 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Foreknowledge of a Christmas prophecy? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/10/2003 6:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom, once again are the man (maybe if YOU had helped with Matrix Revolutions it would have been saved...naaaa!, now theres a real mystery there ). Anyway, the playing field must be level if any true dialogue can prosper. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/10/2003 6:46 PM (GMT -6) | | | Chiam: I hear what you are saying about "too many prophecies there" for you to buy open theism. But that doesn't mean it isn't so. I say the same thing about God planning everything because if God plans everything God wanted sin and when God wants sin God ain't that loving to me. So we all have got the issues going there. I just wanted to let you know I understand where you are coming from. We have all got to make decisions about what we can and cannot accept about God. Our theology, a lot of times, depends on what is important to us. Our makeup contributes to how we see God, for better or for worse. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/10/2003 7:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by honorman
Tom, once again are the man (maybe if YOU had helped with Matrix Revolutions it would have been saved...naaaa!, now theres a real mystery there). Anyway, the playing field must be level if any true dialogue can prosper.
Ha! Had they done things differently in Reloaded perhaps we could have saved Revolutions! But as it is, doing Reloaded the way they did they sacrificed their freedom and so Revolutions was solidified failure!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 12/11/2003 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | The point brought up is a valid one; if one is going to discuss these issues in a fair way, one cannot halfway through appeal to mystery when the opposite side starts bringing up problems with your view. This simply isn't fair. It seems those who oppose the open view believe that simply casting doubts on the logical consistency of the open view is enough to make others come to their view. Win by default. This is not enough. Bringing to light the weakness of an opposing view does not make the problems in your own view simply disappear. I adknowledge their are problems in the open view. But there are problems in all views and until those who hold meticulous providence clean up their own house a little, they have no right to tell open theists their living room is dirty.
If one is going to appeal to mystery, one should stay out of the debate, because you simply are not playing fair. Defend your beliefs through the logic of argument, stop whining about God's mystery or shut up. This is a place to debate not dictate.
I do believe, however, that the problem lies in the assumption of right. I am right...and if you cannot understand it, its a mystery. | | Back to Top | | |
|
chiam
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 12/11/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, you keep saying that I "embrace theological determinism" and that "God is equally responsible for bringing everything to pass." Those are your words not mine because I clearly said that I "hold to the compatiblist view of freedom, which argues that there is both human freedom and complete divine foreknowledge such as D.A. Carson's book, "Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension.""
First, do think Greg Boyd would hold to your beliefs and actually preach such a view? I quote you:
quote:
If you can allow that God is able to determine THAT he is incarnate in Bethelem without having to determine exactly when and under which exact circumstances, then you're that much closer to understanding the open view of such prophecies. It's God's birth after all, right? So, it can't be very difficult for God to know where he'll be incarnate if he alone decides. And that's all that God tells Mica. God tells Mica the one bit of information about the incarnation that DOESN'T depend on anyone but himself, namely, where he's decided to incarnate himself.
You then later said: quote:
Did God know that Mary would be THE girl, that she'd live in Nazareth, that Caesar would be in charge and that he'd order a census? I don't think so. There's nothing in Mica 5.2 that requires all of this. All Mica does is limit the place of birth to a particular village? That leaves a lot open.
- God knew that He would be incarnate and the person whoever it will be, will give birth in Bethlehem? Now God must know free will decisions for Joseph and Mary to end up in Bethlehem or what? Can you hear the Son of God saying to the angels, "One day I will become incarnate to someone and they will give birth in Bethlehem but I don't know when...yet."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2003 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Chiam: Those are your words not mine because I clearly said that I "hold to the compatiblist view of freedom, which argues that there is both human freedom and complete divine foreknowledge.
Tom: Just to clarify, Chiam. The compatibilist view of freedom claims not the freedom and complete foreknowledge are 'compatible' (Arminians do that too), it claims that freedom and exhaustive, unconditional divine determination are compatible. Two very different claims.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
chiam
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 12/14/2003 10:53 AM (GMT -6) | |
Tom, but you even reject the classical Arminian view of foreknowledge and free-will.
