 |
| 
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/5/2003 2:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom,
I think God had experienced enough of the Israelites, from the Red Sea to the entrance to the promised land, to know their character wasn't sufficiently good enough to accomplish the task at hand. Deuteronomy 9:24 Ye have been rebellious against the LORD from the day that I knew you. This is what necessitated the purge of the older generation, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb. The second generation was designated to enter, not the first generation.
I agree, "spur of the moment" was too impetuous sounding. However, I believe "plan B" was really plan A.
I'm being called for supper, which I rarely ignore! More later.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/5/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
The second generation was shown to be chosen to actually enter here, Numbers 14.31 But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised. So, there was no “trekking around the desert for another forty years” in God’s mind. Moses said, Numbers 32.15 For if ye turn away from after him, he will yet again leave them in the wilderness; and ye shall destroy all this people. but, there was this specific promise beforehand, Numbers 14:24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it. Caleb can only stand so many 40 years before he expires and he was already 80 when he finally got to possess the promise.
Humanly speaking, there was an x might do y at z1, since determining “will” or “will not” from “might” is what “voting” is all about. However, God knew it was going to be “will not” until z4. The corporate will is nothing more than the sum of the individual wills.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/6/2003 12:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul: I think God had experienced enough of the Israelites, from the Red Sea to the entrance to the promised land, to know their character wasn't sufficiently good enough to accomplish the task at hand.
Tom: No need to beat this horse to death  , but…
If the forty-year wandering is a certainty in God’s mind because of what the Israelites had become, then it can’t be true, as I hear you saying, that God “predetermined” their wandering. Moreover, if their acquired hard-heartedness was an evil thing they should have and could have avoided, then what follows necessarily from it IS by definition plan B (since what we can and should be is plan A).
Not being omniscient, we have to confess that we can’t say definitively what the score was at each stage in Israel’s history. God knew what the score was, but there doesn’t seem to me to be anything in the story that suggests God predetermined from eternity that Israel wander for forty years as opposed to entering when they could have in Num. 13. This is theological determinism. Is this what you’re saying?
Again, if all things are predetermined, Paul, there ARE NO “MIGHT’S” (at any time). If you want to believe in “might’s” you have believe the future is open when and where “might’s” are true.
I read Num. 14 a little differently. When God speaks of bringing the second-generation Israelites into the land (14.31), there’s no reason to think this is any less conditional than the times God said this same thing about the first-generation exiles (who of course didn’t make it). In ch. 14 God is prepared to wipe EVERYBODY out and start over again with Caleb, Joshua, and Moses. God reasons, “Hey, I’ll just start over again with these guys. I’m in no hurry.”
If God promised on oath that Caleb and Joshua would enter and enjoy the land, then Caleb and Joshua will enter and enjoy the land. This is not a promise to the nation and I think it’s a stretch to reason from Caleb and Joshua’s age and the certainty of their entering the land that the entire nation (second-generation) will ride the wave into the promise land regardless of what sort of people they are. If that’s the case, then why not let the nation in NOW on Caleb and Joshua’s account? Nor does it seem possible to argue that the second-generation will certainly not rebel like their parents did in Num. 14 and so disqualify themselves like their parents did.
When Moses says in Deut. 9 “You’ve been rebellious since the day I knew you” he was talking to these second-generation folk. They weren’t really that different from their parents after forty years, as their upcoming behavior will prove. God might have figured when the nation was lined up on the eastern side of the Jordan, “Hey, this is the hand I’m dealt here. Things would be different with four aces, but I’ll win with the hand I’ve got.” I don’t know. There’s no reason to think that if the second-generation folk rebel like their parents did, God would not be prepared to move Caleb and Joshua and their families in to inherit on their own. It might be that if the second-generation screws up God will wipe them out regardless of any intercession on Moses’ part, in which case God will start over again with two families. So what?
I don’t think there is any “schedule” or “deadline” God is under pressure to stick to. He’s pretty resourceful, and it would be impossible for us to conclude what the situation must have been, say, in Num. 13-14 based on our limited knowledge of what might have been later, or based on how things eventually did work out. It’s enough to know that God intended they enter in Num. 13-14 (because God clearly commanded them to enter) and that they therefore could have entered but blew their opportunity. That’s my take on it.
Tom 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/6/2003 12:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian-
Proverbs are not universal iron-clad rules governing specific actions in every conceivable situation. “Bring up a child in the way he should go and when he is older he will not depart from it.” Really? No exceptions? We know this verse does not guarantee that without exception if we parents do what is right our kids will turn out right. The “guarantee” interpretation of this verse is universally proved false by our experience.
We may be tempted to make the same mistake with "A man's steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone understand his own way?" and interpret it to mean God exhaustively determines everything we think, say, and do and that we can understand nothing about our ‘way’. If we didn’t have the rest of the Bible (and just this one verse) I’d say the deterministic take was perhaps possible.
Sometimes we DO understand our ways incredibly well (though never as well as God understands them). Sometimes we understand a good bit, and other times we understand just enough. In fact, we’re often commanded to “consider our ways” and think about what’s going on around us. God invites us to sit down and “reason together.” God wants us to understand our ways. Why wouldn’t he? In fact, if we understand nothing of our ways what’s the book of Proverbs written for?
So I don’t find the deterministic take at all convincing given the larger biblical picture of God’s relating to us.
So what might Prov. 20.24 mean? It may simply be putting us mortals in our place, letting us know that we never have God’s perspective on what’s going on in our lives. We know some things. We make plans (hopefully the kind of “wise” plans Proverbs encourages). But since we are finite creatures, we can never claim to have an exhaustive and infallible perspective on our lives. So far so good.
What about God’s “directing” our steps? Well, it might be that where the righteous are concerned, this proverb is an Old Testament instance of the sort of thing we have in Rom. 8.28. God is always at work in the circumstances of our lives to increase good. When we commit to loving him and keeping our hearts pure, then though the decisions we make may not have exhaustive and infallible knowledge behind them, God directs and guides us. You might say God is in us “to will and to do his good pleasure.”
