 |
 | 
Acolyte
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2005
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 6/26/2005 1:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | Jeff,
Aristotle deems it final causation because it deals with the ends or goals or purposes for which things are done or for which things exist. Your switching them around by mistake is a common mistaken. It's not a big deal.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Acolyte
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2005
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 6/26/2005 11:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
It is called final CAUSATION because the word CAUSE didn't mean what it does today in english. In english when we speak of CAUSE we mean EFFICIENT CAUSATION. But cause for Aristotle just meant reason or an explanation. So there is FORMAL, FINAL, MATERIAL and EFFICIENT causation.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 6/27/2005 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill and Mr.Young said...
Well, the Septuagint translates this in a way that can mean "now I have known," as in Young's translation:
"... for now I have known that thou art fearing God, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only one, from Me.’
Well then, because you refuse the plain words of script ure as found printed in every "other" English translation of the Holy script ures, I am now justified in saying " now I have known that you have an unteachable spirit".
Wait a minute  , that doesn't even make sense! How can I say that I already knew that you had an "unteachable spirit" before this latest bit of evidence rolled in? How could it be that only now I can say that I have known this to be the case all along.
I either knew this before, or I didn't really know it untill NOW, when you made your last post. I guess I can't follow you down the road of grammatical error either. 
Sorry Lee.
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/27/2005 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul, you are correct, sir. The Hebrew word used in "now I know" has the definitions:
1. to know
2. to learn to know
3. to perceive and see, find out, discern
4. to discriminate, distinguish
5. to know by experience
6. to recognise, admit, acknowlege
7. to consider
8. to be made known
9. to cause to know
10. to be (made) known
11. to make known
So, "now I know"
"now I learn"
"now I perceive", "now I see", "now I find out", "now I perceive"
"now I discriminate", "now I distinguish"
"now I know by experience"
"now I recognise", "now I admit", "now I acknowlege"
"now I consider"
"now it has been made known"
"now I have cause to know"
"now it has been made known"
are all comparable translations. None do not make the grammatical error of mixing tenses within a phrase, a common mistake made by ESL students, often to hilarious effect.
Young's just has it in the passive voice, "now it has been made known".
ざっねんだった
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/27/2005 6:39:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/27/2005 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi TDC,
ThatDarnCat said...
The Hebrew word used in "now I know" has the definitions:
1. to know
2. to learn to know
3. to perceive and see, find out, discern
4. to discriminate, distinguish
5. to know by experience
6. to recognise, admit, acknowlege
7. to consider
8. to be made known
9. to cause to know
10. to be (made) known
11. to make known
How was it then, that Adam knew his wife (same word), and we had a baby as a result? None of these meanings fit that meaning, and there are other ones, too! How did God know Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), even before birth?
ThatDarnCat said...
"now I know by experience"
Now I experience? That is the meaning I would prefer, here, that God can experience, in some ways, events in the world.
ThatDarnCat said...
None [make] the grammatical error of mixing tenses within a phrase ...
Such as saying "She says she is going to the store, and does she go to the store?" No grammatical error here, though!
ThatDarnCat said...
Young's just has it in the passive voice, "now it has been made known".
That's not actually what it says, though, "now I have known" (in line with the Septuagint) is what it says, I would prefer to read experiential knowledge here, but I mentioned this to show that other interpretations also are possible.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/27/2005 8:09:19 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 6/27/2005 8:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Note to "that darn cat",
Well spoken my friend. Well spoken.
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 6/27/2005 9:40 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...
Now I experience? That is the meaning I would prefer, here, that God can experience, in some ways, events in the world.
Sorry Lee, that escape route is closed as well. You see the Bible says that this was a "Test" of Abraham's faith, not a situation where God wanted to gratify Himself through the "experience" of Issac's sacrifice.
God did not want to "experience" anything! He just wanted to "know" if Abraham would obey this very, very difficult thing He had asked of him.
"22:1 Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham,"
"12And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
"16By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son-- 17blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."
God was testing Abraham here. The sacrifice was never consumated, and therefore was never "experienced" by God. God just wanted to "KNOW" if Abraham would obey or not.
God does this routinely with men and women. As a matter of fact Lee, I believe that God is testing you right now. Will you or will you not bow your heart to the plain words of scripture?
