Definitions of "know" revisited

I don't know how to be more plain.


But for the sake of the thread lets begin from the top.

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. 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.

Also, in relation here to your contention here:

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.

 

If you go back I was elaborating on what you were asking regarding the Strongs 4 main renderings of 'know'.
Look it up, you can find it.

This is funny. :laugh:
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).

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.

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 what is that? Is that the one where you state:

Kind-a-like the new definition for 'tolerance'. They state much the same thing: it isn't redefined they are just allowing for 'another' defintion of the word.
Before we could agree to disagree, Now - you must not only embrace all views but incorporate thoses veiws into your own.1
0

Simply put, God was acknowledging His covenant He made to them and was about to punish them for falling away.

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.

And it is why you did such a poor job. I can't believe you are going to commentaries to extrapilate the meaning of a word. Commentaries are mens opinions. Albeit many times good but they are always biased upon their theolical views.

Matt Henry qualifies what you quote in the portion BEFORE your quote:

It can be better illistrated by Jamison-Faust here:

No, so says about 2000 years of Greek and Hebrew Scholars.

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.

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.

 

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 .

 

It is to be profitable but for you to think about.
Respond to what you want and if I think you overlooked something necessary I will bring it up again

Not so. If I quote the many commentaries that speak of God's knowledge of how men will choose you would say pull your hair out, while telling me that didn't know what they were talking about. Commentaries are MENS OPINIONS and NOT the Word of God. Men are falable just as theology is. NONE of them are perfect.

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 to me.

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.

It differs a great deal.

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.

 

This is why your 'debate' is ridiculous.
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:

and here:

And since you haven't set any forth, your contention is frivolous, and lacking any merit.

He HAS already brought forth enlightenment, He just will not bring forth your new revelation for re-defining the word 'know'. Again, Commentaries DO NOT determine a words meaning. And if you believe they do...well you need more than I can help you with.

 

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

From another thread, here are some good things to know:

HankD (emphasis mine)

John of Japan

 

Yes, but Lexicon establish what the word means, not JUST a basic defintion whereby we can fill in whatever gaps WE think are there. The Lexical definitions DOES take into consideration the the context of the passage in which the word is in. It is the context which gives that word it's various meanings without leaving it's root base.

I am not down on commentaries at all. In fact I own about 5 complete sets from different theologians of both the Calvinist and Non-Cal groups and about 6 others that are almost complete (I wish I could get more but they are SO expensive). I also have access to many more if I need them. What I am stating is that commentaries DO NOT define words nor do they dictate a words meaning. Commentaries 'comment' on the passages whether in depth or in brevity but they by NO MEANS establish a words meaning.

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.

It already has been and thus it has a specific defintion which has already been derived from the context of the passage with which it is found. Thus commentaries do not flesh out more than the defintion declares and if it tries it goes beyond the biblical meaning of the word ALREADY defined from the text.

This is where you take the word beyond its contextaul meaning. The word means to know or in this case refering to His knowledge of or better acknowledgment of a thing, specically her in Amos that God is acknowledging His relationship with them but that knowledge is NOT the relationship itself and all it entails. YOU are adding to the meaning all the other aspects of which the word is NOT refering. The word 'know' is not conveying the meaning of the conventant relationship but that God remembers it. It does not convey Gods love in that covenant though it does state He remembers it. YOU are trying to add meaning beyond that which is an agreed upon view and meaning of those words which are set forth in the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.

YOU are trying to compound your desired new defintion into an already afixed meaning. The word does NOT convey all that you are 'claiming' it emcompasses thus giving it YOUR defintion. All I am doing is repeating myself over and over.

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:

Where is the disagreement?[/QUOTE]

 

Congratulations on the up-coming new additon to your family :thumbs:

We are expecting in the next couple months, too.

 

Congradulations!!!!! :thumbs:

Enjoy it Isaiah, these post don't go anywhere anyway.

(wait could that have a double meaning :laugh: )

 

Another soon to be Calvinist! Praise God!

 

While this is probably true...what, God forbid, if he /she was a reprobate? Would Isaiah40 love her child more than God?

 

I can't speak for Isaiah web, but how about the way I look at it? My son is about your age. He lives his life like a reprobate. I can only pray for God to change his heart, but I can truly expect God to do that. You see, I believe that God can and does violate a person's "free will" to do that. He removes the heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh. When I pray, I expect that God, if it is His will, shall save my son. If it is not God's will, (perfect will) then my son will not be saved. It is not as if my son is knocking down the door to God, so it is his fault. Does this make sense web?
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?