25 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo Pharaoh hardened his own heart? In that case your God was lying his head off when He said to Moses "I have hardened Pharaoh' heart" or have you conveniently overlooked reading that particular passage?
God gave the pharaoh over to a reprobate mind as a courtesy to the repetitive refusal of his
negative volition to consider even giving a hearing to Divine Truth. The pharaoh's own decisions
hardened his own heart (kardia, the right lobe of the mind) with the result that a vacuum was created,
which sucked in all manner of human viewpoint and fa ...[text shortened]...
Omniscience had read pharaoh's tape in eternity past and simply incorporated it in His Plan.
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI read all of exodus, and there are indeed many passages where the pharaoh hardened his own heart, the passages I referenced specifically have god in the syntax hardening the pharaohs heart, not the pharaoh hardening it himself and god simply being prescient to the fact.
God gave the pharaoh over to a reprobate mind as a courtesy to the repetitive refusal of his
negative volition to consider even giving a hearing to Divine Truth. The pharaoh's own decisions
hardened his own heart (kardia, the right lobe of the mind) with the result that a vacuum was created,
which sucked in all manner of human viewpoint and fa ...[text shortened]...
Omniscience had read pharaoh's tape in eternity past and simply incorporated it in His Plan.
So, nice try with the whole "but he's omniscient" thing, but it's really starting to sound like kids playing cowboys and indians arguing over whether or not the cowboys had automatic weapons.
26 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by muppyman"Let's hang out together"... 100 years from now the meaning of those words, a common idiomatic expression today,
So Pharaoh hardened his own heart? In that case your God was lying his head off when He said to Moses "I have hardened Pharaoh' heart" or have you conveniently overlooked reading that particular passage?
will have become quaintly anachronistic, inscrutable and therefore meaningless. Scripture must be understood,
from the original languages, within the context of the times in which it was written (isagogics). Idioms, whether
linguistically refined or garden variety street slang, in common usage at the time can never be translated literally.
Burden of scholarship is to identify the writer's precise meaning and communicate it accurately in our language.
Knee jerk attitude of many... If the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, then it's good enough for me.
🙂
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySuch as Jesus’ use of the longstanding Jewish idiomatic expressions “son of God” and “son of man”... (See Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew for a detailed historical analysis.)
"Let's hang out together"... 100 years from now the meaning of those words, a common idiomatic expression today,
will have become quaintly anachronistic, inscrutable and therefore meaningless. Scripture must be understood,
from the original languages, within the context of the times in which it was written (isagogics). Idioms, whether
linguisti ...[text shortened]... . If the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, then it's good enough for me.
🙂
The idiomatic nature of such expressions may well have been lost in translation from Aramaic/Hebrew to koine Greek, as well as the translation from Judea/Galilee to the more Hellenistic Diaspora; such expressions may have been heard quite differently by Hellenistic gentiles evangelized by, say, Paul. (How Paul himself understood them is another question; as is whatever oral instruction/interpretation Paul may have given in explaining such terms to gentiles with a wholly different cultural background.)
The meaning of such expressions, in terms of claims of Jesus’ divinity—and what that meant—were debated widely in the early centuries of the church. Arianism was condemned, by what was becoming “orthodoxy”, at the Council of Nicea in 325; the question of divine and human natures wasn’t settled—for “orthodoxy”—until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, rejecting Monophysitism (Nestorianism was rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431; some of this controversy may have been due to differences between Greek and Syriac expressions regarding the concept of hypostasis, or “person” ). Nevertheless, these alternative views remain part of various non-Chalcedonian churches today.
By the time of these debates, however, the original Jewish idiomatic understanding of “son of God” seems to have been left far behind.
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyChop it up and serve it with any garnishing that pleases you, it still tastes like sour grapes to me. But I am no scholar, if I was I might be quoting Young's Concordance instead of the old testament. However I must say I do feel suitably castigated by the verbal magnificence of your extraordinarily lucid retort. Thank you for the lesson in.... something.
"Let's hang out together"... 100 years from now the meaning of those words, a common idiomatic expression today,
will have become quaintly anachronistic, inscrutable and therefore meaningless. Scripture must be understood,
from the original languages, within the context of the times in which it was written (isagogics). Idioms, whether
linguisti ...[text shortened]... . If the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, then it's good enough for me.
🙂
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by muppymanFrankly, I think the expression that “YHVH hardened Pharaoh’s heart”, idiomatic or not, is intended to convey God’s being the causal agent in that instance. ( ve y’hazeq YHVH et lev pharaoh) Grampy clearly disagrees; that’s okay.
Chop it up and serve it with any garnishing that pleases you, it still tastes like sour grapes to me. But I am no scholar, if I was I might be quoting Young's Concordance instead of the old testament. However I must say I do feel suitably castigated by the verbal magnificence of your extraordinarily lucid retort. Thank you for the lesson in.... something.
Jewish theology is not univocal on such questions; neither are the biblical writings (and I know many of my Christian friends disagree, and I have heard their disagreements). For example— Isaiah 45:7 “I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe [Hebrew ra: evil, badness, calamity]; I YHVH do all these things.”
I, too, however, am now going to leave the “intramural” exegetical disputes to those who want to carry them on.
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThus creating a time paradox.
Omniscience had read pharaoh's tape in eternity past and simply incorporated it in His Plan.
1. God knows future.
2. God makes plan, incorporating future.
3. God creates future based on plan.
Of course there is the possibility that there were multiple possible futures, and God chose the one that best fitted his plan, but then since God is responsible for choosing one particular future, he is responsible for pharoah's actions.
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by snowinscotland1+1 = 10 (is true in the binary system, but false in the decimal system).
Please forgive me, I must be rather simple.
Can you give me an example of a truth that is 'relative'?
I find it harder to give an example of 'absolute truth', I even doubt wether there are any that can be formulated. Perhaps one can 'believe' in an absolute truth, but it will remain logically undefined.
26 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandAlways rains in January. Moving first, white has a slight advantage. Average human height is 5' 10". First is relative because it's only true
Please forgive me, I must be rather simple.
Can you give me an example of a truth that is 'relative'?
in certain locales. Second may sometimes be true, in a technical sense, between players at one level of competence but not at others.
Third may be true as a sweeping generalization but it's conditional with context and non applicable to some cultures/countries at either
ends of three sigma. The intricate food chain pyramid (earth, air and water) along with everything in the garden supports the bodily
nourishment requirements which sustain human life. Queen begins on its own color and the board setup must have a white corner square
to each player's lower right. Human life span (past duration, present expectancy) on earth is finite. Three examples of absolute truth.
🙂
26 Mar 08
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyJust two things:
"Let's hang out together"... 100 years from now the meaning of those words, a common idiomatic expression today,
will have become quaintly anachronistic, inscrutable and therefore meaningless. Scripture must be understood,
from the original languages, within the context of the times in which it was written (isagogics). Idioms, whether
linguisti ...[text shortened]... . If the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, then it's good enough for me.
🙂
1) So 'God hardened Pharaoh's heart' really means 'God stood by and did nothing while Pharaoh
made his own decision?
2) Please tell me you're kidding about St Paul and the King James.
Nemesio
26 Mar 08
2 edits
Let's try to avoid straining at inconsequential paradoxical gnats through an unproductive exercise in the lost wasteland of 'Operation
Over Think". Though an apparent contradictory spectre may emerge, eternity and time constructs are discernible and easily understood.
ETERNITY PAST, no calendars or clocks] .....................................(human history/time) ............ [ETERNITY FUTURE, still no calendars or clocks
🙂