Do you believe that God knows in advance the future free actions of his moral creatures? Yet, you no doubt believe that the place of the Messiah's birth was foretold (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1-6), he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:33), he would be betrayed for thirty pices of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13; Matthew 26:15; 27:9-10) etc..... and that Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection. How do you reconcile this with the view that God can not know in advance the future free actions of his moral creatures? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/14/2003 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Chiam: First, do think Greg Boyd would hold to your beliefs and actually preach such a view? I quote you:
quote:
: Tom: If you can allow that God is able to determine THAT he is incarnate in Bethlehem without having to determine exactly when and under which exact circumstances, then you're that much closer to understanding the open view of such prophecies. It's God's birth after all, right? So, it can't be very difficult for God to know where he'll be incarnate if he alone decides. And that's all that God tells Mica. God tells Mica the one bit of information about the incarnation that DOESN'T depend on anyone but himself, namely, where he's decided to incarnate himself.
You then later said:
quote:
: Tom: Did God know that Mary would be THE girl, that she'd live in Nazareth, that Caesar would be in charge and that he'd order a census? I don't think so. There's nothing in Mica 5.2 that requires all of this. All Mica does is limit the place of birth to a particular village? That leaves a lot open.
Tom: Would Greg Boyd hold my beliefs on the openness of the future surrounding Christ’s birth? Well, now, ya know, Greg and I go waaaaaay back. We’re twins actually. A lot of people don’t know that. Greg and I were separated at birth. We were joined at the head. When the doctors surgically separated us after birth, Greg got all the brains and I got all the looks. So I hesitate to claim that he’d agree with me, but I’m 99.99999 % sure. Let’s ask him.
Hey Greg! Are you around on this thread anywhere? Do you think God eternally knew that Mary was THE girl and Joseph THE man for the incarnation? Or did he rather know that along with Mary and Joseph there were other possible scenarios, parents, virgins, Caesars, etc. that might end up being the route he'd end up taking?
SIM: God knew that He would be incarnate and the person whoever it will be, will give birth in Bethlehem?
Tom: Is there something self-contradictory about this?
Chiam: Now God must know free will decisions for Joseph and Mary to end up in Bethlehem or what? Can you hear the Son of God saying to the angels, "One day I will become incarnate to someone and they will give birth in Bethlehem but I don't know when...yet."
Tom: I think Mary’s choice to say “Yes” to God for this role was a free one, which means I think it was within her power to say “No.” Had she said “No” then I don’t doubt that among all the virgins of Israel at the time there were other girls who loved God as much as Mary did. God would find a way. Love would find a way. Why are you so afraid that if God faces more than one option at any point that he’ll self-destruct or something? YOU are able to face options and choose and still achieve YOUR goals. Is God so inept, so weak, so insecure a God that he can’t handle options regarding when, where, and how he’ll become a human being?
Chiam: Tom, but you even reject the classical Arminian view of foreknowledge and free-will.
Tom: So do you if you’re a “compatibilist.”
Chiam: Do you believe that God knows in advance the future free actions of his moral creatures?
Tom: No, I don’t believe he does. God does of course know all the possible choices we may make, so he never surprised or caught off-guard or ill-prepared.
Chiam: Yet, you no doubt believe that the place of the Messiah's birth was foretold (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1-6), he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:33), he would be betrayed for thirty pices of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13; Matthew 26:15; 27:9-10) etc..... and that Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection. How do you reconcile this with the view that God can not know in advance the future free actions of his moral creatures?
