The Freewillers Shell Game part 1.

[GordonSlocum]

Fell free to start a thread and post what he said. I'm sure you will have others to post with you.

He is a very gifted speaker. His sermon on Tongues and Calvinism are among the best I have ever heard.

 

[Jarthur001]

Could it be used as yada, as in,
Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew(yada) Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
?

As a followup..yada is Hebrew and is used in the following ways. It never means sexual ways as seen from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartesia. The Qal see is the most frequently used verb pattern. It expresses the "simple" or "casual" action of the root in the active voice.

1) to know
a) (Qal)
1) to know
a) to know, learn to know
b) to perceive
c) to perceive and see, find out and discern
d) to discriminate, distinguish
e) to know by experience
f) to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess
g) to consider
2) to know, be acquainted with
3) to know (a person carnally)
4) to know how, be skilful in
5) to have knowledge, be wise
b) (Niphal)
1) to be made known, be or become known, be revealed
2) to make oneself known
3) to be perceived
4) to be instructed
c) (Piel) to cause to know
d) (Poal) to cause to know
e) (Pual)
1) to be known
2) known, one known, acquaintance (participle)
f) (Hiphil) to make known, declare
g) (Hophal) to be made known
h) (Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself


Therefore yada means "Know".

harah is what changes the context to mean what is does.

 

[Brother Bob]

It most surely is used as a sexual way here for a child was born from it. I men Context is what its all about and if it caused a child to be born then how could it not be sexual. That is the only way I know of to cause a child to be born except of today with artificial insemination of which I don't think they had back then. Why argue with the truth, the whole world knows it meant sexual.

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew(yada) Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD



Main Entry: knew
Definition=
past of KNOW



Main Entry: know
1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : DISCERN b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
intransitive verb

 

[jne1611]

:laugh: jarthur,

So God knew us SEXUALLY?? :laugh: :laugh:

Let's get real, OK? It's Calvinists that have "assigned" your definition to the word foreknow. And what a joke! Of course God knows beforehand "about" and "of" us. Predestining us is step #2 ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.

skypair

He is trying to show you that the word indicates a intimate personal relationship. Do you have this with God? All through the Bible God expresses Himself to His people this way.

 

[jne1611]

Bro. Gordon, since you are new to the board, you may not be aware that large type and sentences in all-capital letters is equated with shouting, and for some of us is a hindrance to civil discourse.


To all,
My take on "know" being analogous to Joseph "knowing" Mary is this. Paul is describing God's love for his children as being so intense and intimate that the best way to describe it is to use a word associated with the intense and intimate love a husband has for his wife in a physical way. Paul is not describing that intimate act. He's using a term human beings would understand. Nothing more, nothing less.

Amen! Exactly Right & anybody aught to be able to see this. Right On!:thumbs:

 

[jne1611]

Well said..

I Agree 100% Some would twist this idea into the worlds view of love. But the fact remains, this is what is meant by "know" as used in the Bible. He loves the elect and has choosen the church as His bride. Not as some have joked on here and made fun, but as in that close relationship, just as you are close to your wife.

Right on Bro. Hard to believe the foreknowledge of God of His people has been striped down to nothing more than Him having to look and see what they are going to do before He can decide what He can do.

 

[jne1611]

Let's stick with this verse.

No, I do not agree that Jesus "intimately loved" their wickedness.
I do agree that he was aware of it.

The idea is that he had a personal knowledge of it. Certainly no one here is saying he loved their sin, but he did have a personal knowledge of their hearts.

 

[Brother Bob]

Right on Bro. Hard to believe the foreknowledge of God of His people has been striped down to nothing more than Him having to look and see what they are going to do before He can decide what He can do.

Then why all the attempts to change the definition now?
This only proves how far Calvinist will go to try and prove they are never wrong when it is so obvious that the word "knew" when used in Gen and Matt is sexual and to say pro-sexual for the word "knew" would actually mean pre-martial sex.
You can say "love" without bringing sex into it, try it and see if if it don't work. But regardless you will "stand by your man".

 

[jne1611]

Ginosko=sexual intercourse

1. Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

What is your point Bob? Are you aware of the fact that in Rom 8:29 "pro" is added to this word and translated foreknow?
What say you?

