 |
 | 
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 1/25/2006 5:08 PM (GMT -6) |   | Narnian said...
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Does anything ever happen in the world accidentally or does God's sovereignty prevent that?
First, one must have a proper understanding of what sovereignty means.
Numerous theologies, denominations, and sects have developed specialized vocabularies in which words take on a different meaning than either their biblical or dictionary equivalents. For example, the Texas based cult known as "House of Yahweh" claims that the English word "Lord" actually means "Baal", and is thus blasphemous to ascribe to Yahweh. They say the same of the Koine equivalent for Lord, "kurios".
What has happened in traditional theology, especially in the Reformed/Augustinian traditions, is that a number of words have acquired specialized meanings, and "sovereignty" is one of these words. Let's look first at some dictionary definitions; I'm not going to post them here, but you can go to allwords.com , www.m-w.com , and wordreference.com and look up "sovereign" and sovereignty". Do this first, then come back...
Assuming you checked the definitions, you should see that "Sovereignty" is expressed as authority (lordship), rather than "control" in the puppeteer sense of "control", or "omni-control". The word "Sovereign" and its derivatives, and their biblical equivalents, are first and foremost extrabiblical terms used to describe the authority of mortal/human rulers/nations/governments. Knowing this, I for one do not accept any special/theological definitions for this word, aside from the standard lexicon definitions. Open Theism understands that God is Sovereign over His creation, while rejecting the extrabiblical presupposition that this entails omni-control. We believe He, as the Sovereign Lord, has chosen to invest measures of His authority (say-so) into His sentient creations (angels and humans), much as a human sovereign invests measures of authority into his underlings and/or subjects.
With this proper understanding of Sovereignty (Lordship) in mind, one can better begin to ponder the question of whether God's creation, and His Lordship over His creation, allows for chance, accidents, contingencies, and free-will. Open Theism understands that God has deliberately allowed for the genuine existence of these things. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/25/2006 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/25/2006 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
Perhaps the question is this: If God knows about what we would (otherwise) call an accident, is it still an accident?
Starkman
If you know that a book on top of the boxes I'm carrying are about to...oops, there they go...slide off the back and fall -- is that an accident.
Salient point in my thinking is that TO ME it is. You may have even put them there, figuring to move them later. You may have sabotaged them, with me having scant opportunity to correct the situation. But TO ME it is an accident.
So, in my thinking, addident is what is not all in my own control.
-
Chapter 25. Concerning what is in our own power, that is, concerning Free-will.
-
Chapter 26. Concerning Events.
-
Chapter 27. Concerning the reason of our endowment with Free-will.
-
Chapter 28. Concerning what is not in our hands.
- Chapter 29. Concerning Providence.
- Chapter 30. Concerning Prescience and Predestination.
----------------------------------------------
btw, my definition of accident would include BOTH (1) those things I maybe aught to have tried to keep in mind (like letting homework get shuffled by others into the newspaper and recycled), AND (2) those things that I had nothing whatsoever in the way of involvement, but still befall me.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/25/2006 10:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
Narnian said...
Does anything ever happen in the world accidentally or does God's sovereignty prevent that? Just read this. THAT opens up big things.
Like, how much variety and variation are possible in the simplest things like snowflakes. How many possible chemical forms, or sub-particle thingies there are dancing between the waves and dark matters of space.
If an accident were conceived of as something beyond God's control, then I suppose not. But what seems more facinating is the extent to which things that might seem like accidents might be woven into the fabric of things. THAT is something that occurs to a POTTER from working with not-perfectly centered pots.
And lots in the whole cosmos center on this "free" being that is us. I can affect my lawn in one say, and the stars in another. But I effect them both. (I'm tiller-tender to one, and eucharistizer with the other in giving awe and praise to God.)
So, the STRONGEST arguement for an affirmative answer to Narnian's question seems to be the insertion of mankind into the picture.
WE are not beyond God's control. But we are "beyond" God's choice to control in some times, or ways, or in things, etc.
THAT is the true "openness" of God!
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/25/2006 9:44:42 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 1/26/2006 11:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said...Narnian said...
Does anything ever happen in the world accidentally or does God's sovereignty prevent that? I would think that rolling some dice would seem pretty accidental! Yet we read: Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. Now this is not just saying that God will control it sometimes! This is saying that God controls it every time, and thus indicates complete control over all people would consider accidents... Blessings, Lee
Interestingly enough, this reading of Proverbs 16:33 is not present in the pre-Christian Septuagint (the Old Testament translated into Greek), which was used by the Apostles and the early Christians (there was some controversy between the early Christians and the Jewish scribes of their time, concerning scribal alterations being made in the Old Testament, and the Christians would always point to the Septuagint to show the correct renditions). The Septuagint, at Proverbs 16:33, reads: "All evils come upon the ungodly into their bosoms; but all righteous things come of the Lord." (Also interesting is that the verses before 33 and after it read pretty much the same as the Hebrew text). Personally, knowing that the Septuagint represents an older version of the Old Testament than the Hebrew text commonly used for modern translations, whenever I see such a marked difference, I give the benefit of the doubt to the Septuagint.
