Did Beethoven or God write the 9th Symphony? If Ludwig did at a point in space-time, how could God see it from eternity past? Even if he is atemporal or timeless (whatever that means), there would be nothing to see until the composer exists and composes. I believe God experienced novelty when classical music was composed. He was not humming the tunes waiting for them to be written as predicted. Once they came into existence, God knew them inside out. He also saw the thought process as they were being developed, edited, rewritten, and ultimately played numerous times. There is no reason to presuppose this was all foreknown and it is highly problematic to do so. One cannot know free choices before they are made by the agent (or are you willing to say that God is the ultimate cause of every choice?).
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Oh no...
Oh no...
Dear god, open theism is the scariest thing that Christianity faces today. We've all seem to have forgotten the notion of a completely sovereign God, and gone to idolatry. We're worshiping gifts, and not the giver. If anything, this notion that we can bend God to our will is not only Blasphemous, but down right dangerous.
God doesn't want to be your friend, he wants to be your father, he wants to be your savior, but as for a friend... I cannot with a clear conscience though say that he wants to be your friend.
Oh no...
Dear god, open theism is the scariest thing that Christianity faces today. We've all seem to have forgotten the notion of a completely sovereign God, and gone to idolatry. We're worshiping gifts, and not the giver. If anything, this notion that we can bend God to our will is not only Blasphemous, but down right dangerous.
God doesn't want to be your friend, he wants to be your father, he wants to be your savior, but as for a friend... I cannot with a clear conscience though say that he wants to be your friend.
From, since, before the foundation of the world
This is a very important Biblical prepositional phrase that I will address.
Matthew 13:34 "All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed he said nothing to them without a parable. 35 This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden from (KJ, since RSV) the foundation of the world.”
Psalm 78:2 "I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old, 3 things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. 4 We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders which he has wrought."
The first thing anyone should notice about these two passages is that they don't agree. Matthew quotes the Psalms as saying that there are parables that have been hidden since the foundation of the world. But when we read the Psalms we see that the parables have not been hidden since the foundation of the world, they are things that had been "heard and known" and were to be passed on to future generations. How could Matthew have misquoted the Psalms? The answer is he didn't, the translators for our English Bible have mistranslated it.
The words in Matthew 13, "of the world" do not appear in any Greek text, it appears in the Geneva version of the Bible produced by Beza and Calvin, and then added later to the King James. The Matthew verse should read, "things kept secret because of degeneration (katabole)." Jesus was speaking in parables things hidden because of the degeneration, or moral decay, of the nation of Israel. The Greek word, katabole, is mistranslated in this verse just as it is mistranslated in other verses, as we shall see.
Hebrews 1:10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:"
Here in Hebrews we have the Greek word "themelios" for foundation and the Greek word "gee" for the physical earth. This is the proper way to render this verse. We will see that when the Biblical writers use the word "katabole" and "kosmos" they mean something quite different then how our English Bibles have translated them as we have seen in Matthew 13. In Luke 11 we have another example of this.
Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation (katabole) of the world (kosmos), may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
It should be obvious that there were no prophets around at the beginning or creation of the earth, so their blood was not shed from the foundation of the world. The verse should read, "the blood of the prophets, which was shed because of the degeneration of the world", and "because of this generation". The word "kosmos" refers to people not the physical planet.
Next we will see how all this will affect our translation of Ephesians 1:4.
Ephesians 1:4 “as he hath chosen us in him before the ‘foundation of the world,’ that we should be holy and without blame before him”
This verse should read, “as he has chosen us in him before the ‘degeneration of the world,’ that we be holy and blameless before him”
This verse contrasts the moral corruption of the world, (katabole kosmos) with the moral condition of the saints who are to be holy and blameless. Notice that Paul does not say that God has chosen that we be in him, but rather that he has chosen us, who are in him, to be holy. The word "to be" is in the present tense. We see the degeneration of this world before us, God wants the world to see before it holy and blameless saints.
--Dave
This is a very important Biblical prepositional phrase that I will address.
Matthew 13:34 "All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed he said nothing to them without a parable. 35 This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden from (KJ, since RSV) the foundation of the world.”
Psalm 78:2 "I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old, 3 things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. 4 We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders which he has wrought."
The first thing anyone should notice about these two passages is that they don't agree. Matthew quotes the Psalms as saying that there are parables that have been hidden since the foundation of the world. But when we read the Psalms we see that the parables have not been hidden since the foundation of the world, they are things that had been "heard and known" and were to be passed on to future generations. How could Matthew have misquoted the Psalms? The answer is he didn't, the translators for our English Bible have mistranslated it.
The words in Matthew 13, "of the world" do not appear in any Greek text, it appears in the Geneva version of the Bible produced by Beza and Calvin, and then added later to the King James. The Matthew verse should read, "things kept secret because of degeneration (katabole)." Jesus was speaking in parables things hidden because of the degeneration, or moral decay, of the nation of Israel. The Greek word, katabole, is mistranslated in this verse just as it is mistranslated in other verses, as we shall see.
Hebrews 1:10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:"
Here in Hebrews we have the Greek word "themelios" for foundation and the Greek word "gee" for the physical earth. This is the proper way to render this verse. We will see that when the Biblical writers use the word "katabole" and "kosmos" they mean something quite different then how our English Bibles have translated them as we have seen in Matthew 13. In Luke 11 we have another example of this.
Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation (katabole) of the world (kosmos), may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.
It should be obvious that there were no prophets around at the beginning or creation of the earth, so their blood was not shed from the foundation of the world. The verse should read, "the blood of the prophets, which was shed because of the degeneration of the world", and "because of this generation". The word "kosmos" refers to people not the physical planet.
Next we will see how all this will affect our translation of Ephesians 1:4.
Ephesians 1:4 “as he hath chosen us in him before the ‘foundation of the world,’ that we should be holy and without blame before him”
This verse should read, “as he has chosen us in him before the ‘degeneration of the world,’ that we be holy and blameless before him”
This verse contrasts the moral corruption of the world, (katabole kosmos) with the moral condition of the saints who are to be holy and blameless. Notice that Paul does not say that God has chosen that we be in him, but rather that he has chosen us, who are in him, to be holy. The word "to be" is in the present tense. We see the degeneration of this world before us, God wants the world to see before it holy and blameless saints.
--Dave
Was Jesus a friend of sinners? Was YHWH a friend of Abraham?
God is transcendent and immanent, Sovereign and Father.
We all agree that God is sovereign, but only one of us has a biblical view of it (is it meticulous control/omnicausality or responsive, providential control/omnicompetence?).
Suggesting that God is personal and dynamic vs static is not making God our buddy nor reducing His sovereignty.
You are not scared of Open Theism, but a straw man scare crow. Before you dismiss it, you should at least understand it and represent it properly.
Are you a Calvinist?
Who worships gifts? I speak in tongues and worship Jesus, just like Paul. This is from the Holy Spirit, not idolatry?!
Open Theism does not emphasize God as friend, but it does emphasize relationship vs aloofness (Deism). Do you have a problem with that?
Rejecting your wrong view of sovereignty is not tantamount to rejecting the Sovereign God.
Don't confuse us with finite godism or Process Thought and I will not confuse you with fatalistic Islam (assuming you are a Christian determinist).
Very good. Too bad you can't see that God is also not a human being.
The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."
Jesus was a human being, so are you saying he was not God?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why don't you take "the Greek" and come up with a perfect version of the Bible, since there isn't one? Call it the DFT version.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Of course, we do. You can trust the King James Bible as the word of God in English. You believe the word of God is only in "the Greek".
You are "correcting" the Bible here with your own translation in order to make a point about "before the foundation of the world"...why don't you do that for all of the "the Greek" and come up with your own version?
Nice try Super Dave.
Jesus in His Hypostatic Union was one person with two natures, a Divine nature and a human nature. In His human nature He had feelings like us and He also had arms and legs like us.
However, His Divine nature does not only not have arms and legs, but it also does not repent, or feel sorry, or get angry.
I assumed you were smart enough to see that I was refering to "Divine" God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son, not God the Son's human nature. Sorry I was not more clear as to who I was talking about. Hope this clears things up for you.
The King James, and all others Bibles that are not in the original Greek, are translations. If anywhere we suspect that a translation has got it wrong, we can check it against the Greek. As I am showing how the English versions have been wrongly slanted toward a timeless eternity, absolute foreknowledge of all future events, which is fatalism, and a rejection of human rationality.
--Dave
Well, at least, thanks to you, I can stop thinking about the Wrath of God. I have some non Christian friends that will be glad to know he's not angry with them.
In what book, chapter, and verses can I find a reference to this Hypostatic union of Christ's two natures.
--Dave
God disiplines His children.
How else can God convey disipline to us?
Think about it, if you were God, and you were immutable, and impassable, how could you let the finite creatures you created know that if they disobey you, that you were going to disipline them?
To us disipline feels like wrath. Therefore God tells us that we will feel His wrath. It is not wrath to God, it is only wrath to us.
elected4ever
New member
Nice try Dave but no cigar for you. Mortal humans are not children of God. They are a creation of God. There is a world of difference between a Child of God and a creation of God.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Actually, OVTs apply context. The writers of the Brave little Toaster never intended for us to believe that toasters are brave.
OTOH, there is nothing in Scripture that indicates any intention that we should believe that God does not repent. The only basis you have for doing so is your philosophical view of God.
You see, context is important. The context of the BLT is a cartoon where inanimate objects are animated to tell a fictional story.
OTOH, the bible is God's Word, which intends to communicate truth to us. Now, we still need to look at context to see the intent of the text, but I have yet to see anyone show that God repenting or becoming angry is anthropopathism from the context.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Except that the KJV is demonstrably in error in several places. We can begin with the end of Revelation, where that translation has no root in any Greek manuscript at all.
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Willing to bet the farm on that claim?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Are you sure? Which version? It's impossible that more
than one is, since they all differ.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Absolutely. God's Word is that which the Holy Spirit gave to Scripture writers as He carried them along.
If you pick up a a USB Greek New Testament, you can find God's Word in there.
If you pick up an English translation, you'll find a translation of God's Word into a language you speak, you'll get a good idea of the meaning without reading the original.
The "differences" you see in modern formal translations have to do with translational issues, conveying the meaning of words from the original into the translated language, which is affected by the translational style of the translator.
But, if one take the time to read the intent of a translation, reading a modern translation is more than sufficient for most folks who wish to study the bible. If one wishes to get in depth in one's study, I suggest taking Greek and Hebrew.
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I thought you said the Bible was God's word? The Bible
has 66 books, all in one. Which Bible is God's word?
Is God unable to preserve his word through translations?
How about when Luke records Paul's Hebrew words in Greek in the latter part of Acts?