User Tag List

Page 4 of 239 FirstFirst 12345671454104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 3574

Thread: ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

  1. #46
    Rookie JCWR's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Knightsbridge, U.K. - West of Central London
    Posts
    40
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    So, as Boyd asserts, so have you and Muz. No new information or proof added there other than you are presenting the 'authority' behind the assertion. It is good to know that you are following in the footsteps. If only I could get you to rely on the Holy Spirit, sound exegesis, and other scholars, I might be able to actually welcome you back to orthodoxy.
    Indeed!

    God certainly "knew" beforehand what Abraham would do in this predicament (Ps 139:1-6). The language here simply indicates that it was a test or demonstration of Abraham's complete loyalty to God.
    JCWR
    Romans 6:23; 8:1; 10:9; 10:13

  2. #47
    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
    Of course "where are you?" is a question. So what?
    So what? Questions aren't declarative statements.

    You are arguing a different forest view. I'm arguing for God's knowledge here in both cases and what each means.
    I'm arguing from an exegetical view. God makes a statement about His knowledge in Genesis 22. God makes no such claim in Genesis 3. Is that hard to grasp?

    In the very same way it is deductive insertion/assertion to think God has no idea where Adam is, it is the same deductive instertion/assert to say that "Now I know" means He didn't before.
    Then give us an exegetical basis for saying otherwise. From this pericope, show us that God intended something else. I saw your attempt to explain it away without Scripture. Now get into the exegetical work and show us from the context what "Now I know" means.

    Any whack theology job can say 3:9 proves God isn't omnipresent and less knowing even than OV gives credit for.
    You said it, not me.

    The bummer is, your exegesis is consistent with 'his' claim, not mine.
    That is putting words in my mouth. I've explained the differnce.

    I see them both as at best, vague for such an assumption.
    Really? Where does God claim to know or not know anything in Genesis 3?

    You can argue til your blue, hold your breath, count to 10. Doesn't matter. It is inconsistent on your part and nothing but assertation. You can assert all you like. You can say it is 'more' consistent all you like.
    I see you've already made up your mind, and you won't be confused by Scripture. Sorry, my bad.

    My premise again: The majority of people believe your interpretation is weak and incorrect. The burden of proof hasn't been done to our satisfaction. Asserting is going to wind up just being a hesaid/shesaid. But I don't have to convince many, you have to convince all.
    The majority of people think you're a heretic for not belonging to the RCC.

    SO, when is your confirmation?

    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.

  3. #48
    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 assuranceagent View Post
    Man, it's downright silly the lengths some of you will go to to try to defend your position. Even when an argument is absolute tripe you'll hold on to it with all your might, popping your head in the sand and claiming invisibility.
    When someone confronts a serious theological position that both confronts and threatens one's own position, this is often the reaction.

    What you are arguing here is that 'where are you' suggests nothing outside of the meaning of the individual words used and that one is in error should one find implied meaning.
    I've done no such thing. I've suggest that in both cases that we examine the context of the periocope to see what each tells us. From the Genesis 3 story, Adam's response suggests that even Adam knew that God knew where he was, but was trying to hide anyway. I think we can take a cue from Adam's response and say that the question was asked because Adam was hiding, not because God didn't know where he was.

    OTOH, the entire pericope of Abraham and Isaac suggests that Abraham was being tested to see if his son was more important than God, and this test had to go all the way to the point where the knife was raised before God knew Abraham's heart. Thus, the statement "Now I know" fits into the context in that way.

    Both arrived at consistently and exegetically.

    So according to this line of reasoning, the idea that the question, 'where are you' is motivated by the questioner's apparent lack of knowledge about where the object of that sentence is is in error, since the question makes no such statement of fact.
    And the pericope doesn't suggest such an interpretation.

    In other words, if we boil that logic down, what you are saying is, 'take the sentence ONLY at face value and extrapolate no meaning other than that expressly stated.'
    No, take the context only at face value and extrapolate no meaning other than what the pericope expressly means.

