Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > "To Foreknow" Not What You've Been Taught

Forum Quick Jump

150 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/20/2003 4:52 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Laika,

Are you really in Africa?

Just curious.
Shell

"Laika / Zosima / Western Sahara"

That would then be "WESTERN SAHARA, OHIO?

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 7/20/2003 6:15 PM (GMT -6)

So, Fleetwood, do you agree that as Christians we shouldn't bear false witness against each other, even if we are americans?

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 7/20/2003 6:33 PM (GMT -6)

Albert,

Robertson was an American, who taught at Southern Baptist Theological in Louisville, KY, a Southern Baptist Seminary. In America, substantive means, "n. Grammar
A word or group of words functioning as a noun." It has nothing to do with "origins".

The UBS dictionary does not give ""purpose" as a primary definition of the word prognosis." The primary definition is foreknowledge, since "primary' indicates the most used or first definition.

EDIT: BTW, here is what proginosko means, "perceive understand beforehand" source http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon, where they speak Greek.

Edited by - Paul5388 on 07/20/2003 11:55:20 PM

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 7/21/2003 6:03 PM (GMT -6)

Albert,

Yes, I guess you do need to check a few more lexicons. Liddell, Scott and Jones don't allow your definition either.

The reference is, A.T. Robertson, A.M., D.D., LL.D., Litt. D., Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1933, Vol VI, p. 79. Robertson was Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Seminary and he wrote 34 books that I can count, including A Grammar of the Greek New Testment in the Light of Historical Research (Fifth Edition).

I'm glad you figured out there is a section to check the meaning of ancient Greek on the Cyprus site I cited and I did give you the definition for the ancient Greek.

EDIT:

quote:
Just because you have little respect for the KJV I should accept your NIV as being authorative? It might have been helpful if you would have actually checked a Greek text to see what I Peter 1.20 said. The actual word is "proegnosmenou", but when you look at Strong's 4267 you get "proginosko". So, you used a different word, but you reject using "prognosis", because it's different? That's some strange logic or it represents a bias on your part that shows you aren't really looking for the truth.

pro+egnôsmenou perf part mid/pass masc/neut gen sg raw_preverb source Are you sure you don't want to change your mind about Pelajus using a different word to make his point while rejecting a noun?

For some reason I can't seem to remember how to get the url to do right.

EDIT2: I guess it helps to go back and read the FAQs!

Edited by - Paul5388 on 07/21/2003 11:35:43 PM

Edited by - Paul5388 on 07/21/2003 11:42:03 PM

EDIT3:

quote:
progignôskô , Ion. and later progeôrg-gi_nôskô : fut. -gnôsomai: Ep. aor. inf. prognômenai h.Cer.257 :--know, perceive, learn, or understand beforehand, ti l.c.; ta stoicheia Pl.Tht.203d : abs., E.Hipp.1072; p. hoti . . X.Eq.Mag.8.12 :--Medic., know before being told, declare unaided, ta te pareonta kai ta progegonota kai ta mellonta esesthai Hp. Prog.1 ; tous kairous Id.Aër.2.

2. prognosticate, p. cheimôna hai melittai Arist.HA627b10 .
3. foreknow, laon Ep.Rom.11.2 , al.
4. c. gen., p. tôn theôn learn things in advance of . . , Philostr.VA8.7.
II. judge beforehand, es to mellon kalon p. Th.2.64 ; provide, ti X.Cyr.2.4.11:--Pass., para tôi diaitêtêi proegnôsmenos adikein judged beforehand to have done wrong, D.29.58, cf. Inscr.Délos 502 A 12(iii B.C.). source

Would you care to show me "choose" being mentioned here?

Edited by - Paul5388 on 07/21/2003 11:48:47 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/21/2003 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

Let me jump in (because I'm up late) and see if I get taken an ounce seriously.

1 Peter 1:20 says (ASV -- vs. 18-):

quote:
18 knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, [even the blood] of Christ: 20 who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake, 21 who through him are believers in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God.

Critique me.

vs. 21 is a stray, so to clean it up quick-like, "who through him are believers" is those "ye were redeemed" in vs. 18. Then the rest reads like this:

ye were redeemed. . .with precious blood. . .of Christ: who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of times for your sake...

That boils down to Christ being forknown before the foundation of the world. And raises the question--for good measure--whether this is merely the divine Logos/Son or Christ the God-man. I vote, of course, for the later. It was the incarnation and the economy of the incarnation that was foreknown. And THAT tells us something about the foundations themselves, as their whole importance and meaning is dependent on their Creator/Sustainer.