However, even allowing for the "dice" ["lot"] reading of Proverbs 16:33, one must recognize 2 things:
1) The type of "lot" spoken of in proverbs is no mere throw of the dice for a game or for child's play, but rather was a method employed by the Hebrews to prayerfully discern the direction of God: Lev 16:8-10, Numbers 26:55-56, Josh 13:6, 14:2, 18:6, 1Sam 14:41-42, Neh 10:34, Prov 18:18, Ezek 28:49, Luke1:9, Acts 1:24-26.
2) Even if one ignores this custom and instead assumes the passage applies to every throw of the dice, even for sport and play, one should keep in mind the hyperbolic nature of many of the Proverbs. If it is to be interpreted that every throw of the dice/lot is decided by God, then are the following interpretations also true?
Prov 16:30 "He who winks with his eye is plotting perversity; he who purses his lips is bent on evil." Interpretation - Everyone who winks is always plotting perversiy, and everyone who purses his lips is bent on evil.
Prov 16:31 "Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained by a righteous life." Interpretation: Gray hair is always attained by a righteous life.
Prov 15:25 & 10:3 "The LORD tears down the proud man's house but he keeps the widow's boundaries intact... The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry but he thwarts the craving of the wicked." Interpretation: Throughout all human history, the boundaries of widows have been kept intact, and the righteous have never gone hungry.
Now re-consider Prov 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD. Interpretation: Every dice roll and lot cast for every purpose has had its result determined by God.
Perhaps, instead, the way the Hebrew lot-decision is from the LORD is similar to how honest scales and balances are from the LORD:
Prov 16:11 "Honest scales and balances are from the LORD; all the weights in the bag are of his making." I think it is safe to assume that the writer knew and understood that scales, balances, and weights are actually crafted by human beings, and when they are crafted with honesty they are honorable to God. Likewise for the Hebrew lot cast prayerfully before God in a request for His direction.
In any case, all things considered, I don't think it is warranted to assume Proverbs 16:33 is a stand-alone coup-de-grace in favor of theological determinism or compatibilism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 1/27/2006 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi JD,
John N. Darby said...
... whenever I see such a marked difference, I give the benefit of the doubt to the Septuagint.
Why, though, do you hold that in every such instance the Septuagint is correct? Sometimes this is appropriate, but not as a general rule, as far as I have understood! For the translations of various books vary quite dramatically, some books correspond well with the Masoretic text, other books seem quite "free form," and actually, the previous verse here is not such a close match to the Hebrew, for the LXX has "controls anger" for "controls his spirit," a different, and more restricted meaning, for controlling your spirit may well include conquering lust, as well as controlling vengeful thoughts.
And Waltke ( "Proverbs" ) says the LXX is paraphrasing the Hebrew here, not that the Hebrew is a corrupted text. On what evidence then might we conclude that he is incorrect?
And also, the word for "cast" here is a bit of a violent word (Waltke again), not a more ordinary word that we might expect with casting lots, this word is used of Jonah being cast into the sea, of Saul throwing his spear at David. So this would seem to include even instances where the lot was not being used in a godly way, yet those decisions are from the Lord, too, if the Hebrew is the original here.
John N. Darby said...
Even if one ... assumes the passage applies to every throw of the dice, even for sport and play, one should keep in mind the hyperbolic nature of many of the Proverbs. If it is to be interpreted that every throw of the dice/lot is decided by God, then are the following interpretations also true?
Prov 16:30 "He who winks with his eye is plotting perversity; he who purses his lips is bent on evil." Interpretation - Everyone who winks is always plotting perversiy, and everyone who purses his lips is bent on evil.
But the word "every" is not used in these other verses, yet it is present in Proverbs 16:33, that is an important difference, so then this cannot be only a general tendency.
John N. Darby said...
In any case, all things considered, I don't think it is warranted to assume Proverbs 16:33 is a stand-alone coup-de-grace in favor of theological determinism or compatibilism.
Well, no, but it is evidence of God's complete control, even in what people would consider accidents.
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) : 1/28/2006 10:31:56 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 1/28/2006 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Howdy Lee.
