Did God know?

[Bill the Cat]

That's rich. As near as I can tell, I am the one who is attempting to perform his due diligence, and to carefully extract meaning from the text, while taking great pains to ensure that I am not presupposing ideas and inserting these where there is no indication that I should in the first place.

So, something that is clearly spelled out in a later text is not applicable to the earlier one?

"The point" according to whom? I have seen a wide range of varying interpretations and explanations for the story; some of which make much better sense of the text than yours. Why should I privilege your ideas on this subject?

Perhaps you can explain why mine is in error?

Are you suggesting that the right way to read the Bible is to read it like a newspaper?

I am suggesting that the right way is to read it as a whole, not a collection of unrelated and isolated stories that have no bearing on the others. If something is explained later, then it applies to the earlier stories where the subject is vague.

[Bill the Cat]

How absurdly temporal.

Still a moron, I see.

So *before* God creates the first man and woman, His knows they'll screw it up.

Yes. That's foreknowledge.

He then springs into action with a saving plan, provided His son volunteers.

Since the Son is God, there was no "volunteering". It simply was.

One could avoid the temporal problem altogether and simply acknowledge that state of affairs was intentional to produce the optimal divine/human relationship. That's the most logical conclusion rather than this absurd temporal view and childish laying blame on boogeymen.

Where did I suggest otherwise?

[Bill the Cat]

But, the classifieds ARE in the Sports section!

Not in my hometown. They have their own section.

[seer]

How would I know? According to certain texts within the Bible, that would seem to be the case. According to others, he seems not to know as much as you think he does.

Well no, if one text shows that He does have foreknowledge then He does have foreknowledge, He can't have it, then not have it. Are you a Christian BTW?

Perhaps I'll try this a little differently, and I will ask you to please answer "yes" or "no" (you can go ahead and explain further if you need to): Can you demonstrate God's foreknowledge of events from Genesis 2–4?

No, but why should I have to? The passages are not dealing with foreknowledge either way. It doesn't say He does and it doesn't say He doesn't. In other words why does this particular text have to speak to foreknowledge to establish whether God has foreknowledge or not?

[Palaeogrammatos]

So, something that is clearly spelled out in a later text is not applicable to the earlier one?

Not always, no. It depend entirely on the interpretive context which will tend to change over time and given various circumstances. Since you brought it up, what text did you have in mind that explains or demonstrates God's foreknowledge in Genesis 2–4, and what reason do I have to adopt this other text's explanation?

Perhaps you can explain why mine is in error?

Your explanation overloads the text. Simply put: it must supply unrelated and irrelevant information from elsewhere in order to work. It is much better to simply read the text, and attempt to extract meaning from what is there, and from within the appropriate context.

I am suggesting that the right way is to read it as a whole, not a collection of unrelated and isolated stories that have no bearing on the others. If something is explained later, then it applies to the earlier stories where the subject is vague.

In the first place, I could agree only if you can demonstrate that the Bible is properly a compositional whole, and not a collection of (variously) related and often isolated but also frequently interconnected bits of literature that were composed over a long period of time, and only compiled in large part by way of historical accident. In the second place, you have yet to show a clear explanation of something that is vague in the Genesis story. In actual fact, the story seems to pretty clearly suggest that God does not know certain things (like the location of Adam and Eve after they have eaten the forbidden fruit). Why is there a need in the first place to offer an alternative explanation, unless to salvage ideas about God that are incorporated into this specific story from elsewhere?

[Palaeogrammatos]

Well no, if one text shows that He does have foreknowledge then He does have foreknowledge, He can't have it, then not have it. Are you a Christian BTW?

I am a Christian, and that is one explanation for what appears in the Bible, but certainly not the only one. Another possibility is that the Bible is not internally consistent (why would it be, in the first place?), and that there are a plurality of views about God contained therein.

No, but why should I have to? The passages are not dealing with foreknowledge either way. It doesn't say He does and it doesn't say He doesn't. In other words why does this particular text have to speak to foreknowledge to establish whether God has foreknowledge or not?

That's somewhat fair. But I do think to the contrary that the text seems to presume that God does not have perfect knowledge of the events taking place. In any case, while I do agree that that is not the point of the story, I also cannot accept poorly founded premises that require the reader to assert explanations for things that appear to contradict what is in the text in the first place. Like I said: The story on its own makes abundant sense without asserting God's foreknowledge of events.