    Fine. Let's apply it to the phrase, 'now I know.' Two parts to that phrase: a statement of fact (I know) and a chronological modifier(Now). If we take that phrase only at face value and extrapolate no meaning other than that expressly stated, what we are left with is: at this point in time, right now, the Angel of the Lord knows that Abraham fears God.
    This your exegetical model, not mine. Your error is assuming that I don't use context.

    We cannot suggest that this statement implies that God didn't know prior to 'now,' because the phrase doesn't expressly state that and implication is apparently off-limits (at least it is if we are to remain consistent in our reasoning). Therefore, by your own standard, this argument is vain and dead because while you may wish to claim that the implication is that God knows now what He did not at one point in the past know, the phrase you are proof texting makes no such 'statement of fact' to quote you. It only clearly states that right now, He knows.
    Only in your sad excuse for 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.

  4. #49
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,787
    Thanks
    2,879
    Thanked 18,086 Times in 10,657 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147789
    word of the day: pericope
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  5. #50
    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
    So, as Boyd asserts, so have you and Muz. No new information or proof added there other than you are presenting the 'authority' behind the assertion. It is good to know that you are following in the footsteps. If only I could get you to rely on the Holy Spirit, sound exegesis, and other scholars, I might be able to actually welcome you back to orthodoxy.
    We're two out of three, which is more than we can say for you.

    John Wesley:

    John Lawlor
    In translating the Hebrew: As I'd said, the Hebrews themselves do not translate 'now.'

    Young's Literal Translation


    Mathew Henry:


    Long Hebrew Commentary by Albert Van Der Heide page 144
    Imagine that. You've selected a nice group of reformed theologians who have the presupposition of EDF, and they all agree with you. What a shock.

    From Eusebius page 133
    And you believe the ECFs to be inerrant?

    This long history and linguistic expertise shows that the OV is merely asserting an alternative exegesis of this text. Hebrew scholars understand the text as is classically/traditionally given. Open Theists must produce similar scholarship by expertise. Muz or I, who are but initiates in the languages, - can, if honest, merely affirm the scholarly works by our study, but have no league with such men. These are the ones who we rely on to learn the language in the first place.
    Matthew 10:24
    So much for semper reforma...


    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.

  6. #51
    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 SaulToPaul View Post
    word of the day: pericope
    Do you need a definition?
    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.

  7. #52
    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 themuzicman View Post
    OTOH, the entire pericope of Abraham and Isaac suggests that Abraham was being tested to see if his son was more important than God, and this test had to go all the way to the point where the knife was raised before God knew Abraham's heart. Thus, the statement "Now I know" fits into the context in that way.
    All other arguments aside, if this is true, then God doesn't truly know 'all that can be known' and you still lose this debate because you have defeated your own position.

    There're only so many ways to state the same undefeated argument. As stated before, this pericope may be interpreted in such a way as to support settled theism (anthropomorphism) or it may be interpreted in such a way as to do away with God's omniscience altogether, but there is no way to honestly interpret this pericope in support of Open Theism.

    Here are your options:
    1. It is to be taken as anthropomorphism. God retains His knowledge of all and the test proves what only He already knew.

    2. It is to be taken literally. The idea of God's knowledge of all that can be known must be forfeit, since God didn't know Abraham's heart prior to Abraham's passing of this test. God, in this instance, shows a capacity of omniscience equal to that of a man.

    3. It is to be taken literally. Abraham's heart was fundamentally changed by the outcome of this test and only in the exact moment that he passed it, did he begin to fear God. He did not fear God prior to the test, so there was no fear for God to know. Therefore God retains His omniscience in the field of 'all that could be known,' and Abraham, for some reason, passed a test designed to exhibit a fear of God that he did not possess.

    The third option is the only possible way to interpret this verse in keeping with Open Theism, and it is obviously ludicrous.