2nd Chronicles 32:31 "Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart"
Last chance to redeem yourself here Lee. Are the plain words of script ure good enough for you or not? 
Your brother in Christ
Paul
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/27/2005 10:07 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...Hi TDC,
ThatDarnCat said...
The Hebrew word used in "now I know" has the definitions:
1. to know
2. to learn to know
3. to perceive and see, find out, discern
4. to discriminate, distinguish
5. to know by experience
6. to recognise, admit, acknowlege
7. to consider
8. to be made known
9. to cause to know
10. to be (made) known
11. to make known How was it then, that Adam knew his wife (same word), and we had a baby as a result? None of these meanings fit that meaning, and there are other ones, too! How did God know Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5), even before birth?
Adam knew his wife and at that time, she conceived. Sperm meets egg. Are you advocating that Adam knew his wife (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) billions of years before she conceived? If not, then this knew is comparable to the knew where God saw Abraham obey and then knew (by observation) Abraham was obedient.
I repeat, Adam knew his wife at the time she conceived (conception is sperm meets egg), if it's the same word then God knew Abraham was obedient at the time Abraham was obedient. Present tense knowlege.
If knew meant billions of years prior, as you advocate, then you're giving the example of Adam as if Adam knew his wife (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) billions of years before sperm met egg! Doh!
That's hilarious!!!!  
God knew Jeremiah while he was in the womb, that's before birth and yet not billions of years prior. Present tense knowlege.
"NOW, I have the knowlege that comes from the observation of seeing you be obedient, Abraham". PRESENT TENSE KNOWLEGE
If God hadn't said "NOW", then we could try and figure out when, but "Now" means........ now, at that point of time.
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/27/2005 10:53:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/27/2005 10:28 PM (GMT -6) | | How can we make this simple?
1. Adam KNEW his wife and she conceived at that time (sperm meets egg).
2. Abraham obeyed God and God KNEW (at that time, by observation) Abraham was obedient.
3. At the time Jeremiah was in the womb, before birth, God KNEW Jeremiah.
None of these KNEW mean 'zillions of googleplex of trillions raised to infinity' years ago.
This is NO "exhaustive foreknowlege" in these scriptural examples. Just knowlege that was present tense at the time.
Um, <cough><cough>, some help for the uninformed......
Post Edited (ThatDarnCat) : 6/27/2005 10:41:20 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/29/2005 9:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
TDC said...
If knew meant billions of years prior, as you advocate, then you're giving the example of Adam as if Adam knew his wife...
Oh dear. No, I meant that there are other meanings that were not listed, not that every meaning is the same as every other meaning.
Various folks said...
Lee: Now I experience? That is the meaning I would prefer, here, that God can experience, in some ways, events in the world.
Paul: the Bible says that this was a "Test" of Abraham's faith, not a situation where God wanted to gratify Himself through the "experience" of Isaac's sacrifice.
"Test" also has a variety of meanings, though!
"Test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof, put to the test." (Theological Wordbook of the OT).
"Put to the proof," or "prove" will do, here.
Various folks said...
God did not want to "experience" anything! He just wanted to "know" if Abraham would obey this very, very difficult thing He had asked of him.
Then why did God say "then I will know" about Sodom's deeds? The same word, and yet even John Sanders says the meaning here with reference to Sodom's deeds is not God wondering about factual knowledge. And thus similarly, as we can see a parallel, in the case of Abraham.
Paul said...
God just wanted to "KNOW" if Abraham would obey or not.
Which is why he made an unconditional promise to bless Abraham, before this? In Genesis 15...
scripture said...
2nd Chronicles 32:31 "Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart"
This is indeed a quite similar phrase, and do we have a way of telling if God knew, factually, what was in Hezekiah's heart, here?
1 Kings 8:39 ... then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men...
Acts 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen..."
Paul said...
Are the plain words of scripture good enough for you or not?
Yes, they are! As here:
Psalm 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts.
Though he had said, back in verse one, in the very first verse, that God does know.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/29/2005 9:32:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 6/30/2005 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...
Then why did God say "then I will know" about Sodom's deeds? The same word, and yet even John Sanders says the meaning here with reference to Sodom's deeds is not God wondering about factual knowledge. And thus similarly, as we can see a parallel, in the case of Abraham.
