ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

This is more reasonable than your previous assertions.

I do not disagree that thought can be used, but again, I said it is a translation option for conveyance.

When we see 'thought' in context, I agree with AMR and Dallas Theological scholars that it there is a shift in the OV mindset when OVer's grab a hold of of the translations and miss the meaning.

The opposite appears to be the case, here.

And I haven't changed my position from before. Perhaps you understand it more clearly

'Thought,' in this case is 'thinking outloud' rather than a perception/belief. It doesn't convey a mistaken idea, but what is on one's mind.

And that's fine. I haven't invested anything in "said" or "thought" that conveys being mistaken.

Thought carries either/or both: I believed, or I silently said.

No disagreement there.

One does not equate the other and OV wrongly makes it a rule that they are both/and rather than either/or.

Who said that OV "makes it a rule", here? I'm speaking of the specific translation, which the NASB takes with me. Surely you're not going to say that the NASB translators were OV?

I argue 'said' from the Hebrew to convey this truth.

This is really a minor issue with respect to this verse, as the crux of the issue lies with the kind of verb. You've (and the KJV) translated it as an imperative, when the verb is, in fact, an imperfect. Thus, the proper translation is:

I said (thought): "After I have done all these things, she will return to me."​

The intervening phrase makes your translation impossible. If God were to mean "I said, after I have done all these things: 'she will return to me'', the Hebrew would have included another "said" or "saying" before what God actually said. That's how Hebrew designates quotes.

So, you have two issues:

1) Verb tense. It's imperfect, not imperative.
2) The "I said/thought" is followed by God describing what He has already done, and there is no separation of that from "she will return to me" indicating that these are the unit of what God said.

And these are simply unresolvable from your standpoint, as they are simple and foundational grammatical Hebrew issues.

Muz

 

[Lon]

The opposite appears to be the case, here.

And I haven't changed my position from before. Perhaps you understand it more clearly

I was talking about your supposed Hebrew superiority.

And that's fine. I haven't invested anything in "said" or "thought" that conveys being mistaken.



No disagreement there.



Who said that OV "makes it a rule", here? I'm speaking of the specific translation, which the NASB takes with me. Surely you're not going to say that the NASB translators were OV?

No, but the way 'thought' conveys in English is important here. They do NOT mean thought as in "mistakenly believed" ala Boyd.

This is really a minor issue with respect to this verse, as the crux of the issue lies with the kind of verb. You've (and the KJV) translated it as an imperative, when the verb is, in fact, an imperfect. Thus, the proper translation is:

I said (thought): "After I have done all these things, she will return to me."​

The intervening phrase makes your translation impossible. If God were to mean "I said, after I have done all these things: 'she will return to me'', the Hebrew would have included another "said" or "saying" before what God actually said. That's how Hebrew designates quotes.

So, you have two issues:

1) Verb tense. It's imperfect, not imperative.
2) The "I said/thought" is followed by God describing what He has already done, and there is no separation of that from "she will return to me" indicating that these are the unit of what God said.

And these are simply unresolvable from your standpoint, as they are simple and foundational grammatical Hebrew issues.

Muz

No, the issue is as I've stated it. The conveyance is not belief but words unspoken.

God conveys His thoughts, but it in no way means as Boyd assess, that God is incorrect. Boyd has his blinders on.

Because of this, 'said' is the proper conveyance, and 'thought' is translated as 'words inside one's head' NOT belief. That is appropriate translation work and true to the text. Because 'thought' in English can be misconstrued, I still maintain very strongly that 'thought' is too vague for the Hebrew translation which simply means 'unspoken' NOT belief lest an English only OVer or anybody happens to misconstrue inappropriately as Boyd has done.

 

[lee_merrill]

Regardless, the LXX says that "The Lord said TO ME.."

No it doesn't!

Thus, your idea that "Return" was commanded to Israel is still blunted.

No, 'tisn't.

Plus, you have yet to deal with the verbal issue of "return" being imperfect, now imperative.

They will return, so, imperfect or imperative, it will occur.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

I was talking about your supposed Hebrew superiority.

I'll send you a copy of my M.Div diploma next year.

