From a previous discussion between Allan and myself:
How do any of these fit with the following passages?
.
I would say in the passages that I referenced above just from the OT, God's "knowing" of certain people or nations can certainly be rendered as a "love" or "affection" and even "appointed". In the NT, there are passages we could look at that imply the same relationship found in the OT with God and His people.
I think there is room to expand the definition to include God's knowledge of some to be spoken as a "covenantal knowing". Those with whom He is in covenant with from the OT to the NT is a form of "knowing" for God.
Please define your use of "know" in #2. Normally we do not use the word we are attempting to define in the defintion.
What does Christ "fully know of them"?
Show me where I have based it on a preconceived idea of what it means. I'm allowing the context to define the way the word is used. You need to explain why the words I suggested are not supported by the texts. And you need to explain and show me a passage where "love" is "implied" in the word "know" without it becoming another definition which you will not allow for.
No one is redefining a word. We are simply allowing for another defintion to be employed in certain contexts where the other definitions are not adequate. The definitions you have supplied are not adequate in relation to God's knowledge of some people or groups.
And I have briefly showed you OT examples of this occurance.
Let me provide a quote from Walter Kaiser Jr. in his book Toward an Exegetical Theology to show what I'm describing.
And this is from a non-theological website explaining English grammar.
That's what I am advocating is happening with the word "know" in the passages I've referenced. The definition is being determined by the environment or context of that word.
Definitions of "know" revisited
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Isaiah40:28, Dec 3, 2007.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
I don't know how to be more plain.
But for the sake of the thread lets begin from the top.
Also, in relation here to your contention here:
-
Allan said:I don't know how to be more plain.Click to expand...
Allan said:did Christ fully know of them and or have a complete understanding of themClick to expand...
What did "Christ fully know"?
Second, please explain how your defintions fits into the passages I listed, rather than just saying, "it fits perfectly".
Allan said:Here you contend foreknow means forelove. Even though their are already Greek words that mean Love (Agape, Eros, Phileo), you want to contend we give "ginōskō" ANOTHER definition.Click to expand...
I've said that the "know" in the verses I posted show God's "knowing" of certain people or nations can certainly be rendered as a "love" or "affection" and even "appointed". And then I elaborated by saying it was a "covenantal knowing". God's knowledge of Israel in the OT was tied to His covenantal relationship with them. Those with whom He is in covenant with from the OT to the NT is a form of "knowing" for God.
He "knows" intimately those with whom He covenants with.
Let's look at one of the most obvious passages where this use of "know" is being employed..
Amos 3:2
You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.Click to expand...
Allan said:Now the funny thing about that is, that over the last 2000 years it hasn't had the defintion you are contending for adapted to it by the vast majority of those who are considered to be scholastic scholars of the Greek and English Langauge.Click to expand...
I did without intending to.
Last night, I happened upon my C.I. Scofield(1843-1921)Study Bible which has been packed away for several years now.
I turned to Amos 3:2 and found a note in the center column marked for the word "known".
Guess what is reads?
"by covenant relationship. Dt. 4:32-37"
So apparantly this "covenantal knowing" that I have been contending for in various passages is not unknown by the "scholastic scholars of the Greek and English language" as you assert.
Just for kicks, I started looking around elsewhere.
Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
"God has known them, that is he has chosen them, covenanted with them, and conversed with them as his acquaintance." He writes more, but that is sufficient.
John Calvin (1509-1564)
"Israel, then , is said to be known, because God favored them alone with a gratuitous adoption and designed them to be a peculiar people to himself. This is the knowledge of which the Prophet now speaks."
Allan said:Unfortunately this dynamic is not in the text you trying to so desperately to re-define. I'm sorry but it just isn't there regardless of what you desire it to say that conforms to your view. It says what it says.Click to expand...
And since your assertion above is shown to be false, then why should any of your other assertions be considered reliable statements? -
Isaiah40:28 said:Well, first, you could attempt to explain what your definition of "know" which was this:
really means.
What did "Christ fully know"?Click to expand...