Lee wrote: Why, though, do you hold that in every such instance the Septuagint is correct? Sometimes this is appropriate, but not as a general rule, as far as I have understood!
JD wrote: Because the Septuagint represents the pre-Christian Old Testament, and was frequently quoted by the New Testament writers, and was the primary Old Testament of the pre-Nicene Church. It also demonstrates how the pre-Christian Jews understood the Old Testament (according to the Hebrew of their day [as translated into Greek] and other cultural and religious concerns of their time) , before there were any reactions either for or against Jesus Christ and His Apostles. As Irenaeus wrote, "The apostles are of more ancient date than all these [heretics]. And they agree with this aforementioned translation [the LXX]. And the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, John, Matthew, and Paul, and the rest in turn, as well as their followers, quoted all prophecies just as the interpretation of the elders [LXX] contains them." Furthermore…
Lee: For the translations of various books vary quite dramatically, some books correspond well with the Masoretic text, other books seem quite "free form," and actually, the previous verse here is not such a close match to the Hebrew, for the LXX has "controls anger" for "controls his spirit," a different, and more restricted meaning, for controlling your spirit may well include conquering lust, as well as controlling vengeful thoughts.
JD: … To me, this seems to make the mistake of first assuming that the traditional Masoretic text is correct, and then critiquing the Septuagint in light of the Masoretic - and thus the Septuagint seems incorrect whenever it differs. However, there is ancient evidence, external to both, which strongly suggests that the traditional Masoretic text is actually incorrect whenever it differs from the Septuagint. For example, Origen once wrote, "In many other of the sacred books, I sometimes found more in our copies [i.e., the LXX] than in the Hebrew, sometimes less. I will give a few examples, since it seems impossible to give them all. Of the Book of Esther, neither the prayer of Mordecai nor that of Esther - both intended to edify the reader - is found in the Hebrew… I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings. Otherwise, in my controversies with the Jews, I might quote to them what is not found in their copies. Also, I want to be able to make use of what is found there - even though it is not in our scriptures [i.e., the LXX]".
Here are some examples of editing/tampering the post-Apostolic Jewish-scribes apparently made in the Hebrew text:
In the New Testament, the writer of Hebrews says "Therefore, when He [Christ] came into the world, He said: 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me.'" This is a quote from Psalm 40:6, in which the Hebrew text reads, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened." However, the Septuagint does read, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me."
Concerning Deuteronomy 32:7, Justin Martyr writes: "But I shall quote the passage by which it is made known that God divided all the nations. It is as follows [in the Hebrew]: '…He set the bounds of the nations according to the numbers of the children of Israel ...'" And having said this, I added: "The Seventy [LXX] have translated it, 'He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.'" [Note: The LXX reading of this verse actually makes sense, whereas the Hebrew text seems nothing more than ethno-centric tampering.]
Justin Martyr also noted the following, concerning Isaiah 7:14:
"Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born of a virgin, save this our Christ. But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;' and since you explain the prophecy as if it referred to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor to discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ... If therefore, I shall show that this prophecy of Isaiah refers to our Christ, and not to Hezekiah, as you say, shall I not in this matter, too, compel you not to believe your teachers, who venture to assert that the explanation [LXX] which your seventy elders that were with Ptolemy the king of the Egyptians gave, is untrue in certain respects? For some statements in the scriptures, which appear explicitly to convict them of a foolish and vain opinion, these they venture to assert have not been so written… But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation [LXX] made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many scriptures from the translations [LXX] effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive,' and say it ought to be read, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive.' " [Check out the rest here, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm - my abbreviated quote ends between chapters 71 and 72.]
Similarly, Irenaeus also wrote, concerning Isaiah 7:14:
God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the scripture, [thus:] "Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words.
Lee: And Waltke ( "Proverbs" ) says the LXX is paraphrasing the Hebrew here, not that the Hebrew is a corrupted text. On what evidence then might we conclude that he is incorrect?
JD: Largely from the ancient evidence provided by the pre-Nicene Christian writers, demonstrating that the Apostles and the early Church considered the Septuagint a more trustworthy witness to the original Hebrew scriptures than the later post-apostolic Hebrew texts.
Lee: And also, the word for "cast" here is a bit of a violent word (Waltke again), not a more ordinary word that we might expect with casting lots, this word is used of Jonah being cast into the sea, of Saul throwing his spear at David. So this would seem to include even instances where the lot was not being used in a godly way, yet those decisions are from the Lord, too, if the Hebrew is the original here.