Unfortunately, all the Hebrew says is “From Yahweh are the steps of man.” There’s no “directing,” “determining,” or “guiding.” All you have here is a single voweled Hebrew letter “m” (the Hebrew “from”) in front of Yahweh. Not a lot to base fine-tuned theological distinctions on if this is the only verse you have.
In the case of the willfully rebellious and hard-hearted, they are doomed to live life NOT understanding what’s going on in their lives. How are their steps “from Yahweh”? I can think of a couple of ways. God may be working redemptively in the life of the wicked to draw them. In Acts Paul says God is good to wicked people in the hope that they will long for him and call out to him. But God may also choose to frustrate the plans of the wicked, removing his protection and blessing as a judgment on them. Point is, there are alternatives to exhaustive and unconditional predetermination when it comes to understanding these sorts of proverbs.
On Prov. 16.9 consider the New Jerusalem Bible’s rendition: “The human heart may plan a course, but it is Yahweh who makes the steps secure.” Makes me think of Ps 127.1 “Unless the Lord builds the house, the laborers labor in vain.” We can make our plans, but unless the Lord gets involved to make our steps secure, what’s the use? Point of the proverb is: “Plans aren’t enough. We need God!”
This is an interesting proverb because of the verb used: “yakuwn” (which NJB translates “make secure” and which others translate as “determine,” “direct,” etc.). Funny. It’s used in Jdg 12.6 to mean "to correctly pronounce" a word. In Psa 78.20 and Job 38.41 it means "to provide food." Kinda hard to pin down, eh?
Most interestingly for both the proverbs you mention, Christian, is Prov. 21:29: KJV reads “A wicked man hardeneth his face: but as for the upright, he directeth his way.” Who’s determining/directing their steps now? The human is! Try the NJB: “The wicked man's strength shows on his face, but the honest it is whose steps are firm.” The RSV reads: “A wicked man puts on a bold face, but an upright man considers [same word as your “determines” in Prov. 16.9! Hmmmm.] his ways.” What’s interesting is that Prov. 16.9 says GOD “yakuwn” our steps while Prov. 21.29 says it’s the UPRIGHT who “yakuwn” his steps/ways. Moreover, how can the UPRIGHT “yakuwn” their steps/way if Prov. 20.24 is understood to mean NOBODY can even UNDERSTAND their own steps/way because God determines them?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/06/2003 06:05:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/6/2003 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
It seems to me that this is all an exercise in semantics without the possibility of a conclusion being reached. It is all well and good to consider George and his cookies, but I don't know that you have demonstrated where there is a real "might" concerning God.
Your argument for plan B isn't convincing and you seem to be saying that God far too frequently doesn't mean what He says. I find that to border on doing damage to the veracity of Bible.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/6/2003 7:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Paul-
Paul: I don't know that you have demonstrated where there is a real "might" concerning God.
Tom: Oh, well, I wouldn't introduce the desert wandering or George and his cookie to show that God knows might's. I'd use biblical passages where GOD uses mights, where GOD declares "x might happen." That's the easy part.
I use the logical arguments to show what might's are, what must be true for US if GOD knows might's, and that true might's are precisely what the open view amounts to.
If you want examples of God knowing true might's, try Jer. 26.1ff.
Paul: you seem to be saying that God far too frequently doesn't mean what He says. I find that to border on doing damage to the veracity of Bible.
Tom: I don't believe God EVER says what he doesn't mean. This would be an appropriate criticism of determinists, who argue God has determined that Israel NOT listen in Jer. 26, but that God declares that they "might listen," or that God predetermined that Israel wander in the desert for forty years but commands them to invade and possess the land when they first arrive at the boarders and then threatens to wipe them all out because of their lack of faith to fulfill the command (which threat turns our to be a lie of course becasue God knew it wouldn't happen since he predetermined something else). If open theists are perceived as calling into question the veracity of the Bible as a document, then determinists are perceived as calling into question God's own personal veracity.
If God says "x will happen," say for example, "nation x will be destroyed because of their sin" this might be a non-negotiable, something God is determined to do and about which he will not change his mind (like his choice to remove the kingdom from Saul), OR there may be an unspoken condition. If the nation repents, God says (not me, not Greg Boyd) in Jer. 18 that he'll change his "I will destroy them" to "I will bless them." Unless you want to call God a liar, then the previous "I will destroy" was conditioned upon their rebellion. And the "I will bless," God says, is just as conditional as the "I will destroy" was. The condition is unspoken, but quite obvious. This is cool. Even WE use language like this.
What's not cool is God telling a nation I will destroy you" when God knows this is not true at any time, not even as an unspoken conditional, because God has actually predetermined something else which he knows IS true but which he isn't talking about. I don't see how believing God does this sort of thing holds together any view of the Bible's veracity. What it does do is call into question God's veracity.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/07/2003 12:59:04 AM
Edited by - TGB on 06/07/2003 01:03:14 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/6/2003 9:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I find it rather amazing that you try to make Jer. 26.1 ff an example of God's "might" when I find this in Jeremiah 25:11 (and verse 12) And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. that precedes what you call a "might". How can God not know the outcome in Jer 26.1 ff when He has already told them how long they would be in captivity? Since you "don't believe God EVER says what he doesn't mean", it should be a recognized fact that Judah will spend 70 years in captivity, because God knew what the outcome of Jer 26.1 ff would be before it happened.
We are even told why the captivity was 70 years, 2 Chronicles 36:21 To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years. You are then suggesting God was willing to let them off for the 490 years they neglected the sabbatical for the land if Jer 26.1 ff is a "might"?
This may shed some additional light on whether Jer 26.1 ff was really a "might". Jer. 13.23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/7/2003 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey! Take this you cotton-picker!...