Look it up, you can find it.
Second, please explain how your defintions fits into the passages I listed, rather than just saying, "it fits perfectly".Click to expand...
It is not for me to explain the Strongs and lexical definitions BUT for YOU to prove a contention that is nowhere to be found in any translation or Lexicon (commentaries aside, we are talking about the meaning of a word).
Actually I never said it meant, "forelove".
I've said that the "know" in the verses I posted show God's "knowing" of certain people or nations can certainly be rendered as a "love" or "affection" and even "appointed".Click to expand...
You state that 'know' can be rendered as (or replaced with) 'love', 'affection', and 'appointed'. SO in your own words you state Fore'know' can be translated as Fore'Love', or Fore'affection', or Fore'appointed'.
NOW ....
Please give me the Lexicons which translate or gives a transliteraltion of the word 'know' in these three or one of these three ways.
Just for kicks I checked Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius's Lexicon in the Hebrew and Thayers in the Greek and still noting to your argument. Your 'rendering' is WRONG.
You can look at these here:
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03045&version=kjv
or here:
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H03045&Version=kjv
(for this one look in the Lexicon portion below the Translation count)
Editted In -->> Or the Greek here:
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1097&version=kjv
And then I elaborated by saying it was a "covenantal knowing".Click to expand...
No one is redefining a word. We are simply allowing for another defintionClick to expand...
Before we could agree to disagree, Now - you must not only embrace all views but incorporate thoses veiws into your own.1
0
God's knowledge of Israel in the OT was tied to His covenantal relationship with them. Those with whom He is in covenant with from the OT to the NT is a form of "knowing" for God.
He "knows" intimately those with whom He covenants with.Click to expand...
BTW - I have YET to see the term 'intimately' applied in ANY Lexicon or Concordenance. God knows ever person in Hell intimately (He created them) but not relationally. (and yes there is a difference) The view of 'intimately' comes from a very misguided approach to the scripture by many of your view to make the euphamism of sexual relations somehow applicable to depth of God's knowledge. No such luck.
Have you checked your assertion?
I did without intending to.
Last night, I happened upon my C.I. Scofield(1843-1921)Study Bible which has been packed away for several years now.
I turned to Amos 3:2 and found a note in the center column marked for the word "known".
Guess what is reads?
"by covenant relationship. Dt. 4:32-37"
So apparantly this "covenantal knowing" that I have been contending for in various passages is not unknown by the "scholastic scholars of the Greek and English language" as you assert.
Just for kicks, I started looking around elsewhere.
Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
"God has known them, that is he has chosen them, covenanted with them, and conversed with them as his acquaintance." He writes more, but that is sufficient.
John Calvin (1509-1564)
"Israel, then , is said to be known, because God favored them alone with a gratuitous adoption and designed them to be a peculiar people to himself. This is the knowledge of which the Prophet now speaks."Click to expand...
Matt Henry qualifies what you quote in the portion BEFORE your quote:
You only have I known of all the families of the earth. Note, God’s church in the world is a family dignified above all the families of the earth. Those that know God are known of him. In Judah is God known, and therefore Judah is more than any people known of God.Click to expand...
2. You only have I known--that is, acknowledged as My people, and treated with peculiar favor ( Exd 19:5 Deu 4:20 ). Compare the use of "know," Psa 1:6 144:3 Jhn 10:14 2Ti 2:19 .
......therefore I will punish--the greater the privileges, the heavier the punishment for the abuse of them; for to the other offenses there is added, in this case, ingratitude. When God's people do not glorify Him, He glorifies Himself by punishing them.Click to expand...Says you.Click to expand...
And since your assertion above is shown to be false, then why should any of your other assertions be considered reliable statements?Click to expand...
So far you have not given ONE shred of proof for your assertion and yet you presume your argument to be true! :laugh:
REMEMBER: this is about Rom 8:29, lets get back to it. -
Bottom line is this.
I could take time and respond line by line to all your comments.
But it wouldn't be profitable.