SO, WHY IS EVERYONE SO INTERESTED IN SPLITTING HAIRS ABOUT "proegnosmenou", and "proginosko" etc???

Athanasius says:

quote:
Jeremiah in the days of Josiah; Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied under Cyrus and Darius; and others in other times); yet they were not laying the foundations of divine religion; it was before them, and was always, for before the foundation of the world God prepared it for us in Christ.

It seems to be one of those statements that refers beyond itself, and so, no one that should be quibbled over. I think we need to get the "big picture."

PoW

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 7/22/2003 5:26 AM (GMT -6)

I guess I'd ask those opposing Pelajus's interpretation of those five texts using Progo ... Pogo? ...rats, I forgot how to spell it! Anyway, those five verses ... can you "opposers" give an interpretation of what the two verses (Acts 26:5 and II Peter 3:17) where the reference is to men. What does Proginosko (there, I got it!) mean here if it doesn't mean what Pelajus says it means?

For wishing I could spell better (I did find out, however, that bad handwriting isn't something so much in hand coordination but in the brain. Didn't make me feel any better, but at least I could use it as an excuse!),

Starkman

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 7/22/2003 4:23 PM (GMT -6)

Albert,

I'm glad you have finally admitted Pelajus is wrong. That must be the case if you have to qualify your statement with "of any substance". The only other problem is your failure to admit he is totally wrong.

This statement

quote:
Proginosko occurs five times, in Acts 26:5; Rom. 8:29, Rom. 11:2; I Pet 1:20; and II Pet 3:17.

is in error and we have shown that proginosko does not appear in I Peter 1.20. Then there is this statement

quote:
In doing the study, I turned up some interesting results.The fourth instance of the word proginosko, "foreknowledge," occurs in 1 Pet 1:20:

1 Pet. 1:20 He was chosen before (proginosko) the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. (NIV)
1 Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained (proginosko) before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,(KJV)

Notice that the translators of the NIV say that Christ was CHOSEN BEFORE the creation of the world.

that is in error and that has been clearly demonstrated to be the case. By your own research you have shown "chosen" is NOT a proper definition and that makes the statement, Pelajus and the NIV wrong.

Therefore, it is YOU who is needing to make an apology for trying very hard to make a case that I am in error.

You may think "purpose" and "predetermination" are "effectively the same thing", but any reputable dictionary will reveal the error in that thinking. Purpose may mean "Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.", but that is a far cry from predetermination. You would like for it to be the same, but that is only your preference, similar to preferring Vegamite to Marmite.

Then we have you trying your best to dig up an "expert" who is more "expert" than my "expert". The only problem is that I have dug up more "experts" than you have and they all say the NIV and Pelajus are wrong about "chosen".

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 7/22/2003 5:08 PM (GMT -6)

Albert,

Fine by me. BTW, I prefer Vegamite, but have both.

a2rutled
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22

Posted 7/22/2003 7:06 PM (GMT -6)

Paul,

Just inquiring:

Do you hold to the standard Arminian position? If not, what do you hold?

Just wondering.

Thanks

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/23/2003 6:26 AM (GMT -6)

Paul,

I find it hard to believe that you are apparently unwilling to actually address Pelajus arguments directly, which contained (and explained clearly) in his article. I just would expect more of you.

"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

Fleetwood
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110

Posted 7/23/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6)

Maybe Paul has a life and doesn't want to spend 24 hours of it talking about Pelajus. Go figure.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 7/23/2003 3:06 PM (GMT -6)

Fleetwood, perhaps Paul does have life as you say. But typically, when a person goes to great lengths to say a position is wrong, others expect him to refute that position fairly. Paul has not. I think John's response is appropriate. Perhaps instead of dropping your little "hard" comments about how "mean" open theists are, you might want jump in the fray, seeing as you have such amimosity towards open theism.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/23/2003 3:34 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
honorman
Zosima
633 Posts

and

quote:
writerdad
Zosima
646 Posts

THEIR 'NECK AND NECK'!

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 7/23/2003 3:58 PM (GMT -6)

A2,

I suppose I am what you would call a standard Arminian, if you mean that I agree with Arminius. Much of what is called Arminian today is not in agreement with Arminius, maybe like OV?

John,

What do you really want from me? You presented Pelajus as some sort of expert on the subject and I showed that he isn't expert and in some cases he is just wrong. Albert presented much stronger arguments than Pelajus did, but that still didn't help gloss over the inaccuracies Pelajus presented. Now you want to hold my feet to the fire?