Paul: I find it rather amazing that you try to make Jer. 26.1 ff an example of God's "might"…
Tom: What can possibly be “amazing” about believing “Perhaps they will listen” means “Perhaps they will listen”? I’m not trying to “make” Jer. 26 an example of anything. It doesn’t need anybody’s help. Just read it. God says “perhaps” Israel will listen. I didn’t write it. Now, since you’re so sure “Perhaps Israel will listen” cannot possibly mean “Perhaps Israel will listen” why don’t you tell us what it DOES mean? And tells us why the meaning you ascribe to “Perhaps they will listen” is NOT amazing.
Paul: …when I find this in Jeremiah 25:11 (and verse 12), “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years” that precedes what you call a "might". How can God not know the outcome in Jer 26.1 ff when He has already told them how long they would be in captivity?
Tom: Because 25.11 is conditional! Read Jer. 18. 1-10. God tells us there that when he pronounces a “I will…” judgment on an evil nation and that nation repents, he will change the “I will judge you” (like Jer. 25.11) and bless that nation. So, Jer. 25.11 represents exactly this sort of situation. You have to work hard to miss it. The judgment described in 25.11 “will” come on Israel “IF” they don’t repent. This is exactly what ch. 26 means. God wants to forgive them. He doesn’t want to send them into exile, and there is still a chance that judgment can be avoided IF THEY LISTEN. They didn’t listen. They got judged.
Paul: Since you "don't believe God EVER says what he doesn't mean", it should be a recognized fact that Judah will spend 70 years in captivity, because God knew what the outcome of Jer 26.1 ff would be before it happened.
Tom: Then please tell me what God intended Jeremiah and us to understand when he says, “Perhaps they will listen.” It has to mean something, right? What’s it mean? I thought you earlier agreed that if I say to my kids “Perhaps we’ll get ice-cream on the way home” and I know that we certainly will not get ice-cream, that I’m LYING. So, God says, “Perhaps they will listen,” but knows certainly they will not listen. How is this not a lie?
If the fulfillment of 25.11 is understood as conditioned upon Israel continued refusal to listen and repent (which we have every reason to believe it is given Jer. 18 AND the conditional “perhaps” of Jer. 26) then God IS saying what he means. He’s just not saying what YOU want him to mean.
Paul: We are even told why the captivity was 70 years, 2 Chronicles 36:21, “To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.” You are then suggesting God was willing to let them off for the 490 years they neglected the sabbatical for the land if Jer 26.1 ff is a "might"?
Tom: Absolutely! It’s called G-R-A-C-E, Paul. It’s called M-E-R-C-Y! God let you and me off of as much when he forgave us.
So when God sent them into exile, it WAS in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. But this doesn’t require us to view Jeremiah’s prophecy as unconditional. It might have not been fulfilled. Jer. 18 clearly gives us this option. It tells us that our default interpretation for declarations of judgment or blessings ought to be that they are conditional. They don’t HAVE to happen.
GRRRRRRRRRACE!
Tom
PS If you respond, make sure to tell me exactly what "Perhaps they will listen" means. What do you believe God expected Jeremiah (who is not omniscient) to understand by this declaration?
Edited by - TGB on 06/07/2003 09:40:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/7/2003 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
"Perhaps they will listen" may only have meaning for the humans who don't realize God already knows they won't listen. Just because God knows something doesn't necessarily mean humans know it.
Let me remind you that this whole situation was discussed as early as Leviticus 26.34 Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies’ land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths.
35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. I don't see any condition to what is said here, since this is the pronounced judgment for Israel/Judah's failure to observe the sabbaticals for the land. If the land is to have its sabbaths, as demanded by God, how would Judah accomplish making up 490 years worth of sabbaths other than through captivity (Israel had been carried off into captivity 200 years prior to this)? Surely you don't think they would/could stop growing crops for 70 years by means other than being removed from the land? BTW, I have a crop production area fallow this year to give it its sabbatical. It's good land management, even for Gentiles.
The nation that God repents of destroying, like Ninevah, eventually was destroyed, just like He said. Just because one repents, does not mean the consequences of their past actions will be removed. A fornicator that repents doesn't usually have his STD removed as a result of repentance.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 6/7/2003 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul
"Perhaps they will listen" may only have meaning for the humans who don't realize God already knows they won't listen. Just because God knows something doesn't necessarily mean humans know it.
Iconoclast
The question is what meaning was it SUPPOSED to have for Jeremiah? Are you suggesting that God KNOWS that they WILL NOT listen and yet says this to Jeremiah? Is God encouraging Jeremiah with an outright lie? Do you have ANY plausible reason for why God would utter this false statement?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/7/2003 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB,
I would like to hear what you think of the following:
KJV and a very small minority of modern English translations say in this verse, "all my members (body parts) were formed..." in this verse, while nearly all the modern English translations say, "all my days were formed for me, before they even existed," (or something basically to that effect).
Is there is a discrepancy among the extant manuscripts? Why the difference in translation?
Thanks.
(I was reading this thread, greatly enjoying the topic, and since no one responded to my question on Ps. 139:16 in the other thread that I started, I thought I'd place it here. If the modern translations are accurate in their rendering, this would seem to weigh against the OV).
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/7/2003 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | It has been well said that IF is one of the most important words in the Bible.
Ex 15:26 And He said, "If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the LORD your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for I, the LORD, am your healer."
1 Kin 8:25 "Now therefore, O LORD, the God of Israel, keep with Your servant David my father that which You have promised him, saying, 'You shall not lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your sons take heed to their way to walk before Me as you have walked.'
1 Sam 12:14 "If you will fear the LORD and serve Him, and listen to His voice and not rebel against the command of the LORD, then both you and also the king who reigns over you will follow the LORD your God.
15 "If you will not listen to the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the command of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you, {as it was} against your fathers.
16 "Even now, take your stand and see this great thing which the LORD will do before your eyes.
1 Chr 28:9 ¶ "As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.
2 Chr 15:2 and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, "Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the LORD is with you when you are with Him. And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.
Is 1:19 "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;
20 "But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword." Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
John 7:17 "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or {whether} I speak from Myself.