You said:
Allan said:It is not for me to explain the Strongs and lexical definitions BUT for YOU to prove a contention that is nowhere to be found in any translation or LexiconClick to expand...
The scholarly men who translated the NIV and the NASB, used the word, "chosen" instead of "known" in Amos 3:2.
Jamison said:You only have I known--that is, acknowledged as My people, and treated with peculiar favor ( Exd 19:5 Deu 4:20 ). Compare the use of "know," Psa 1:6 144:3 Jhn 10:14 2Ti 2:19 .Click to expand...
God's "acknowledgement" of His people and treatment with "peculiar favor" is what "know" means in this passage.
It is a special knowing that stems from His covenant with His people who He treats with peculiar favor(ie. affection, love).
And the reason for this "acknowledgement" is a direct result of Him having chose them as His elect people.
IOW, an acknowledgement of a covenant relationship only with them. -
Ditto what Is. has been saying . BTW , Amos 3:2 in the NLTse has this rendering "... I have been intimate with you alone ." I never thought anyone would belittle the use of commentaries . They help explain the meaning of texts -- exegesis . Of course some are better than others .
-
Rippon said:Ditto what Is. has been saying . BTW , Amos 3:2 in the NLTse has this rendering "... I have been intimate with you alone ." I never thought anyone would belittle the use of commentaries . They help explain the meaning of texts -- exegesis . Of course some are better than others .Click to expand...
Allan's belittling of commentaries apparantly only applies to others' use of them.
He had no problem quoting more Matthew Henry or Jamison-Fawcett to make his own point.
Allan said:There is no room to redifine words that have been established for a few thousand years. It is what it is because it is a dead language (not commonly used anymore) and therefore no new definitions can nor will come into play except that which it is already established.Click to expand...
Apparantly the Holy Spirit cannot bring further enlightment to His written Word then what has already been established. -
Isaiah40:28 said:Bottom line is this.
I could take time and respond line by line to all your comments.
But it wouldn't be profitable.
You said:Click to expand...
Respond to what you want and if I think you overlooked something necessary I will bring it up again
The men who write and edit commentaries are scholars of the Greek and English language, Allan.Click to expand...
The scholarly men who translated the NIV and the NASB, used the word, "chosen" instead of "known" in Amos 3:2.Click to expand...
However, with due regard to your selection for Amos 3:2 and the two bibles that translate it thusly I will say, what about all the others that do not? How many OTHER bibles translate it 'know'. I personally love the NASB and it is one of the most literally rendered bibles on the market - IMO -but I still disagree at times with some of their wording (very few tiumes). This happens to be one of them. There is a Hebrew word for 'chosen' which is bä·khar', this word is also used in Due 14:2 where the Lord declares He has 'chosen' them to be a pecular people. However, the word here is not bä·khar' (chosen) but yada`(know).
So it appears instead of a literal translation they use the a dymanic equivelent, which can at times serve it's purpose but easily becomes a huge problem because the equivelent is determined by the person translatings opinion of how the text should read instead of what it literally states. This is problematic because the person translating it will due so according to their own theolgical view of what they see it saying. This is why the literal approach is much more benificial and proper.
And how does this differ with what I am saying?
God's "acknowledgement" of His people and treatment with "peculiar favor" is what "know" means in this passage.
It is a special knowing that stems from His covenant with His people who He treats with peculiar favor(ie. affection, love).
And the reason for this "acknowledgement" is a direct result of Him having chose them as His elect people.
IOW, an acknowledgement of a covenant relationship only with them.Click to expand...
First, let me say this - there is NO 'special' knowing. God knows all things the same but there is a difference in a relational aspect toward the people of His knowledge, but not with regard to the knowledge itself. Semantics I know but it bugs me, sorry.
Secondly, you are still trying to add to the word all YOUR additional aspects. Know means just what it entails. That knowledge can have your overtones but that does not equate to a new defintion since the word itself is not infering what you are trying compound towards it. Yes it can allude to or secondarily imply things toward that aspect of what was done (choosing - in the this instance) but that does not make the tertiary meaning the primary one. -
Isaiah40:28 said:Yeah, who would of thought.