  8. #53
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,153
    Thanks
    1,638
    Thanked 3,254 Times in 1,970 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1628976
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    So what? Questions aren't declarative statements.
    Well, let's by all means go back, shall we?
    "Now" can be 'whereas.' Whereas is a 'because' statement. "Whereas I know."


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I'm arguing from an exegetical view. God makes a statement about His knowledge in Genesis 22. God makes no such claim in Genesis 3. Is that hard to grasp?
    No, you are arguing from an OV presupposition: That God has no foreknowledge of man's actions. Your presupposition that keeps you from error in Genesis 3:9 is that God knows all present knowledge. Trying to build doctrine off of narrative passages where doctrine isn't specifically given is a difficult thing. Pedantic passages are supposed to drive our presuppositions first. Then when we come to narrative, our suppositions are not unfounded.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Then give us an exegetical basis for saying otherwise. From this pericope, show us that God intended something else. I saw your attempt to explain it away without Scripture. Now get into the exegetical work and show us from the context what "Now I know" means.
    I gave that already. You made an attempt to show that those other meanings didn't work but I think you were just playing with them rather than attempting to understand the way they could be used in the text.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    '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"
    Remember, of course, these are legitimate ways of translating meaning, it does not mean you just do a word for word change up. That's why it reads 'now I know' but the translators didn't mean at all what you are saying it does. They themselves disagree and translated it that way to say something completely different than what you assert. All of these translators believed in God's prescience of man's actions. They understood it 'whereas I know' and not as some proof text for God not knowing before but suddenly knowing Abraham's heart. You push too far! You are beginning to deny, now, God's intimate knowledge of man is such an assertion. You are putting qualifiers on even His present knowledge and wisdom.
    If God knows our hearts and minds better than we ourselves, He has no need to put Abraham to the test for HIM to see. It just doesn't make any sense unless you assert that God really doesn't know our hearts either. This is crucial to your understanding. You have to acquiesce where this is leading: To a god built with human minds with all the limited restrictions.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    You said it, not me.
    I was trying to get you to realize that presuppositions on truth from other passages, especially pedantic ones of doctrine, drive our understanding of narrative passages. When the guy comes and says "God didn't know where Adam was." We say, "What makes you think that?" "He says, Adam, where are you?" We say, "He knew where Adam was, He's omnipresent." He says, "Then why did He ask?" We say, "Because Adam was trying to hide and God wanted him to face what He'd done. It is the first act of repentance."

    Apply this to "Now I know" in Genesis 22. It is the same, it shows no lack of knowledge, but a truth. "By this, all know what was in your heart. Your actions follow from what is there. You place me above all in your life." "Just Now, at this precise moment and not before" is a limitation not only upon His prescience, but upon OV tenants of Past and Present knowledge and extent (the heart).



    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    That is putting words in my mouth. I've explained the difference.
    I've tried to show how they are both presumptuous. That's the link between them in exegesis.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Really? Where does God claim to know or not know anything in Genesis 3?
    He doesn't. That's why I compared it to Genesis 22 where He also doesn't say He didn't know before. He is saying that the Now is in relation to Abraham's action, not His prescience nor His intimate knowledge of the heart. Again, your pressing of this is so acute that it begins to deny even His present and past knowledge of Abraham's heart.


    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I see you've already made up your mind, and you won't be confused by Scripture. Sorry, my bad.
    So, you take their translation, but not their own opinion of the scripture they translated. Again, whereas is not merely 'now' after all, nor did the translators believe what you do. Even as far back as Jewish scholars, of their own language.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    The majority of people think you're a heretic for not belonging to the RCC.

    SO, when is your confirmation?

    Muz
    Incorrect. The majority, in fact, do not see me as a heretic but in error. That's much less of a sharp disagreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    OTOH, the entire pericope of Abraham and Isaac suggests that Abraham was being tested to see if his son was more important than God, and this test had to go all the way to the point where the knife was raised before God knew Abraham's heart. Thus, the statement "Now I know" fits into the context in that way.