No, but the way 'thought' conveys in English is important here. They do NOT mean thought as in "mistakenly believed" ala Boyd.

That would come from the entire context of the sentence. God says (thinks, whatever) "After all I have done for her, she will return to me." But she did not. God says "This should happen", but it doesn't. You can slice "said" or "thought" any way you want, but the initial statement reflects what God believed would happen, and it didn't.

No, the issue is as I've stated it. The conveyance is not belief but words unspoken.

So, God attributed words something to Himself that He didn't believe were true?

God conveys His thoughts, but it in no way means as Boyd assess, that God is incorrect. Boyd has his blinders on.

The text pretty clearly conveys that what God thought would happen didn't.

Because of this, 'said' is the proper conveyance, and 'thought' is translated as 'words inside one's head' NOT belief. That is appropriate translation work and true to the text. Because 'thought' in English can be misconstrued, I still maintain very strongly that 'thought' is too vague for the Hebrew translation which simply means 'unspoken' NOT belief lest an English only OVer or anybody happens to misconstrue inappropriately as Boyd has done.

OK, God said to Himself (or if you're still in love with the LXX to Jeremiah), "After all I have done for her, she will return to me." But she did not. To me, that's even worse, because God appears to be making a statement of fact that is wrong. If you believe in EDF, then you've just lost omniscience.

OTOH. if we take "thought" as in "God previously believed that Israel would return after doing (future) things", and God NOW is saying "I thought (previously) that after I did these things, that Israel would return, but (now) she has not."

To my thinking, then 2nd is preferable by far.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

I'll send you a copy of my M.Div diploma next year.


Muz

I would also like one. Can you edit your name out and put mine in or do I have to find a counterfeiter myself? I am willing to pay extra for you to do it.

 

[themuzicman]

I would also like one. Can you edit your name out and put mine in or do I have to find a counterfeiter myself? I am willing to pay extra for you to do it.

I doubt a photocopy will get you very far.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

You can slice "said" or "thought" any way you want, but the initial statement reflects what God believed would happen, and it didn't.

But it will.

The text pretty clearly conveys that what God thought would happen didn't.

Eh?

Jer. 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim's moaning: "You disciplined me like an unruly calf, and I have been disciplined. Restore me, and I will return, because you are the Lord my God."

... if we take "thought" as in "God previously believed that Israel would return after doing (future) things", and God NOW is saying "I thought (previously) that after I did these things, that Israel would return, but (now) she has not."

Then of course, God can be wrong in his estimates, and the best course may turn out to be something other than what God said to do. So then how can we hope in God, and not be disappointed, if what God says to do may not be best?

Psalm 22:5 To you they cried out, and they were saved; in you they trusted and they were not disappointed.

And why should we trust God's leading, if what he says to do may not turn out best, even from his perspective?

Zechariah 6:15 "Those who are far away will come and help to build the temple of the Lord, and you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the Lord your God."

Maybe not? There might be a better course here than diligent obedience--no point in taking what God says specifically, so very seriously.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Lon]

“God is ‘Very Smart’” -understatement?

“God is ‘Very Smart’” -understatement?

A few other title suggestions:

“How much does God know and how does He know it?”

“Does God possess EDF?”

“How ‘smart’ is God? Let’s think.”

“I lost 6 hairs today, or did I?”

Let me start with the last one. In the tub after my shower were 6 hairs.

When did I lose them? Did I happen to miss one or two as they went their merry way down the drain? Were three of them already loose? Why is there hair on my pillow? Why is there hair in the sink?

Mat 10:29 Aren't two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.
Mat 10:30 Even all the hairs on your head are numbered.

Why & How

Why does God know this? Why would the number of hairs on my head matter in the least? Why is this information given to us? God could have explained any as sundry of doctrines here, yet He uses the space to convey this truth to us.

I believe a significant part of this discussion of ‘why’ (if not entirely answered) is given in the ‘how.’

How long would it take to count all the hairs on my head?

Averages tell us we have about 100,000 hair molecules on our heads.

I do not know of any real counts that have went on. I’d think it’d take at least one full work-day if not two to literally count the number of hairs on one person’s head.