This whole exercise should have shown you what a poor translation (and I use the term "translation" very loosely here) the NIV is. Yet, Pelajus actually bolstered/shored up some of his conclusions by what the NIV says without checking to see if that was what the Greek text actually agreed with. What other conclusion can I come to other than Pelajus used what agreed with his bias or he was in way over his head?

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/23/2003 4:13 PM (GMT -6)

Here is what I had hoped (apparently in vain) would happen: I would sincerely like to see a reasonable discussion of Pelajus' actual article. I suppose I should have done this from the start, but hopefully we can redeem this discussion. I will post point by point of Pelajus' article, with hopes of some substantive feedback.

(Begin Quote)

This is from Strong's Online:

4267. proginosko
/ v AV - foreknow 2, foreordain 1, know 1, know before 1; 5 1) to have knowledge before hand 2) to foreknow 2a) of those whom God elected to salvation 3) to predestinate
Proginosko occurs five times, in Acts 26:5; Rom. 8:29, Rom. 11:2; I Pet 1:20; and II Pet 3:17. In doing the study, I turned up some interesting results.

First off, in two of the five times that it is used, it is not used of God, but of men, and surely men do not have an omniscience that requires foreknowledge. In fact, in those two instances, the word proginosko is used to say that men knew something before, in times past.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instance #1
One occurence of the word, when used in reference to men is:

Acts 26:5 They have known me for a long time (proginosko) and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. (NIV)
Acts 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning (proginosko), if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. (KJV)

Who had proginosko, in Acts 26:5? Who had "foreknowledge?' The answer is in v.4:

Acts 26:4 The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem.

Paul is presenting his defense to Agrippa, and says that the Jews KNEW HIM BEFORE (proginosko). The use of the word, proginosko, does not, in this instance, require, divine foreknowledge or omniscience. Paul is merely saying that his accusers KNEW BEFORE what his life had been like.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/23/2003 4:14 PM (GMT -6)

(Begin 2nd Quote of Pel's article)

Instance #2

The second occurence of the word proginosko, when used in reference to men occurs in:

2 Pet. 3:17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know (proginosko) this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. (NIV)
2 Pet. 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, (proginosko) beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (KJV)

Who had proginosko, "foreknowledge," in 2 Pet 3:17? The answer is found in the opening salutation of the book. Peter addresses his letter:

2 Pet. 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

The Christians who received Peter's letter are the one who KNEW these things BEFORE. Again, no divine foreknowledge of events beforehand is required. Men are not omniscient, so this usage of the word proginosko cannot mean "foreknowledge" in the sense that most people mean when they use it. They just KNEW the things that Peter is writing about BEFORE, and he is just reminding them of these things.

No "foreknowledge" is required here.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/23/2003 4:15 PM (GMT -6)

(Begin 3rd Quote of Pel's article)

In another two instances of the use of the word proginosko, the words are used of God, but do not require the interpretation to mean that God knew something ahead of time, before it occurred.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Instance #3
One of these instances is in Rom. 11:2, a chapter often used to try and prove God's absolute omniscience and sovereignty, usually to the detriment of God's character.

Here is the verse:

Rom. 11:2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew (proginosko). Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against Israel: (NIV)
Rom. 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew (proginosko). Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, (KJV)

Who had proginosko, "foreknowledge," in Rom. 11:2? God.

"AHA!!!!!," you shout! "God had FOREKNOWLEDGE!!!"

Let's look at this verse for a second:

Rom. 11:1-2 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against Israel: (NIV)

Here, Paul gives an illustration from history, the Old Testament, of how God, who KNEW the Jews BEFORE, in the past, has not rejected the people, whom He KNEW BEFORE, under the OT covenant. He has not forgotten them, but has instead, for the time being, merely set them aside to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. There is no requirement, from the context of this verse, to make the word proginosko mean anything other than that God KNEW Israel BEFORE, under the old covenant.