Tom: I don’t see that reconciliation is needed because I think the events mentioned (being born in Bethlehem, being born of a virgin, being betrayed, rising from the dead) can be foreknown as certain to come to pass provided there exists more than one way they can come to pass. For example, you seem to equate “being born of a virgin” with “being born of Mary.” But there were other virgins who loved God who might have equally have filled this need. For all we know, there may have been other virgins who DID say “No thank you” to this role before Mary said “Yes.”
When discussing the way NT authors use and understand “fulfillment” we ought to keep in mind that they used “fulfill” in more than one way (sometimes specific fulfillment is intended, sometimes a more general fulfillment not involving specific prediction is intended). That’s another thread, but it would need to be addressed if you wanted to get into NT fulfillment in detail.
Peace!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/14/2003 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | |
chiam: Do you believe that God knows in advance the future free actions of his moral creatures? Yet, you no doubt believe that the place of the Messiah's birth was foretold (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:1-6), he would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:33), he would be betrayed for thirty pices of silver (Zechariah 11:12-13; Matthew 26:15; 27:9-10) etc..... and that Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection. How do you reconcile this with the view that God can not know in advance the future free actions of his moral creatures?
Doc: a) Would God need to ETERNALLY KNOW the FREE DECISIONS of SPECIFIC future individuals to make any of these predictions? Aren't we limiting God if we suppose this? Would a infinitely wise chess master need to know your specific future moves to announce "I shall checkmate you in not more than 12 moves?
b) On the thirty peices of silver in Mt 27:9-10, Matthew is conflating Jer. 32:6-15 and Zech 11: 13. Read both of these passages in their context and ask yourself honestly, "Do these passages PREDICT anything?" You'll find that they do nothing of the sort. Clearly, what Matthew meant by "fulfill" was not anything like "prediction that had to come to pass." "
Just one more example, in Jn 19:28 Jesus said he was "thirsty" to fulfill scripture, for he was given sour wine. The passage referred to is Ps. 69:21 in which David complains about his enemies, "They gave me poison for food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." The passage is making no prediction. But if it was, if it HAD to be fulfilled, if it proves divine foreknowledge of what the guard was going to do -- WHAT HAPPENED TO THE POISON FOR FOOD? As was quite customary for the time, John is using "fulfilled" in a sense that has nothing to do with "prediction that had to come to pass." What they meant was more along the lines of "this illustrates in the life of Jesus what has happened elsewhere." Jesus embodies the sort of ill treatment other servants of God (and in some cases, esp. in Matthew, Israel herself) got from people.
You'll find this to be true of MOST New Testament "fulfillments. So its not like theres all this detailed future detail that can only be explained by appealing to a future vision.
Little biographical note. I remember witnessing to a intelligent non-believer in college, using Josh McDowells Evidence That Demands a Verdict. McDowell claims theres 300+ prophecies that "had to be fulfilled". The non-believer did what I had never done -- HE LOOKED THEM UP. Oppps. Of the 300 or so, I ended up concluding that only 6 were clear predictions that HAD to be fulfilled. This is still impressive... but by this time I had lost all credibility with the non-believer.
Blessings
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/14/2003 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Ah come on Greg! You didn't say anything about our being joined at the head in birth and later being surgically separated!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chiam
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 12/15/2003 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's go back to the whole view prophecy. It seems that Isaiah is taunting the idols of the people and he shows that Yahweh is alone God because he predicts things before hand.
Is 41:21 "Present your case," the LORD says. "Bring forward your strong {arguments,}" The King of Jacob says.
Is 41:22 Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former {events,} declare what they {were,} That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming;
Is 41:23 Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.
And Isaiah 42:8-9
Is 42:8 "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Is 42:9 "Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim {them} to you."
It seems that these passages are setting Yahweh apart from idols by his ability to predict events in the future and declare them before they come to pass. I didn’t read in your book were you deal with Isaiah 41:21-23 or 42:8-9.
Greg you say regarding Isaiah 46:9-ff that the purpose here is that “He tells us that he is talking about his own will and his own plans.” (P.30 God of the Possible)
So, are you saying that God foreknows the future only in regards of what he plans to do?