[seer]

I am a Christian, and that is one explanation for what appears in the Bible, but certainly not the only one. Another possibility is that the Bible is not internally consistent (why would it be, in the first place?), and that there are a plurality of views about God contained therein.

Ok, so you don't believe that scripture is internally consistent. Then one wonders why you are a Christian.

That's somewhat fair. But I do think to the contrary that the text seems to presume that God does not have perfect knowledge of the events taking place. In any case, while I do agree that that is not the point of the story, I also cannot accept poorly founded premises that require the reader to assert explanations for things that appear to contradict what is in the text in the first place. Like I said: The story on its own makes abundant sense without asserting God's foreknowledge of events.

I see nothing in the text that undermines foreknowledge, nor do I think it has to be explicitly stated here to be a fact.

[Bill the Cat]

Not always, no. It depend entirely on the interpretive context which will tend to change over time and given various circumstances. Since you brought it up, what text did you have in mind that explains or demonstrates God's foreknowledge in Genesis 2–4, and what reason do I have to adopt this other text's explanation?


Your explanation overloads the text. Simply put: it must supply unrelated and irrelevant information from elsewhere in order to work. It is much better to simply read the text, and attempt to extract meaning from what is there, and from within the appropriate context.


In the first place, I could agree only if you can demonstrate that the Bible is properly a compositional whole, and not a collection of (variously) related and often isolated but also frequently interconnected bits of literature that were composed over a long period of time, and only compiled in large part by way of historical accident. In the second place, you have yet to show a clear explanation of something that is vague in the Genesis story. In actual fact, the story seems to pretty clearly suggest that God does not know certain things (like the location of Adam and Eve after they have eaten the forbidden fruit). Why is there a need in the first place to offer an alternative explanation, unless to salvage ideas about God that are incorporated into this specific story from elsewhere?

Ya know what? Never mind. I hate dealing with pedantic nitpickers who obviously have no respect for the divine inspiration of scripture. Unsubscribing.

[Palaeogrammatos]

Ok, so you don't believe that scripture is internally consistent. Then one wonders why you are a Christian.

Really?? Is a commitment to the idea of internal consistency within scripture a primary tenant of the Christian faith? Not where I come from.

I see nothing in the text that undermines foreknowledge, nor do I think it has to be explicitly stated here to be a fact.

But you cannot provide an explanation for all of God's actions within the story from a plain reading of the story itself, and not without incorporating other ideas into it that are not necessarily helpful to grasping its point.

[seer]

Really?? Is a commitment to the idea of internal consistency within scripture a primary tenant of the Christian faith? Not where I come from.

That is not what I asked, I asked why are you a Christian. I mean you don't trust the texts - correct?

But you cannot provide an explanation for all of God's actions within the story from a plain reading of the story itself, and not without incorporating other ideas into it that are not necessarily helpful to grasping its point.

That still does not undermine my point. For instance I believe, based on other texts, that God is loving and forgiving. I would not find that in the Genesis texts in question, I would have to import that idea from different passages. I think there are enough other passages to establish God's foreknowledge, just as there are enough other passages to establish His merciful and just nature.

[Carrikature]

Really?? Is a commitment to the idea of internal consistency within scripture a primary tenant of the Christian faith? Not where I come from.

Since you mention it, where do you come from? Commitment to internal consistency is pretty commonly held as a primary tenet afaict.

[robrecht]

Since you mention it, where do you come from? Commitment to internal consistency is pretty commonly held as a primary tenet afaict.

I think this is so among evangelicals and fundamentalists, but not necessarily among Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Jews, and, in general, among those who accept historico-critical or literary approaches to the scriptures. The former approach is predominant in the United States, but certainly not in Europe.

[whag]

Really?? Is a commitment to the idea of internal consistency within scripture a primary tenant of the Christian faith? Not where I come from.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” -- Emerson

That's primarily what seer wants: a foolish consistency--the type that values simplistic explanations over messier explanations and stunts growth.

Where do you come from, BTW? Eastern orthodox?

[seer]

That's primarily what seer wants: a foolish consistency--the type that values simplistic explanations over messier explanations and stunts growth.

I never cared much for my own consistency, perhaps though I believe that God is consistent. And wise and powerful enough to inform His followers in a consistent manner.

[whag]

I never cared much for my own consistency, perhaps though I believe that God is consistent. And wise and powerful enough to inform His followers in a consistent manner.

The bible isn't the same as god. Would you really argue all its references to Satan are internally consistent?