ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)
- Thread starter geoff
- Start date
drdeutsch
New member
Geoff,
I've already read several commentaries and analysies that favor my interpretation.
Please, if you would, show me again how I have misunderstood/exegeted these verses? Also, Jaltus didn't offer any evidence, he only said he would "go with Geoff on this one."
So please, Geoff, recap your argument.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
I've already read several commentaries and analysies that favor my interpretation.
Please, if you would, show me again how I have misunderstood/exegeted these verses? Also, Jaltus didn't offer any evidence, he only said he would "go with Geoff on this one."
So please, Geoff, recap your argument.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
drdeutsch
New member
Geoff,
Please, take your time. I could use a bit of a break anyway. I just hope you aren't trying to stall in order to rebuke an argument that is not "convincing, or even a little bit scary."
In the meantime, however, I will go back over this thread and see if I missed it. I will do that, however, tomorrow morning.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Please, take your time. I could use a bit of a break anyway. I just hope you aren't trying to stall in order to rebuke an argument that is not "convincing, or even a little bit scary."
In the meantime, however, I will go back over this thread and see if I missed it. I will do that, however, tomorrow morning.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Last edited:
Evangelion
New member
Jaltus -
Agreed. He knew the outcome of a decision which Jesus would make of his own free will. Christ's prayer in Gethsemane makes this abundantly clear.
Agreed. He knew the outcome of a decision which Jesus would make of his own free will. Christ's prayer in Gethsemane makes this abundantly clear.
1013
Post Modern Fundamentalist
An important point has been missed about revelations 13:8
I'm afraid making a point that it is about who is not in the book of life from the beginning is of no help to the open view.
"from the foundations of the world" does not mean that everything happened then is at the beginning. The greek here could be understood as since the foundation of the world.
my cross refrence shows this.
Luke 11
50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
The same greek phrase that has been translated "from the foundation.." in 13:8 is rendered here "since the beginning."
So if you want to insist that this phrase means it all happened at the beginning as opposed to ongoing since the beginning, then Luke 11:50 makes some ridiculous claims.
I'm afraid making a point that it is about who is not in the book of life from the beginning is of no help to the open view.
"from the foundations of the world" does not mean that everything happened then is at the beginning. The greek here could be understood as since the foundation of the world.
my cross refrence shows this.
Luke 11
50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
The same greek phrase that has been translated "from the foundation.." in 13:8 is rendered here "since the beginning."
So if you want to insist that this phrase means it all happened at the beginning as opposed to ongoing since the beginning, then Luke 11:50 makes some ridiculous claims.
Last edited:
drdeutsch
New member
Evangelion, Jaltus, and Geoff,
Can you prove this from Scripture? Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:20 aren't going to help you. The only verse, so far, that is debatable is Revelations 13:8. Now, unless there is something in the Greek grammar that absolutely prevents "from the foundation of the world" modifying "names not written in the book of life" (just like in Revelations 17:8) instead of "Lamb slain," we must conclude that the OV is supported. However, if "from the foundation of the world" can modify either "names not written in the Book of Life" OR "Lamb slain," then both the OV and the deterministic view could be argued. In this case, neither could be denied.
So, I ask you (mainly Jaltus, because I know he studies Greek): Is there something in the Greek grammar that absolutely prevents "from [apo: ever since] the foundation of the world" from modifying "names not written in the Book of Life," in accordance with Revelations 17:8?
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Can you prove this from Scripture? Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:20 aren't going to help you. The only verse, so far, that is debatable is Revelations 13:8. Now, unless there is something in the Greek grammar that absolutely prevents "from the foundation of the world" modifying "names not written in the book of life" (just like in Revelations 17:8) instead of "Lamb slain," we must conclude that the OV is supported. However, if "from the foundation of the world" can modify either "names not written in the Book of Life" OR "Lamb slain," then both the OV and the deterministic view could be argued. In this case, neither could be denied.
So, I ask you (mainly Jaltus, because I know he studies Greek): Is there something in the Greek grammar that absolutely prevents "from [apo: ever since] the foundation of the world" from modifying "names not written in the Book of Life," in accordance with Revelations 17:8?
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Evangelion
New member
drdeutsch, you may have issues with the statements of others, but in regard to my own comments, I'm still don't know what you're contesting.
My post contained the following words:
My post contained the following words:
He knew the outcome of a decision which Jesus would make of his own free will. Christ's prayer in Gethsemane makes this abundantly clear.
geoff
New member
1013
You have 2 completely different contexts, rev 13:8 is talking about AN EVENT, while Luke 11:50 is talking about cumulative events...
rev 13:8 - AN EVENT
Luke 11:50 - A BUNCH OF EVENTS.
One can not be used to explain the other.