You said that “God decided to have his chosen people remain in captivity “for four hundred years” (Gen. 15:13-15).” So, God had knowledge of free-will decisions of the Israel’s captors that they would enslave and oppress them for four hundred years? You say, “If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete. It’s because there is, in this view, nothing definite there for God to know! His lack of definite foreknowledge of future free actions limits him no more than does the fact that, say, he does not know that there is a monkey sitting next to me right now. As a matter of fact, there is no monkey sitting next to me, so it’s hardly ascribing ignorance to God to insist that he doesn’t know one is there. In just the same way, one is not ascribing ignorance to God by insisting that he doesn’t foreknow future free actions if indeed free actions do not exist to be known until free agents create them.” (16-17)
Yet, you say regarding the naming of Cyrus or Josiah, “they certainly show that Yahweh is the sovereign Lord of history and can predetermine (and thus foreknow) whatever he pleases, but they do not justify the conclusion that he has settled the entire future ahead of time.”
Do you believe that God foreknows some future events of free will creatures like the Gen. 15 passage or the naming of Josiah and Cyrus along with some of their predicted activities? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/15/2003 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by chiam
Let's go back to the whole view prophecy. It seems that Isaiah is taunting the idols of the people and he shows that Yahweh is alone God because he predicts things before hand.
Is 41:21 "Present your case," the LORD says. "Bring forward your strong {arguments,}" The King of Jacob says.
Is 41:22 Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; As for the former {events,} declare what they {were,} That we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming;
Is 41:23 Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.
And Isaiah 42:8-9
Is 42:8 "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Is 42:9 "Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim {them} to you."
It seems that these passages are setting Yahweh apart from idols by his ability to predict events in the future and declare them before they come to pass. I didn’t read in your book were you deal with Isaiah 41:21-23 or 42:8-9.
Where have you dealt with Isaiah 48:3?
Isaiah 48:3 "I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
Isaiah 48:3 is the pattern of how prophecy operates with God. Declaration followed by active fulfillment.
God is showing the false prophets that they can't bring about what they prophesy. It's a show of POWER by God.
Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he (2) sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying:
Matthew 2:15 He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
Matthew 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."
Matthew 12:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet:
"In order to fulfill", "This was to fulfill", sounds like a action done at the time in order to fulfill a prophecy.
If I declare, "tomorrow I'm going to wear white socks" and then the next day, "Laika put on white socks in order to fulfill the prophecy", does that sound like I know a future that doesn't exist yet? Or a declaration of what I'm going to do?
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
chiam
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 12/15/2003 9:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Fine Laika, you said:
quote:
Where have you dealt with Isaiah 48:3?
Isaiah 48:3 "I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
Isaiah 48:3 is the pattern of how prophecy operates with God. Declaration followed by active fulfillment.
God is showing the false prophets that they can't bring about what they prophesy. It's a show of POWER by God.
Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he (2) sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying:
I have no problem saying that God declared and then brought about a certain event.
But now go back and deal with all of the other text in Isaiah that deal with God’s foreknowledge of the future. Isaiah 41:21-29; 42:8-9; 43:9; 44:7-8, 25-28 and 45:19-21
Oh, and also deal with :
quote:
Greg you say regarding Isaiah 46:9-ff that the purpose here is that “He tells us that he is talking about his own will and his own plans.” (P.30 God of the Possible)
So, are you saying that God foreknows the future only in regards of what he plans to do?