    Both arrived at consistently and exegetically.
    Not consistent at all. You started this well, "Abraham was being tested..." but you presume upon the text that God, who knows the mind and heart of man, is trying to find something out.
    That's worth repeating:
    You are presuming, that God, who knows the mind and heart, needs to find something out. Does or does not this presumption do damage to the OV: That God has perfect past and present knowledge? To hone this down a bit further for logical ends,and my OV understanding: Does God know us better than we know ourselves? Whatever answer you give here will qualify and pare God's perfect knowledge to a point where we must see restrictions on how well He can can even know us.

    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    No, take the context only at face value and extrapolate no meaning other than what the pericope expressly means.
    So, because we don't see that God isn't saying He didn't know before, what Abraham would do, we should be careful not to go beyond what "Now I know" or "Whereas I know" expressly means?
    And just to ensure I'm following: "Where are you, Adam?" does not expressly mean "I don't know where you are but I am really not asking so much as telling you I recognize you are trying to hide."
    ..."Now I know" is not expressly saying "I didn't know" or showing a deficit in God's ability to know the heart without a test with perfect present knowledge. Am I following your 'extrapolate no meaning other than what is expressly given?

    Quote Originally Posted by assuranceagent View Post
    Fine. Let's apply it to the phrase, 'now I know.' Two parts to that phrase: a statement of fact (I know) and a chronological modifier(Now). If we take that phrase only at face value and extrapolate no meaning other than that expressly stated, what we are left with is: at this point in time, right now, the Angel of the Lord knows that Abraham fears God.
    This your exegetical model, not mine. Your error is assuming that I don't use context.
    Wait a second....
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    No, take the context only at face value and extrapolate no meaning other than what the pericope expressly means.
    Am I missing something?
    Quote Originally Posted by assuranceagent View Post
    ...the phrase you are proof texting makes no such 'statement of fact' to quote you. It only clearly states that right now, He knows.
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Only in your sad excuse for a red herring.
    Muz
    Sometimes I believe OV is secretly upholding everything we already uphold but are just trying to sharpen the saints. I know it isn't, but sometimes I just get that for some reason.
    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..."

  9. #54
    Over 500 post club nicholsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    747
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1285
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    OK, grammar lesson. "Where are you?" is a question. It does not make a statement of fact.
    ...
    Muz
    I am puzzled by this. This does not seem to be the typical OV position: that God does not know something that is actually knowable, seems contrary to any sort of omniscience - even the OV view of it. Just saying...


    Should have read Lon's post first - he covered this. Sorry, Lon
    Last edited by nicholsmom; October 6th, 2008 at 07:59 AM. Reason: tags
    Futility: "More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and hopelessness; the other, to total extinction. Let us pray that we will have the wisdom to choose correctly. I speak, by the way, not with any sense of futility, but with a panicky conviction of the absolute meaninglessness of existence."
    - Woody Allen

    Hope:
    Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
    Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthyŚmeditate on these things.
    Philippians 4:6-8

  10. #55
    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
    Well, let's by all means go back, shall we?
    "Now" can be 'whereas.' Whereas is a 'because' statement. "Whereas I know."
    But that doesn't change anything, because this is followed by "since", which would define the basis for knowing.

    No, you are arguing from an OV presupposition: That God has no foreknowledge of man's actions. Your presupposition that keeps you from error in Genesis 3:9 is that God knows all present knowledge. Trying to build doctrine off of narrative passages where doctrine isn't specifically given is a difficult thing. Pedantic passages are supposed to drive our presuppositions first. Then when we come to narrative, our suppositions are not unfounded.
    I don't build doctrine from Genesis 22:12. Genesis 22:12 is evidence that supports my view, but were I go give up on this passage it would have little to no effect on my theology, since I don't build upon anything here.

    If you look at my opening post for this thread, you'll see that.

