Instigator / Pro
1
1493
rating
24
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#4435
Christian god does not have foreknowledge
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
hey-yo
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Description
All references or titles for god will be assumed to refer only to christian god.
Bible and christian theology open for use.
May use other resources to define, explain, articulate your point.
Round 1
1. What is foreknowledge?
: to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation
1b what is time?
2. Who is Christian God?
This is only neutral description I found online. In summary, I would say Christian God is a deity described by Christian scripture & traditions.
3A. In whole we can see diverse opinions among christians as to who god is and what god is. One common statement is that god created all things. This includes time.
Here are links that demonstrate the common statement.
3B. Does creating everything include time?
Passages that say that God made everything [demonstrate God made time](e.g. Genesis 1:1; Exodus 20:8–11; Ecclesiastes 11:5; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16–17). But there is more to the story. For instance, the Bible also teaches that God needs nothing outside of himself (see e.g. 1 Chronicles 29:14–16, Acts 17:24–28, and Romans 11:33–36), that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 6:16; Hebrews 1:10–12, 9:14), and that God is unique in these ways (Deuteronomy 4:32–40; Isaiah 43:10; 1 Chronicles 16:26). These verses are of course only a small selection; these ideas are found all throughout the Bible. When we put all this together, it should be clear that your friend can’t assert that the Bible makes God a creation of time; He is supreme over all things, which includes time.
4. God does not experience time in the same way humans do because God is outside of time.
An analogy for this is as follows.
If we draw a single line, that line can represent time. That line can represent any event in time. The line, like time, has a start and finish. We, like all things created with or in "time" is subject to it. Witnessing events and time as it unfolds. For us there is a future, present, and past.
God is not on the line. Although he may influence the line and things on the line (i.e. humans), God would be represented as a mark away from the line. Therefore god experiences the whole line at once.
This indicates God does not have a past or future. He only exists. This is shown by the very name god provides
"I am." A name that expresses existence.
5. Therefore we come to the conclusion that god does not have foreknowledge. Foreknowledge does not describe God or Gods knowledge.
Let's go to the scripture.
See here what the scripture says about God .
This looks like what something means to a man versus the bible.
This is a good starting point as a general overview starting here in Isaiah 46.
"9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’ "
So God declares His knowledge which is a foreknowledge regardless being outside of time that He created. He declares what He knows which what WILL happen in the future from the past of ancient times before the future happens.
With having that knowledge, He knows His will, His purpose will be. He knows all that He will do. It's just the straightforward essence of all this here covering foreknowledge.
I'm pretty sure the opposing side agrees what foreknowledge is. To know something beforehand is knowing the end from the beginning before the end comes to pass.
Out of the mouth of two, three witnesses, let every word be established.
Let's get another one from the book of Romans chapter 8 and at verse 29.
"For those God foreknew he also predestined"
Let's get some more where it mentions about God foreknew.
Same book in chapter 11 verse 2.
"God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. "
Let's keep going.
Jeremiah 1 at verse 4.
" The word of the Lord came to me, saying,
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
You go through these passages, the commonality is God acting according to what He already knows and those falling in line with all of it.
Then we have Psalm 139 and 4.
"Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O Lord, You know it all ."
We can just go on and on. This has to be one of the most irrefutable, non disputable topics to get into .
Just about done. We'll close off here with 1 Peter 1.
"1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"
Should be clear about what foreknowledge means.
I see the opposing side defines it just as the bible lays it out. There is no ambivalent double entendre to it.
But in order to find a way to concoct controversy, mankind comes along with theorizing, reasoning, building some type of related logical standard to negate from the simple straightforward basis.
The book says along the lines of being them that invent things to complicate what is simple .
The opposing side presented their position with terms and definitions or a definition that would negate their position. So it looks like a complete 180. But my position will make it just do a complete 360.
Bring you right back to the basis where you started from.
Round 2
Mall brings forth good information and question. Does these passages conflict with the claim that God does not have foreknowledge? No.