17And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
20And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
God recieves reports from from prayer, from angelic hosts dedicated to manage certain situations, and even from Satan and those fallen angels associated with him. The "accuser" regularly lobbys God for permission to destroy the wicked and even the righteous who have stumbled badly.
How God maintains full knowledge of all things that may be presently known, is a matter only fully known to God. There are passages that talk about God shutting His eyes and ears to the doings of certain people, for fear of God being provoked to destroy them, were not there some distance placed between Himself and the persons in question. God may choose to limit His personal knowledge of a situation, for His own good reasons.
What happens when "lying spirits" bring evil reports of a place like Sodom before God's throne? Verification would seem to be the sensible thing for God to do. God may or may not choose to instantly know all things about every single person, city or nation. Sending angels down to Sodom in this particular instance, in order to verify the "cry" that rang out against the place is what God clearly states was going on.
I have the good sense and humility of soul before God, to just believe that the passage means what it says. Persons like you who deny at will, all that doesn't immediately fit neatly into the theological framework that you have previously bought into; lose the opportunity to really learn and understand. This is needless ignorance which you have chosen. God did not want to "hide what He was doing" from Abraham, and he doesn't want you to be in the dark about it either!
I cannot continue to discuss such matters with you Lee, because like so many other well intentioned souls, you just cannot or will not believe what you read. There really is no authority above the Word of God in these matters. If you can't handle what the Bible plainly says, (deferring rather to the authority of one denyer or another, "Sanders" in this particular instance), then we have no basis for further discussion.
You need to adjust your understanding to fit every single verse of God's Word, instead of discarding and denying every single verse that doesn't fit your Calvinistic framework. There are boatloads of such scriptures that you must deny in order to maintain the "lie" that you defend.
My conclusion in this matter.
Abraham was tested. Abraham passed with flying colours because he believed God, and he obeyed God.
The same cannot be said for Lee Merrill.
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 6/30/2005 6:43 AM (GMT -6) | |
God said...
9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
God knows what is in the heart of each and every man woman and child, BECAUSE He has searched and tried, is searching and trying, and will continue to search and try those hearts.
Statements from the Bible stating that "God knows our hearts" are true and make perfect sense, because of this continual searching!
God's knowledge of our hearts cannot deny the fact that God searches our hearts. Rather, it demands it!
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/30/2005 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Paul,
Paul said...
God may choose to limit His personal knowledge of a situation, for His own good reasons.
But then he is not omniscient, even in the sense the Open View means this: of having all possible knowledge.
Paul said...
God may or may not choose to instantly know all things about every single person, city or nation. Sending angels down to Sodom in this particular instance, in order to verify the "cry" that rang out against the place is what God clearly states was going on.
But let us note that God stayed with Abraham, while the angels went on to the city, again indicating that God did not need to verify the facts there.
Paul said...
I have the good sense and humility of soul before God, to just believe that the passage means what it says.
But God speaks of his arm, and his eyes, must we take the plainest meaning there? We have to take all of scripture together, and then make a synthesis, as you said.
Paul said...
I cannot continue to discuss such matters with you Lee, because like so many other well intentioned souls, you just cannot or will not believe what you read.
So we must follow Ptolemy, when we read that the sun rose?
Paul said...
Abraham was tested. Abraham passed with flying colours because he believed God, and he obeyed God.
I agree, and God also knew he would, thus the unconditional prediction that he would bless Abraham, long before this test.
Paul said...
God's knowledge of our hearts cannot deny the fact that God searches our hearts. Rather, it demands it!
Unless the Psalmist says "You know," and then further down, says "search me, and know"?
Psalm 139:4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord.
Which must include every word, and must imply present knowledge, prior knowledge, of every word we speak.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/1/2005 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hey there, Lee,
Say, if you haven't read the posts I did on the first page of this thread, you ought to do so. An existential perspective of the Open View helps, I believe, to put some flesh and blood on the issue.
Thanks,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/1/2005 10:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
John said...
Before a word is on our tongue it's on our MIND. All that the verse states or implies is God's perfect knowledge of the present.
But he mentions God seeing his thoughts, which may indicate that words in the form of thoughts are also included here, especially since the word "before" is not actually in the text, the NKJV is more literal, I would say:
Psalm 139:4 For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
And the next verse mentions being hemmed in behind and before, which also may be an indication that the future is in mind here, and not just the past and the present, surely just spatial presence, behind and before, does not seem to be so fitting in being called "too wonderful for me."