I’d imagine a temporary grid and someone shaving so the stubs are easier to count.

There are almost 7 billion people on the planet (X’s 100, 000 hairs).

We can ballpark the figure to be 7,000,000,000, 000, 000 hairs but this isn’t what scripture tells us.

Mat 10:30 Even all the hairs on your head are numbered.

We do not know how many sparrows exist on the planet, but we do know the entire bird population is somewhere between 200–400 billion.

Mat 10:29 Aren't two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.

NASA predicts there are zillions upon zillions of stars.

Psa 147:4 He counts the number of the stars;
he names all of them.

How many sand grains are on the shore?
The University of Hawaii (go figure) estimated: seven quintillion five quadrillion grains of sand.

Gen 22:17 I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies.

How much does God know and when does He know it? Is a hot debate topic, here.

When we look at these numbers and multiply them by eyelashes, body hair, dust particles in the universe, species of animals, and planets: exponentially we are talking about staggering figures of all that God has made.

Pare this also down to cells, atoms, molecules, microbes, and what God knows is increasingly staggering.

I believe we’d all have to agree that “Very Smart” is “Very” understated.

'How?' is an important question. Does God literally count? How does He know instantaneously when one of the 7 billion in the world lose a hair?

We have to conclude that the way God knows in very different than the way you and I know something. You and I are ‘discovery’ knowers. We know things only after we have done the hard work. I could make a scanner I suppose, that instantly is able to scan someone’s head and know how many hairs are on a person's head. If we mass produce them, we could even know the exact number of hairs on every one of 7 billion peoples' heads instantaneously. But we could not know the number of hairs an hour from now unless we scanned all over again.

Such a trivial thing is in God’s repertoire. Why?

My answer is that it is innate. It isn’t that God is frantically searching the number of hairs on our head like it is a concern. We have to read Matthew 10:30 differently.
God simply knows innately how many hairs are on our head.

Col 1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.

This verse specifically addresses the innate. Every particle is held together in Him.

Mat 10:29 Aren't two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.

'…apart from the Father’s will' is an important phrase. We do not tend to think of a sparrow falling as part of His will. We see it rather as a result of the sin curse, or the ramification of what He set in motion (and is standing back and watching passively). This isn't what this particular phrase says.

Scripture is clear that God is not only relational, but sustains. It is more intimate and involved than mere relationship. It is the meaning of existence itself. Nothing exists without Him.

Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being

This treatise is a springboard into EDF and relationship for our discussions. I’ll refer back to it while discussing these topics.

God does not discover as you and I. He does not guess. The foundational truth is that God knows innately. If a sparrow does not fall apart from His will, you and I do not choose anything apart from that same will.

 

[Lon]

The next step

The next step

Mat 10:29 Aren't two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will.

If a sparrow dies, it falls. Fairly straightforward, but adding to that "apart from your Father's will" expresses something else. Could the sparrow not fall apart from the Father's will?

The answer to this question is essential to foreknowledge and foreordination.

Death is the result of sin. The body would not die if it were not for sin, yet we see here, no sparrow falls outside of His will.

Can a sparrow fall apart from His will?

Can we sin apart from His will?

Can you have 'freewill' apart from His will?

Don't jump to 'yes' too quickly for any of these, especially the last.

 

[themuzicman]

If a sparrow dies, it falls. Fairly straightforward, but adding to that "apart from your Father's will" expresses something else. Could the sparrow not fall apart from the Father's will?

The answer to this question is essential to foreknowledge and foreordination.

Death is the result of sin. The body would not die if it were not for sin, yet we see here, no sparrow falls outside of His will.

Can a sparrow fall apart from His will?

Can we sin apart from His will?

Can you have 'freewill' apart from His will?

Don't jump to 'yes' too quickly for any of these, especially the last.

You need a better translation. The KJV adds "will", when it doesn't exist in the original. I suggest using the NASB or ESV as a better source.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

I suggest answering my questions!

Then God can be wrong in his estimates, and the best course may turn out to be something other than what God said to do? So then how can we hope in God and not be disappointed to some degree, if what God says to do may not be best?

Psalm 22:5 To you they cried out, and they were saved; in you they trusted and they were not disappointed.