Allan's belittling of commentaries apparantly only applies to others' use of them.
He had no problem quoting more Matthew Henry or Jamison-Fawcett to make his own point.Click to expand...
You are so devoted to your theology, you don't listen.
I did not belittle anything. Commentaries do not dictate nor define a word, they are mens opinions of the texts. Many are good and many are not. But commentaries DO NOT determine a words meaning, PERIOD.
My quotes from commentaries was to illistrate my point on one side and futher expound what you did not complete on the other.
That point was that I can pull up just as many commentaries that say my view, or your view, or neither of our view. However the lexicons are well established with only slight nuance distinctions and the like between them. It is the lexal meaning that both sides acknowledge and what I am asking you for. Which is what I asked for here:
Wrong and even here when you quote yourself, you still miss it. If a word can be 'rendered' something else or that another word can take the original words place without doing harm to the text, context, and intent - then that word is part of original's inherent meaning and by definition it would necessitate the other word as and in fact is part of the original words meaning.
You state that 'know' can be rendered as (or replaced with) 'love', 'affection', and 'appointed'. SO in your own words you state Fore'know' can be translated as Fore'Love', or Fore'affection', or Fore'appointed'.
NOW ....
Please give me the Lexicons which translate or gives a transliteraltion of the word 'know' in these three or one of these three ways.Click to expand...
Acatully, until YOU can provide Lexical data that establishes the word 'know' (more specifically in relation to Rom 8:29) can be rendered ; Love, affection, and or appointed, your aregument is found wanting.Click to expand...
Why bother writing any more commentaries or new translations then?
Apparantly the Holy Spirit cannot bring further enlightment to His written Word then what has already been established.Click to expand... -
I just re-read post #8 and saw that it NEEDED some touching up. (I could barely understand what I wrote due to words missing) Brain, quicker than my fingers. :laugh:
Here are the first 3 paragraphs revised
Allan said:[just delete the first sentence except for the part for that it was 'for you to think about]
Respond to what you want and if I think you overlooked something necessary I will bring it up againClick to expand...
Not so. If I quote the many commentaries that speak of God's knowledge [that He knows] how men will choose you would [] pull your hair out, while telling me that [they] didn't know what they were talking about. Commentaries are MENS OPINIONS and NOT [how we define] the [words in the] Word of God. Men are falable just as theology is. NONE of them are perfect.Click to expand...I don't put ANY stock in the NIV (just telling you for no real purpose). It has some good renderings of passages but is pretty much worthless [as a studable bible] to me.Click to expand...
Dear JoJ, [John of Japan]
being a linguist you know that the study of any word must be its philological and not its acquired theolgical meaning especially when the word is a translational receptor wordClick to expand...
This is essentially correct. The most important element in determining meaning is current usage, so for a Greek word I study first its usage in the NT, secondly in secular koine, thirdly in classical Greek and fourthly it's etymology (needed sometimes in the case of rare words).Click to expand... -
Allan,
Lexicons do provide the range of definitions for words. We are agreed.
And men who write commentaries utilize them to exegete the passage. I'm not sure why you are so down on scholars who write and edit commentaries. The commentaries we use in our home are written by able men who consistently demonstrate scholastic abilities with the original languages. I have never suggested that they are the Word of God nor that they are without men's opinions. So again we are agreed.
My point in all of this as been to demonstrate that exegeting a passage(as read in commentaries) requires more than just knowledge of the definition of a particular word. IOW, the lexical defintions now must be "fleshed out"or "unpacked" within the environment that they have been placed.
The exegete must determine how the word interacts with the context in which it is written.
Amos 3:2 KJV said:You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.Click to expand...Allan said:First, let me say this - there is NO 'special' knowing. God knows all things the same but there is a difference in a relational aspect toward the people of His knowledge, but not with regard to the knowledge itself.Click to expand...
Jamison-Fawcett said:2. You only have I known--that is, acknowledged as My people, and treated with peculiar favor ( Exd 19:5 Deu 4:20 ). Compare the use of "know," Psa 1:6 144:3 Jhn 10:14 2Ti 2:19 .
......therefore I will punish--the greater the privileges, the heavier the punishment for the abuse of them; for to the other offenses there is added, in this case, ingratitude. When God's people do not glorify Him, He glorifies Himself by punishing them.Click to expand...
Allan said:Simply put, God was acknowledging His covenant He made to them and was about to punish them for falling away.Click to expand...
And His covenant with them is precluded by His election of them, which is marked by His affection to them.
So His knowledge of them encompasses all these relational aspects.
Where is the disagreement? -
Isaiah40:28 said:Allan,
Lexicons do provide the range of definitions for words. We are agreed.Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you are so down on scholars who write and edit commentaries.Click to expand...
If you beleive that commentaries should be used to do this, then you have no problem agreeing with those commentaries written by God fearing men who do not agree with you. I didn't think so.
My point in all of this as been to demonstrate that exegeting a passage(as read in commentaries) requires more than just knowledge of the definition of a particular word. IOW, the lexical defintions now must be "fleshed out"or "unpacked" within the environment that they have been placed.Click to expand...
And this is what the verse is highlighting. God is acknowledging to the nation of Israel that His relationship to them(one of election and covenantal design) was unique(hence the word "only") compared to His relationship with the nations around them. His election and covenanting with them provided them with blessings and curses. And this verse is highlighting that due to the covenant enacted between them, their iniquities required that He punish them.Click to expand...
And His covenant with them is precluded by His election of them, which is marked by His affection to them.
So His knowledge of them encompasses all these relational aspects.Click to expand...
To put the issue to rest I am still looking for your lexical data where by 'know' can be rendered Love, appointed, affection; whether all three or one of the three.
If you can not, the issue is still at rest as it has been for nigh 2000 years due to the agreed upon rendering of the usage of the words in scripture via textual analysis Testament in their respective languages (OT-Hebrew or NT-Greek), secular usage, Classical usage and lastly if need be the etymology of that word.
I quoted HankD from another thread but it is still a good place for that Reminder:
the study of any word must be its philological and not its acquired theolgical meaning especially when the word is a translational receptor wordClick to expand... -
Allan,
Thanks for the discussion. I'll have to leave your post as the last word at this point. Our family is currently awaiting its newest addition and I'm not planning on being able to keep up with the forum for awhile. -
Congratulations on the up-coming new additon to your family :thumbs:
We are expecting in the next couple months, too. :) -
Isaiah40:28 said:Allan,
Thanks for the discussion. I'll have to leave your post as the last word at this point. Our family is currently awaiting its newest addition and I'm not planning on being able to keep up with the forum for awhile.Click to expand...
Enjoy it Isaiah, these post don't go anywhere anyway.
(wait could that have a double meaning :laugh: ) -
webdog said:Congratulations on the up-coming new additon to your family :thumbs:
We are expecting in the next couple months, too. :)Click to expand...
Allan said:Congradulations!!!!!
Enjoy it Isaiah, these post don't go anywhere anyway.
(wait could that have a double meaning )Click to expand... -
Isaiah40:28 said:Allan,
Thanks for the discussion. I'll have to leave your post as the last word at this point. Our family is currently awaiting its newest addition and I'm not planning on being able to keep up with the forum for awhile.Click to expand... -
reformedbeliever said:Another soon to be Calvinist! Praise God!Click to expand...
-
reformedbeliever said:Another soon to be Calvinist! Praise God!Click to expand...
-
webdog said:While this is probably true...what, God forbid, if he /she was a reprobate? Would Isaiah40 love her child more than God?Click to expand...
What about your little boy web? When you pray, do you pray expecting God to violate his free will? How can you honestly pray for God to save him, believing that God can not violate his will?
Now, we both are going to have to trust God and His infinite wisdom, aren't we? We are responsible to pray... to be an example... to beg, plead, contend with God for the souls of the lost... but untimately we are going to have to trust Him arent' we?
Page 1 of 2