis 3:9 - Why would He need to ask Adam where he was, since He was not only there with him, but knew what could be known about Adam's location?
    - I Sam. 15:29 - how about this one? This one isn't going to be taken figuratively by you OVers? If you read that literally (as it should be read) then you would not be so inclined to say that the OV's position on God's changes of mind is the only 'consistent biblical position' now would you?

    Furthermore, you and NickM have both argued now that the phrase, "now I know" suggests that this knowledge was new, and that God did not possess it prior. If that is the case, and if what God now knows is that Abraham fears Him, then you have violated your own assertion that 'God knows all that can be known' in that He somehow failed to know Abraham's heart. Unless, of course, you also want to state that the hearts of men are one of the 'unknowables', in which case you are going to have a hard time due to the fact that your hermeneutic will not allow you to 'play the anthropomorphism card' with Psalm 44:21.

    Contrary to what you may say, the OV is not a more consistent position with regards to 'reality and the Bible.' In fact, as I read you and NickM, I'm more and more inclined to say that the OV isn't even consistent with itself.

  11. #26
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Alright, I give you the Genesis 3:9 challenge.

    Why was God asking where Adam was?

    By the same hermeneutic you are using in Genesis 22, it could be supposed God was clueless where Adam was couldn't it?

    I truly believe I'll agree with you but use the same for at least conceding the OV is not a superior hermeneutic in Genesis 22 because you are using mine to answer Genesis 3.
    Gen. 3 is a rhetorical question based on context and all relevant verses.

    Gen. 22 is not in the same category and can be taken literally if you are OT (Now I know...if God wanted to convey this truth, how else could He apart from the explicit words He used?!). Context is king.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  12. #27
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    Quote Originally Posted by godrulz View Post
    Gen. 3 is a rhetorical question based on context and all relevant verses.

    Gen. 22 is not in the same category and can be taken literally if you are OT (Now I know...if God wanted to convey this truth, how else could He apart from the explicit words He used?!). Context is king.
    If it is king, you cannot therefore imply that it has anything to do with His unknowing from one to knowing in the other. It isn't consistent and therefore shows assumption and agenda. The context of Genesis 22 is that God knows Abraham's mind and heart. The context is that He was pointing to a truth and an incredible act of love. It is not however a good support for limitation on His prescience. That, again is abuse of the text. I'll leave you with Assurance's post because I have a different doctrinal gun fight on my hands "Muzzie Ringo!"
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  13. #28
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    9,273
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    11790
    Muz is the man. Makes me look like a girl.
    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

  14. #29
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56720
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Ya know, you've done this before and let's just say the Hebrew didn't come with vowel points, those were later added 'for pronouncement!'
    And clarity. There is certainly no textual basis for claiming that the added pointings were wrong.

    It certainly reinforces my claim to your neglect: If it is at all dubious for assertion, it is not a great proof text, but an assertion. The weight of proof is in your court as the usurper and wow, all you've done is called into question interpretation, not proved a lick of anything.
    You've made an assertion that these are possible translations. I'm showing that either each of these possible translations doesn't help, or don't fit the text.

    (Sorry, I'm trying to hold back candor, but your lame attacks on my scholasticism are illaudable if amusing).
    I understand what you are trying to do. I'm just pointing out that you haven't apparently put your alternatives into the text to see how they work. So, I've done that for you.

    "Whereas"
    That still doesn't change anything, since it's still a causative clause. "Whereas I acknowledge that you fear God since you have not..."

    It's still time based. Acknowledgment comes as a result of Abraham's obedience.

    An answer: to respond to an act or motion is well within parameters. <singsong> "You are asserting, you are asserting...."
    "Whereas/now I answer that you fear God, since you have not..."

    Again, the combination of "Whereas" or "Now" with "since" simply doesn't let you out of the box.

    A Jewish translation doesn't require the 'now' so that a declaration of what is known is within translation parameters. You really should have acquiesced the point rather than trying to tenaciously give false hope to others. You know it and I know it.
    It doesn't matter what you put there.

    Try a derivative like "its a fact" or "it is true." Now you are just being silly.
    I think Ockham's Razor would apply, here.

    Like chapter devisions, you are assuming Massoretic points are inspired. They are helpers and mostly for pronunciations, not what you are trying to do with them for theological parring. Honestly, with what you seem to be compensating for something in your language assertions here.
    LOL... I don't know of any Scholar who thinks that we should disregard that work of the Masorites in pointing the text. I realize that they are not inspired, and if there were textual evidence of some variant, you might have a leg to stand on. But, to my knowledge, this is how pretty much everyone agrees it should be.

    We also have the opinion of the LXX translators, who used ginwskw, I know.

    Did I say each and every one is proper translation? No, I said that each of them are ways these words are understood. In order for it to fit, you have to use context of the other Hebrew words (same in English). So rather than "Now you know..." It'd be 'whereas it's known...'
    Ah, your language skills fail you. Even just looking at the consonants, we know that this verb is in the first person. Translations using 2nd (you) or 3rd (he/she/it) are invalid on a basic translational level.