And why should we trust God's leading, if what he says to do may not turn out best, even from his perspective?

Zechariah 6:15 "Those who are far away will come and help to build the temple of the Lord, and you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the Lord your God."

Maybe not? There might be a better course here than diligent obedience--no point in taking what God says specifically, so very seriously.

I also am wondering how God knows a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, and then afterwards, "all Israel."

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Restoration of corporate Israel is predictable and possible with God's patient intervention. This does not mean every single Jew in the world (individual) will be saved.

Will someone please answer his question so he can get on with his life?!

 

[themuzicman]

I suggest answering my questions!

Then God can be wrong in his estimates, and the best course may turn out to be something other than what God said to do? So then how can we hope in God and not be disappointed to some degree, if what God says to do may not be best?

Psalm 22:5 To you they cried out, and they were saved; in you they trusted and they were not disappointed.

And why should we trust God's leading, if what he says to do may not turn out best, even from his perspective?

Do you think anyone can prevent God from resurrecting those who believe in Him?

Zechariah 6:15 "Those who are far away will come and help to build the temple of the Lord, and you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the Lord your God."

Maybe not? There might be a better course here than diligent obedience--no point in taking what God says specifically, so very seriously.

But God doesn't specify which individuals will come. Just that some will. Thus, we're talking group dynamics, not individual free will. Humans in groups are far more predictable.

I also am wondering how God knows a remnant will be saved, and only a remnant, and then afterwards, "all Israel."

Blessings,
Lee

For the remnant, God has blinded all Israel such that only those He has enlightened will come.

Rom 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to [God's] gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.​

The interesting thing is that in verse 25 and 26 we have:

Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob."​

But the word "So" has the connotation of "in this way" or "in the same way", and in context, I think Paul is saying that through the fullness of the Gentiles coming in, those Jews who are made jealous and come in as well represent "All Israel", thus providing consistency with what Paul says above thus, when the remnant is preserved as those through whom the promises of God are given.

Muz

 

[Lon]

For the remnant, God has blinded all Israel such that only those He has enlightened will come.

Rom 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to [God's] gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.​

Muz

You just undid yourself with your argument with Lee.

As to 'will' just change it to 'without your Father.' Will is certainly implied but I have no problem with your assertation here. 'Without your Father' very much supports what my post was about.

Back to the questions.

Does anything happen apart from His will?

 

[lee_merrill]

Restoration of corporate Israel is predictable and possible with God's patient intervention. This does not mean every single Jew in the world (individual) will be saved.

What if they all refuse, as in the days of Noah, only without Noah? Is this impossible?

 

[lee_merrill]

Psalm 22:5 To you they cried out, and they were saved; in you they trusted and they were not disappointed.

Lee: ... why should we trust God's leading, if what he says to do may not turn out best, even from his perspective?

Muz: Do you think anyone can prevent God from resurrecting those who believe in Him?

Not at all, and my question remains, why should we trust God's leading, if what he says to do may not turn out best, even from his perspective?

Zechariah 6:15 "Those who are far away will come and help to build the temple of the Lord, and you will know that the Lord Almighty has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the Lord your God."

Lee: Maybe not? There might be a better course here than diligent obedience--no point in taking what God says specifically, so very seriously.

Muz: But God doesn't specify which individuals will come. Just that some will. Thus, we're talking group dynamics, not individual free will. Humans in groups are far more predictable.

But this does not respond to my question here. Once you say God can be mistaken about the best course, then I must say there might be a better course here than diligent obedience--no point in taking what God says specifically, so very seriously.

Muz: For the remnant, God has blinded all Israel such that only those He has enlightened will come.

So I must ask how God knows a remnant will come.

Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob."​

But the word "So" has the connotation of "in this way" or "in the same way", and in context, I think Paul is saying that through the fullness of the Gentiles coming in, those Jews who are made jealous and come in as well represent "All Israel", thus providing consistency with what Paul says above thus, when the remnant is preserved as those through whom the promises of God are given.

But this then is saying "all the Jewish people who will be saved will be saved." That would not seem a compelling reading here--and can they not all refuse?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

Does anything happen apart from His will?

