Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Verse Tool: show

The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Postby Paidion » Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:42 pm

BWM, the reason I didn't respond is that I find unintelligible the concept that God "exists outside of time" which I presume is what you mean when you say He "is not subject to time." I have found in the past that discussion of this is an exercise in futility. I don't believe in time as some ethereal essence that required creating. I see time in a rather simplistic way—as the temporal "distance" between any two events. It isn't something that needs creating. When the first two events took place, time was simply there as a consequence.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old. I am now 80.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4690
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Postby Homer » Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:19 pm

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

I offer again Jeremiah 3:7 for your consideration in which God said, "I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return..." (NASB)


I took the time to consider Jeremiah 3:7 and found that there are a number of translations that differ considerably from the quote above:

Samual Ralph Asbury in Lange's Commentary
"And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me!

KJV
And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me.

NKJV
And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.

Young's Literal
And I say, after her doing all these, Unto Me thou dost turn back

Douay Rheims 1899 American Edition
And when she had done all these things, I said: Return to me

Orthodox Jewish Bible
And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto Me

I do not see how Jeremiah 3:7 can be of any support to your position.
User avatar
Homer
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Postby robbyyoung » Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:40 am

Homer wrote:I took the time to consider Jeremiah 3:7 and found that there are a number of translations that differ considerably from the quote above: ... I do not see how Jeremiah 3:7 can be of any support to your position.


Hi Homer,

I believe you are correct concerning Jer 3:7. In its context, this passage conflates with 2 Kings 17:13-14 which supports the literal translation of what God “said” or commanded not “thought”, as if He was surprised by their actions. I’m curious as to why some translations took the liberty to change the verbiage that would create controversy or a contradiction to God’s omniscience.

What's even more troubling is that the NASB even has a "footnote" in the text that states Strongs H559 'amar is "Literally: said". So why in the world would they translate the word as "thought"? Especially when the context, given by 2 Kings 17:13-14, denotes what God commanded.

Blessings.
User avatar
robbyyoung
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Postby Homer » Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:59 am

Hi Robby,

Yes, amar is translated as "said" nearly 5,000 times in the KJV.

You wrote:

What's even more troubling is that the NASB even has a "footnote" in the text that states Strongs H559 'amar is "Literally: said". So why in the world would they translate the word as "thought"? Especially when the context, given by 2 Kings 17:13-14, denotes what God commanded.


That is very odd. The NASB has been my favorite translation.

Comment from Lange's regarding Jeremiah 3:7:

This "Return to Me" is the underlying theme of all prophetic admonition. In this passage it is emphatic. It points back to the "yet return to Me" in verse 1, and with the following "returned not" represents the main thought of the section.
User avatar
Homer
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Postby Paidion » Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:22 pm

I agree that the word probably means "I said" rather than "I thought" and so I can accept that.
The deciding factor is the verb. Did He say, "Return to me" as a command? Or did He say, "She will return to me" as a prediction of the future?
If He said the latter, it supports the position that God did not know the future, for Israel didn't return, and so God wouldn't have said that she would return if He had KNOWN that she wouldn't.

I haven't studied Hebrew, and so I cannot determine what the Hebrew text says. But the following translations: ASV, BBE, Darby, ESV, HCSB, LEB, NASB, NHEB, NIV, RSV, and NRSV say,

I thought that after she had done all these things, she would return to me.

or else

"I thought" or "I said"

"...after she had done all these things, ‘She will return to me’"

Did all these translators so render the text only out of personal preference? Or did they have a grammatical basis for doing so?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old. I am now 80.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4690
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Postby robbyyoung » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:12 pm

Paidion wrote:Well, I'll answer from the "openess" point of view. God did not know in advance that the person would not become a Christian. For if He had known in advance that this was the case, then the person COULD NOT have become a Christian. For if the person HAD of his own free will chosen to become a Christian and HAD in fact become a Christian, that would imply that God hadn't known in advance that he would not become one.


Hi Paidion,

Our free-will is not hindered do to God's foreknowledge. I was listening to Dr. Michael Heiser, and he makes a good point—God’s foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination (1 Samuel 23:1-13). God can predestine things and sometimes do, but we cannot conclude that all events are predestined. The text in question illustrates a powerful truth, God foreknew a possible outcome that never actually happened. Therefore, if God knows what’s real and possible, believers should foster a productive and rich prayer life that might prove to be beneficial to their life and the lives of others. In other words, a right relationship with God matters, especially when we seek answers to some of life’s most pressing issues. Sometimes, our fate is in our own hands. David altered his course by simply asking God a question. Your thoughts?

Blessings.
User avatar
robbyyoung
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: The Pat Answer to the Election Question

Postby Paidion » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:20 pm

Hi Robby, you wrote:Our free-will is not hindered do to God's foreknowledge.


It is true that nothing that God knows hinders free will. And God knows all things.
But what a free-will agent will choose cannot be known in advance for he has not yet made the choice—thus there is nothing to know.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old. I am now 80.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4690
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Previous

Return to Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron