Biblical Foreknowledge

[Giuliano]

These are different words.

"Know" means to have a knowledge or acquaintance. Hebrews also used the word as an idiom for intercourse.

The tense "knew" in that Jesus never knew them refers to association. Those people were mot trult asdociated with Jesus.

Jesus knowing what men were thinking refers to a cognitive knowledge.

Foreknowledge always refers to prescience. It does not work that those God has a pre-association with He predestined.

Even if we create a new definition based on the Jewish idiom for sexual relations it does not work. The reason is that while God is eternal we are not.

Foreknow means what it has always meant - knowing beforehand.

You say. You give no real evidence for your view.

I mentioned the people at Sinai who were not in bodies but who took the vow. What do you make of that? I'll repeat it so you don't need to go searching.

Deuteronomy 29:10 Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel,
11 Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water:
12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day:
13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;
15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:

How could people not born yet take the vow at Sinai?

 

[John Caldwell]

You say. You give no real evidence for your view.

Sorry, you are right.

The definition I provided was a Strong's definition (I was being a bit lazy) for προγινώσκω (foreknow) which gives three options (pre-knowledge, an idiom for sexual intercourse; and an association).

Bill Mounce offers - to know beforehand, to be previously acquainted with, to determine on beforehand, to foreordain, and to appoint beforehand.

You have John Calvin's definition (prescience/ to know beforehand which Calvin attributes to God decreeing what would take place beforehand. The source was the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (I provided the reference earlier).

In the Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint (Taylor and Eynikel) προγινώσκω is defined as to foresee, to make oneself known in advance, and to be made known in advance.

Paul Himes notes that the verb προγινώσκω can have one or more persons as its direct object (it could be "people" rather than individuals) but it always references knowledge rather than foreordination or relationship. He rightly points out that "the burden of proof is on those who would attempt to posit anything other than simple prescient knowledge for the word" (Himes, Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter).

What is the real evidence to support redefining προγινώσκω as referring to some type of pre-relationship?

 

[Giuliano]

Sorry, you are right.

The definition I provided was a Strong's definition (I was being a bit lazy) for προγινώσκω (foreknow) which gives three options (pre-knowledge, an idiom for sexual intercourse; and an association).

Bill Mounce offers - to know beforehand, to be previously acquainted with, to determine on beforehand, to foreordain, and to appoint beforehand.

You have John Calvin's definition (prescience/ to know beforehand which Calvin attributes to God decreeing what would take place beforehand. The source was the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (I provided the reference earlier).

In the Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint (Taylor and Eynikel) προγινώσκω is defined as to foresee, to make oneself known in advance, and to be made known in advance.

Paul Himes notes that the verb προγινώσκω can have one or more persons as its direct object (it could be "people" rather than individuals) but it always references knowledge rather than foreordination or relationship. He rightly points out that "the burden of proof is on those who would attempt to posit anything other than simple prescient knowledge for the word" (Himes, Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter).

What is the real evidence to support redefining προγινώσκω as referring to some type of pre-relationship?

What about those at Sinai without bodies who took the vow?

 

[John Caldwell]

What about those at Sinai without bodies who took the vow?

What about them (I don't understand the question)?

In the passage God makes an oath to Israel - to those who are present and those who are not yet present. I do not see how this relates to refining "foreknowledge".

 

[bbyrd009]

Ah, but that does not mean they are eternally lost.

how are you defining eternal there tho. is the question. I think one is compelled to examine their definition of eternal in light of several vv that most Christians generally arent very comfortable with, chiefly involving a belief in Death, More Abundantly imo which is incontrovertibly mithraism in a dress, and even much alluded to in several places in Scripture

 

[bbyrd009]

Paul tells us all Israel will be saved. By that, I take it to mean the original 144,000 cannot be lost. Do not assume that because they did not enter the Land of Promise that they are eternally lost.

well, i agree that their spirits went back to Yah, sure, but beyond that, who can say?
oh i guess Samuel, who came up from the erets-earth for the witch of endor, promising Saul you and your sons will be here with me, or...one of the many other passages in the prophets, job, all thru the NT I came that you might have LIFE, OT adam BECAME a living soul just on and on, many examples, many demonstrations, here today gone to morrow bro, read it and weep
who dosturbs MY REST

They did not return to Egypt. They had kvetched about the wonderful things they had (as slaves) in Egypt; but they stayed with Moses, knowing they would die in the wilderness. They followed the Pillar too. Why did they do that? So their children could enter?

ha man im not sure if those questions really have cogent answers or not, a like what is meant to be read as more of a mythology might be being abused if analogies are taken too far iow, but that doesnt mean that some profound insight might not be gained by meditating on the matter too. why would they follow after that, huh? but then ha where else you gonna go, thats a big desert lol. but imo the story should be comprehended mostly on another level. all them names have specific meanings, and references such as "such and such had a job shearing sheep" this guy is prolly not taking scissors to live wool lol right

The Voice of God frightened them; and they could not discern much intelligence in it. It was a din to them that threatened them. All they could discern was the ten sayings.

there you go

This was the reason they got words written down. Many people want to find God but aren't quite ready to hear for themselves. Holy books and holy men serve a purpose for them.

i totally agree, even the Roman Catholic organization served an invaluable purpose during a probably inevitable anyway Dark Ages, and even today if one finds themselves on the curb and destitute Catholic Charities is unequalled for many immediate necessities. Any college campus can provide the rest, U of M is a city

the heir is under servants while he is a child, and no better than a slave, even though he is the master of all

Love never fails. If you love someone, surely you have to believe God also loves them -- and probably more than you do.

so then prolly "God's Love never fails?"
as for mine
"your love's like rhinestones
falling from the sky"
lol

 

[bbyrd009]

we have of people "burning in hell."

if you dig a pit for others to fall into, you end up in it yourself

(she blinded me
with science)
dat English, brah, dem norse scribos lol
very viking like ppl, see
"did hell come from norse-angle scribes?"
sorry cant import Gsearches

I don't know much about rap.

oh, you have a fab rap, dont kid yourself lol. note the multitude you are beating in time with
im doing dbl-time lol
oh daughters of Jerusalem, dont find love until you are ready
count the cost

No, if we loved them, and sooner or later, they will be saved. All tears will be wiped away.

your definition of "saved" does not really tail with life more abundantly and the abundant other Scriptural evidence imo, but fwiw i would never say this to anyone irl. hmm unless they were trying to teach it in a public place, i guess.

its a sweet, sentimental idea, and as a belief hey why not if you want to believe that, but imo accepting the awful truth as at least a possibility is...an essential step on th epa th
Christ came that we might have life, more abundantly, right
but really no hurry imo k, there is a Big Cliff ahead
thatcan only be seen with one eye

 

[Giuliano]

What about them (I don't understand the question)?

In the passage God makes an oath to Israel - to those who are present and those who are not yet present. I do not see how this relates to refining "foreknowledge".

You seem to be saying God made an agreement with people who didn't exist. A covenant is made between two (or more) parties. It is not imposed by one on the other. They agreed to it, just as people must agree to the "new covenant." Jesus does not impose that "new covenant" on the unwilling. People not standing at Sinai agreed to it. The Jews say so, and I concur.

Deuteronomy 5:24 And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.

We should remember that God gave dominion over the earth to man. Man has to agree with God for God to act on the earth since God did not err in giving man that gift of dominion.

 

[Giuliano]

i totally agree, even the Roman Catholic organization served an invaluable purpose during a probably inevitable anyway Dark Ages, and even today if one finds themselves on the curb and destitute Catholic Charities is unequalled for many immediate necessities. Any college campus can provide the rest, U of M is a city

the heir is under servants while he is a child, and no better than a slave, even though he is the master of all

I agree. I'm not sure how much longer the Catholic Church will serve a purpose, but that's not my affair.

so then prolly "God's Love never fails?"
as for mine
"your love's like rhinestones
falling from the sky"
lol

If you ask for a fish, would your Heavenly Father give you a scorpion? I tell you if you ask God for anything good, you will get it. Sooner or later.

if you dig a pit for others to fall into, you end up in it yourself

Perhaps hell is still enlarging itself since so many people imagine others going there?