JD: That same underlying Hebrew word is used throughout the Hebrew Bible to denote a forceful but purposeful action of casting/throwing, whether the action is performed by God or man:
1 Sam 18:11 And Saul cast the spear, for he said, "I will pin David to the wall!" But David escaped his presence twice.
Isaiah 22:17 Indeed, the LORD will throw you away violently, O mighty man, And will surely seize you.
Jeremiah 16:13 'Therefore I [God] will cast you out of this land into a land that you do not know, neither you nor your fathers; and there you shall serve other gods day and night, where I will not show you favor.'
Ezekiel 32:4 Then I [God] will leave you on the land; I will cast you out on the open fields, And cause to settle on you all the birds of the heavens. And with you I will fill the beasts of the whole earth.
Jonah 1: 4-5, 12,15 But the LORD sent out a great wind on the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea, so that the ship was about to be broken up. Then the mariners were afraid; and every man cried out to his god, and threw the cargo that was in the ship into the sea, to lighten the load. But Jonah had gone down into the lowest parts of the ship, had lain down, and was fast asleep... And he [Jonah] said to them, "Pick me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will become calm for you. For I know that this great tempest is because of me." So they picked up Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the sea ceased from its raging.
I see nothing in the use of this word in these contexts which would suggest that its use in Prov 16:33 can be ascribed to just any frivolous casting of dice. In light of how lots are described throughout the OT (and also in Acts 1) as being prayerfully cast to seek direction from God, I'm unconvinced that somehow this 1 passage in proverbs refers to just any old toss of dice instead of this specific Hebrew method of discernment. This understanding also gives the passage a context that makes it meaningful to the ancient Hebrews in light of their own culture and practices.
Lee: But the the word "every" is not used in these other verses, yet it is present in Proverbs 16:33, that is an important difference, so then this cannot be only a general tendency.
JND: The same underlying Hebrew term is used elsewhere in proverbs in a hyperbolic manner:
Prov 14:15 The simple believes every word, But the prudent considers well his steps.
Prov 19:7 All the brothers of the poor hate him; How much more do his friends go far from him! He may pursue them with words, yet they abandon him.
Prov 20:8 A king who sits on the throne of judgment scatters all evil with his eyes.
Prov 28:5 Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand all.
Prov 29:11-12 A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants become wicked.
Prov 30:30 A lion, which is mighty among beasts and does not turn away from any; [Note: We know they turn away from elephants].
Since the term is used for both "literally all" and the hyperbolic "all/every", its use in Prov 16:33 can just as well be in the hyberbolic sense.
JND had said: In any case, all things considered, I don't think it is warranted to assume Proverbs 16:33 is a stand-alone coup-de-grace in favor of theological determinism or compatibilism.
Lee: Well, no, but it is evidence of God's complete control, even in what people would consider accidents.
JND: It only seems that way if one approaches the scripture with such determinism or compatibilism already in mind; hopefully I've helped show to some extent that such an approach is not warranted, nor derived from the scripture itself.
There are other scriptural reasons to reject the idea that God demands "omni-control". Consider the following about Jesus:
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them.
26 "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.
27 "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave;
28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
And…
Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
This mindset described by Christ and of Christ would seem to suggest that He does not require/demand omni-control. And if Christ doesn't require such, then neither does the Father:
2 Cor 4:4 …Christ, who is the image of God…
Col 1:15 [Christ] Who is the image of the invisible God…
John 5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner."
This biblical understanding of Christ as the image of God is one reason why Boyd recommends that theology needs to begin with the Person of Christ as He is revealed in the NT, rather than with philosophical presuppositions inherited from Greek philosophy (via Augustine, via Calvin and Luther).Post Edited (John N. Darby) : 1/29/2006 2:05:56 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
cbost6421
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 65
| Posted 2/1/2006 11:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Well for me an accident is anything that does not go according to plan.
If We can assume that sin is outside of God's plan (ANd it is because God would be a sinner if He planned sin, Because He is conspiring, which is in and of itself, a sin, sorry Lee but you serve a sinful God if you believe the Calvinist Logic, A God who died for The Sins He planned, caused {according to Loraine Boettner} and Committed, not for yours on the Cross). Then sin is a chance happening resulting from the freedom involved.
There is no reason Man should not love and follow God in genuine real fellowship with Him and never sin. That was the plan. But for it be real and genuine was to take the risk of things not going according to plan, which by my terms is an accident.
BUt Fortunately, before the world was Created God had a plan in place if this risk failed and HUmans chose to sin instead of Love God!
I LOVE IT WHEN A PLAN COMES TOGETHER!(I say as I light up a cigar and drive away in my black GMC VAN  )
stu.westga.edu/~cbost1/openviewtheism.html"those who pray truly are theologians and those who are theologians pray truly" -Evagrios The Solidary Post Edited (cbost6421) : 2/1/2006 10:07:54 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/2/2006 9:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
various folks said...