We will have to consider 3 conditions that apply to passages brought forth.
A. The passages are written by humans using human experiences to describe a non human. This is similar to personification.
B. A message is being described to humans with language to help us humans understand the message.
C. Some (not all) passages are being suggested to mean x but do not.
D. We need to consider how words are translated from origional text to english. Does the english translation contain the cultural and intended meaning?
We also can ask Mall why are we reading these passages in the way he suggests? SO, what do you say Mall, why are we reading these passages this way?
We can ask the same question about passages I provided or my presentation to the same passages Mall provides. Why should we consider my position?
The premises presented lead to the conclusion that can be considered and repeated. No one has to take my word for it. We can examine and criticize.
Isaiah 46
If we read more from Isaiah.
"With whom will you compare me or count me equal?
To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?
6 Some pour out gold from their bags
and weigh out silver on the scales;
they hire a goldsmith to make it into a god,
and they bow down and worship it.
7 They lift it to their shoulders and carry it;
they set it up in its place, and there it stands.
From that spot it cannot move.
Even though someone cries out to it, it cannot answer;
it cannot save them from their troubles."
To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?
6 Some pour out gold from their bags
and weigh out silver on the scales;
they hire a goldsmith to make it into a god,
and they bow down and worship it.
7 They lift it to their shoulders and carry it;
they set it up in its place, and there it stands.
From that spot it cannot move.
Even though someone cries out to it, it cannot answer;
it cannot save them from their troubles."
We can see that there is a message differing one god from another. We can see the message references an earlier scene in the bible where people melted silver/gold to create and worship a "golden calf". We see language being used that is common for the people.
Same is true for passage in question, that pertains to condition B, where the people who live and understand the story of "golden calf" as well as their own condition in knowing a past and present and future.
Here is given passage written in God's perspective.
"9 Remember the present things, those that exist;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
We can see here that God's perspective on the issue does not deliver desired message because the audience needs to remember their past.
10 I make known change,
from your ancient times, what is still to come to you.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’ "
Again we see a need for the audience to look back at their history. The bold represents what we can understand from intended message. The target audience (those in isaiah) is considering their ancient times where as the target audience represents our (today's) ancient times.
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
We should also reconsider "I make known" as something that can mean the same as "I tell you," or "I reveal." Although this seems like fancy grammar, God is telling us He gives information. Consider how we would use the same sentence, telling our mom, neighbor, or friend.
"Hey. I make known that I can 360 no ascope twice in a row." Perchance it may sound strange because this passage is also an example for cross cultural communication. Which brings us to D, translation. Grammar is a big part in allowing us to know what someone means when they talk or write.
Romans
Romans demonstrates a need to consider condition D, how are things translated?
Here is same passage: .
Meanwhile, we are well assured that everything helps to secure the good of those who love God, those whom he has called in fulfilment of his design.[6] 29 All those who from the first were known to him, he has destined from the first to be moulded into the image of his Son, who is thus to become the eldest-born among many brethren.
We don't see the same word usage but do see a similar pattern as condition A. We see a human conveying a message they understand. They understand past present and future. That does not explicitly express foreknowledge.
Even if we considered the origional writings. The message is the same, an author and audience understand time but it does not explicitly express God's knowledge being foreknowledge because a human is using their knowledge.
B. This follows condition B mentioned above, a message is going to a specific person this time.
Describes Jeremiah's position.
Psalm 139:4
Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
Yes but why does this express foreknowledge? Another condition B where we are to understand the message that before we existed, God knows us. We are affected by time where as God is not. My position on God's knowledge does not include foreknowledge allows this passage and all passages to mean the same thing.
we can understand that God knows us before we exist because God knows (present tense) us as he experiences us in the present tense prior to our existence and during.
Although I know this passage is widely used to demonstrate that God knows all of us before we exist, the passage itself is still delivering a message to 1 person. Considering that God is talking only to Jeremiah, we can see condition B again.
1 peter.