 

[bbyrd009]

I agree. I'm not sure how much longer the Catholic Church will serve a purpose, but that's not my affair.

oh, i guess as long as an opposer does lol. We can leave all that pretty much whenever we want
luke 9:3
matthew 10:10
mark 6:8

 

[bbyrd009]

beware of reading me too quickly i guess narf

If you ask for a fish, would your Heavenly Father give you a scorpion? I tell you if you ask God for anything good, you will get it. Sooner or later.

Jesus asked for and ate some "fish" too, huh

Perhaps hell is still enlarging itself since so many people imagine others going there?

yeh, guess thats a pretty wide path huh lol

 

[John Caldwell]

You seem to be saying God made an agreement with people who didn't exist. A covenant is made between two (or more) parties. It is not imposed by one on the other. They agreed to it, just as people must agree to the "new covenant." Jesus does not impose that "new covenant" on the unwilling. People not standing at Sinai agreed to it. The Jews say so, and I concur.

Deuteronomy 5:24 And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.
25 Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die.
26 For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?
27 Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
28 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.

We should remember that God gave dominion over the earth to man. Man has to agree with God for God to act on the earth since God did not err in giving man that gift of dominion.

Oh, I see.

No. The passage is God giving his oath to a people (Israel). God also made a covenant with Abraham which extends to the "children of the Promise". This is the basis Paul uses to establish those who are "true" children of Abraham (by faith).

The issue is not God predestining a people, or making a commitment to a people, or choosing as the object of His love a people. The issue is when we take those ideas and decide to redefine the actual words.

That said, there are different opinions here. Some prefer Scripture which is more of an interpretation (like a lesson in narrative form, in a manner of speaking). This is what assigning biblical meanings to words is like.

Here is an example:

In Genesis we read of seven days (the word is yom). In 1 Samuel 27:7 we read that David lived in the country of the Philistines a year and four months. The word translated year is yom (the same word translated as day in Genesis).

I believe that creation occurred in a literal 6 days. I interpret "day" in the creation account to be one literal day (about 24 hours).

But I would never change the word for "day" in the biblical text to specify "a 24 hour period" in order to exclude other interpretations of the text because I believe that is wrong (not the result but the method). It is reading into the text in order to exclude other just as textually correct interpretations.

Others may take yom to mean ages. That is just as literal an interpretation as mine. But they should not change the word yom to exclude a shorter time period.

My only point was that we need to be faithful to the actual text and not read into it our interpretation even if our interpretation is by far the best explanation. Keep the text correct, use the right words, and then study and develop interpretations of the text.

Never have the tail wagging the dog (which is what liberal hermenutics does).

 

[bbyrd009]

imo dont doubt that Scripture is written so as to hide wisdom from the wise
we even have a v to the effect This is not written the way we read

beware the thief in the night
take that laterally, if you like

 

[Giuliano]

Oh, I see.

No. The passage is God giving his oath to a people (Israel). God also made a covenant with Abraham which extends to the "children of the Promise". This is the basis Paul uses to establish those who are "true" children of Abraham (by faith).

And Abraham kept his end of the bargain. . . . You seem unable to grapple with the fact that covenants are entered into voluntarily by the parties involved.

The issue is not God predestining a people, or making a commitment to a people, or choosing as the object of His love a people. The issue is when we take those ideas and decide to redefine the actual words.

That said, there are different opinions here. Some prefer Scripture which is more of an interpretation (like a lesson in narrative form, in a manner of speaking). This is what assigning biblical meanings to words is like.

The question is over the definition of "foreknow." You maintain it's knowing about; but God knew about both Esau and Jacob. Their mother was told how they'd turn out. So surely God "knew" about Esau.

If "foreknow" meant "to know about", then God would foreknow everyone. It can't mean that however since God "foreknows" only His elect.

I don't know how you read this:

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

The original Israel will all be saved. Those added on later, maybe not. Gentiles grafted on can be cut off. They do not have the guarantee of the original 144,000.