Lee: Why, though, do you hold that in every such instance the Septuagint is correct? Sometimes this is appropriate, but not as a general rule, as far as I have understood!
JD wrote: Because the Septuagint represents the pre-Christian Old Testament, and was frequently quoted by the New Testament writers, and was the primary Old Testament of the pre-Nicene Church.
Well, I'm sure the translators all realize all that! So I would wonder why they are also all not convinced that they should follow the Septuagint in every case. And the NT writers sometimes do not follow the Septuagint, instead they follow the Hebrew, so why is the NT decision wrong here? That has considerable implications, if these inspired writers were, in that way, mistaken.
various folks said...
JD: … To me, this seems to make the mistake of first assuming that the traditional Masoretic text is correct...
No, my argument was that the texts are not so close! You seemed to be saying they were...
Origen: "Of the Book of Esther, neither the prayer of Mordecai nor that of Esther - both intended to edify the reader - is found in the Hebrew…"
But this is not a good argument for this being the original, otherwise we will have to include the undoubted gloss in 1 John referring to the "three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one," which is good theology, yet not (by all considerations) in the original.
various folks said...
JD: In the New Testament, the writer of Hebrews says "Therefore, when He [Christ] came into the world..."
I agree that sometimes the NT writers follow the LXX, sometimes, however, they do not, which would then show that the LXX is not invariably to be preferred.
From this web site: "Some of the differences between the LXX and MT crop up in the New Testament (NT), which draws extensively, but not exclusively, from the LXX."
And also from this web site, which Septuagint do you mean?
"Thus, 'Septuagint' could refer to any one or more of the states of the Greek translation throughout history. It is important to understand specifically what is meant in any given discussion of the LXX. A strict, purist use of 'Septuagint' would allow the term to be used only of the earliest, (probably) unrecoverable translation of the Pentateuch made by the Jewish scholars ca. 282 BCE (some refer to this as the 'Old Greek,' but with some confusion, since the assignment of this term forces 'Septuagint' to be applied to texts with no direct connection to the legend of the seventy-two). For the purposes of this website, I use 'Septuagint' to refer to the entire tradition of Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and not to any single text or edition."
So then which one is the edition to use?
And it is also fine if the church fathers would at times follow the Septuagint, though I don't see that we need to take their conclusion as mandatory, in any given instance, we may presumably give weight to their words and conclusions, and also investigate further.
various folks said...
JD: I see nothing in the use of this word ["cast"] in these contexts which would suggest that its use in Prov 16:33 can be ascribed to just any frivolous casting of dice.
But my point was different, it was that this verb that was chosen would indicate ungodly uses of casting lots, as well as the High Priest using the Urim and Thummin, and this would be pertinent to considering God controlling accidents, events where his presence is not invoked, or even desired.
various folks said...
JD: Since the term ["every"] is used for both "literally all" and the hyperbolic "all/every", its use in Prov 16:33 can just as well be in the hyperbolic sense.
That's a good point, and so we have to sift and find what is probable here. But let's not be content with what is only possible! "It's every decision" seems a different, and more categorical way of speaking, than saying "A simple man believes every word."
The latter is clearly a tendency to believe most anything, yet the former is surely intended to startle us, and to be saying that what we would think is true, is not the real situation at all. So that would indicate that the more radical meaning is probably meant here.
various folks said...
Lee: Well, no, but it is evidence of God's complete control, even in what people would consider accidents.
JD: It only seems that way if one approaches the scripture with such determinism or compatibilism already in mind...
Well, again, no, I believe that God is in complete control, but that need not mean that God makes all decisions, I believe that believers can really choose, within God's will...
various folks said...
JD: This mindset described by Christ and of Christ would seem to suggest that He does not require/demand omni-control. And if Christ doesn't require such, then neither does the Father...
Then would God possibly not be omniscient, either?
Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son...
Nor omnipresent?
John 8:21 Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away..."
Nor omnipotent? These attributes, I think God in terms of the Trinity, always has them, and that Christ emptying himself should not be taken to mean that God as a Trinity could empty himself, or become weak, or die...
various folks said...
JD: This biblical understanding of Christ as the image of God is one reason why Boyd recommends that theology needs to begin with the Person of Christ as He is revealed in the NT, rather than with philosophical presuppositions inherited from Greek philosophy...
Well, I believe this actually comes from scripture, Jesus is not the Trinity, and to head in this other direction leads to quite wrong implications and conclusions, and is therefore mistaken.