We can see condition A in 1 peter, like most new testimont (N.T. ) readings as Peter/Paul writes a message or someone writes a message for Peter/Paul.
Foreknowledge being inaccurate does not change the over all message, however. A person is chosen and chose before that person exists. This demonstrates authority and a reinsurance for trust in God because he knows what we do not know.
With that said I will pass the debate back to Mall
"Mall brings forth good information and question. Does these passages conflict with the claim that God does not have foreknowledge? No. "
Only way there's no conflict is if the word "foreknew" means something different than how you're using the term foreknowledge. Is there a difference?
"The passages are written by humans using human experiences to describe a non human. This is similar to personification. "
This is a claim that has to be proven. Why? The scripture says all scripture is given by inspiration of God I believe in the book of Timothy.
So given that , God would be responsible for the humans writing, not the humans.
"A message is being described to humans with language to help us humans understand the message. "
What message?
" We need to consider how words are translated from origional text to english. Does the english translation contain the cultural and intended meaning? "
In this case, which specific words?
Let's get specific and not waste time on wordplay either.
"We also can ask Mall why are we reading these passages in the way he suggests? SO, what do you say Mall, why are we reading these passages this way? "
In what way? Do you mean as written? Why would we read them any other way ?
I'm not out to make the bible a lie . Hopefully you're not as well. Be honest, good stand up people.
"We can ask the same question about passages I provided or my presentation to the same passages Mall provides. Why should we consider my position?"
I'm sorry. What was the passage of scripture that says God does not have foreknowledge?
Call book chapter and verse. Let's look at it.
"We should also reconsider "I make known" as something that can mean the same as "I tell you," or "I reveal." "
"Reconsider", what do you mean we should also reconsider? This is how you start adding things to the text instead of just reading it purely as is.
Now if you want to have a preference over a term, long as it means the same, whatever.
"That does not explicitly express foreknowledge"
I know I gave scripture that God foreknew. I'm still waiting on a scripture saying that He didn't.
"Even if we considered the origional writings. The message is the same, an author and audience understand time but it does not explicitly express God's knowledge being foreknowledge because a human is using their knowledge. "
The scriptures communicate about us inventing things to complicate what's simple. Simply put, the scriptures show God foreknew. Now does the meaning of foreknew in scripture differ from the definition you used in your foundation to build a case?
If it's not any different, you're just concocting all these concepts really for what?
To evade did God foreknew anything or not.
Scriptures say yes. If you say no, well the scripture does say let God be true and every man a liar. Now I'm not calling you a liar but..........
"Yes but why does this express foreknowledge? "
According to the definition of foreknowledge, it's having information beforehand, before the thing that would exist to give information.
I don't know anyone until long after they've been out the womb. But to know who that person is in the womb or before being in the womb, that's what foreknowledge would be.
Round 3
Ah. Interesting questions Mall. I will respond by separating Mall's response into a numbered system. Lets begin.
1. Mall rightfully and understandably reinforces that the word "foreknew" and " foreknowledge" in the bible demonstrates God's experience. We can say it is a characteristic or trait. The passages that demonstrate these traits are inspired and therefore any claim opposing the passages must be proven!
What does it mean when christians say the bible is inspired? I found three sites that explain inspiration.
They all say the same thing which reflects that:
God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.”
There are many other sites and religious sects that go into divine inspiration but they too deliver the same message. The bible, as a whole, is inspired by God - he worked through the authors.
For discussion sake, lets skip b.o.p. for whether or not scripture is divinely inspired because that goes down the rabbit hole, "does god exist?" B.o.p. would also be on Mall because Mall is claiming the bible is inspired.
Instead it is important to show that my statement -
"The passages are written by humans using human experiences to describe a non human. This is similar to personification. "
- does not conflict with with the scripture whether inspired or not. NOR does the claim God does not have foreknowledge conflict with given passages.
There are different ways to approach why.