    I gave that already. You made an attempt to show that those other meanings didn't work but I think you were just playing with them rather than attempting to understand the way they could be used in the text.
    I see how you could use those. However, either they don't fit the context, or they don't help you.

    Remember, of course, these are legitimate ways of translating meaning, it does not mean you just do a word for word change up. That's why it reads 'now I know' but the translators didn't mean at all what you are saying it does. They themselves disagree and translated it that way to say something completely different than what you assert. All of these translators believed in God's prescience of man's actions. They understood it 'whereas I know' and not as some proof text for God not knowing before but suddenly knowing Abraham's heart. You push too far! You are beginning to deny, now, God's intimate knowledge of man is such an assertion. You are putting qualifiers on even His present knowledge and wisdom.
    I would assert that this was an unsettled matter in Abraham's heart, such that the present knowledge of Abraham was unclear. After all, no man would seriously contemplate killing his own son without some serious basis for doing so.

    If God knows our hearts and minds better than we ourselves, He has no need to put Abraham to the test for HIM to see. It just doesn't make any sense unless you assert that God really doesn't know our hearts either. This is crucial to your understanding. You have to acquiesce where this is leading: To a god built with human minds with all the limited restrictions.
    Or this was unsettled in Abraham's heart.

    I was trying to get you to realize that presuppositions on truth from other passages, especially pedantic ones of doctrine, drive our understanding of narrative passages. When the guy comes and says "God didn't know where Adam was." We say, "What makes you think that?" "He says, Adam, where are you?" We say, "He knew where Adam was, He's omnipresent." He says, "Then why did He ask?" We say, "Because Adam was trying to hide and God wanted him to face what He'd done. It is the first act of repentance."
    Well, since you don't ever really engage in the meaning of the context, you wind up with these kinds of discussions. That's the huge problem with prooftexting: Frequently the context gets missed.

    The context of the fall suggests that God is dealing with the fact that they are hiding, rather than expressing confusion about their whereabouts. The context of Genesis 22 is a test by God to see if Abraham will obey Him to the point of sacrificing his own son.

    Look at the conclusion

    Gen 22:16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

    Notice that the basis for God's extension of the promise to Abraham is based upon Abraham's actions. If God already knew Abraham's heart, then this would have been unnecessary.

    Apply this to "Now I know" in Genesis 22. It is the same, it shows no lack of knowledge, but a truth. "By this, all know what was in your heart. Your actions follow from what is there. You place me above all in your life." "Just Now, at this precise moment and not before" is a limitation not only upon His prescience, but upon OV tenants of Past and Present knowledge and extent (the heart).
    Again, you fail to deal with "since." You've chopped this story into tiny pieces, and thrown out the inconvenient ones. "Since" clearly suggests that the basis for God's knowledge is Abraham's actions

    I've tried to show how they are both presumptuous. That's the link between them in exegesis.
    Except that there isn't, as I've shown. The context of each points in a different direction. That's the difference between proof text exegesis and narrative context exegesis.

    He doesn't. That's why I compared it to Genesis 22 where He also doesn't say He didn't know before. He is saying that the Now is in relation to Abraham's action, not His prescience nor His intimate knowledge of the heart. Again, your pressing of this is so acute that it begins to deny even His present and past knowledge of Abraham's heart.
    God does say that the basis for His knowledge "since" is Abraham's action in raising the knife. That's the reason translators select "Now" to introduce the clause.

    So, you take their translation, but not their own opinion of the scripture they translated. Again, whereas is not merely 'now' after all, nor did the translators believe what you do. Even as far back as Jewish scholars, of their own language.
    Again, which is fine. Most of your alternative translations don't get away from this exegesis anyway.

    Incorrect. The majority, in fact, do not see me as a heretic but in error. That's much less of a sharp disagreement.
    And the majority of the Church and the church do not see me as a heretic, either. The difference is that I don't base my theology on how many others believe as I do.