Cbost said...
If We can assume that sin is outside of God's plan (And it is because God would be a sinner if He planned sin...)
Then the cross was not in God's plan? God did not plan this?
Acts 4:27-28 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
And the outcome was great good, even from this worst of sins, and yet God was not a sinner, in bringing this about, rather, he redeemed sinners, instead...
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) : 2/4/2006 2:05:45 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
cbost6421
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 65
| Posted 2/2/2006 10:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Woe to those who plan iniquity,
to those who plot evil on their beds!
At morning's light they carry it out
because it is in their power to do it.
Micah 2:1
Is God Above His Own Rule? Can God Plan Evil, and Iniquity, And Be MOrally right in telling us to not do so? Such A God would be Hypocritical, and Not worth believing in at best.
Is it a case of "Do As I Say Not as I do?" Parenting? Can God tell us not to Go get drunk and Get into a car, While secretly fore-causing someone else to do so? Is That The Character of The God Christians Serve?
As for the Cross, the Specific means of death for Jesus was never Foretold.
The Specific people bringing Our Lord to that Death were never Foretold (names, ranks etc...)
The fact that The Messiah Would die a horrific death, was foretold.
But not a plethera of details which would indicate That Everything about the Crucifixion was Predestined to the details.
Was God Himself At work in the Worst sin of Humanity, that is Deicide, The Death of Christ on The Cross?
Of Course HE was. HE was on THe Cross Dying it. ANd HE Layed his life down for it. No one could take it from Him, He layed it down.
In this sense, Christ gave Himself over to sinful men. It was God's free-will and Freedom that HE did this in.
As I have said before that HTe Greek for fore-ordained/Predestined does not have to be translated as Deterministically as it has been in the years.
Lee, You know much more about Greek than I do, but when A root word has a totally different meaning than its offspring, we've missed the point the original author was trying to make.
God needed Christ to suffer to die, and to be buried by the hands of SInful men. This was to conquer death and sin for us. When God saw, or even foresaw according to His vast knowledge the time was right, HE let the people who wanted to do it do it, to acomplish greater good.
They had the free-will and Committed Deicide. God Used that for greater good. Nothing Evil about GOd here.
God could have used many people who wanted to Kill Jesus to Bring about the saving of the world with many different methods. But He used the One He Did according to His Own Wisdom. Sure He saw Jesus from the Foundation of the World, The People came to do what God had predestined, and Many more things will work out according to His plan. But these are not reason Enough to believe that God Plans Evil.
For give me if I am rambling Rhetoric. The ANtibiotics are hard at work making me asleep.
God BLess,
Chuck
stu.westga.edu/~cbost1/openviewtheism.html
"those who pray truly are theologians and those who are theologians pray truly"
-Evagrios The Solidary | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/2/2006 10:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
cbost6421 said...Woe to those who plan iniquity, to those who plot evil on their beds! At morning's light they carry it out because it is in their power to do it. Micah 2:1 Is God Above His Own Rule? Can God Plan Evil, and Iniquity, And Be MOrally right in telling us to not do so? Such A God would be Hypocritical, and Not worth believing in at best. Is it a case of "Do As I Say Not as I do?" Parenting? Can God tell us not to Go get drunk and Get into a car, While secretly fore-causing someone else to do so? Is That The Character of The God Christians Serve? As for the Cross, the Specific means of death for Jesus was never Foretold. The Specific people bringing Our Lord to that Death were never Foretold (names, ranks etc...) The fact that The Messiah Would die a horrific death, was foretold. But not a plethera of details which would indicate That Everything about the Crucifixion was Predestined to the details. Was God Himself At work in the Worst sin of Humanity, that is Deicide, The Death of Christ on The Cross? Of Course HE was. HE was on THe Cross Dying it. ANd HE Layed his life down for it. No one could take it from Him, He layed it down. In this sense, Christ gave Himself over to sinful men. It was God's free-will and Freedom that HE did this in. As I have said before that HTe Greek for fore-ordained/Predestined does not have to be translated as Deterministically as it has been in the years. Lee, You know much more about Greek than I do, but when A root word has a totally different meaning than its offspring, we've missed the point the original author was trying to make. God needed Christ to suffer to die, and to be buried by the hands of SInful men. This was to conquer death and sin for us. When God saw, or even foresaw according to His vast knowledge the time was right, HE let the people who wanted to do it do it, to acomplish greater good. They had the free-will and Committed Deicide. God Used that for greater good. Nothing Evil about GOd here. God could have used many people who wanted to Kill Jesus to Bring about the saving of the world with many different methods. But He used the One He Did according to His Own Wisdom. Sure He saw Jesus from the Foundation of the World, The People came to do what God had predestined, and Many more things will work out according to His plan. But these are not reason Enough to believe that God Plans Evil. For give me if I am rambling Rhetoric. The ANtibiotics are hard at work making me asleep. God BLess, Chuck
I enjoyed your post, Chuck.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/4/2006 3:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Chuck,
Blessings on your antibiotics! Hope the biotics have flown the coop...
cbost6421 said...