John 7:37 ¶ Now on the last day, the great {day} of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.
John 8:31 ¶ So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, {then} you are truly disciples of Mine;
John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
John 14:15 ¶ "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Rom 8:13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. (see also Ezek. 18)
Rom 11:17 ¶ But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, {remember that} it is not you who supports the root, but the root {supports} you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Col 1:22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--
23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
2 Tim 2:21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these {things,} he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.
Heb 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
Heb 10:26 ¶ For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
2 Pet 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and {yet} walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
1 John 2:3 ¶ By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1 John 2:15 ¶ Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
Rev 3:20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/07/2003 5:59:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/7/2003 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast,
It looks like Jer 26.1 ff wasn't a message for Jeremiah, he was just the messenger. If captivity is to be averted ("If so be" KJV), the people will harken to the message. The message was delivered in the Lord's house to "the priests and the prophets and all the people". That message was an ultimatum to "shape up or ship out". The response to the message confirmed what God knew all along, it was time for them to ship out!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/7/2003 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | This is too much fun to let go of! Sorry for the length.
Paul: "Perhaps they will listen" may only have meaning for the humans who don't realize God already knows they won't listen.
Tom: So “mights” are really “wills” then. Only people ignorant of the truth about God think otherwise. I’ve never heard a determinist own up to the belief that God lies to people. You’re the first. I appreciate your honesty.
Besides your explanation involving God in lying, a second problem is that it leaves those who do know the truth that God doesn’t face “mights” with no meaning to get from texts like these. What about those who DO know God already knows the outcome all things? We DO know that when God says, “Perhaps…” he doesn’t mean perhaps. We DO know that “might” is not the truth about the future. If our theology is what it ought to be, as you’re arguing, then we disqualify ourselves from finding any meaning in texts like these. We know God’s lying.
Assuming Jeremiah’s theology was as biblical as yours is, shouldn’t we assume that he believed God possessed exhaustively definite foreknowledge? So what meaning do you think Jeremiah got from God’s use of “might” here? Did he believe God was telling the truth? Are you saying Jeremiah and the people believed the “might” here was the truth? Jeremiah and Israel were all open theist? That’s what they’d be if they believed this “perhaps” was real. And God didn’t try to correct them? If Jeremiah was not an open theist, if he believed as you do that God knows all the future as what “will” and “will not” happen, then wouldn’t he say to God something like, “God, why are you using a “perhaps” with me? I know you know whether they’ll listen or not. Why would you lie to me?” And Jeremiah would be right to ask the question.
Paul: Just because God knows something doesn't necessarily mean humans know it.
Tom: True. God knows lots of things we are ignorant about. But this doesn’t mean God lies about what he knows when he speaks to us. The issue is: Is what God says is true for us also true for him? If God says, “x might do y” and we know the truth that God can’t know “maybe’s” then where does that leave us? Is our notion of “maybe,” our notion of “freedom” and “responsibility,” just an illusion? Is it meaningful only because we’re ignorant of the truth about God?
Paul: Let me remind you that this whole situation was discussed as early as Leviticus 26.34, “Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies’ land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. 35 As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.” I don't see any condition to what is said here since this is the pronounced judgment for Israel/Judah's failure to observe the sabbaticals for the land…
Tom: This entire paragraph describes the judgments God would send on them IF they persisted in sin and disobedience. This entire portion is built upon a “maybe,” a maybe GOD posits. God says, “IF you disobey I will make life miserable for you.” IF. What of this? Is this also a lie? Is there really no contingency here for God?
The open view has no problems with Lev. 26. It doesn’t mean the “maybe” of Jer. 26 is not a real maybe. Actually, Jer. 26 perfectly reflects Lev. 26. IF Israel persists in disobedience, they’ll go into exile. If they listen and repent, God will forgive them and they won’t go into exile. That’s EXACTLY what GOD says in Jer. 26.
Paul: If the land is to have its sabbaths, as demanded by God, how would Judah accomplish making up 490 years worth of sabbaths other than through captivity (Israel had been carried off into captivity 200 years prior to this)? Surely you don't think they would/could stop growing crops for 70 years by means other than being removed from the land?
Tom: Surely you think people are more important to God than crops. In Jer. 26 there is yet HOPE. If they listen and repent, God will not send them into exile. What of the land? The question, Paul, is: What of the PEOPLE? It’s about people, not crops. God’s not going to send repentant people into exile (when God clearly says there’s still hope) just for the sake of crops.
Paul: The nation that God repents of destroying, like Ninevah, eventually was destroyed, just like He said.
Tom: They were not destroyed “just like he said.” That Ninevah “eventually” went the way of all nations is not the fulfillment of “the” judgment spoken against it by Jonah. Jonah’s prophecy never came to pass. God spared them of it because they repented. It’s right there in the story.
Paul: It looks like Jer 26.1 ff wasn't a message for Jeremiah, he was just the messenger.
Tom: It was given TO Jeremiah to deliver to the people, yes. But v. 3 is a personal comment made by God to Jeremiah to explain the messages he wants Jeremiah to deliver. So wouldn't Jeremiah have to understand the message to deliver it? And wouldn't Jeremiah deliver what HE understood? Of course he would.
So, Jeremiah either thought a) the “maybe” was real and delivered THIS to the people (who also believed it was real), in which case God lied to Jeremiah and Israel, or b) Jeremiah knew the “maybe” wasn’t real, knew God was lying, and agreed to pass on the lie to Israel, who believed the “maybe” was real. Hmmm. Or maybe Israel had a decent enough theology to believe that “maybe’s” aren’t real for God either and decided…well, now, what would they decide this message actually MEANT for them?
Paul: If captivity is to be averted ("If so be" KJV), the people will harken to the message.
Tom: The text doesn't make their exile contingent but their listening certain. It makes their listening contingent (and their exile contingent upon that).
