Ya know, you've done this before and let's just say the Hebrew didn't come with vowel points, those were later added 'for pronouncement!'
Nice assertion, keep trying to rip my language degree, I don't mind. I'm game.
Let's plug these in. Then I'll demonstrate why they don't work as a possible foil:
He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for whereas I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
Not substantially different from "now I know." Given that the following clause starts with "since", we have a cause of God's knowing, which is the action which has just taken place. Doesn't help.
It certainly reinforces my claim to your neglect: If it is at all dubious for assertion, it is not a great proof text, but an assertion. The weight of proof is in your court as the usurper and wow, all you've done is called into question interpretation, not proved a lick of anything.
(Sorry, I'm trying to hold back candor, but your lame attacks on my scholasticism are illaudable if amusing).
Again, unless God is living in denial of His eternal knowledge, by not acknowledging what he knows, this isn't substantively different, either.
"Whereas"
Makes no sense. No one asked God a question or said anything to Him regarding fearing Him, so there is nothing to answer.
An answer: to respond to an act or motion is well within parameters. <singsong> "You are asserting, you are asserting...."
The verb, here, is in the Qal, not the Piel. Yda doesn't mean "declare" in the Qal.
A
Jewish translation doesn't require the 'now' so that a declaration of what is known is within translation parameters. You really should have acquiesced the point rather than trying to tenaciously give false hope to others. You know it and I know it.
That's simply not a valid translation. Yda refers to knowing. This would require another verb.
Try a derivative like "its a fact" or "it is true." Now you are just being silly.
Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.
Like chapter devisions, you are assuming Massoretic points are inspired. They are helpers and mostly for pronunciations, not what you are trying to do with them for theological parring. Honestly, with what you seem to be compensating for something in your language assertions here.
Again, this would require that the verb be in a Piel form for this translation to be correct.
"You are asserting, you are asserting...."
Then the text would say, "Now you know...."
Did I say each and every one
is proper translation? No, I said that each of them are ways these words are understood. In order for it to fit, you have to use context of the other Hebrew words (same in English). So rather than "Now you know..." It'd be 'whereas it's known...'
Your objection is silly.
Up to this point, there wasn't an established ritual of worship. God asked Abraham to do some unusual things, including moving half way across the populated world. Christ would be the only one.
Apparently it was there all along, but Abraham either didn't notice it, or disregarded it as irrelevant to his task.
Good call, that is Abraham's take. Back to the purpose God had put it there. Man, it's like He already knew something!
"...you are asserting..."
Again the text has God saying, "now I know..." There may be some implied learning by Abraham, but that doesn't change what the text says.
It couldn't be just OV asserting, no. We wouldn't want that.
Wow.. That's quite a stretch. Given that you have no serious purpose for God saying "Now I know...", and thus no exegetical explanation, your attempt to tap dance around it by pointing out other things that may be germane to the story is odd at best.
See, this is one of those "I'm a better language scholar than you are" type of statements. Now I'm not saying I'm better but I think I can keep up with you here just fine and you get no points for asserting authoritative superiority over me in these texts. I believe I've shown bias and misunderstanding on your part. You can certainly do the same but it keeps others from placing false-hope in some assumed superiority. I have a deep-seated feeling you are compensating for something here. My own prowess is 2 years in the languages with some ensuing upkeep and work.
The fact is that the text does not change. It says "Now I know..." The meaning here is clear.
Muz
Asserting. Your 'clear' presumes God has no prescience of man's future actions. This of course is logically problematic. He who knows the heart, knew precisely what Abraham would or would not do. Abraham seems fairly determined here to follow through. That's the best you and I can do, but God who knows the heart knows 'before' not 'now' exactly what Abraham is planning to do. We assume from the text that Abraham is single-focused. He's got the wood, the fire, and so as his servants will not interfere, they remain behind. Isaac says "where is the sacrifice?" So we guess at resolute but God would (did) know without doubt exactly what his plans were. So in reality, your 'now' was actually 'before' but of course you cannot except that as it would be an admission and denial of your OV supposition.
I'm going to crush this so that the best one will be able to do is assert one is right. I will not assert I am, but once an equal resistance is added to a thing, and because OV is the one asserting against what is acknowledged by everybody else, it is up to the Open Theist to prove it or shut it.
What have you proved? Unless you can without doubt prove 1) that the Hebrew can only be translated your way
2) that after doing so, can show that the meaning can only be taken your way
You can therefore only assert with much loud supplication that this is the way it is exegeted. The
best you can do is assert that you are right but I will continue to assert that the text clues assert that you are wrong.
"Adam, where art thou?"
Did God really say: "Oh, there you are. 'Now I know.'"
Was He really asking a question to find something out?
How far? How far is OV willing to concede with such verses?
When will it stop? Is it inevitably doomed to suggest God's knowledge is no more than any man? When will the proof-texting of such absurd assertions stop? What is our next concession if we don't hold a line? You eventually must draw a line that, was unacceptable interpretation in one portion, is also unacceptable in another. Surely you have sympathies with my aversion to this proof-texting? Surely you will concede that I'm well within reasonable exegesis?
You don't want to debate me here and hypocritically call another on proof-texting from Genesis 3:9 do you?
As you explain that God knew exactly where Adam was then, I explain that God knew exactly that Abraham feared Him. He knew exactly what was in his heart and mind. It surely was not 'now' that He knew it. As I said, 'now' is fine as a translation if we are not caught up with trying to proof-text an absurd. If we know when we use 'now' that it is not a negligence of His omniscience, it cannot mean 'now' for proof-texting.