You said that “God decided to have his chosen people remain in captivity “for four hundred years” (Gen. 15:13-15).” So, God had knowledge of free-will decisions of the Israel’s captors that they would enslave and oppress them for four hundred years? You say, “If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete. It’s because there is, in this view, nothing definite there for God to know! His lack of definite foreknowledge of future free actions limits him no more than does the fact that, say, he does not know that there is a monkey sitting next to me right now. As a matter of fact, there is no monkey sitting next to me, so it’s hardly ascribing ignorance to God to insist that he doesn’t know one is there. In just the same way, one is not ascribing ignorance to God by insisting that he doesn’t foreknow future free actions if indeed free actions do not exist to be known until free agents create them.” (16-17)
Yet, you say regarding the naming of Cyrus or Josiah, “they certainly show that Yahweh is the sovereign Lord of history and can predetermine (and thus foreknow) whatever he pleases, but they do not justify the conclusion that he has settled the entire future ahead of time.”
Do you believe that God foreknows some future events of free will creatures like the Gen. 15 passage or the naming of Josiah and Cyrus along with some of their predicted activities?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/15/2003 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by chiam
Fine Laika, you said:
quote:
Where have you dealt with Isaiah 48:3?
Isaiah 48:3 "I declared the former things long ago
And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.
Suddenly I acted, and they came to pass."
Isaiah 48:3 is the pattern of how prophecy operates with God. Declaration followed by active fulfillment.
God is showing the false prophets that they can't bring about what they prophesy. It's a show of POWER by God.
Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he (2) sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying:
I have no problem saying that God declared and then brought about a certain event.
But now go back and deal with all of the other text in Isaiah that deal with God’s foreknowledge of the future. Isaiah 41:21-29; 42:8-9; 43:9; 44:7-8, 25-28 and 45:19-21
Just saying "God's foreknowlege of the future" doesn't prove those verses show God has foreknowlege of the future. There's no indication of methodology in those verses as there is in Isaiah 48:3.
Isaiah 48:3 shows that God has the power to deny that what those false prophets declare will happen. What if they guessed right?
Let's say false prophet Bill accurately guesses an event that will happen in the future. "Tomorrow the sun will come up." How is God going to prove Bill a false prophet? Not by showing Bill has wrong knowlege, Bill guessed it right! Only by preventing what Bill predicted will God show He has the power to bring about what He says will happen.
The future is not done yet, that's why it's called the future.
If the future is a present reality, where are the people who will occupy this same space as me in the future? I don't see them, where are they?
Ezra 1:1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
chiam
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 12/15/2003 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok Laika we are not going anywhere with the Isaiah passages let's deal with specific prophecies. Are you saying that God foreknows the future only in regards of what he plans to do?
Boyd said that “God decided to have his chosen people remain in captivity “for four hundred years” (Gen. 15:13-15).” But God had knowledge of free-will decisions of Israel’s captors that they would enslave and oppress them for four hundred years? You say, “If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete. It’s because there is, in this view, nothing definite there for God to know! How to you respond to this Genesis passage then?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/15/2003 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | O.K. Here's the Isaiah verses you mentioned. We're looking in them for where God says He knows the future, not where He declares what He's going to do.
Isaiah 41:21 "Present your case," the LORD says
"Bring forward your strong arguments,"
The King of Jacob says.
22 Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place;
As for the former events, declare what they were,
That we may consider them and know their outcome.
Or announce to us what is coming;
<-- God is challenging the false prophets if they know the future -->
23 Declare the things that are going to come afterward,
That we may know that you are gods;
Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.
<-- Again, God is challenging the false prophets to declare the future -->
24 Behold, you are of no account,
And your work amounts to nothing;
He who chooses you is an abomination.
25 "I have aroused one from the north, and he has come;
From the rising of the sun he will call on My name;
And he will come upon rulers as upon mortar,
Even as the potter treads clay."
26 Who has declared this from the beginning, that we might know?
Or from former times, that we may say, "He is right!"?
Surely there was no one who declared,
Surely there was no one who proclaimed,
Surely there was no one who heard your words.
<-- God is challenging them if there is an instance when they declared the future -->
27 "Formerly I said to Zion, 'Behold, here they are.'
And to Jerusalem, 'I will give a messenger of good news.'
28 "But when I look, there is no one,
And there is no counselor among them
Who, if I ask, can give an answer.