Paul: The message was delivered in the Lord's house to "the priests and the prophets and all the people". That message was an ultimatum to "shape up or ship out". The response to the message confirmed what God knew all along, it was time for them to ship out!
Tom: The text simply doesn't say this, Paul. The response to the message doesn't prove anything about what God knew all along. Nothing at all. Their not listening is perfectly consistent with God's belief that they MIGHT have listened. The text doesn't say that this response confirmed what God knew all along. You import that. What the text says is that God delivered a MIGHT to Israel through Jeremiah. The only way to avoid concluding that this was as much a "might" for God as it was for Israel is to argue God was lying, which you do. And I applaud your honesty in admitting this. God may lie to people, but at least YOU tell the truth. Hmmmm?
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/08/2003 01:35:01 AM
Edited by - TGB on 06/08/2003 01:36:02 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/7/2003 7:45 PM (GMT -6) | | John-
Nice verses. Thank God for "IF"!
I'll get back to you on Ps. 139.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/8/2003 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Your reply is so lengthy it is hard to pick where to start, but let's start here.
Tom: I’ve never heard a determinist own up to the belief that God lies to people.
Paul: Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: God doesn't lie.
Tom: So “mights” are really “wills” then.
Paul: Wouldn't you say a "might/perhaps" is still a "might/perhaps" until the event actually takes place? It makes no difference to those making the choice if God has knowledge before hand, the choice still has to be made. God didn't force them to make that choice, but out of equity, which happens to be one of the uses applied in the LXX for this passage (Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, Abbott-Smith, 3rd Edition, p 220), offers another chance to respond properly. Would you rather that God had said to Jeremiah "they won't believe you and will want to kill you, but take this message anyway"? We're not talking about Allah here, that would send out a suicide bomber! Maybe you think God should have detailed everything He knew to Jeremiah?
The conditions of Lev. 26.34 had been met long before Jeremiah's time, 490 years is a pretty long time, but God is longsuffering. The final message is to remove any validity to "Wa-Wa you didn't warn us".
Tom: Surely you think people are more important to God than crops. In Jer. 26 there is yet HOPE. If they listen and repent, God will not send them into exile. What of the land? The question, Paul, is: What of the PEOPLE? It’s about people, not crops. God’s not going to send repentant people into exile (when God clearly says there’s still hope) just for the sake of crops.
Paul: It isn't about crops! I would think you could be more perceptive than thinking it's the crops. It's about disobedience, rebellion and rejecting God's word! 1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Tom: They were not destroyed “just like he said.” That Ninevah “eventually” went the way of all nations is not the fulfillment of “the” judgment spoken against it by Jonah. Jonah’s prophecy never came to pass. God spared them of it because they repented. It’s right there in the story.
BTW, if you are going to quote me make sure it's a quote. I said, "just like He said" which indicates it is what God said through the use of the capital "H".
Paul: Read the whole story, it continues into Nahum and Zephaniah. Nahum 3:7 And it shall come to pass, that all they that look upon thee shall flee from thee, and say, Nineveh is laid waste: who will bemoan her? whence shall I seek comforters for thee? Zephaniah 2:13 And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness. Care to tell me where Nineveh is today?
Tom: The text simply doesn't say this, Paul. The response to the message doesn't prove anything about what God knew all along. Nothing at all.
Paul: To you, it doesn't say God knew before it happened, but by the same token, it doesn't say He didn't either. You are basing your whole argument on one word, "perhaps", that I have shown can be applied as "in equity". Your "perhaps" is an attempt to negate the 70 year captivity that Jeremiah said was going to happen in 25.11! What's your explanation for Jeremiah knowing about this before 26.1 ff? Was he eating magic mushrooms? Since Jeremiah already knew about the captivity, do you think he really understood "perhaps" as a "might"? He understood it as, "deliver this message and they're outta here", "three strikes and they're gone", "Go to Jail, go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200"!
Edited by - Paul5388 on 06/08/2003 11:36:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/8/2003 6:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Is it possible that the truth value of future propositions are not true or false until they manifest? That is, if I say, "I will marry Jaime," I am expressing my intent. (I of course would not say this unless I knew Jaime had the same intention).
However, the truth value of this statement cannot be known (at least by me) until we actually say "I do." Of course the situation would be different for God in terms of his degree of knowledge and intelligence, but is this kind of what Molina was talking about?
I remember sitting in a Christian singles class several years ago. The topic was "Does God have a match/perfect partner for me?" I did not win any popularity awards for interjecting, "You can't really know for absolute certain if a particularly person is the one for you until you've lived your whole life together, can you?" But then again, a couple may in fact be God's perfect match for each other but one or both of them still turn from God's will.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/8/2003 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bill,
If I may butt in, I would just like to point out that it seems that Tom is right about the fact that Jonah's prophecy actually did not come to pass:
Jon 3:4 Then Jonah began to go through the city one day's walk; and he cried out and said, "Yet FORTY DAYS and Nineveh will be overthrown." (emphasis mine)
The rest of the story, as far as the content of Jonah's prophecy is concerned, ends in this chapter. The people respond and repent (vv. 5-9), and then God responds and repents/relents from the calamity he had promised (v.10) The fact that Nineveh later was destroyed does not at all relate to Jonah's prophecy, as the pronounced time frame for Jonah's prophecy was quite specific--forty days.
5 ¶ Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them.
6 When the word reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, laid aside his robe from him, covered {himself} with sackcloth and sat on the ashes.
7 He issued a proclamation and it said, "In Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste a thing. Do not let them eat or drink water.
8 "But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands.
9 "Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish."
10 ¶ When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do {it.}
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/8/2003 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: So “mights” are really “wills” then.
Paul: Wouldn't you say a "might/perhaps" is still a "might/perhaps" until the event actually takes place?
I would, yes. But you wouldn’t. When I said, “So, ‘mights’ are really ‘wills’ then” I was stating what YOUR view amounts to. I believe in “might’s.” You don’t.
