ARCHIVE:God is NOT an OV'er (He said so)

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
Drd, sorry to post this just when you're about to leave so it may be one of the first things you read so long after the fact.

please, no more posts about about who's in who's league and who's a poor theologian. Regardless of whether it's deserved or not, it is a conclusion people can draw on there own if at all and it is counterproductive.

surly

Slight correction, I believe I attacked the OV itself in distinction from OV’ers as being stupid.

nevertheless, pointlessly insulting regardless of whether you meant it to insult people or not. This is garbage. It serves only to make people angry and rightfully think ill of you.
 
Last edited:

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
2nd post

Yes it can, and has been, many times on many threads.

maybe this would be evident if more of your posts dealt with responses instead of announcing to everyone how stupid you think other's idea's are which doesn't demonstrate anything. No one should take your assessments by faith but that is what is required.
 

jobeth

Member
Jaltus and Evangelion:
Here is what I said: "Geoff believes that God Foreknows because God is outside of time, so that GOD sees all of time; past, present, and future, as one eternal now. God has complete immediate knowledge of all of time. God does not know contingencies, but only knows exhaustively what will happen. This view implies antecedent EDF. The future is somehow eternally fixed and thus knowable. "

Geoff replied to me: "Jobeth,

dont presume to know what I think... you have misrepresented my completely... I do not think God see's an eternal now, although He is certainly outside of time."

So, Jaltus on what point does your description of Geoff's view contradict what I said about Geoff's view?

Evangelion, I appealed to you to help me understand where I was wrong about Geoff's view, since Geoff said you and Jaltus understood his view. This has nothing whatever to do with either my view or your view, but with Geoff's view. (Unless, of course, you happen to agree, but even then, your agreement would be incidental to the conversation at hand, which only concerns what Geoff agrees with.)
I will be happy to respond to your question if you want to engage me in a conversation about my view. Is that what you want?
 

jobeth

Member
Dr. D.
You said "My completely translation of Rev. 13:8 would read "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
This is based on the MSS evidence above, and also Rev. 5:6 and 17:8, which many scholars cite as support that "since the foundation of the world" should modify "written" rather than "slain." "

Does that mean that these having had their names "not written" is chronologically or ordinally prior to "Lamb slain"?

Rev 17:8...and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,..."

And if No names were written, then why mention that some (these particular Beast-worshippers') names were not written?
Remember that ALL Beast-worshippers shall drink of the wrath of God and be tormented with fire and brimstone. (Rev 14:9-10) So there is no possibility that their names can be added after they recieve his mark.

(I ignored Rev. 5:6, because I don't see how that verse pertains to our topic. If it is revelant, I will be happy for you to re-assert your point later.)

According to your rendering, The Book of Life, with some (eligible)person's names written and some (ineligible) person's names not written, must have then existed since the foundation of the World. Is that what you mean to imply?

If so, I will re-assert my orginal objection:
If names were previously written (and not written), then why consequently have Lamb slain?

You don't mean to say that names were written first (since the foundation of the world) and then Adam sinned, and then[/] Christ was slain, and then those whose names were recorded prior to Adam's sin and Christ's sacrifice necessarily believed and those whose names were not recorded prior to Adam's sin and Christ being slain necessarily did not believe, do you?

That would be an argument for Limited Atonement.

Is that the doctrine you are affirming with your reverse-order rendering of Rev 13:8?

I say "reverse order" because in the Greek, "from the conception of the world" immediately follows "Lamb slain". And "not written" is followed by "in the Book". But you have "not written" followed by "since the foundation of the world" and you have "Lamb slain" followin "since the foundation of the world".

So, technically, my rendering is more "literal".

Revelation 13:8 And kai <2532> worshipped proskunhsousin <4352> (5692) him autw <846> ALL pantev <3956> who oi <3588> inhabited katoikountev <2730> (5723) upon epi <1909> the thv <3588> earth ghv <1093> who wn <3739> not ou <3756> had had written gegraptai <1125> (5769) their ta <3588> name onomata <3686> in en <1722> that th <3588> Book biblw <976> of his thv <3588> Life zwhv <2222>of that tou <3588> Lamb arniou <721> slain esfagmenou <4969> (5772) from apo <575> the conception of katabolhv <2602> the world. kosmou <2889>

See also Young's rendering:
YLT Revelation 13:8 And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;
 

jobeth

Member
Geoff:
I agree. The future does not have to exist for God to know it.

All God has to know is:
A. His Plan. (What He wants to happen.)
B. His Power. (That nothing will hinder Him from fulfilling His will.)

Agreed?
 

geoff

New member
No.

Unnecessary.

God just knows. Exahustively. He doesnt 'need' anything to know, and he doesnt 'need' anything to exist to know it.
 

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
]And if No names were written, then why mention that some (these particular Beast-worshippers') names were not written?
Remember that ALL Beast-worshippers shall drink of the wrath of God and be tormented with fire and brimstone. (Rev 14:9-10) So there is no possibility that their names can be added after they recieve his mark.

Jobeth, read the posts I have made concerning this and Luke 11:50.

"Since the foundation of the world" does not necessarily mean all at one point at the beginning.

Read Luke 11:50-51. I've posted these verses if you would read it here.

Also Drd, Jobeth, Jaltus and everyone else, I realized that since "from the foundation of the world" can indicate something that occurs after the fall and because folks here seem to take "the lamb that was slain from the foundation..." as a metaphore for knowledge of the plan for atonement through the death of the Son, Openness can take this verse either way. We believe that the Sacrifice of the Son was planned after the fall and given the way luke 11:50-51 reads, it's perfectly legitimate to take "slain from the foundation of the world" to mean that the plan came into effect after the fall.
 
Last edited:

Evangelion

New member
Jobeth - I suggest you read William Lane Craig's analysis of the freedom/foreknowledge question.

It's one of the best I've seen. :)
 

geoff

New member
1013.

Indulge us again, just how does 'foundation' mean something other than 'foundation'.

When you lay the 'foundation' to a house, you dont start it after the walls have been put up do you?

The foundation is the base on which everything else is built. That base is Scripture is 'God created'. NOT 'man fell'. Some might argue that the base is 'God created and Man Fell'. However I doubt it. Humanities fall requires a basis, which is God created.
 

Evangelion

New member
Hear, hear! The use of "before the foundation of the world", or "from the foundation of the world" is consistent throughout Scripture.
 

1013

Post Modern Fundamentalist
Hear, hear! The use of "before the foundation of the world", or "from the foundation of the world" is consistent throughout Scripture.

posting Luke 11:50-51 for the second time.

50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation,
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'
 

geoff

New member
1013,

That doesnt modify the TIME that the world was founded, it merely indicates a period of time SINCE the world was founded. Abel was the first blood shed, NOT when the world was founded.
 

Evangelion

New member
Geoff -

I'm getting nervous, evangelion agreed with me again.

Perhaps that's why you keep getting into trouble on the "Exclusively Christian Theology" board...

:p
 
Last edited:

geoff

New member
Trouble follows me around... I should just let them carry on their own merry little way and stuff, but I have first had experience in how what they teach destroys the Christian faith and relationship with God... sooo... I cant leave it

Oh woe is me :)

So, am I right regarding Luke 11:50-51 Evangelion?
et tu Jaltus?
 
Top