    Good call, that is Abraham's take. Back to the purpose God had put it there. Man, it's like He already knew something!
    Like God knew He was going to stop Abraham, if Abraham didn't stop. What a concept...

    It couldn't be just OV asserting, no. We wouldn't want that.
    At least we don't have to tap dance to explain the text away.

    See, this is one of those "I'm a better language scholar than you are" type of statements. Now I'm not saying I'm better but I think I can keep up with you here just fine and you get no points for asserting authoritative superiority over me in these texts. I believe I've shown bias and misunderstanding on your part. You can certainly do the same but it keeps others from placing false-hope in some assumed superiority. I have a deep-seated feeling you are compensating for something here. My own prowess is 2 years in the languages with some ensuing upkeep and work.
    Only two? Would that include studying at the Master's level?

    Asserting. Your 'clear' presumes God has no prescience of man's future actions. This of course is logically problematic. He who knows the heart, knew precisely what Abraham would or would not do. Abraham seems fairly determined here to follow through. That's the best you and I can do, but God who knows the heart knows 'before' not 'now' exactly what Abraham is planning to do. We assume from the text that Abraham is single-focused. He's got the wood, the fire, and so as his servants will not interfere, they remain behind. Isaac says "where is the sacrifice?" So we guess at resolute but God would (did) know without doubt exactly what his plans were. So in reality, your 'now' was actually 'before' but of course you cannot except that as it would be an admission and denial of your OV supposition.
    Huh? Abraham could just as easily have been saying, "This can't be real. This can't be real", but following God's instructions anyway, and the moment Abraham actually put God directly before Isaac was when the knife was raised. Again, we aren't told what was going on in Abraham's heart, we can only infer from the text. But God saying "Now I know.." clearly puts God's knowledge (and presumably Abraham's whole devotion to killing Isaac) at the moment the knife is raised.

    What have you proved? Unless you can without doubt prove 1) that the Hebrew can only be translated your way
    2) that after doing so, can show that the meaning can only be taken your way
    You've provided several possible alternatives, most of which don't help you, since the construction of the clause points to whatever you put in the first part of the sentence being caused by Abraham's action.

    You can therefore only assert with much loud supplication that this is the way it is exegeted. The best you can do is assert that you are right but I will continue to assert that the text clues assert that you are wrong.
    Except that the exceptions you provided don't help.

    "Adam, where art thou?"

    Did God really say: "Oh, there you are. 'Now I know.'"
    No, God didn't say "Now I know." That's not in the text.

    Even I ask questions I already know the answer to for other purposes (like hearing the response.) Are you saying that God can't do that?

    Was He really asking a question to find something out?
    No.

    How far? How far is OV willing to concede with such verses?
    When will it stop? Is it inevitably doomed to suggest God's knowledge is no more than any man? When will the proof-texting of such absurd assertions stop? What is our next concession if we don't hold a line? You eventually must draw a line that, was unacceptable interpretation in one portion, is also unacceptable in another. Surely you have sympathies with my aversion to this proof-texting? Surely you will concede that I'm well within reasonable exegesis?
    I guess I have faith that when we say that bible is inerrant, that each verse, in its context, and within its pericope and book, is inerrant, as well.

    Your attempt to put exegeis in my mouth with the Adam example fell apart. To this point, I know of no places where I have taken a proof text out of context.

    You don't want to debate me here and hypocritically call another on proof-texting from Genesis 3:9 do you?
    Why would I? God isn't claiming to know or not know something there.

    As you explain that God knew exactly where Adam was then, I explain that God knew exactly that Abraham feared Him. He knew exactly what was in his heart and mind. It surely was not 'now' that He knew it. As I said, 'now' is fine as a translation if we are not caught up with trying to proof-text an absurd. If we know when we use 'now' that it is not a negligence of His omniscience, it cannot mean 'now' for proof-texting.
    You can assert all you want. There is nothing in Genesis 3:9 to suggest that God knew or didn't know. However, there is ample evidence in Genesis 22 to suggest that God's knowledge was caused by Abraham's decision.

    So, if you want to go on about Genesis 3:9, please show us where the text says that God didn't know where Adam was, or God declares that He comes to discover where Adam is. Otherwise, this is a red herring.

    Muz
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  15. #30
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,155
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,257 Times in 1,971 Posts

    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1629457
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post

    Only two? Would that include studying at the Master's level?
    How many years? The courses for 4 year and post-grad are the same.

    I have one year of Greek, One of Hebrew.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    So, if you want to go on about Genesis 3:9, please show us where the text says that God didn't know where Adam was, or God declares that He comes to discover where Adam is. Otherwise, this is a red herring.

    Muz
    It is not a red herring. If you assert that the question is not about God's knowledge (and I concur) then why would you say Genesis 22 is about God's knowledge? Or, are you seeing that a critical eye is necessary for the question: "Where are you?" It is so so easy to say God had no idea where Adam was as it is to assert God had no idea what was in Abraham's heart. Both are heinous examples of exegesis and faulty asserting.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Even I ask questions I already know the answer to for other purposes (like hearing the response.) Are you saying that God can't do that?
    So why couldn't it be true of Gen 22? You are virually writing my argument.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us