Paul: It makes no difference to those making the choice if God has knowledge before hand…
Tom: It makes every difference in the world. If my choice is certain an eternity before I make it, then I’m not the one making it. I didn’t make it certain. God didn’t “force” me to make it? Doesn’t matter. God doesn’t need to be the one determining my choice in order for his knowledge of my choice to show I am not free. All that’s needed to show that EDF and libertarian free will are incompatible is to show that “I” am not the one determining my choices.
Paul: Would you rather that God had said to Jeremiah "they won't believe you and will want to kill you, but take this message anyway"?
Tom: It’s your problem, not mine, that you’ve placed God in a position where his telling the truth is more awkward than his not telling the truth. Assuming your determinism, it wouldn’t matter to me whether God went on saying things that weren’t true or whether he said, “They won’t listen and will try to kill you, but take the message anyway.” Both reveal the problem with determinism: On the one hand it cannot account for the truthfulness of God’s descriptions of a conditional future, while on the other hand if we imagine God speaking accurately (i.e., truthfully) about an exhaustively determined future instead of falsely (i.e., conditionally), it also makes no sense.
Paul, why did you admit that it would be a lie for me to tell my kids “We might get ice-cream on the way home!” if I knew for certain we would not get ice-cream and didn’t intend to get any? You’re right in believing this would be lie. Why is it not a lie here? Because Hebrews says God doesn’t lie? So if God doesn’t lie, and if God’s using a “maybe” he knows falsely describes the future is what we would call a lie in any other circumstance, then why not think God’s telling the truth when he says “maybe”?
Paul: Maybe you think God should have detailed everything He knew to Jeremiah?
Tom: Again, no. I don’t think God has to detail “everything” he knows to Jeremiah. That’s not possible. But I do expect from a truthful God who cannot lie that when he DOES reveal a tiny bit of what he knows that it’s the TRUTH.
Paul: The conditions of Lev. 26.34 had been met long before Jeremiah's time, 490 years is a pretty long time, but God is longsuffering.
Tom: Longsuffering? There’s you answer Paul. Think about it. Why would God be “longsuffering”? What’s he waiting for? Peter says God is longsuffering because he doesn’t want the wicked to perish. He wants them to repent and NOT be judged. And that’s exactly what a TRUTHFUL divine offer of forgiveness in ch. 26 amounts to. Yes, God is warning. But he’s also “offering” forgiveness. He’s being longsuffering, merciful.
Are you suggesting God is under some obligation to judge Israel because they were disobedient? That he is constitutionally incapable of forgiving them now under any circumstance? Does God only forgive us BEFORE we meet the “conditions” that earn us wrath and judgment? Then why aren’t you and I in hell right now? We earned it. We deserved it. And yes, Israel deserved to be judged, and if God sent them into exile without this last offer of forgiveness he wouldn’t be less than just. They received many such offers. But God doesn’t want judgment. He wants to forgive them and avoid exile, and he’s offering Israel one more chance.
Paul: It isn't about crops! I would think you could be more perceptive than thinking it's the crops.
Tom: Well, you were going on about crops and the number of years required to give the land rest.
Paul: It's about disobedience, rebellion and rejecting God's word!...
Tom: That’s places Satan and evil at center stage instead of God. No, my friend. It’s about repentance, forgiveness, and the opportunity to not reject God’s word! That’s what “it’s about.” There is disobedience and rebellion, certainly. But it’s never “about” those things.
Paul: …1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Tom: And “the soul that sins shall die” and “the wages of sin are death”! Yes, yes. We know Paul. The point is GOD FORGIVES! We can meet all the conditions for deserving judgment and still be friggin forgiven if we repent!
quote:
Tom: They were not destroyed “just like he said.” That Ninevah “eventually” went the way of all nations is not the fulfillment of “the” judgment spoken against it by Jonah. Jonah’s prophecy never came to pass. God spared them of it because they repented. It’s right there in the story.
Paul: BTW, if you are going to quote me make sure it's a quote. I said, "just like He said" which indicates it is what God said through the use of the capital "H".
I knew you were speaking of God. So was I.
Wow.
Paul: Read the whole story, it continues into Nahum and Zephaniah. Nahum 3:7 And it shall come to pass, that all they that look upon thee shall flee from thee, and say, Nineveh is laid waste: who will bemoan her? whence shall I seek comforters for thee? Zephaniah 2:13 And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness. Care to tell me where Nineveh is today?
Tom: It’s in Iraq. Look, I’m not suggesting that God didn’t destroy Ninevah “just like God said ‘through Nahum or Zephaniah’.” I’m saying that when God did destroy Ninevah, it is wasn’t in fulfillment of JONAH’S prophecy, for that specific word from God did not come to pass since the people of Jonah’s day repented.
Paul: To you, it doesn't say God knew before it happened, but by the same token, it doesn't say He didn't either. You are basing your whole argument on one word, "perhaps", that I have shown can be applied as "in equity".
Tom: Yes, it only takes one word, Paul, truthfully spoken by God. “Perhaps” is one word placed so frequently on the lips of God by the authors of Scripture as to constitute a neon sign advertising God’s willingness to change previously intended judgment. God tells us so himself (Jer. 18.1-10).
Paul: Your "perhaps" is an attempt to negate the 70 year captivity that Jeremiah said was going to happen in 25.11! What's your explanation for Jeremiah knowing about this before 26.1 ff?
Tom: I’m tempted to reply with “You basing your entire argument on one word: ‘will’” but that wouldn’t be cool.
I answered your question already. I’m not negating the captivity. It happened in fulfillment of what God said through Jeremiah would happen if they didn’t repent. Jer. 25.11 was conditional. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to God’s explanation of how Jer. 25.11 can be conditional (and of why it MUST be conditional in the light of ch. 26) in Jer. 18.1-10.
Paul: Was he eating magic mushrooms? Since Jeremiah already knew about the captivity, do you think he really understood "perhaps" as a "might"?