29 "Behold, all of them are false;
Their works are worthless,
Their molten images are wind and emptiness.
Nothing there that shows that God knows the future. It's whether they knew the future.
Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to graven images.
9 "Behold, the former things have come to pass,
Now I declare new things;
Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you."
<-- God declares new things; prove this prophecy wrong or right. Is it knowlege of a settled future OR declaration of what He's going to do? We'll call it ambiguous. -->
Isaiah 43:9 All the nations have gathered together
So that the peoples may be assembled.
Who among them can declare this
And proclaim to us the former things?
Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified,
Or let them hear and say, "It is true."
<-- Proclaim the former things. This is the PAST, not the future. -->
Isaiah 44:7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
<-- God is challenging them to declare the future. -->
8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.'"
<-- God is talking about things He has declared. Is it knowlege of a settled future OR declaration of what He's going to do? We'll call it ambiguous. -->
Isaiah 44:25 Causing the omens of boasters to fail,
Making fools out of diviners,
Causing wise men to draw back
And turning their knowledge into foolishness,
26 Confirming the word of His servant
And performing the purpose of His messengers.
<-- God acting in time. Notice the gerund form of the verb, continuous action which places the action in time. -->
It is I who says of Jerusalem, 'She shall be inhabited!'
And of the cities of Judah, 'They shall be built.'
And I will raise up her ruins again.
<-- God is talking about things He is going to bring about. Note the future tense. -->
27 "It is I who says to the depth of the sea, 'Be dried up!'
And I will make your rivers dry.
28 "It is I who says of Cyrus, 'He is My shepherd!
And he will perform all My desire.'
And he declares of Jerusalem, 'She will be built,'
And of the temple, 'Your foundation will be laid.'"
<-- Here's Cyrus. -->
Isaiah 45:19 "I have not spoken in secret,
In some dark land;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
'Seek Me in a waste place';
I, the LORD, speak righteousness,
Declaring things that are upright.
<-- God is again declaring things. THIS is a prophecy? "Things that are upright?" isn't very specific is it? Sounds like the kind of prophecy you hear in churches, "I will shoot you out like an arrow." Real hard to disprove or prove that. -->
20 "Gather yourselves and come;
Draw near together, you fugitives of the nations;
They have no knowledge,
Who carry about their wooden idol
And pray to a god who cannot save.
O.K. throwing away the verses about whether others knew the future, we'll look that the few about God's knowlege of the future.
Isaiah 42:8,9 is ambiguous
Isaiah 44:8 is ambiguous
Isaiah 44:28 is Cyrus.
Forgetting Cyrus for now, let's look at the two ambiguous ones, Is 42:8,9 and Is 44:8.
Neither definitively show God knowing a settled future (your view), neither definitively show God declaring what He's going to do (my view). They're ambiguous.
But you have a problem. You believe God has exhaustive knowlege of a settled future. Your Isaiah verses don't show this. There is no universal qualifier in them.
In the absence of any universal qualifiers that God exhaustively knows a settled future and in the presence of verses hostile to your thesis:
Jeremiah 7:31 "They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.
Jeremiah 19:5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;
Jeremiah 32:35 "They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
I conclude God doesn't have exhaustive knowlege of a settled future.
Let's look at Cyrus next.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/15/2003 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Genesis 15:13 God said to Abram, "Know for certain that (your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years.
14 "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.
15 "As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
O.K. let's dispense of verse 15 first. God can help Abram live as long as God wants Abram to live. There's nothing in verse 15 to indicate God knows a settled future. God acting in time is just as valid an explanation.
Verse 13,14
What does God know?
1. He knows He wants to unify and purify Isreal, make them a real separate, distinct race, set apart from all the idolatrus nations around.