A. We do not have a definitive meaning for inspired and the extent to what is inspired. For example, the passages used for identifying devine inspiration are in writings that were not considered scripture at the time they were written. Some, like in provided link, explain how all the bible should be considered inspired.
if we accept all authors were inspired, why do we extend their inspiration to translators? This is condition D in previous round, where the author's meaning based on his culture and experience may not be translated to English (or other languages) or our modern culture.
For example, some languages have male/female identifiers. For latin and latin based languages, words for the bathroom, bridges, etc. indicate objects as male or female. For italian, a word ending in "a" is female where as " o" is male. Translate these words to english, we loose the male/female identifiers.
Many religious groups put emphasis on what english translation to buy as some are better than others. For example, in following -
For many years, the common translation for most English-speaking Christians was the King James Version. But we no longer speak to each other in the archaic English used in the KJV. In fact, the language has changed to the point where many words found in the KJV have completely different, even opposite, meanings from what they meant in 1611 when the KJV was first published. Because of this, most people today find the KJV to be indecipherable or even misleading. "
Some groups use bibles that exclude various books or the entire old testimont. With so much concern for how original text is translated and what to read, I am under impression that translations may not express the original text. Nor would all english bibles be included as inspired.
Words in English like foreknew may have a different context or meaning in original text.
B. For discussion sake, what if translations together with original text are inspired? There are messages in these passages. For some passages the message is, do not do x or do x. The passages given demonstrate that God has a plan and desire. only two given passages go into foreknowledge. However, this is still from a human perspective on time not God's perspective.
How can we tell? By the language given and describing events that we humans experience. Although confusion may exist as we read, the passages are from humans and carry a message that align with God knowing before we know. How God knows is not the intended message.
Likewise, when we know a thing or event, our knowledge is dependent on time. If God is not dependent on time, then His experience and knowledge is not either. Even if God works within time, He is not bound to it.
For example, how long did God take to create the Earth? Many suggest 7, 24 hour period days. In doing so they calculate how old Earth is and when ends times will come. We have come past several end of days that calculated the numbers in the bible and each have been wrong. Our understanding for how old earth is does not match 7 days.
Although Christian theology may appear to be split between literal uses for "days", groups that possess a more historical presence maintain that days represent passage of time that does not equate to our own meaning.
If we look at the intended message in Genesis we can see that 7 days is excluded from the basis that God created all and did so according to His desire. "God looked upon what he made, and saw that it was good." (Paraphrasing).
2. Each passage and respective chapter delivers its own message.
Isaiah 46 goes into idolatry. Separating Israel's god from surrounding idols
Romans chapter 8: God knows us before we know Him.
Romans chapter 11: God does not abandon Israel.
Jeremiah is about the prophet Jeremiah's path and Israel's path accepting God.
Psalm 139 is about God's Justice, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Each blind well to God being everywhere at once, including all of time.
1 peter: Christians can endure injustice with God.
3. Should we read into a different meaning that what is written?
I don't think it is about a different meaning but understanding what meaning exists in the words given. If god is beyond time and not bound by time, then his knowledge is not based on our concept of time - where one thing happens before another and another thing happens after that. Past, present, future does not exist because God is infinite and unaffected by timed.
4. Do we add to text instead of reading it purely? No.
Seeing a deeper meaning to words, passages, chapters, etc. help develop greater appreciation and understanding to art, literature, and religion. In this instance we can develop a greater understanding to the bible or christianity. This may change our outlook on certain events.
Two examples:
A. Jesus says, " why has thou forsaken me." Why? We read this only in the literal tense then Jesus is questioning God's plan. Now we see disobedience in Jesus. Why? For nothing.
Consider actual christian theology on the same passage and we now use jewish tradition, cultural tradition of the time, and another passage in the bible. We see theologians reason and conclude that Jesus is repeating a passage in old testimont that ends in praising God.
So Jesus is not asking about being forgotten or forsaken, but presents praise in fulfilling God's will.
(And yes. I do see language used in above links go into what is predicted or foreseen. We still see humans describe things based on human experience which does not reflect God's experience but our own.).