 

[Brother Bob]

Yes I am but in no way did it use "knew" as used in Matt when Mary was inpregnated as foreknow. Why don't you people just say God has a special love for His people why bring Mary being inpregnated into it?

 

[jne1611]

Yes I am but in no way did it use "knew" as used in Matt when Mary was inpregnated as foreknow. Why don't you people just say God has a special love for His people why bring Mary being inpregnated into it?

I was only agreeing to the fact that the word brings in a personal relationship idea. I mean, pushing aside our differences for a moment, can you not say that in your study of the Bible that you have found in the Scripture where God talks of His relationship with His people in ways that relate to husband and wife like language? I mean, we do not push the idea into the gutter, but it is hard to miss the illustrations all through Scripture.

 

[jne1611]

I don't want to steal this thread, so, I'll just move on, but I believe you know there is truth in what I was saying.

 

[Brother Bob]

I sure agree that God said "husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church". That in no way means anything physical. All the Love God talks about of His children never means anything physical as Mary becoming impregnated. You will agree will you not?

 

[jne1611]

I sure agree that God said "husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church". That in no way means anything physical. All the Love God talks about of His children never means anything physical as Mary becoming impregnated. You will agree will you not?

Yes. I see your point well. All I am saying is that the word "knew" does as you say in context indicate sexual contact, but it also denotes personal union as well which is spiritual for believers, physical in the case of Joseph & Mary, but spiritual for us & intimate.

 

[Brother Bob]

I agree jne;
But the passage of Joseph "knew" Mary and she bore a son was what was used. His point was well taken but He used a scripture with the wrong context to make his point is all I and others have said.

 

[jne1611]

I agree jne;
But the passage of Joseph "knew" Mary and she bore a son was what was used. His point was well taken but He used a scripture with the wrong context to make his point is all I and others have said.

I may get back on board on this. But for now. I have to go. I need prayer. I have been placed on a job that has drained me very much. See ya.

 

[Brother Bob]

I praying, peace

 

[jne1611]

I praying, peace

Thanks! God Bless.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hello Brother,

I was only agreeing to the fact that the word brings in a personal relationship idea. I mean, pushing aside our differences for a moment, can you not say that in your study of the Bible that you have found in the Scripture where God talks of His relationship with His people in ways that relate to husband and wife like language? I mean, we do not push the idea into the gutter, but it is hard to miss the illustrations all through Scripture.

I agree. It seems like you may have read the whole thread. This is what was said in the OP as all

This gives the right meaning, in that it means to know in a personal way. This is why we see in In Rom 8:29,30, the foreknown are predestined to the image of Christ, and are called, justified and glorified. It means knowing as in relationship. This goes hand in hand with predestined. In 1Pe 1:2, the word for "foreknowledge" is the same as "foreordain" in the twentieth verse of the same chapter, where the meaning cannot be "foreknowledge" about Christ. God's foreknowledge about persons is without limitations; whereas, His foreknowledge (to know as used with Mary) of a person is limited to those who are actually saved and glorified.

Others have tried to twist a meaning on what was said. This is all they have talk about...like a obsession. Some way they only see love one way. I have said more then once that foreknowledge is more then just knowing of the person like some would have it, but it shows a personal relationship with God. To many, the only thing they post is sex...which says something. I have yet to say this, though the same word is used, for I understand that personal love is greater then just sexual contact. The thread was closed once because of this, yet it keeps on. Some just do not get it...for they only see love one way.

It was posted by another that even SONG tells of this great love. I agree. The SONG is not sex manual, but showing how much God loves His people. To think of love only as sex is once again shows the lack of understanding the Bible. Foreknowledge in street form and left to its own could mean as others have said, but in context it shows a personal love relationship with God, but not in the twisted ways others say. It is GREATER then this lower use.

 

[npetreley]

I think the rejection of the plain meaning of "ginosko" in the relevant passages is absurd. You can't change the meaning by saying, "It also means sex, but since it can't mean sex in this context, it must mean 'know what the person is going to do'". That argument makes no sense at all. It changes the true meaning of the word in this context by trying to get the reader outraged at what it doesn't mean. What kind of twisted thinking is that?

Which is pretty much the kind of behavior I predictecd in the first place.