Is God Above His Own Rule? Can God Plan Evil, and Iniquity, And Be MOrally right in telling us to not do so?
But those who plan evil, in Micah 2, are planning evil for the evil outcome in view. God's plan is for a good outcome, as in the cross. Was the crucifixion not an evil deed? And yet was this not in God's plan?
And was God sinning when he planned this?
cbost6421 said...
Can God tell us not to Go get drunk and Get into a car, While secretly fore-causing someone else to do so? Is That The Character of The God Christians Serve?
For a good outcome? Now if God ordained sin for the same reasons people plan getting drunk, then indeed his character would be in question.
cbost6421 said...
As for the Cross, the Specific means of death for Jesus was never Foretold.
I would say that it was, though...
Matthew 26:2 "As you know, the Passover is two days away--and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."
cbost6421 said...
But not a plethera of details which would indicate That Everything about the Crucifixion was Predestined to the details.
Yet we read:
Acts 4:27-28 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
cbost6421 said...
In this sense, Christ gave Himself over to sinful men. It was God's free-will and Freedom that HE did this in.
Yes, I agree, and we can indeed be thankful for God for this...
cbost6421 said...
... but when A root word has a totally different meaning than its offspring, we've missed the point the original author was trying to make.
I find it difficult to conclude that Bible translators have invariably been mistaken here, though.
cbost6421 said...
When God saw, or even foresaw according to His vast knowledge the time was right, HE let the people who wanted to do it do it, to acomplish greater good.
But Acts 4:27-28 says God did not simply allow this, rather, that what they did was what God had decided ahead of time that they should do.
Why, may I ask, were all the verses quoted about "30 pieces of silver," "They cast lots for my garments," "They gave me vinegar to drink"?
These are all quite specific, and point to God foreseeing even the details, thousands of years in advance.
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 | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 2/4/2006 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
Thanks for the URL. I've bookmarked it.
This is in reply to your questions to me about the LXX (your other questions I'll address later). I'm going to answer them in reverse order.
Lee: And also from this web site, which Septuagint do you mean?...So then which one is the edition to use?
J.N.Darby: Here's an excerpt from NewAdvent.org ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm ) -
The three most celebrated manuscripts of the Septuagint known are the Vatican, "Codex Vaticanus" (fourth century); the Alexandrian, "Codex Alexandrinus" (fifth century), now in the British Museum, London; and that of Sinai, "Codex Sinaiticus" (fourth century), found by Tischendorf in the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in 1844 and 1849, now part at Leipzig and in part in St. Petersburg; they are all written in uncials. The "Codex Vaticanus" is the purest of the three; it generally gives the more ancient text, while the "Codex Alexandrinus" borrows much from the hexaplar text and is changed according to the Massoretic text (The "Codex Vaticanus" is referred to by the letter B; the "Codex Alexandrinua" by the letter A, and the "Codex Sinaiticus" by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet Aleph or by S). The Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris possesses also an important palimpsest manuscript of the Septuagint, the "Codex Ephraemirescriptus" (designated by the letter C), and two manuscripts of less value (64 and 114), in cursives, one belonging to the tenth or eleventh century and the other to the thirteenth (Bacuez and Vigouroux, 12th ed., n. 109). All the printed editions of the Septuagint are derived from the three recensions mentioned above...
The copy I own is Brenton's English Translation with interlinear Greek text, the Greek text being based on Vaticanus, with some reliance on other texts, particularly Alexandrinus.
Personally, regardless of how some may loosely use the term, I only use "Septuagint" to refer to the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible - not to post-apostolic translations, such as those made within Judaism in reaction against Christianity. As I understand it, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus are based on the pre-Christian translations, rather than post-apostolic translations.
Lee: Well, I'm sure the translators all realize all that! So I would wonder why they are also all not convinced that they should follow the Septuagint in every case. And the NT writers sometimes do not follow the Septuagint, instead they follow the Hebrew, so why is the NT decision wrong here? That has considerable implications, if these inspired writers were, in that way, mistaken... I agree that sometimes the NT writers follow the LXX, sometimes, however, they do not, which would then show that the LXX is not invariably to be preferred.