Tom: “Perhaps” IS “might” Paul. There’s no difference. And no, I don’t think he was eating mushrooms. I think that since “might” by definition must describe a contingency (there is no other kind of “might”) that Jer. 25.11 must therefore be conditional, which is certainly possible for “wills” which express the inevitable consequences that follow IF the condition is met. There’s every reason to believe this is the case here. Not only God’s “might” shows this, but also God’s own helpful explanation in 18.1-10 of how he deals with nations in situations like these suggests that this is what’s going on here in ch. 25 and 26.
You’ve got Jerry and God eating mushrooms, dude. They both know exile is not conditional or contingent and yet say it is while extending a bogus offer of forgiveness to an entire nation.
Paul: He understood it as, "deliver this message and they're outta here", "three strikes and they're gone", "Go to Jail, go directly to Jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200"!
Tom: Jeremiah understood no such thing. In the entire chapter Jeremiah pleads with the people to listen, bringing example after example of times when God declared judgment would come but changed his mind when people responded in repentance. And that’s what can happen now. The point is not: “Strike three! You’re outta here!” The point is: “Here’s one last pitch! Don’t miss this opportunity. Repent and avoid judgment now!”
Tom
PS John, on Ps. 139.16 it's a question of translation, not text. More later.
Edited by - TGB on 06/09/2003 08:57:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 6/8/2003 9:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom and Paul. I don’t mean to interrupt, but I agree with Tom. If the actions of the people did not truly exist as possibilities to God, in that their response to God’s ultimatum delivered by Jeremiah could have genuinely either been one of cooperation or one of rebellion and known such to God, then God’s employment of the word “perhaps” would have blatantly been an act of deception and/or dishonesty to Jeremiah. Quite simply, if God foreknew the future outcome definitely and yet offered a clear impression otherwise to Jeremiah (despite Jeremiah’s personal thoughts/interactions for the character or reasoning of Jeremiah is not in question here) then God would be deceiving perhaps even lying in his discourse. With this said there is a clear contradiction in your logic Paul. You necessarily imply that God was deceptive to Jeremiah with the use of misleading rhetoric and simultaneously assert the God does not lie. It is for this reason that you must either concede that God can lie or that God truly perceived the actions of the people of Judah to not be definite in nature.
Just some thoughts.
Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/9/2003 4:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Ryan: ...I agree with Tom.
Tom: adiaphora, give Ryan 500 bonus posts!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/9/2003 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
You seem to be forgetting that people, who can spend eternity in hell or in the presence of God, are a different situation from nations. Nations don't have an eternal destiny, therefore they must be dealt with in the here and now. The grace we receive is due to God's love for mankind in sending Jesus to bear the penalty for our sins. He didn't bear the penalty of national sins.
Lev. 26.34 is a condition that was violated for 490 years. There is no more "if" to consider, because the actions are history. So, you are suggesting that God should have just forgotten that disobedient history and acted like it never happened? That's exactly what you are coming across with by saying God should have just let it all go by without dealing with their rebellion. Israel/Judah knew what God had said and had no excuse, thereas Nineveh didn't know and repented when they learned God's requirements. Jonah 4.11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
You really seem to be hung up on Jer 18.1-10, but neglect verse 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Judah had done evil in God's sight for 490 years! You also neglect the decrees of God in Jer 13.1 ff 14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. You are the one who is making God a liar by suggesting Jer 26.1 ff is a "might" even though you said, "I don't believe God EVER says what he doesn't mean." He has repeatedly said they will be punished by going into captivity! There's no maybe/might about it, they are going into captivity for 70 years.
Since the captivity is an established fact, I would suggest that your "perhaps" is an error promulgated by the translators of the modern translations you seem to prefer. You totally blew off the Abbott-Smith reference, because it didn't agree with your preconceived idea of God's foreknowledge and contradicts the "perhaps" you have to have. Abbott-Smith, isos (adv., in LXX Gen 32.20, Jer 5.4, al.:)1. equally. 2. perhaps: Isn't the primary definition usually listed first?
Jer. 5.4 KJV Therefore I said, Surely these are poor; they are foolish: for they know not the way of the LORD, nor the judgment of their God.
Jer 5.4 NASB (1973) Then I said, "They are only the poor,
They are foolish;
For they do not know the way of the Lord
Or the ordinance of their God."
Did you see a "perhaps" in either version?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/15/2003 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul: …I would suggest that your "perhaps" is an error promulgated by the translators of the modern translations you seem to prefer. You totally blew off the Abbott-Smith reference, because it didn't agree with your preconceived idea of God's foreknowledge and contradicts the "perhaps" you have to have. Abbott-Smith, isos (adv., in LXX Gen 32.20, Jer 5.4, al.:) 1. equally. 2. perhaps: Isn't the primary definition usually listed first? Jer. 5.4 KJV Therefore I said, Surely [here’s your isos; italics mine] these are poor; they are foolish: for they know not the way of the LORD, nor the judgment of their God. Jer 5.4 NASB (1973) Then I said, "They are only [italics mine] the poor, They are foolish; For they do not know the way of the Lord Or the ordinance of their God." Did you see a "perhaps" in either version?
Tom: We’re not going to agree on this, but I wanted to suggest a closer look nonetheless.
I didn’t “blow off” Abbott-Smith. And LXX translations are important. I base a lot on them myself when I can. But be careful to pay attention to how the Hebrew behaves.
In Jer. 26.3 “perhaps” translates the Hebrew ’ulay, which occurs some 45x (total) in the OT with the meaning of “perhaps.” But sure enough, the LXX translates ’ulay in Jer. 26.3 with isos, a word which (let’s assume you’re right) only may mean “perhaps” but which primarily means “equally.”