    So, are you going for confirmation soon?

    Not consistent at all. You started this well, "Abraham was being tested..." but you presume upon the text that God, who knows the mind and heart of man, is trying to find something out.
    And using the entire story to exegete the idea that the matter wasn't knowable, even in Abraham's heart.

    That's worth repeating:
    You are presuming, that God, who knows the mind and heart, needs to find something out. Does or does not this presumption do damage to the OV: That God has perfect past and present knowledge? To hone this down a bit further for logical ends,and my OV understanding: Does God know us better than we know ourselves? Whatever answer you give here will qualify and pare God's perfect knowledge to a point where we must see restrictions on how well He can can even know us.
    And it bears repeating that our hearts are not a constant. I have no problem with saying that this was a test for Abraham. He probably learned some thing about himself in the process. But God doesn't say "now you know." God says, "Now I know.. since..."

    You have no basis for saying that this matter was settled in Abraham's heart at all. The context seems to suggest otherwise.

    So, because we don't see that God isn't saying He didn't know before, what Abraham would do, we should be careful not to go beyond what "Now I know" or "Whereas I know" expressly means?
    Yes. When God says, "Where as I know ... Since..." God is establishing the basis for His knowledge.

    And just to ensure I'm following: "Where are you, Adam?" does not expressly mean "I don't know where you are but I am really not asking so much as telling you I recognize you are trying to hide."
    Again, from the context of the story, that's how it is exegeted. You see, you want to make the basis of your exegesis the individual phrase, where as I look at the whole context, including the flow and point of the story. Yes, I focus on "Now I know", but only after careful review of what has happened and what follows.

    ..."Now I know" is not expressly saying "I didn't know" or showing a deficit in God's ability to know the heart without a test with perfect present knowledge. Am I following your 'extrapolate no meaning other than what is expressly given?
    Because we exegete on a pericope level, not on a proof text level.

    Wait a second....

    Am I missing something?
    Yes. Exegesis.



    Sometimes I believe OV is secretly upholding everything we already uphold but are just trying to sharpen the saints. I know it isn't, but sometimes I just get that for some reason.
    That because you look for ways to reaffirm your theology and your methods. When something disagrees with both, you feel justified in attempting to use your methods to prove something is wrong, even if your method is invalid

    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.

  11. #56
    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
    Ah, I see. Of the three options I laid out, you've chosen the ridiculous one:

    Abraham, unsettled in his heart as to his fear of God, opted to sacrfice his son on the basis of that ambiguity. Makes perfect sense.

  12. #57
    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 SaulToPaul View Post
    word of the day: pericope
    Up pericope!

    Dive, dive, dive....red alert...
    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.

  13. #58
    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 nicholsmom View Post
    I am puzzled by this. This does not seem to be the typical OV position: that God does not know something that is actually knowable, seems contrary to any sort of omniscience - even the OV view of it. Just saying...


    Should have read Lon's post first - he covered this. Sorry, Lon
    It is a rhetorical question, not a statement of ignorance on God's part (I think some TOL types say God is not omnipresent and was playing hide and seek).
    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. #59
    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 assuranceagent View Post
    Ah, I see. Of the three options I laid out, you've chosen the ridiculous one:

    Abraham, unsettled in his heart as to his fear of God, opted to sacrfice his son on the basis of that ambiguity. Makes perfect sense.
    Abraham, unsettled in his heart as to his fear of God, was forced because of God's command to choose whether to obey God or preserve his son, thus settling the matter in his heart.

    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. #60
    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 themuzicman View Post
    Abraham, unsettled in his heart as to his fear of God, was forced because of God's command to choose whether to obey God or preserve his son, thus settling the matter in his heart.

    Muz
    Abraham was 'reckoned righteous' by his faith in Genesis 15:6 , seven chapters prior to your allegations of his 'unsettled heart.'

    Abraham feared God prior to this test. The test only confirmed that fact (a fact which God already knew).

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