2. I think He has reasons to get Abram and clan out of the palestine area for a while. Why? Rather than having a gradual muliplication of Abram's descendants within that idolatrus area, among whom they'd be tempted to intermarry and they'd be tempted to adopt the customs and culture of those around them, God decides to remove them from that land until they are a great nation with an insular image of themselves and then He'll bring them back as an invading army.
3. Whether He orchestrated a famine in the land, or He saw the weather patterns changing, it doesn't matter. Because of the Nile, Egypt was a logical place to send Abram's descendants to escape famine. So God planned this.
4. God knew all the history of the Egyptians, He knew they captured other peoples and enslaved them. Despite being befriended by a friendly Pharoah, future Pharoahs wouldn't treat them as kindly.
Exodus 1:8 Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.
9 He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we.
10 "Come, let us deal wisely with them, or else they will multiply and in the event of war, they will also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us and depart from the land."
11 So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses.
12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread out, so that they were in dread of the sons of Israel.
13 The Egyptians compelled the sons of Israel to labor rigorously;
14 and they made their lives bitter with hard labor in mortar and bricks and at all kinds of labor in the field, all their labors which they rigorously imposed on them.
If you knew the ancient Egyptians as well as God, you could have predicted this as well.
God knew that slavery would harden His people, make them insular, i.e. purify them and set them aside as a peculiar people.
Nothing in the story of Abram's descendents going to Egypt needs a settled future to make sense.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/15/2003 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's the prophecies of Isaiah concerning Cyrus:
Isaiah 13:17-22
Isaiah 21:2
Isaiah 41:2
Isaiah 44:28
Isaiah 45:1-4
Isaiah 45:13
Isaiah 46:11
Isaiah 48:14,15
I'll start with Isaiah 13:17
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it."
Now for God to know the contents of this verse at the time He told Isaiah, does the future have to be completely settled as facts? Or does God have enough data at the time AND is God smart enough to guess and be 100% accurate?
1. Medes
2. Zoroaster
3. Alchemy
References come before the text quoted from them.
1.Medes:
First chronology
http://www.kfu.com/~pharvey/chronology10k-601bce
circa 1500 B.C. Medes & Persians invaded Iranian plateau
circa 742-697 BC Isaiah prophesied in Israel.
When Isaiah prophesied about the Medes, were they an unknown people? No, the Medes had been living in Persia (modern day Iran) for ~800 years.
http://www.cjf.org/pages/daniel.htm
"Interestingly, the Medes and the Persians were not Semitic. They were descendants of Japheth rather than of Shem. Demographers and linguists classify them as Indo-Europeans, which is the language family from which most present-day inhabitants of Western Europe are descended."
"The Medes and the Persians were also distinguished by the fact that both were followers of the religion of Zoroaster. Even today, the Iranians are proud of the fact that they are not Arabs (Semites), like most of their Mideast neighbors, but Persians (Japhethites)."
2.Medes were Zoroastrians.
http://www.iranianembassy.nl/history.htm
"Recent research in eastern and western historical traditions and astronomical calculations place Zoroasters birth date as 1768 B.C."
So Zoroaster lived before Isaiah and his prophecy about Cyrus.
http://www.thedyinggod.com/Mithraism.htm
"Zoroaster's religious and ethical concepts have dominated religious thought in Iran and elsewhere ever since. The concepts include monotheism with Ahura Mazda, or "the Lord of Life and Thought or Wisdom" as the supreme God and believed the Good Mind shall at last prevail and annihilate the Evil.
According to Zoroaster, God's will and His plans will be realized only through the endeavors of men who have, by their own free choice, dedicated themselves to Truth and Good Thought."
.
.
.
"Zoroaster, explained Zosimus, agreed with Hermes that men could raise themselves above Fate, but he took the way of magic, while Hermes, on the other hand, took the way of philosophy. Essentially, as Jack Lindsay described, in The Origins of Alchemy In Graeco-Roman Egypt:
"It would seem then in the third and second centuries BC at
Alexandria there went on a considerable fusion of Greek and
Iranian thought. This fusion was expressed by bringing together the
two great figures of Zoroaster the Persian and
Hermes-Thoth the Egyptian in a large new corpus of magical
recipes and ideas, above all in an endless series of
pantheist correspondences between men, animals, plants, stones,
stars and planets."