Define what you mean by "apart from His will." It's certainly a phrase that can be equivocated.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Not at all, and my question remains, why should we trust God's leading, if what he says to do may not turn out best, even from his perspective?

What's your alternative? Your own wisdom?

Better yet, what could possibly be better than being resurrected to eternal life?

But this does not respond to my question here. Once you say God can be mistaken about the best course, then I must say there might be a better course here than diligent obedience--no point in taking what God says specifically, so very seriously.

Really? Are you going to take yourself more seriously than God? That's pretty arrogant.

So I must ask how God knows a remnant will come.

First, we're talking, again, about group dynamics. If you understand the group, then you'll know how they'll react in general without knowing how any individual will choose.

Second, the blinding that God set up, God is able to break down without violating free will.

But this then is saying "all the Jewish people who will be saved will be saved." That would not seem a compelling reading here--and can they not all refuse?

Actually, it says "all Israel." I think Paul is referring to the remnant, and his point is that when all of the Gentiles that are coming have come, then Jewish conversions will be complete, as well.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

What's your alternative? Your own wisdom?

I am not seriously proposing that God can be wrong.

Better yet, what could possibly be better than being resurrected to eternal life?

No losses in this life due to mistakes, and then eternal life to follow.

Really? Are you going to take yourself more seriously than God?

This is a reductio ad absurdum argument, the end of which should be an absurdity--I agree this is unacceptable. Now does the Open View have this implication that we need not take what God says specifically so very seriously?

First, we're talking, again, about group dynamics. If you understand the group, then you'll know how they'll react in general without knowing how any individual will choose.

No you won't, you will be able to estimate this, but you can't know that a result will happen.

Second, the blinding that God set up, God is able to break down without violating free will.

Yet I still must ask how God knows some will repent, that there will be a remnant--think of Noah...

Actually, it says "all Israel." I think Paul is referring to the remnant, and his point is that when all of the Gentiles that are coming have come, then Jewish conversions will be complete, as well.

Please show me this view in a commentary, I believe Paul means that it will be the Jewish people's turn after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, see the context, now mostly Gentiles, afterwards "all Israel".

Their fullness will be life from the dead, as opposed to their rejection for the most part, now.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[themuzicman]

I am not seriously proposing that God can be wrong.

But you asked the question about why we should follow Him. I'm asking "what's a better alternative?" We follow God because He's GOd.

No losses in this life due to mistakes, and then eternal life to follow.

I'd say that most of mankind being condemned to eternal wrath is a loss from any perspective.

This is a reductio ad absurdum argument, the end of which should be an absurdity--I agree this is unacceptable. Now does the Open View have this implication that we need not take what God says specifically so very seriously?

Except that you've been reduced to having to say that you believe you'd be as wise as God, if God didn't have EDF. You're the one being absurd.

No you won't, you will be able to estimate this, but you can't know that a result will happen.

Human beings can do this. Group dynamics is something we study and people in groups do act in predictable manners, even if we do no know which individuals will make what choices.

Marketing is based upon group dynamics. Are you saying that God isn't as able as advertising executives?

Yet I still must ask how God knows some will repent, that there will be a remnant--think of Noah...

And you already have your answer. Given a group of people exposed to the gospel in a way that appeals to their culture and history, some will respond. Given that God is the author, architect and guide of that culture and history, He will have a relatively high success rate. God can know that some will come, even if the specific individuals aren't known beforehand.

Please show me this view in a commentary, I believe Paul means that it will be the Jewish people's turn after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, see the context, now mostly Gentiles, afterwards "all Israel".

Why not just look for ourselves. I've already provided an exegesis that shows what "so" means, and how it impacts the text. Paul is working to save as many Jews as possible by preaching to the Gentile, because he knows they will come out of jealousy. Thus, as all the Gentiles that are coming have come in, in this way, all Israel will be saved. Those that aren't saved aren't part of the remnant which is now all Israel.

Their fullness will be life from the dead, as opposed to their rejection for the most part, now.

Where does it refer to Israel's fullness? It's the fullness of the Gentiles that Paul speaks about, and in that way, through Gentiles coming in, all Israelis saved.

Muz