J.N.Darby: Apparently I did not state my case clearly enough, or else I have miscommunicated. Let me try again.
As I understand it, there are 3 versions of the Old Testament relevant to our discussion:
A) the pre-Christian Hebrew text, which was used by Christ and His Apostles.
B) the pre-Christian LXX (the Greek translation of the pre-Christian Hebrew text), which was also used by Christ's Apostles and the early Church.
C) the post-Apostolic Hebrew text, represented in our day by the Masoretic text.
Now, the common view, with which I disagree, is that A and C are identical. My assertion is that the New Testament writers quoted from A and B, but that there is evidence given by the early Church that C is a tampered version of A. Because of this evidence from the early Church, it is my conviction that whenever C and B disagree, B is the more faithful witness to A, with C showing a distortion of A. The New Testament writers are by no means wrong in following either A or B - but C didn't exist during their lifetimes. Ultimately, if we presently had access to A, then that would be preferred over either B or C. But apparently we don't (again, because of evidence from the early Church that C is a tampered version), despite common assumptions that C is identical to A.
Did that help to better explain where I'm coming from, or was that just all the more confusing? 
To clarify, I don't off-handedly reject "C" altogether - rather, I use it along with B (LXX), giving preference to B whenever C disagrees with B.
Lee:
Origen: "Of the Book of Esther, neither the prayer of Mordecai nor that of Esther - both intended to edify the reader - is found in the Hebrew…"
But this is not a good argument for this being the original, otherwise we will have to include the undoubted gloss in 1 John referring to the "three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one," which is good theology, yet not (by all considerations) in the original.
J.N.Darby: Well, personally I believe there is sufficient evidence for the Apostolic authenticity of 1st John 5:7 (For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.) It is anyone's guess as to why this passage is not present in the majority of the ancient Greek texts. But here's an article describing some of the reasons it might be considered authentic:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html (Note: I do not advocate KJV-onlyism, nor even Textus-Receptus-onlyism - instead, I consider all of the existent Greek NT texts to be complimentary to one another, along with early translations of the Greek NT into other languages, and quotes of the NT throughout the works of the ante-nicene fathers.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/9/2006 9:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
various folks said...
Lee: And also from this web site, which Septuagint do you mean?...So then which one is the edition to use?
J.N.Darby: I only use "Septuagint" to refer to the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible - not to post-apostolic translations, such as those made within Judaism in reaction against Christianity. As I understand it, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus are based on the pre-Christian translations, rather than post-apostolic translations.
But why Brenton's translation? Wasn't this done before the discovery of the Koine Greek papyrii? So then you will be using what would not be the best English translation, unless you translate the Greek yourself. In which case, maybe the USB edition of the LXX would be more suitable.
various folks said...
Lee: Well, I'm sure the translators all realize all that! So I would wonder why they are also all not convinced that they should follow the Septuagint in every case. And the NT writers sometimes do not follow the Septuagint, instead they follow the Hebrew...
J.N.Darby: Apparently I did not state my case clearly enough, or else I have miscommunicated. Let me try again.
As I understand it, there are 3 versions of the Old Testament relevant to our discussion:
A) the pre-Christian Hebrew text, which was used by Christ and His Apostles.
B) the pre-Christian LXX (the Greek translation of the pre-Christian Hebrew text), which was also used by Christ's Apostles and the early Church.
C) the post-Apostolic Hebrew text, represented in our day by the Masoretic text.
Now, the common view, with which I disagree, is that A and C are identical.
But the Dead Sea Scrolls would, it would seem, indicate otherwise. They are very close to the Masoretic text! Apart from differences in punctuation and spelling, as far as I have heard or understood.
J.N. Darby said...
... there is evidence given by the early Church that C is a tampered version of A.
What evidence would that be, though, may I ask? And again, why are all the translators then off track?
various folks said...
Lee: But this is not a good argument for this being the original, otherwise we will have to include the undoubted gloss in 1 John ...
J.N.Darby: Well, personally I believe there is sufficient evidence for the Apostolic authenticity of 1st John 5:7
Yes, it might have been from an apostle, but we need to know if it was in the original text.
J.N. Darby said...
But here's an article describing some of the reasons it might be considered authentic...
Well, this is interesting, especially the grammatical point. Yet Wallace ("Greek Grammar," p. 332) says "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender." Also, John deliberately breaks the grammatical rule of corresponding gender, in referring to the (neuter word) Spirit with a masculine pronoun in John 15:26, also a verse about the Spirit testifying.
But the main point is that doctrinal correctness is not a sufficient qualification for scripture, though it certainly is a necessary requirement.
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 | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:46 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 |
|
|