OK, so does the fact that isos usually means “equally,” “in like manner,” or “equitably” mean we ought to understand the Heb. ’ulay in passages like Jer. 26.3 and 36.7 to mean “equally” and NOT “perhaps”? Here the answer ought clearly to be no. Why? Because ’ulay simply doesn’t carry this meaning. It’s that simple. Though the Greek isos, even if it primarily means “equally,” may also carry the meaning of “perhaps” the Hebrew does not bear the meaning of “equally.”
isos and taxa pair up. isos pertains to an event having a high degree of probability ([see Friberg, Liddell-Scott, and Louw/Nida] so “probably” or “likely”; cf. Lk 20.13: “I will send my son; surely they will respect him” [which of course they do NOT do]), while taxa pertains to a low probability of occurrence (so “perhaps” or “maybe”; cf. Rm 5.7: “…perhaps for a good person someone might dare to die.”)
What’s the point? Point is, the uses of the Greek isos and the uses of the Heb. ’ulay intersect at one place: “perhaps.” Let’s look at Jer. 5.4 that you ask me about, because I do agree that there’s no “perhaps” in this verse. Problem is, there’s no “perhaps,” no ’ulay as in 26.3, in the Hebrew either, so it doesn’t even speak to our issue. Jer. 5.4 uses the Heb. ’ak, an entirely different adverbial particle which basically means “surely” in affirmative emphases and “but” in restrictive empases (cf. BDB Lexicon).
So do I see “perhaps” in the LXX of Jer. 5.4 which uses isos? No. Because the Hebrew doesn’t say “perhaps” (’ulay), it says “surely” (’ak). Your mistake—and it is a mistake—was to think that because isos cannot mean “perhaps” in Jer. 5.4, that it cannot mean “perhaps” in Jer. 26.3. This is strange, since you admit that “perhaps” is a possible meaning of isos. Pay attention to the Hebrew. In 5.4 you have ’ak (“surely”) while in 26.3 you have ’ulay (“perhaps”). “Surely” works in Jer. 5.4 and 1Sa 25.21 where it translates the Heb. ’ak. No problem. That’s what the Hebrew means. But in Gen. 32.20, Jer. 26.3 and 36.7, the three passages where isos translates the Heb. ’ulay, it doesn’t work.
Another problem with understanding ’ulay as “equally” because of isos is the difficulty of attributing anything meaningful to the verse if isos is taken to mean “equitably” here as you argue it ought. Is God saying to Jeremiah, “Equally they will listen to me?” And what does that mean? You offer: “God didn't force them to make that choice, but out of equity…offers another chance to respond properly.” OK, Liddell-Scott also argue that “fairly” or “equitably” is one of the meanings of isos. So translate it for me. “_______ they will listen.” What do we place in the blank? “Fairly they will listen to me”? “Equitably they will listen to me”? “Equally they will listen to me”? What do any of these mean? You want to ascribe the fairness, the equity, to God’s offer. But the grammar doesn’t allow that. Grammatically the equity or fairness (if that’s the way you insist on translating the Hebrew ’ulay) is an adverb which describes Israel’s listening (or not), and not the divine “offer.”
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/15/2003 5:26:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/15/2003 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Just a few more interesting things about the Heb. ’ulay, or “perhaps.”
It you have a Hebrew search engine, you’ll find 46 verses containing 47 hits for this adverbial particle. Of these 47 hits, a whopping 4 times it is translated by the Greek isos. A stroll through these verses is interesting. Can’t list them all. Perhaps (no pun intended) people would get bored. But to summarize:
’ulay is translated in the LXX mostly with ean or ei (that is, with “if”) or mepote (that is, “What if…” as an interrogative, or “perhaps” [cf. Gen 43.12: “Perhaps it was an oversight,” and 1Ki 18.27: “Cry louder! Perhaps he is asleep!”] in non-interrogative clauses).
In Jer. ’ulay (“perhaps”) is used six times: 20.10; 21.2; 26.3; 36.3, 7; and 51.8. It is translated three times by isos only in 26.3 and 36.3, 7 and three times simply by ei.
Sometimes ’ulay is translated with a hina clause (“in order to”) or by hopos (“that,” or “in order that”), which makes perfect sense. Often a command is given followed by the Heb. “…perhaps x will happen” (1Ki 18.5 “Let us go through the land. Perhaps we will find grass….” That’s the literal Heb. The LXX translates, not inaccurately, “Let’s go throughout the land 'to' find grass….”)
There’s no denial of contingency in any of these. Of the 47 hits, the three translated by isos hardly constitute a challenge to understanding the Heb. ’ulay as “perhaps.” This is confirmed by every other occurence of the particle translated by various Greek words that clearly DO admit contingency. Given the fact that isos may mean “perhaps,” there can be no reason left for insisting that it mean “equally” here, especially since it does not translate the Heb. ’ak as in Jer. 5.4.
Still wanna say all the English translation committees (none of the members of which are open theists; many of whom are determinists like you), as well as Louw/Nida, Friberg, and Liddell-Scott are mistaken? On what basis? Not even Abbott-Smith argues that isos may only mean "equally."
Told you we'd disagree. Hey, I tried.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 06/15/2003 9:13:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 6/17/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
It took you so long to reply I thought the subject had been dropped.
You spent a lot of time digging in the lexicons, which is a commendable exercise. However, you still seem to want to skirt the fact of the "if" condition of Leviticus having been satisfied long before Jeremiah. If God doesn't fulfill what He said in Leviticus, by allowing repentence in Jeremiah to negate the just sentence already decreed, then you are making God a liar. That "if" condition in Leviticus is what determines the possibility of Jer 26.3 actually meaning "perhaps". God said in Leviticus, if j(Judah) does d(disobedience) then p(punishment) will happen, but when j(Judah) does d(disobedience) for 490 years then n(no punishment) actually happened, there is a problem with the veracity of the speaker. When the conditions of "if" are met, "then" is executed, just like 70 years in captivity is the mathematical result of 490 years of refusing a sabbatical for the land that God said must not be refused. If j = d, then p = t/7 where t = time in years and 7 is the sabbatical interval. Read Leviticus 26 and see how many "if, then" statements are there. I have no idea why He waited 490 years, unless it was just part of His pre-determined plan. Leviticus 26.41 ...if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 400 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:10 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|