DRD,
It doesnt matter if it DOES modify the 'names' - the point is that the 'names' were written in the book, or not - and they were there (or not) from the time the world was founded (gen 1:1).
You have 2 completely different contexts, rev 13:8 is talking about AN EVENT, while Luke 11:50 is talking about cumulative events...
rev 13:8 - AN EVENT
Luke 11:50 - A BUNCH OF EVENTS.
One can not be used to explain the other.
DRD,
It doesnt matter if it DOES modify the 'names' - the point is that the 'names' were written in the book, or not - and they were there (or not) from the time the world was founded (gen 1:1).
drdeutsch
New member
Evangelion,
You're right. I read your post too quickly. I do agree with you, I don't agree with Jaltus' post.
Geoff,
No no no. You're completely missing the point.
Rev. 13:8 (according to OV translation) "Whose names have not been written in the Book of Life since [apo: since/from] the foundation of the world of the Lamb slain."
They have had (rather, will have had) the opportunity since Genesis 1:1 to have their names "written in the Book of Life."
Furthermore, if "from/since the foundation of the world" can modify "names," then the OV (or, at the very least, my) belief of Christ's crucifixion being added to God's "determined purpose and foreknowledge" after the fall of man still stands. If it still stands, it is completely possible that this is the case. If it is completely possible, then, you must admit, that the OV, however likely or unlikely, is completely possible.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
You're right. I read your post too quickly. I do agree with you, I don't agree with Jaltus' post.
Geoff,
No no no. You're completely missing the point.
Rev. 13:8 (according to OV translation) "Whose names have not been written in the Book of Life since [apo: since/from] the foundation of the world of the Lamb slain."
They have had (rather, will have had) the opportunity since Genesis 1:1 to have their names "written in the Book of Life."
Furthermore, if "from/since the foundation of the world" can modify "names," then the OV (or, at the very least, my) belief of Christ's crucifixion being added to God's "determined purpose and foreknowledge" after the fall of man still stands. If it still stands, it is completely possible that this is the case. If it is completely possible, then, you must admit, that the OV, however likely or unlikely, is completely possible.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
drdeutsch
New member
Geoff,
Furthermore, whether Rev. is speaking of an event and Luke is speaking of several events bears no weight on how the biblical authors decided to translate "apo" as since, unless you wish to furnish an exhaustive linguistic study proving otherwise.
However, several verses translate "apo" as since in regards to the beginning of the world.
Mt 24:21 "For then there will be great tribulation (an event, mind you), such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be."
Lk 1:70 "As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, Who have been since the world began.
Acts 3:21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Rom 16:25 "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.
Heb 9:26 "He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."
So you see, Geoff, that apo is translated as "since" in conjunction with variances of "the beginning of the world" quite often. It appears to me that Rev 13:8 is the abnormality here.
Furthermore, the NASB, NRSV, Holman Christian Standard, Today's English Version, New Century Version, World English Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The Darby Translation, and the Hebrew Names version all prefer to translate 13:8 with "from/since" modifying "names written in the Book of Life" instead of "Lamb slain."
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
I edited to add the bible translation list.
Furthermore, whether Rev. is speaking of an event and Luke is speaking of several events bears no weight on how the biblical authors decided to translate "apo" as since, unless you wish to furnish an exhaustive linguistic study proving otherwise.
However, several verses translate "apo" as since in regards to the beginning of the world.
Mt 24:21 "For then there will be great tribulation (an event, mind you), such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be."
Lk 1:70 "As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, Who have been since the world began.
Acts 3:21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Rom 16:25 "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.
Heb 9:26 "He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."
So you see, Geoff, that apo is translated as "since" in conjunction with variances of "the beginning of the world" quite often. It appears to me that Rev 13:8 is the abnormality here.
Furthermore, the NASB, NRSV, Holman Christian Standard, Today's English Version, New Century Version, World English Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The Darby Translation, and the Hebrew Names version all prefer to translate 13:8 with "from/since" modifying "names written in the Book of Life" instead of "Lamb slain."
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
I edited to add the bible translation list.
Last edited:
drdeutsch
New member
Geoff,
Your last post made no sense to me. First, what is "All evidence"? You still have not really provided any evidence. If so, please repost it, as I'm a little slow. Secondly, what is "the contrary"? Thirdly, when, exactly, did I begin to think that my "conjecture," as you call it, defeats all evidence to this "contrary"?
Finally, you have still thus far failed to prove, beyond the shadow of a Scriptural doubt, that Christ was predestined before the fall of man to die on the cross. If you can prove it, then prove it. If you can't, then admit that the OV, at least in this case, is a completely consistent and biblical interpretaion.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Your last post made no sense to me. First, what is "All evidence"? You still have not really provided any evidence. If so, please repost it, as I'm a little slow. Secondly, what is "the contrary"? Thirdly, when, exactly, did I begin to think that my "conjecture," as you call it, defeats all evidence to this "contrary"?
Finally, you have still thus far failed to prove, beyond the shadow of a Scriptural doubt, that Christ was predestined before the fall of man to die on the cross. If you can prove it, then prove it. If you can't, then admit that the OV, at least in this case, is a completely consistent and biblical interpretaion.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Ev and DrD,
There is no way you two can agree. Evan's idea completely contradicts the OV in that God knows the future free choice that Christ will make, which is a total abnegation of what the OV is! In the OV, God cannot know any future free decision and still have it be free. Thus, Ev is on our side, not yours, Dr D.
There is no way you two can agree. Evan's idea completely contradicts the OV in that God knows the future free choice that Christ will make, which is a total abnegation of what the OV is! In the OV, God cannot know any future free decision and still have it be free. Thus, Ev is on our side, not yours, Dr D.
Dr D,
Your parallel does not hold with respect to Revelation 13:8. The phrase "from the foundation of the world" must be said to modify the lamb for two reasons:
1) proximity, it comes after the lamb instead of before it, which would be the natural position if it were to modify names.
2) text critical work, which clearly shows that the "names" phrase may not be original (it does not appear in many of the oldest manuscripts, such as Aleph), but both the lamb and the foundations phrases are undisputed.
Including both of these ideas shows that the weight of the evidence leans heavily toward lamb being modified, and not names.
Before you mount a counter-attack that these arguments do not amount to anything, let me just say a few things. First, when a phrase can modify 2 possible other phrases, it is always taken to go with the closest unless it is nonsensical. Second, text critical thoughts often show us how the early church regarded the phrases, and obviously at least some in the 300s thought that the foundation phrase modified lamb, or else they would not have skipped the part about the names.
Thus, I submit to you my, and many scholars, understanding of how to take this passage. please make your response relevant to the grammar of the sentence, instead of "it could modify" when it does not seem to be the case.
Your parallel does not hold with respect to Revelation 13:8. The phrase "from the foundation of the world" must be said to modify the lamb for two reasons:
1) proximity, it comes after the lamb instead of before it, which would be the natural position if it were to modify names.
2) text critical work, which clearly shows that the "names" phrase may not be original (it does not appear in many of the oldest manuscripts, such as Aleph), but both the lamb and the foundations phrases are undisputed.
Including both of these ideas shows that the weight of the evidence leans heavily toward lamb being modified, and not names.
Before you mount a counter-attack that these arguments do not amount to anything, let me just say a few things. First, when a phrase can modify 2 possible other phrases, it is always taken to go with the closest unless it is nonsensical. Second, text critical thoughts often show us how the early church regarded the phrases, and obviously at least some in the 300s thought that the foundation phrase modified lamb, or else they would not have skipped the part about the names.
Thus, I submit to you my, and many scholars, understanding of how to take this passage. please make your response relevant to the grammar of the sentence, instead of "it could modify" when it does not seem to be the case.
drdeutsch
New member
Jaltus,
Good call. Thanks for explaining that to me. I'm not the fastest, but I get there in the end.
Let me see... Christ's crucifixion is part of God's "determined purpose and foreknowledge." Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is God in human form. Christ prays, three times "if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, Your will be done, not mine." This suggests to me that Christ's crucifixion was part of God's will, re-enforcing Acts 2:23. It also suggests to me that, as much as Christ wanted to fulfill his own will, he submitted Himself to the will of His Father.
The fact is, Christ's crucifixion was part of God's "determined purpose and foreknowledge." God knew about Christ's crucifixion before it happened. That is all that means. You cannot read into it that God knew about Christ's crucifixion "from the beginning of the world." God has foreknowledge of Christ's crucifixion because He has determined it. This does not defeat OV, this is what the OV is all about.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch
Good call. Thanks for explaining that to me. I'm not the fastest, but I get there in the end.
Let me see... Christ's crucifixion is part of God's "determined purpose and foreknowledge." Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is God in human form. Christ prays, three times "if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, Your will be done, not mine." This suggests to me that Christ's crucifixion was part of God's will, re-enforcing Acts 2:23. It also suggests to me that, as much as Christ wanted to fulfill his own will, he submitted Himself to the will of His Father.
The fact is, Christ's crucifixion was part of God's "determined purpose and foreknowledge." God knew about Christ's crucifixion before it happened. That is all that means. You cannot read into it that God knew about Christ's crucifixion "from the beginning of the world." God has foreknowledge of Christ's crucifixion because He has determined it. This does not defeat OV, this is what the OV is all about.
God bless,
Dr. Deutsch