Starkman said...
An existential perspective of the Open View helps, I believe, to put some flesh and blood on the issue.
I did check the posts originally, though I might have to review them again, which issue did you have in mind, more specifically, here?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/2/2005 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...
Hi Paul,
Paul said...
God may choose to limit His personal knowledge of a situation, for His own good reasons. But then he is not omniscient, even in the sense the Open View means this: of having all possible knowledge.
So what. 
Lee Merrill said...
Paul said...
God may or may not choose to instantly know all things about every single person, city or nation. Sending angels down to Sodom in this particular instance, in order to verify the "cry" that rang out against the place is what God clearly states was going on. But let us note that God stayed with Abraham, while the angels went on to the city, again indicating that God did not need to verify the facts there.
Indicating, schmindicating! That's not what the passage clearly states was going on. 
Lee Merrill said...
Paul said...
I have the good sense and humility of soul before God, to just believe that the passage means what it says. But God speaks of his arm, and his eyes, must we take the plainest meaning there? We have to take all of script ure together, and then make a synthesis, as you said.
Yes we must. Those are "metaphors" and we both know this. Metaphorical language in the Bible in no way obscures the plain meaning.
The use of "metaphor" is no licence to deny the "plain meaning", despite your ardent wish to do so.
By the way, thanks for your tacit admission of guilt in the matter of setting aside the " plainest meaning" of the passages we have been discussing. 
Lee Merrill said...
Paul said...
I cannot continue to discuss such matters with you Lee, because like so many other well intentioned souls, you just cannot or will not believe what you read. So we must follow Ptolemy, when we read that the sun rose?
And thank you for this second confirmation of your guilt!  Metaphor is no licence for your admitted denials of the "plainest meaning" of a passage, as I have already stated.
The passages we have been considering have no metaphors anyway. Point them out if you think otherwise.
Lee Merrill said...
Paul said...
Abraham was tested. Abraham passed with flying colours because he believed God, and he obeyed God. I agree, and God also knew he would, thus the unconditional prediction that he would bless Abraham, long before this test.
Paul said...
God's knowledge of our hearts cannot deny the fact that God searches our hearts. Rather, it demands it! Unless the Psalmist says "You know," and then further down, says "search me, and know"? Psalm 139:4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord. Which must include every word, and must imply present knowledge, prior knowledge, of every word we speak.
Lee decides to buy a new SUV. He takes it for a test drive first. He buys it, signs on at the bank, but continues to test it on his first long distance drive on the rocky road to the "Bible-deniers" lodge in "Calvin county". Doubly satisfied with his choice he vows to keep it untill it rusts out in his driveway.
God's plan to bless Abraham prior to the test of faith put to him on Mount Moriah, was never in jepoardy at any time. Abraham was God's friend and the promise had already been made.
You have no point.
This secondary testing of Abraham does not prove prior knowledge of the result of the test.
Also, your comments re the passage in Psalms have already been satisfactorily answered by others posting on this thread.
Regards
Paul Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/3/2005 12:56 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lee Merrill said...Hi everyone,
John said...
Before a word is on our tongue it's on our MIND. All that the verse states or implies is God's perfect knowledge of the present. But he mentions God seeing his thoughts, which may indicate that words in the form of thoughts are also included here, especially since the word "before" is not actually in the text, the NKJV is more literal, I would say: Psalm 139:4 For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
I don't see what difference that makes. We both agree that God has perfect knowledge of what's on our mind.
Lee said: said...
And the next verse mentions being hemmed in behind and before, which also may be an indication that the future is in mind here, and not just the past and the present, surely just spatial presence, behind and before, does not seem to be so fitting in being called "too wonderful for me."
Methinketh that into the text thou dost read too much. The Psalmist was simply praising God for his nearness, which of course the Open View affirms.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 7/3/2005 1:00:58 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/3/2005 8:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Various folks said...
Lee: But then he is not omniscient, even in the sense the Open View means this: of having all possible knowledge.
Paul: So what.
Well, then it becomes difficult to show how God can even predict the future, if he doesn't have all present knowledge. And how can he know if he now needs to know a situation he chose not to know about before?