"In this period, numerous works were compiled and erroneously
credited to Zoroaster, as well as to his most famous pupil Osthanes, the "Prince of the Magi", and his purported patron, Hystaspes. The reputed founder of early alchemy was thought to have been Osthanes, to whom several works on the nature of plants and minerals and their astrological properties were ascribed. Osthanes was said to have accompanied Xerxes on his campaign against
Greece as his chief magus, and Pliny the Elder, believed, that he was the person most responsible for the introduction of magic into Greece. Osthanes, mentioned Pliny, was the first person to write a book on magic "and nurtured the seeds, as it were, of this monstrous art, spreading the disease to all corners of the world on his way. However, some very thorough researchers place another Zoroaster, who came from Proconnesus, somewhat before Osthanes' time.
One thing is certain. Osthanes was chiefly responsible for stirring up among the Greeks not merely an appetite but a mad obsession for this art." (Pliny, Natural History, XXX: 8)"
Another reference for the Medes (and Magi) being alchemists:
http://www.imninalu.net/history02.htm
(note "fire worship" == Zoroastrianism)
http://www.btinternet.com/~prgreetham/Wisemen/wmsoc2.html
(Magi, alchemy, Medes)
3.So the Zoroastrianism of the Medes incorporated alchemy
So what's alchemy?
"1. An imaginary art which aimed to transmute the baser metals
into gold, to find the panacea, or universal remedy for
diseases, etc. It led the way to modern chemistry."
So, God knows that the Medes were currently living in Persia and had "magi" that practiced alchemy (turning baser metals into gold).
When God says
"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it."
He's stating what He's going to do, "stir up" the Medes. This doesn't sound like passive knowlege of a settled future. It sounds like a declaration of what He's going to actively do.
In light of the alchemy going on in Medio-Persia, would knowlege of their light regard (in time of war) for silver and gold be that incredible?
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/15/2003 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Isaiah 13:18: Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children.
<-- When God brings the Medes against Babylon in battle, young men will be killed. Isn't that the nature of war?
"By bows", yow, that's a tough one. You think the Medes were using bow and arrow circa 742-697 B.C. when this prophecy was made?
Is any of this knowlege so difficult that the future has to be settled in order for God to passively know it? Children will be killed, too? If you're going to lay waste a mighty city and don't want it to revive, wouldn't you kill the children as well? Is that too hard for God to predict? He knew the history and methodology of war back then. -->
19: And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
<-- Babylon is mentioned for the first time in these Isaiah verses. Did Babylon exist when Isaiah made this prophecy?
http://eawc.evansville.edu/chronology/nepage.htm
"2000-1600 BCE: The Near East - The Old Babylonian period begins in MESOPOTAMIA"
Yeah.
"Shall be" sounds like something God determined to accomplish. Who devastated Sodom and Gomorrah? Sounds like He's going to do the same thing to Babylon through the Medes. -->
20: It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
21: But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
22: And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
<-- The place will be desolate. Are Sodom and Gomorrah inhabited now? Neither is Babylon. If God made sure no one lived in Sodom and Gomorrah again, why can't He guarantee Babylon never be a city again? Was the desolation of a city by an invading force uncommon back then?
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/mbloy/westciv/rome2.htm
"Eventually, the Roman general, Scipio, conquered the whole of Spain and forced the Carthaginians to accept Roman rule. By 204 BC, Rome ruled the Mediterranean coasts and Sea from Italy westwards. Finally, in 146 BC, Carthage was demolished, its land was ploughed up and salted and the area was laid waste."
Again, nothing in this passage necessitates God passively knowing an already settled future. -->
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
| 61 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:32 AM (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 |
|
|