Well, let's by all means go back, shall we?
"Now" can be 'whereas.' Whereas is a 'because' statement. "Whereas I know."
But that doesn't change anything, because this is followed by "since", which would define the basis for knowing.
No, you are arguing from an OV presupposition: That God has no foreknowledge of man's actions. Your presupposition that keeps you from error in Genesis 3:9 is that God knows all present knowledge. Trying to build doctrine off of narrative passages where doctrine isn't specifically given is a difficult thing. Pedantic passages are supposed to drive our presuppositions first. Then when we come to narrative, our suppositions are not unfounded.
I don't build doctrine from Genesis 22:12. Genesis 22:12 is
evidence that supports my view, but were I go give up on this passage it would have little to no effect on my theology, since I don't build upon anything here.
If you look at my opening post for this thread, you'll see that.
I gave that already. You made an attempt to show that those other meanings didn't work but I think you were just playing with them rather than attempting to understand the way they could be used in the text.
I see how you could use those. However, either they don't fit the context, or they don't help you.
Remember, of course, these are legitimate ways of translating meaning, it does not mean you just do a word for word change up. That's why it reads 'now I know' but the translators didn't mean at all what you are saying it does. They themselves disagree and translated it that way to say something completely different than what you assert. All of these translators believed in God's prescience of man's actions. They understood it 'whereas I know' and not as some proof text for God not knowing before but suddenly knowing Abraham's heart. You push too far! You are beginning to deny, now, God's intimate knowledge of man is such an assertion. You are putting qualifiers on even His present knowledge and wisdom.
I would assert that this was an unsettled matter in Abraham's heart, such that the present knowledge of Abraham was unclear. After all, no man would seriously contemplate killing his own son without some serious basis for doing so.
If God knows our hearts and minds better than we ourselves, He has no need to put Abraham to the test for HIM to see. It just doesn't make any sense unless you assert that God really doesn't know our hearts either. This is crucial to your understanding. You have to acquiesce where this is leading: To a god built with human minds with all the limited restrictions.
Or this was unsettled in Abraham's heart.
I was trying to get you to realize that presuppositions on truth from other passages, especially pedantic ones of doctrine, drive our understanding of narrative passages. When the guy comes and says "God didn't know where Adam was." We say, "What makes you think that?" "He says, Adam, where are you?" We say, "He knew where Adam was, He's omnipresent." He says, "Then why did He ask?" We say, "Because Adam was trying to hide and God wanted him to face what He'd done. It is the first act of repentance."
Well, since you don't ever really engage in the meaning of the
context, you wind up with these kinds of discussions. That's the huge problem with prooftexting: Frequently the context gets missed.
The context of the fall suggests that God is dealing with the fact that they are hiding, rather than expressing confusion about their whereabouts. The context of Genesis 22 is a test by God to see if Abraham will obey Him to the point of sacrificing his own son.
Look at the conclusion
Gen 22:16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."
Notice that the basis for God's extension of the promise to Abraham is based upon Abraham's actions. If God already knew Abraham's heart, then this would have been unnecessary.
Apply this to "Now I know" in Genesis 22. It is the same, it shows no lack of knowledge, but a truth. "By this, all know what was in your heart. Your actions follow from what is there. You place me above all in your life." "Just Now, at this precise moment and not before" is a limitation not only upon His prescience, but upon OV tenants of Past and Present knowledge and extent (the heart).
Again, you fail to deal with "since." You've chopped this story into tiny pieces, and thrown out the inconvenient ones. "Since" clearly suggests that the basis for God's knowledge is Abraham's actions
I've tried to show how they are both presumptuous. That's the link between them in exegesis.
Except that there isn't, as I've shown. The context of each points in a different direction. That's the difference between proof text exegesis and narrative context exegesis.
He doesn't. That's why I compared it to Genesis 22 where He also doesn't say He didn't know before. He is saying that the Now is in relation to Abraham's action, not His prescience nor His intimate knowledge of the heart. Again, your pressing of this is so acute that it begins to deny even His present and past knowledge of Abraham's heart.
God does say that the basis for His knowledge "since" is Abraham's action in raising the knife. That's the reason translators select "Now" to introduce the clause.
So, you take their translation, but not their own opinion of the scripture they translated. Again, whereas is not merely 'now' after all, nor did the translators believe what you do. Even as far back as Jewish scholars, of their own language.
Again, which is fine. Most of your alternative translations don't get away from this exegesis anyway.
Incorrect. The majority, in fact, do not see me as a heretic but in error. That's much less of a sharp disagreement.
And the majority of the Church and the church do not see me as a heretic, either. The difference is that I don't base my theology on how many others believe as I do.
So, are you going for confirmation soon?
Not consistent at all. You started this well, "Abraham was being tested..." but you presume upon the text that God, who knows the mind and heart of man, is trying to find something out.
And using the entire story to exegete the idea that the matter wasn't knowable, even in Abraham's heart.
That's worth repeating:
You are presuming, that God, who knows the mind and heart, needs to find something out. Does or does not this presumption do damage to the OV: That God has perfect past and present knowledge? To hone this down a bit further for logical ends,and my OV understanding: Does God know us better than we know ourselves? Whatever answer you give here will qualify and pare God's perfect knowledge to a point where we must see restrictions on how well He can can even know us.
And it bears repeating that our hearts are not a constant. I have no problem with saying that this was a test for Abraham. He probably learned some thing about himself in the process. But God doesn't say "now you know." God says, "Now
I know.. since..."
You have no basis for saying that this matter was settled in Abraham's heart at all. The context seems to suggest otherwise.
So, because we don't see that God isn't saying He didn't know before, what Abraham would do, we should be careful not to go beyond what "Now I know" or "Whereas I know" expressly means?
Yes. When God says, "Where as I know ... Since..." God is establishing the basis for His knowledge.
And just to ensure I'm following: "Where are you, Adam?" does not expressly mean "I don't know where you are but I am really not asking so much as telling you I recognize you are trying to hide."
Again, from the context of the story, that's how it is exegeted. You see, you want to make the basis of your exegesis the individual phrase, where as I look at the whole context, including the flow and point of the story. Yes, I focus on "Now I know", but only after careful review of what has happened and what follows.
..."Now I know" is not expressly saying "I didn't know" or showing a deficit in God's ability to know the heart without a test with perfect present knowledge. Am I following your 'extrapolate no meaning other than what is expressly given?
Because we exegete on a pericope level, not on a proof text level.
Wait a second....
Am I missing something?
Yes. Exegesis.
Sometimes I believe OV is secretly upholding everything we already uphold but are just trying to sharpen the saints. I know it isn't, but sometimes I just get that for some reason.
That because you look for ways to reaffirm your theology and your methods. When something disagrees with both, you feel justified in attempting to use your methods to prove something is wrong, even if your method is invalid
Muz