Various folks said...
Lee: But let us note that God stayed with Abraham, while the angels went on to the city, again indicating that God did not need to verify the facts there.
Paul: Indicating, schmindicating! That's not what the passage clearly states was going on.
There is an implication here, though, if God did not go on with the angels, which supports the non-factual interpretation of "then I will know," since "know" has a wide range of meanings, on what basis do we say that the factual meaning is clearly meant?
Various folks said...
Lee: But God speaks of his arm, and his eyes, must we take the plainest meaning there? We have to take all of scripture together, and then make a synthesis, as you said.
Paul: The use of "metaphor" is no licence to deny the "plain meaning", despite your ardent wish to do so. By the way, thanks for your tacit admission of guilt in the matter of setting aside the "plainest meaning" of the passages we have been discussing.
I agree that factual knowledge is the usual (I meant "plainest" more in that sense) meaning of "to know," and a real arm is usually meant when an arm is spoken of, and why can "know" not be a metaphor? It is, in Adam "knowing" his wife, for instance.
Various folks said...
Paul: you just cannot or will not believe what you read.
Lee: So we must follow Ptolemy, when we read that the sun rose?
Paul: Metaphor is no licence for your admitted denials of the "plainest meaning" of a passage, as I have already stated.
But "the sun rose" is not actually a metaphor, it is apparent language, describing how it looks to us, and this is just what we read, so we cannot believe what we read here?
Various folks said...
Paul: Abraham was tested. Abraham passed with flying colours...
Lee: I agree, and God also knew he would, thus the unconditional prediction that he would bless Abraham, long before this test.
Paul: This secondary testing of Abraham does not prove prior knowledge of the result of the test.
I agree, but the previous unconditional promise indicates just that, in your analogy, you did not know unconditionally that the car would be usable, so I would say that this is not such an appropriate analogy here.
Various folks said...
Psalm 139:4 For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
John: I don't see what difference that makes. We both agree that God has perfect knowledge of what's on our mind.
But if this refers to thoughts too, then this would indicate that God knows more than just our present state, for thoughts are the freest actions we have, and God then "knows them completely," implying more than just subsequent understanding of why we thought that way.
Various folks said...
Lee: And the next verse mentions being hemmed in behind and before, which also may be an indication that the future is in mind...
John: Methinketh that into the text thou dost read too much. The Psalmist was simply praising God for his nearness...
But mere extension of God's presence behind and before him doesn't seem to merit the "too wonderful for me to grasp" here. I kind of wish now I hadn't given up the word "before" in verse 4, for that would be another implication of "behind" meaning previously in time...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/4/2005 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lee said...it becomes difficult to show how God can even predict the future, if he doesn't have all present knowledge. And how can he know if he now needs to know a situation he chose not to know about before?
God arranges the future as opposed to merely predicting it. What knowledge He chooses to use, and when He chooses to use it is no matter for you or me to concern ourselves with.
You cannot say, "I won't believe anything in the Bible, unless I can understand how it all works beforehand"! Job could not answer God when challenged to explain how God created certain things, and neither can you! This gives you no right to deny the truth of the creation account in Genesis however.
Once again, your objection fails.
Lee said...on what basis do we say that the factual meaning is clearly meant? 
Satan said...Yea, hath God said,? (which sounds no different to my ears than what Lee has been saying all along)
At this point, I repent of having reengaged Lee in conversation on this thread. I refuse all discussion in the future with this "Bible denier", who dares to even suggest that the FACTUAL MEANING of a passage could be anything other than what was CLEARLY MEANT!
My appologies to the board.
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 7/4/2005 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Paul M. Blackmore said...
God arranges the future as opposed to merely predicting it.
Then that's definite knowledge of the future? Well, I agree!
Paul said...
You cannot say, "I won't believe anything in the Bible, unless I can understand how it all works beforehand"!
I certainly am not saying that!
Lee said...on what basis do we say that the factual meaning is clearly meant? 
I should have stated this differently, I think you have misunderstood me. I meant that "know" can mean "know facts," or it can mean knowledge as in experience, or in intimacy, this word does not always mean "know a fact," and I was asking on what basis we must say that "know" here means "know a fact"...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 48 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:48 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 |
|
|