Paul is talking about Israel, the chosen people of the OT. In the context, Paul writing that Christians have been grafted in, in the place of the Hebrews, it makes more sense to translate the verse:

God did not reject his people, whom he KNEW BEFORE. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah-- how he appealed to God against Israel:

Again, here is another verse that does not require the imposition of divine predetermination on to it, but merely says that God KNEW Israel BEFORE, in the time of the Patriarchs and the Law.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/23/2003 4:16 PM (GMT -6)

(Begin 4th Quote of Pel's article)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Instance #4
The fourth instance of the word proginosko, "foreknowledge," occurs in 1 Pet 1:20:

1 Pet. 1:20 He was chosen before (proginosko) the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. (NIV)
1 Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained (proginosko) before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,(KJV)

Notice that the translators of the NIV say that Christ was CHOSEN BEFORE the creation of the world. God, before the foundation of the world, knew Christ. Why? Christ is God the Son, the second part of the trinity. It requires no great feat of omniscience to know someone before an event, if you are intimately acquainted with them.

I could just as well say that BEFORE I purchased a computer, I KNEW my wife. Of course I did, since we have been married for more than 25 years, and I was finally able to purchase my Macintosh iMac only two years ago. In no sense of the word would one say that I had foreknowledge of my wife. I just KNEW her BEFORE I bought my iMac.

In the same sense, God the Father, BEFORE the creation of the world, KNEW Christ.

This verse does not require an omniscient foreknowledge of of the future. It simply says that God the Father knew Jesus Christ before the creation of the world. Since Christ is the Son of God from eternity past, this is no surprise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that disposes of 4 of the 5 occurences of the word proginosko, "foreknowledge." In none of these instances, does the usage of the word require the actual translation "Foreknow," or "Foreknew." In fact, in two of the four, it has to be positively eliminated, as it is used in reference to men.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 7/23/2003 4:18 PM (GMT -6)

(Begin Fifth and Final Quote of Pel's article):

There remains one more occurance of the word proginosko, "foreknowledge."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Instance #5
The final occurence of the word proginosko, "foreknowledge," is in Rom 8:29:

Rom. 8:29 For those God foreknew (proginosko) he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (NIV)
Rom. 8:29 For whom he did foreknow (proginosko), he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (KJV)

I like Clark Pinnock's treatment of this verse, in his excellent essay, From Augustine to Arminius:

2. I was then driven back to the Scriptures to reconsider what divine election might mean, if in fact God desires all to be saved and cannot be thought of any longer as selecting some to be saved and placing the others under wrath and reprobation, as in high Calvinism. How shall I understand those texts that I had always assumed said and meant exactly that?

One possibility that presented itself was to think of election as being based on the foreknowledge of God (Rom. 8:29); I Peter 1:2). This was the standard Arminian position--one favored by early Greek fathers--and it would deviate least from the Calvinian idea of the selection of a certain number of specific individuals from before the creation of the world to be saved. It would simply introduce, on the basis of divine omniscience, the element of conditionality into the idea of divine election and thus appear to rescue it from arbitrariness. Although at this time I had not yet come to reconsider the nature of the divine omniscience presupposed in this account, even then I found myself attracted to a second possibility--that election is a corporate category and not oriented to the choice of individuals for salvation. I knew that everyone admitted this to be the case in the Old Testament where the election of Israel is one of a people to be God's servant in a special way. Was it possible that the New Testament texts too could be interpreted along these same lines? Upon reflection I decided that they could indeed be read corporately, election then speaking of a class of people rather than specific individuals. God has chosen a people for his Son, and we are joined and belong to the elect body by faith in Christ (Eph. 1:3-24).

According to Pinnock, this verse can refer to an election of a body of believers, unknown in the specific, but predetermined by the plan of God. Pinnock points to God's dealing in the past, with regard to Israel, in the Old Testament. God chose a people, the descendants of Abraham, to be His people. This is in the aggregate, not the specific, for not all who were Israel were/are saved (Rom 11:7). Just so with the New Testament. God "foreknew" a body, the church, in the aggregate, because it was His predetermined purpose to save "whosovever will." But this aggregate is not specific; it is not predeterminied who will be saved, and who will be damned. Instead, God chose to open the offer of salvation to all, and He gives the invitation to all. And all may refuse or not refuse. Nothing in this verse requires that God know ahead of time who would and would not accept His invitation. God issued a general pardon, and waits for all to accept or reject.

Pinnock's treatment satisfactorily deals with this last verse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a last note, isn't interesting to note that there are two definitions of the word proginosko, one definition when it is used of God, and another when it is used with man? Seems schizophrenic, doesn't it?

It is just that the church has been in the thrall of the teachings of the Platonic-influenced Augustine, for centuries, and John Calvin's treatment of Augustine, that became the dominant treatment in Protestant Christendom for the past 400 years. It is too bad that this is so, because this teaching has done great damage to the reputation of God. Just witness Ken Smith's logical assumptions about God, based on his knowledge of Augustinian/Calvinistic doctrine.