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

People's names can be added and removed from the Book of Life. Things are not the way Calvinists imagine.

Here is an example:

In Genesis we read of seven days (the word is yom). In 1 Samuel 27:7 we read that David lived in the country of the Philistines a year and four months. The word translated year is yom (the same word translated as day in Genesis).

I believe that creation occurred in a literal 6 days. I interpret "day" in the creation account to be one literal day (about 24 hours).

But I would never change the word for "day" in the biblical text to specify "a 24 hour period" in order to exclude other interpretations of the text because I believe that is wrong (not the result but the method). It is reading into the text in order to exclude other just as textually correct interpretations.

Others may take yom to mean ages. That is just as literal an interpretation as mine. But they should not change the word yom to exclude a shorter time period.

My only point was that we need to be faithful to the actual text and not read into it our interpretation even if our interpretation is by far the best explanation. Keep the text correct, use the right words, and then study and develop interpretations of the text.

Never have the tail wagging the dog (which is what liberal hermenutics does).

I read it several ways myself.

 

[John Caldwell]

And Abraham kept his end of the bargain. . . . You seem unable to grapple with the fact that covenants are entered into voluntarily by the parties involved.

LOL....No, the issue is I am speaking of the definition (what the word itself means)of προγινώσκω (foreknowledge).

You and I did not enter into the promise of Abraham prior to our salvation (Paul make this very clear), yet we are the "children of Abraham" (Paul also makes that very clear). Even here there is a sense of being foreknown, and I believe a sense where by God in his eternity always had a "relationship" with us as His particular people. So I would agree with you on that.

BUT the question was not about a doctrine of being foreknown. It was about the actual word "foreknowledge". The word itself does not have a relational aspect although the doctrine involved may very well include such components.

I hope this helps - I do not believe you off the mark on the doctrine but you are on the actual word.

Are you able to grasp the fact that "foreknowledge" has a meaning and the difference between the word and a doctrine?

 

[Giuliano]

LOL....No, the issue is I am speaking of the definition (what the word itself means)of προγινώσκω (foreknowledge).

You and I did not enter into the promise of Abraham prior to our salvation (Paul make this very clear), yet we are the "children of Abraham" (Paul also makes that very clear). Even here there is a sense of being foreknown, and I believe a sense where by God in his eternity always had a "relationship" with us as His particular people. So I would agree with you on that.

BUT the question was not about a doctrine of being foreknown. It was about the actual word "foreknowledge". The word itself does not have a relational aspect although the doctrine involved may very well include such components.

I hope this helps - I do not believe you off the mark on the doctrine but you are on the actual word.

Are you able to grasp the fact that "foreknowledge" has a meaning and the difference between the word and a doctrine?

I think I understand that well enough; and I have been trying to show you how the word needs to be defined; but you seem to be evading several things I write.

 

[John Caldwell]

I think I understand that well enough; and I have been trying to show you how the word needs to be defined; but you seem to be evading several things I write.

I know what you are saying, but it still goes back to what method we believe best in handling the biblical text. IMHO "foreknowledge" (without any redefining) fits the passage, so I personally would not give the word another meaning.

 

[Giuliano]

I know what you are saying, but it still goes back to what method we believe best in handling the biblical text. IMHO "foreknowledge" (without any redefining) fits the passage, so I personally would not give the word another meaning.

Your doctrine may depend on that then.

 

[John Caldwell]

Your doctrine may depend on that then.

It could. I believe in defining a word according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context (as best we can). But I have to admit this belief is probably related to my background as well (I am a conservative Southern Baptist.... but don't hold it against me).

 

[Willie T]

You guys do realize, don't you, the ludicrousness of the idea that we are required to have "doctrine" that fully matches what God intended? Can any of you, in your wildest dreams, imagine that you actually know the mind of God? I doubt there is even one person who ever lived that "got it right."
That leaves us with egg on our faces when, using our own notions of doctrine, have the audacity to tell someone else THEIR doctrine is wrong.