B. If we consider God to having all experiences at once and that experience exists for eternity, then all events occur infinitely. Including the crucification.
Do we start to add meanings that should not be present when we look for or at deeper meanings? Some can and some are wrong in doing so. Some are accurate in doing so. What I present does not change how we witness God. For us, we may still say God knows x before it happens because x has not happened to us.
At the same time, doing this does not change how God experiences time, knowledge, or his perspective on interacting with humans.
5. Do we need scripture that explicitly says God does not have foreknowledge? No. I never said there were such passages, eiter. If anyone thinks I did, that was probably misread.
Christian theology includes many aspects that are not explicit in the bible. Some groups teach "scripture alone" where we only read the bible to derive theology and tradition. "scripture alone" is not in the bible. The Trinity is not explicit in the bible, where the Trinity is spelled out how it exists and why.
Again, I never said we are looking at or for explicit passages. Instead we can use passages that demonstrate other traits to develop the conclusion that God does not have foreknowledge. That is provided in round 1.
"According to the definition of foreknowledge, it's having information beforehand, before the thing that would exist to give information."
Yes. Before the thing that would exist does exist. i am saying that the things that people claim does not exist, does exist for God. We have not experienced the things that exist yet, but God is experiencing it. This knowledge is unaffected by time because God is unaffected by time.
How do we know that the things do not exist?
How do we know they do exist? Because God created time and can see the beginning and end. He is the beginning and end
"What does it mean when christians say the bible is inspired?"
What do the bible mean by "all scripture is given by the inspiration of God"?
"B.o.p. would also be on Mall because Mall is claiming the bible is inspired. "
No I didn't claim it. I read it. Big difference. Can you prove the book wasn't inspired?
This is very smart of you to back off because this burden works both ways.
"if we accept all authors were inspired, why do we extend their inspiration to translators? This is condition D in previous round, where the author's meaning based on his culture and experience may not be translated to English (or other languages) or our modern culture.
For example, some languages have male/female identifiers. For latin and latin based languages, words for the bathroom, bridges, etc. indicate objects as male or female. For italian, a word ending in "a" is female where as " o" is male. Translate these words to english, we loose the male/female identifiers. "
You're stating a lot of this technical jargon as a filibuster. We both can read God foreknew which means he has foreknowledge. So to escape that truth, you're twisting everything around with all these different perspectives.
Then you say "oh, which one do we go by?". "If we look at it like this , if we look at it like that, technically this and technically that". It's just a bunch fluff.
Cut it dry and straightforward, does the scripture say God foreknew?
"Should we read into a different meaning that what is written?
I don't think it is about a different meaning but understanding what meaning exists in the words given. "
In a nutshell, no. We should not read into a different meaning than that of what is written.
"4. Do we add to text instead of reading it purely? No.
Seeing a deeper meaning to words, passages, chapters, etc. help develop greater appreciation and understanding to art, literature, and religion. In this instance we can develop a greater understanding to the bible or christianity. This may change our outlook on certain events. "
As long as that deeper meaning is not adding to what's written, you won't be found a liar.
"Again, I never said we are looking at or for explicit passages. Instead we can use passages that demonstrate other traits to develop the conclusion that God does not have foreknowledge."
That conclusion has to be found in scripture and then you have to harmonize it with the text that says God foreknew. A conclusion you come to personally is not corroborated with scripture unless we find scripture that says what you say. Why?
How else do we know it's correct according to scripture if we don't have the exact words found in scripture?
You can come along making up anything by coming to your own conclusions on what you think explaining them with your own words.
There's no other way to verify what is correct unless the scripture explains in and of itself.
This is why we have all these different interpretations and denominations. The bible is read and people add what they think and come back and say "it's what the Bible says ".
I got scripture that says God foreknew. I don't think we disagree about what foreknew means. You admit that you don't have scripture that says the opposite. It's really case closed right here. Then you say you have passages that you use to form an opinion that God didn't foreknew anything. I think again, the same definition for foreknew is being used.