I recommend that all read Clark Pinnock's essay, From Augustine to Arminius, in its entirety. It is located at:

http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/pilgrim.htm

It is an excellent, well-thought out essay, and documents Pinnock's pilgrimage in knowing God.

(End Quote)

I would really love to see some actual discussion of Pelajus' article, not rabbit chasing and statements like, "not even interested in finding the truth," etc. This is really not asking too much, I hope.

"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

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 7/23/2003 7:04 PM (GMT -6)

John,

Let’s start with this. No one, who wants to be taken seriously, would depend on the “Strong’s Online”, Pinnock and the NIV to convince anyone about anything. To do so would call into question their judgment from the beginning. These three sources are not “expert” sources. The first is incomplete, the second is opinion and the third is “dynamic”, which is to be understood as subjective instead of objective.

Then, there is the apparent assumption that God is restricted to whatever humans are capable of doing. Putting it another way, since humans can’t foreknow from before time existed, then God can’t know either. That makes this scripture, Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: a lie, if He doesn’t have foreknowledge to use in choosing “before the foundation of the world”. Maybe instead, God used daisy petals to make His choice? So, when Pelajus says, “but merely says that God KNEW Israel BEFORE, in the time of the Patriarchs and the Law.”, he is assuming God didn’t have knowledge of Israel before the “time of the Patriarchs and the Law”. Where is that constraint even implied?

More later.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 7/24/2003 1:48 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

He was chosen before the foundation of the world. If we are in him, then we are part of the chosen.

The parallel was Abraham. God chose Abraham. Those who were physically born into Abraham's family became part of the chosen people of God.

God chose Jesus. Those who are spiritually born into Jesus' family are now part of the chosen people of God.

Simple, parallel, easy to understand.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/24/2003 2:24 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

quote:

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

He was chosen before the foundation of the world. If we are in him, then we are part of the chosen.

The parallel was Abraham. God chose Abraham. Those who were physically born into Abraham's family became part of the chosen people of God.

God chose Jesus. Those who are spiritually born into Jesus' family are now part of the chosen people of God.

Simple, parallel, easy to understand.

Yes, Election is a CALLING. The focus of what "election" IS is on Christ, not on individuals.

www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=567

quote:
Lewis B. Smedes (a fairly independently thinking Calvinist) on Election, in "Union with Christ", pp.85-90
=============================

5. ELECTION IN CHRIST

. . .

Fleetwood
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110

Posted 7/24/2003 11:00 AM (GMT -6)

Paul, while I would debate your view re: KJV vs. NIV, I certainly agree with your view on the "expertness" of Pinnock. He is not a source of whom I consider "expert" but rather heretical, and as you say, opinion.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 7/24/2003 12:35 PM (GMT -6)

But of course the NIV is a bad translation. Let's see, Paul's word against all the scholars who translated the NIV. Hmmm, Oaul, for your sake I hope your not going to totally ruin your reputation and comes out and say you believe the KJV is the word of God.

Apparent most of the pastors, teachers, students and the average Christian is wrong, because the NIV is easily the best selling translation today. Dynamic, Paul, does not mean less accurate. You might want to read up on Bible translations and translating in general before you shoot off your mouth about whether or not a translation is good or not.

Edited by - honorman on 07/24/2003 5:43:45 PM

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 7/24/2003 5:19 PM (GMT -6)

Laika,

Abraham had a son named Ishmael, who was part of his family. Is it still so simple? Besides, it says "chose us" to be in Him. That's a whole lot more simple and has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. Especially if you consider God chose Noah also.

Honorman,

While I prefer the KJV and don't consider it to be perfect, I also accept the NKJV and the NASB as containing the word of God to a greater degree than the NIV. Dynamic does mean less accurate. It is a subjective choice on the part of the "translators" as to what they feel communicates the meaning most closely, which means it isn't a translation, but a paraphrase. Coupled with the fact that the next edition may contain a revision of how they feel, it is certainly inferior to many other translations. Even the RSV uses "destined", as in predestinate, instead of "chosen" and the NASB uses "foreknown" even though both make use of Wescott and Hort (Nestle-Aland) just like the NIV. Maybe you are suggesting the scholarship is superior in the NIV when compared to the NASB, even thhough the NASB has a well deserved reputation for being the most literal of all the translations based on the Roman Catholic texts.

150 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:05 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual