ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Jerry Shugart]

You claim "now I know" is only about Abraham fearing God and has nothing to do with Abraham being tried, then deny any explaination of the timing of "now I know". There is a big hole in your theory.

My idea is based on what the Scriptures actually say and not a denial of that truth. Read the following verse once again and perhaps this time you will finally grasp the truth:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen22:12).

You have been told several times that the "knowing" refers to God knowing that Abraham feared or reverenced Him but for some reason you cannot grasp that simple truth.

The reason that your spiritual IQ is practically non-existent is that you put what some men say about the Scriptures above what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[Lon]

You built the strawman that brain is mind. Changing your mind has nothing to do with a brain transplant, it is an act of will.

You seem to think that people are only of one mind because people only have one brain.
The Bible disagrees with you.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.​

So, are you going to believe the Bible or your strawman?

Do you use concordances? If so, do so here and get back to me, please. I would rather you study to show yourself an approved workman than me telling you what to believe. If you are an open theist after actually studying to show yourself approved, I won't be as bothered.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Of COURSE God knew Abe feared Him, so did Abe know that God knew for when Ike asked "where is the lamb?" Abe replied "God will provide" and so God had already made the provision, He had caused a ram to get stuck in the bramble.

God says "I rise up early in the morning" He "stretches out His hands" He "walks in the midst" these are all ways God speaks to us for OUR comfort. It was Abe who was assured by the whole episode.

Did you know that God taught Abraham the doctrine of the ressurection here?

 

[Lighthouse]

Of COURSE God knew Abe feared Him, so did Abe know that God knew for when Ike asked "where is the lamb?" Abe replied "God will provide" and so God had already made the provision, He had caused a ram to get stuck in the bramble.

Prove it. Prove that God knew for certain what would happen. Prove thet God was lying when He said, "...now I know that you fear God..,"

Go ahead.

I'm waiting...

 

[Totton Linnet]

Prove it. Prove that God knew for certain what would happen. Prove thet God was lying when He said, "...now I know that you fear God..,"

Go ahead.

I'm waiting...

It is very EASY to prove.

"Jesus knew what was in man and needed not anyone to testify to Him of man"

Proved.

 

[Lon]

It is very EASY to prove.

"Jesus knew what was in man and needed not anyone to testify to Him of man"

Proved.

I'd also point back to the beginning of this thread regarding the translation "now I know."
I believe it a casual error of relying on translation to heavily to build a tenous assumption. It simply means "whereas I know." We don't speak like that so the translators used "now" but not to indicate God had no prior knowledge.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you use concordances? If so, do so here and get back to me, please. I would rather you study to show yourself an approved workman than me telling you what to believe. If you are an open theist after actually studying to show yourself approved, I won't be as bothered.

I use Strong's Concordance often.
I don't see what that has to do with being an Open Theist.

 

[Lon]

I use Strong's Concordance often.
I don't see what that has to do with being an Open Theist.

Look up that word for "mind."

 

[genuineoriginal]

Look up that word for "mind."

The phrase is "double minded"

δίψυχος
dipsychos
1) double minded

a) wavering, uncertain, doubting
b) divided in interest​

Nothing there supports your strawman argument that a person has to remove his brain in order to change his mind.

 

[Lon]

The phrase is "double minded"

δίψυχος
dipsychos
1) double minded

a) wavering, uncertain, doubting
b) divided in interest
​

Nothing there supports your strawman argument that a person has to remove his brain in order to change his mind.

It is a compound word, meaning it is made up of two greek words:
δίς and ψυχή. The first is indeed "2." The second, is "soul or heart" (mind by translating an English colloquial term that isn't literal - changing our mind). That is, we have English terms that are called figures of speech where we know that we aren't talking literally. For instance, Mind-in-the-gutter doesn't mean the brain nor thinking are literally in or dwelling on a cesspool. We don't extrapolate the colloquial term for the absurd because we know it means literally something specific comparative to a cesspool.
It is exactly these kinds of colloquial translations, that the rest of us understand as meaning something else by the suggestion/comparison, that the OV doesn't get. They take our translations of an idea that is supposed to mean specific things, and twist them around and take them literally when all they are is English terms not even found in Greek or Hebrew.
"Now I know" at the beginning of this thread is a colloquial English term that the actual passage doesn't convey but for the idea behind it.

I'd also point back to the beginning of this thread regarding the translation "now I know."
I believe it a casual error of relying on translation to heavily to build a tenous assumption. It simply means "whereas I know." We don't speak like that so the translators used "now" but not to indicate God had no prior knowledge.

The main problem with the open view is a lack of understanding of original languages. There are no language scholars in the open view. Did you ever wonder why? Because it is simply that plain and understandable when you read the original languages that the open view is chasing translated ideas in the wrong direction rather than understanding His Word.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I'd also point back to the beginning of this thread regarding the translation "now I know."
I believe it a casual error of relying on translation to heavily to build a tenous assumption. It simply means "whereas I know." We don't speak like that so the translators used "now" but not to indicate God had no prior knowledge.

I know you will believe with me dear Lon that the reason God knew was because HE is the Author both of Abe's fear and his faith.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It is a compound word, meaning it is made up of two greek words:
δίς and ψυχή. The first is indeed "2." The second, is "soul or heart" (mind by translating an English colloquial term that isn't literal - changing our mind). That is, we have English terms that are called figures of speech where we know that we aren't talking literally. For instance, Mind-in-the-gutter doesn't mean the brain nor thinking are literally in or dwelling on a cesspool. We don't extrapolate the colloquial term for the absurd because we know it means literally something specific comparative to a cesspool.

:rotfl:
I already knocked down your strawman argument about mind being brain, but you were unable to understand that and insisted on scattering the straw left over after I knocked it down.

It is exactly these kinds of colloquial translations, that the rest of us understand as meaning something else by the suggestion/comparison, that the OV doesn't get. They take our translations of an idea that is supposed to mean specific things, and twist them around and take them literally when all they are is English terms not even found in Greek or Hebrew.

It is actually the classical theists that insist on not allowing the Bible to speak for God because a plain reading of the Bible contradicts the classical theists preconceptions of what God is really like.
The classical theist method of interpreting the Bible based on what they think God is supposed to be like reminds me me of the idiots at the Jesus Seminar.

"Now I know" at the beginning of this thread is a colloquial English term that the actual passage doesn't convey but for the idea behind it.

God said, "Now I know," because Abraham passed a trial of his faith right before God said it. Discecting the words does not change what happened. Abraham passing a trial of his faith supports Open Theology, not classical theology.

The main problem with the open view is a lack of understanding of original languages. There are no language scholars in the open view. Did you ever wonder why? Because it is simply that plain and understandable when you read the original languages that the open view is chasing translated ideas in the wrong direction rather than understanding His Word.

It is not the ability to understand languages that determines a readers philosophy, but the philosophy of the reader that determines what is understood when reading.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It is a compound word, meaning it is made up of two greek words:
δίς and ψυχή. The first is indeed "2." The second, is "soul or heart" (mind by translating an English colloquial term that isn't literal - changing our mind). That is, we have English terms that are called figures of speech where we know that we aren't talking literally. For instance, Mind-in-the-gutter doesn't mean the brain nor thinking are literally in or dwelling on a cesspool. We don't extrapolate the colloquial term for the absurd because we know it means literally something specific comparative to a cesspool.

It is exactly these kinds of colloquial translations, that the rest of us understand as meaning something else by the suggestion/comparison, that the OV doesn't get. They take our translations of an idea that is supposed to mean specific things, and twist them around and take them literally when all they are is English terms not even found in Greek or Hebrew.

"Now I know" at the beginning of this thread is a colloquial English term that the actual passage doesn't convey but for the idea behind it.

I'd also point back to the beginning of this thread regarding the translation "now I know." I believe it a casual error of relying on translation to heavily to build a tenous assumption. It simply means "whereas I know." We don't speak like that so the translators used "now" but not to indicate God had no prior knowledge.

The main problem with the open view is a lack of understanding of original languages. There are no language scholars in the open view. Did you ever wonder why? Because it is simply that plain and understandable when you read the original languages that the open view is chasing translated ideas in the wrong direction rather than understanding His Word.

Interesting argument. You're saying that "now I know" should be replaced with "whereas I know" because "now" does not properly convey the idea in the Hebrew language.

I would like you to reference a "language scholar", or two, that explain this. The "knowing" seems to be connected to "you have not withheld your son" as the cause or the reason for it and not a preknowledge of the outcome of this event.

"Argumentum ad language scholarum". I don't want to argue against language scholars! :bow:

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Interesting argument. You're saying that "now I know" should be replaced with "whereas I know" because "now" does not properly convey the idea in the Hebrew language.

According to the experts the Hebrew word translated "now" at Genesis 22:12 means "at this time" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

So I cannot see how Lon can argue otherwise.

But do you think that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him until he stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay Isaac?:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me" (Gen.22:10-12).​

 

[DFT_Dave]

According to the experts the Hebrew word translated "now" at Genesis 22:12 means "at this time" (Gesenius's Lexicon).

So I cannot see how Lon can argue otherwise.

But do you think that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him until he stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay Isaac?:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me" (Gen.22:10-12).​

I'm wondering if the word "fear" is the best way to translate what is intended? I don't think that Abraham was afraid that God would destroy him if he did not take his son's life. I think the idea is that Abraham proved that he was willing to completely trust God even in the face of the certain death of his son by his own hand. If God is not the cause of what will happen and if Abraham has not already gone throught this in a "timeless world" then God cannot know for sure what Abraham will do until he does it. If God is the cause in anyway of what Abraham will do or if Abraham has already "timelessly" done this then what is the point of even having a test of faith?

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I'm wondering if the word "fear" is the best way to translate what is intended? I don't think that Abraham was afraid that God would destroy him if he did not take his son's life.

The Greek word that is translated "fear" when it is used in regard to fearing God means "to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

With that in view I will rephrase my question to you in the following way:

Do you think that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared or reverenced Him until he stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay Isaac?:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me" (Gen.22:10-12).​

 

[Lon]

:rotfl:
I already knocked down your strawman argument about mind being brain, but you were unable to understand that and insisted on scattering the straw left over after I knocked it down.

Just because you play with cards at your house doesn't mean the cards at mine fell down. Perhaps my post hit too close to home for you, because all of the sudden you are making with the hubris. I don't know, but I don't care for discussion where resorting to grade-school tactics is the mode of the day.

It is actually the classical theists that insist on not allowing the Bible to speak for God because a plain reading of the Bible contradicts the classical theists preconceptions of what God is really like.
The classical theist method of interpreting the Bible based on what they think God is supposed to be like reminds me me of the idiots at the Jesus Seminar.

No, I don't believe this knee-jerk reaction true at all but for revealing you have a bruise somewhere. I'm not distracted, so it didn't work.

God said, "Now I know," because Abraham passed a trial of his faith right before God said it. Discecting the words does not change what happened. Abraham passing a trial of his faith supports Open Theology, not classical theology.

As at the beginning of the thread, pure assertion.

It is not the ability to understand languages that determines a readers philosophy, but the philosophy of the reader that determines what is understood when reading.

Oh, I have no doubt at all that this is an open theist paradigm. I'm glad you said it so I can quote you regarding the ov hermenuetical approach to scriptures. I'll be ridiculed for agreeing with you that this is the OV paradigm as if it weren't true, as if I were building some kind of strawman...sigh.

 

[Lon]

Interesting argument. You're saying that "now I know" should be replaced with "whereas I know" because "now" does not properly convey the idea in the Hebrew language.

I would like you to reference a "language scholar", or two, that explain this. The "knowing" seems to be connected to "you have not withheld your son" as the cause or the reason for it and not a preknowledge of the outcome of this event.

"Argumentum ad language scholarum". I don't want to argue against language scholars! :bow:

--Dave

Tell you what, you do the math and come back and explain it to me. If "Now" indeed is the only translation you can find at even a casual glance, I'll retract my 20 pages of argument from the beginning of this thread (provided, of course, you are being honest with what you find from a concordance on the matter). Nobody need be a language scholar to easily figure this out, it is just sad that no OVer decided to do such before Asserting ad Ridiculumn. Go for it, else I'll gladly just accept the accolades given on pretense or ortherwise. Take the page 2 challenge and go from there.

Oh, and I see you responded to Jerry (he's on my ignore, but not your quote of him). When you find the answer, be sure and share with him as well. Something so easily researchable is beyond me that even those without the language could assert otherwise. It frankly, boggles my mind, it is that entirely clear.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The Greek word that is translated "fear" when it is used in regard to fearing God means "to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

With that in view I will rephrase my question to you in the following way:

Do you think that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared or reverenced Him until he stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay Isaac?:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me" (Gen.22:10-12).​

The syntex of this statement and the context of this account says God did not know what Abraham was going to "actually" do until he was about to "actually" do it.

If you believe there is a greater and more over riding principle of preknowledge of all events then we cannot take this passage literally. If we we cannot take this passage literally then we have no basis for taking this passage historically. Abraham need not exist, or if he did, we cannot know anything said Biblically about him as being "literally" historical. "Now you know" how liberalism started.

--Dave

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The syntex of this statement and the context of this account says God did not know what Abraham was going to "actually" do until he was about to "actually" do it.

That is not what the verse we are discussing says.

If you believe there is a greater and more over riding principle of preknowledge of all events then we cannot take this passage literally. If we we cannot take this passage literally then we have no basis for taking this passage historically.

I want to discuss what is "literally" said but you do not. It does not say that "God did not know what Abraham was going to "actually" do until he was about to "actually" do it."

Instead it speaks about when God knew that Abraham had a fear or revererance of Him.

Now I will ask my question again and perhaps this time you will answer it:

Do you think that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared or reverenced Him until he stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slay Isaac?:

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son] from me" (Gen.22:10-12).​