Then the question would be, why is your opinion formed off of passages that doesn't even say God didn't foreknew stronger than scripture itself that says it so plain reading it as is that he did ?
What would make your side valid over the side where there is no guessing, estimation, surmising, reasoning but just a matter of fact written in black and white?
I think you question the inspiration of man, so definitely I question your mind and thought process.
All this is just what the scripture says, turning the truth of God into a lie . Doing so with all this opinionative approach.
Round 4
Forknow
Thanks for another good debate Mall. I hope everyone enjoys the read.
Does the christian god have foreknowledge? No.
Round 1 presents original premises for this debates conclusion, "christian God does not have foreknowledge."
We consider how God is described in scripture and in tradition to conclude God does not have foreknowledge.
Although we use analogies and human perspective to help us understand, this does not describe God's perspective or experience or knowledge. Yes we can use these things to learn about parts of a thing. Just as I would not be able to provide insight into Mall's entire perspective on life, I would not be able to do the same with God's.
I don't want to repeat myself too much so lets wrap up with final response to Mall's previous post.
1. "No I didn't claim it. I read it. Big difference. Can you prove the book wasn't inspired?
This is very smart of you to back off because this burden works both ways."
Although I am confused by contradicting aspects, should I agree with the statement, "this burden works both ways?" This appears to match my previous remarks that inspiration would need to be proven to suggest that it is so.
Lets understand, inspiration relies on God's existence. If God does not exist, then the bible would not be inspired. If the bible is inspired (because God exists) we still need to come together and agree for discussion sake what is inspired before moving forward.
Going into these things would start two other debates. So its not really about backing off, but knowing what needs to be addressed. I provided explanation for what is a concern and should be addressed.
A) translation B ) context
From the start I have been clear.
4. God does not experience time in the same way humans do because God is outside of time.
An entire premise is dedicated to identifying that God has His own experience and perspective that is different (not the same) than humans. Although we can read the words as they are, they are still from a human's perspective on time. That is ok if it is not 100% accurate because it conveys a message. The message is not about god's foreknowledge but in a lesson that is built on identifying that God's knowledge is unlike our own and we may trust in it.
For example, here is a theological approach to a provided passage:
Conclusion: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestined" means that God's appointment of the destiny of his people is based on his prior election, and this election is not based on any foreseen faith that we could produce by some power of self-determination. The plan of redemption was never conceived to include the saving power of human self-determination.
Conclusion: The unspeakable wonder of predestination is that it aims at and secures the end which God must have in order to be God and the end which we must have in order to be happy—namely, the preeminent glorification of Christ in the glorification of his people.
Although my position does not have an official name, interchange my given concept with that of foreknow and the result is the same. The above theology does not change. God is still using what he knows to elect a result prior to us knowing Him or his result.
Why is this important? Consider that passage about Jesus again. I gave a few examples that demonstrates how christians look at that passage. They connect Jesus's words and other parts within that chapter to other passages in o.t.
If we read that same passage as Mall suggests, no other meaning than what is written. Where he cries out "my god my god. Why have you forsaken me?" If we read that word for word in literal tense, Jesus is just in despair. There is no connection to previous passages in psalm. Christian theology would need to change because context changes. some people even use this passage to suggest Jesus is not God. A clear conflict with Christian teaching. Are they changing the words as they are read? No.
There are parts in bible where Jesus uses metaphors to describe himself, for example Jesus says I am the the light..." How should we take this if we just read word for word?
I know this is an easy example. We can read it and know that jesus probably isn't talking about being physical light and using him like a torch or flash light. We are to ask for guidance. There are more complex parts to the bible where christian theology depicts using more than the literal word for word depiction just like in Jesus saying "why have you forsaken me."
Here are at least two sources that go into context.
- “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (Jeremiah 29:11)
Jeremiah wrote this specifically to the Israelites as a promise to end their exile, but it is often quoted to individuals who are going through difficult times. As someone who has a chronic illness, I can tell you this is not helpful to hear. God does not promise health and happiness to His followers in this life. There is a lot of suffering in the world that we have to face, though of course, we as Christians do have an eternal hope which we rest in.
We can see there is more to just reading word for word what is in the bible. Christian theology looks at more than one line to develop dogma. I must stress again, what I present does not change dogma. I am not changing how christians teach their religion or how anyone can read the bible. God still knows what we do not. We can still use "foreknowledge" despite it not being accurate to describing God's actual perspective on time and knowledge because we come to same understanding that God knows what we do not about our future.
So what ever claim in " turning the truth of God into a lie" is false. I invite Mall to prove otherwise. If he claims I change the bible, this is false because some bibles don't have the word "foreknowledge" or "foreknew" and I provided link to show that.
Romans
This takes us back into issue about translation mentioned in previous rounds. Again, a thing that christian groups are concerned about as well.
I already provided evidence and explained how I am not changing how anyone teaches christianity. We have cut it dry and straightforward. We addressed what the bible says.
Why is context and translation and meaning so important? Because people quote the bible to show that the bible is false, that Jesus is not God, and many more claims that contradict christian theology.
I addressed every objection from previous round. I am sorry to say I could not perform my usual way in doing things. I must adapt my process to better suit the decreased time I have for debates. Good learning processs.
As long as that deeper meaning is not adding to what's written, you won't be found a liar.
Not about adding but changing because changing makes theology a lie.
That conclusion has to be found in scripture and then you have to harmonize it with the text that says God foreknew. A conclusion you come to personally is not corroborated with scripture unless we find scripture that says what you say. Why?
I use theology and scripture. Just like christian groups use their own logic and theology to understand what the bible says. All links I provided on specific theology examines more than just scripture. Christian groups that do this include but not limited to catholics, greek orthodox, evangelists, baptists, etc.
There's no other way to verify what is correct unless the scripture explains in and of itself.
There is. Its tradition. What has people been saying and doing. What theology has been taught. In passages provided, theology and tradition does not restrict our understanding to mean God has foreknowledge but he knows what we do not.
This is why we have all these different interpretations and denominations. The bible is read and people add what they think and come back and say "it's what the Bible says ".
Interpretation is a normal part of all forms of communication. There are diagrams online about communication. Start with messenger developing a message, then conveying a message, audience recieving message, audience interpreting message.
Interpretations that differ is not automatically bad and happen even when we just read word for word what is in bible. Evidenced by people using the bible to advocate for claims that contradict christian theology and dogma.
"Although I am confused by contradicting aspects, should I agree with the statement, "this burden works both ways?" This appears to match my previous remarks that inspiration would need to be proven to suggest that it is so. "
It's not even necessary to worry about inspiration. But because you're nitpicking over what the writers mean, you claim the definition of foreknowledge or the word "foreknew "means something different than how you're defining it .
But all we have to do is look at context. The context in the bible will give you the meaning.
In Jeremiah 1 and all the other scriptures explain simply and plainly without complicating it trying to confound it, God knows something to be before it occurs which is foreknowledge. Which identifies with the definition you gave for it in the beginning round.
"Lets understand, inspiration relies on God's existence. If God does not exist, then the bible would not be inspired. If the bible is inspired (because God exists) we still need to come together and agree for discussion sake what is inspired before moving forward"
Inspired in this context is the bible itself telling you that the writers were driven by God, not the writers themselves. If we desire to be truthful about the book, that's what it teaches.
Now if you wanted to bring this argument up about God existing period, you can say the Bible is not credible at all to prove God's foreknowledge.
But if you're going to go there, being that God has not been disproven, His foreknowledge wouldn't be either,see.
See every counter you come with gets a counter like in a game of checkers. Be consistent. You either allow certain things to be use as a basis or you don't. Either way , it doesn't change in your favor.
Your argument seems to be based on technical language and what people mean by using words.
The dangerous part with doing that with scripture is that you run the risk of a strawman or misrepresenting the scriptural text.
"If he claims I change the bible, this is false because some bibles don't have the word "foreknowledge" or "foreknew" and I provided link to show that. "
It doesn't matter about other translations. Don't try to take light off the translations that specifically uses the terms . Deal with that. You must didn't know these translations I brought existed because I haven't gotten a rebuttal from you over them. You appear to be more concentrated on other translations. Perhaps more familiar with the others prepared to present them here to make a case. I have not gotten a rebuttal for the translations I brought. You have the attitude of "it says what it says" and then you run to other translations. Don't take the light , shine it else where.
"We addressed what the bible says. "
Yes it says God foreknew. So what is the debate over except for some man made concocted theory ?
"Not about adding but changing"
Same difference. Proverbs 30 and 6
"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
Romans 1 and 25
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie"
No matter you add or change, whichever one you make a lie of scripture.
I haven't found where you made it clear that "foreknew " in the bible means different from the definition you used for building up your case.
We can determine that this a conceding on your part by dismissal.
"I use theology and scripture. Just like christian groups use their own logic and theology to understand what the bible says."
This is where you and those so called christian groups go wrong. Use scripture, not scripture and theology. The bible says search the scriptures.
You don't use logic. The bible says lean not unto your own understanding.
People are going to the bible incorrectly. Either from just ignorance or looking to serve themselves.
"All links I provided on specific theology examines more than just scripture. Christian groups that do this include but not limited to catholics, greek orthodox, evangelists, baptists, etc. "
This another thing when you say "more than scripture" but attempting to add human logical thinking. We're talking about a non human trait of a non human being . Our minds can't begin to make logic of a being that we are to understand created logic and is outside of it.
It's totally paradoxical to approach an entity thinking you can logically conclude anything not knowing or understanding exactly how it works or exists and say it is illogical to exist or work that way.
This entity we're discussing is farrrrr outside and away from logic. Meaning we can't use logic to determine anything about this figure to say what would or wouldn't work. We can accept or reject characteristics not related to having or lacking understanding thereof.
Some people confuse the statement of saying because God is outside of logic, God is illogically demonstrated to not be real.
No , things that we understand to be illogical, we can say are not possible. But God can't be fully understood with logic because this is outside of our time of reality and science to mentally comprehend, we can't conclude one way or the other.
It's the same with the afterlife question. We have no science to explain or help us comprehend it. It's outside our natural laws governing physics, elements, volume, mass and space.
Being outside the natural, it's often called the supernatural.
"There is. Its tradition. What has people been saying and doing. What theology has been taught. "
Ok , who's to say that is correct? See we need objective truth or else we end up with opinions which help design traditions by the way.
"Interpretation is a normal part of all forms of communication. There are diagrams online about communication. Start with messenger developing a message, then conveying a message, audience recieving message, audience interpreting message."
You're missing the point. We want or at least I want truth.
"Interpretations that differ is not automatically bad and happen even when we just read word for word what is in bible. Evidenced by people using the bible to advocate for claims that contradict christian theology and dogma. "
The bottom line is Truth. Now if different interpretations don't contradict the truth, so be it.
But why would there be different readings being that there is one truth, just thee truth , see?
This is how falsehood is supported by embracing everybody's viewpoint versus what the truth is.
The key what does the bible say?
It's open for use so don't resist it now.
All this defense on interpretations over what actual truth is, no wonder when I point out plain truthful language of the text, there's a contest of interpretation.
"Oh maybe the scripture didn't really mean what it said. Oh according to this scholar or this writer or following Dr. So and so's thoughts we can conclude....." and on and on and on .
This is how we get lost in the shuffle getting confounded and convoluted dialogue.
Stick with the foundation. By just going by the text flat out, what can we say about God?
We have to say what we can read if we want to be honest and prove the ability to read correctly.
God foreknew.
I dont think Ill make deadline but lets see. Errrrr.
bump
I think you mean foreskin not foreknowledge. He is a Jew, so he is circumcised. Nobody is going to argue Jesus was not circumcised