PDA

View Full Version : Before the foundation of the world [spin-off]



markedward
Apr 26th 2013, 02:18 AM
This is a thread strictly focusing on an exegesis of a certain Biblical passage. I made this thread separately because I don't want to derail the focus of percho's own thread, which has a premise that I agree with (that Jesus' death was part of God's 'plan' before he even created the world, as made evident in a variety of NT texts). This thread instead focuses on the particular wording percho used, drawing from Revelation 13.8, which I think is being misinterpreted. Here is the traditional understanding of the verse:


any whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lamb slaughtered before the foundation of the world

Here we read that 'the Lamb [was] slain before the foundation of the world', thus implying that Jesus' death was not merely foreordained, but took place 'in eternity past', so that what happened on earth was the enactment of what had effectively already been determined. This is somewhat similar to the idea found in other NT texts, but that's not what I'm getting into. Notice how I said the above is the traditional understanding of the verse. It is not, however, a common translation. The few versions of the Bible that use the wording 'before the foundation of the world' (or similar) have that phrase applied to the names written in the book, not the Lamb being slain, which instead implies that the fate of the wicked was predestined 'in eternity past'. Neither of these interpretations is correct, as can be demonstrated from just the text of the Revelation (meaning, we don't have to first disagree with the above in order to make a third conclusion work).

Here is the relevant part of Revelation 13.8 in Greek:


Revelation 13.8: [1] ων ου γεγραπται το ονομα εν τω βιβλιω της ζωης [2] του αρνιου του εσφαγμενου [3] απο καταβολης κοσμου

Here is a translation of the text:


Revelation 13.8: [1] any whose name is not written in the scroll of life [2] of the Lamb slaughtered [3] before the foundation of the world

First, notice that the second clause ('of the slaughtered Lamb') is being used to qualify the scroll of life; the scroll belongs to the slaughtered Lamb, so the only way to be written in the scroll is to have faith in the Lamb. Hence John earlier specified (Revelation 3.5) that Christians who are not faithful and obedient to Jesus will have their names blotted out from the scroll of life (which strikes out the predestination interpretation). As a result, this means that it is technically possible to remove this second clause without losing the primary meaning of the text. And wouldn't you know, we find exactly this phrasing in a later verse of the book, where the slaughtered Lamb (του αρνιου του εσφαγμενου) is not mentioned at all:


Revelation 17.8: το θηριον ο ειδες ην και ουκ εστιν και μελλει αναβαινειν εκ της αβυσσου και εις απωλειαν υπαγειν και θαυμασονται οι κατοικουντες επι της γης [1] ων ου γεγραπται το ονομα επι τω βιβλιον της ζωης [3] απο καταβολης κοσμου βλεποντες το θηριον ο τι ην και ουκ εστιν καιπερ εστιν


Revelation 17.8: the beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the abyss and depart into destruction. And the inhabitants of the earth will marvel, [1] any whose name is not written upon the scroll of life [3] before the foundation of the world, beholding the beast who was and is not, and yet is.

This means the third clause is not modifying the second clause, it is modifying the first clause. Revelation 13.8 is not a statement that the Lamb was slaughtered before the world was created, it is a statement about a book that belongs to the slaughtered Lamb.

But going further, we need to account for the word απο in the third clause. I left it translated as 'before' so far, but this word is rarely translated as 'before' anywhere else in the New Testament. In the KJV, for example, απο is translated only once as 'before' (Acts 7.45), and its traditional meaning would actually work better. The word απο most commonly means 'from', in the sense of going outward. So when John says απο καταβολης κοσμου (the third clause), 'before the foundation of the world' is the exact opposite meaning of the phrase. It should literally be translated as 'from the foundation of the world', with the word 'from' meaning 'from that time onward'.

The whole phrase of Revelation 13.8 is awkward to find a perfect translation in English, but I think the following captures John's intended meaning the most accurately:


any whose name has not been written in the scroll of life (which belongs to the slaughtered Lamb) since the foundation of the world

So John is not referring to predestination of the wicked, nor is he referring to Jesus having been killed (or ordained to be killed) before the world was even created. What is being described is a scroll that contains the name of every person who has lived since the beginning of creation, and that their names are stricken out (or rather, not written in at all) when they live a life of active rebellion against Jesus.

TrustGzus
Apr 26th 2013, 03:02 AM
I think it's a possibility that phrase 3 can be applied to either 2 or 1, but I lean towards 1 as you do and I think Revelation 17 is the strongest reason to hold that idea.

I leave the other option open because versions such as the NIV and NASB have both options with one option in the text and the other in the margin (though the two versions are opposite in what they have in the text v. what they have in the margin). If the Greek was clear that it must be one or the other, I can't fathom either set of those translating teams to leave the other option open.

A.T. Robertson is an example of a person, who being expert in the language, that while saying either is an option, he thinks it should go with slain rather than written. Wuest translates it that way too. So there are a few too many heavy hitters for me to make an overly strong stance for one or the other.

ewq1938
Apr 26th 2013, 04:22 AM
This means the third clause is not modifying the second clause, it is modifying the first clause. Revelation 13.8 is not a statement that the Lamb was slaughtered before the world was created, it is a statement about a book that belongs to the slaughtered Lamb.

Quite keen. Haven't looked at it that way although I have presented, in the past, a similar situation in Romans 5:14...if you wouldn't mind looking and applying the same logic.

Noeb
Apr 26th 2013, 04:43 AM
KJV
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life ..............
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Lamb slain from the foundation, not names not written from the foundation

markedward
Apr 26th 2013, 05:20 AM
Quite keen. Haven't looked at it that way although I have presented, in the past, a similar situation in Romans 5:14...if you wouldn't mind looking and applying the same logic.
That's a new way of reading Romans 5.14 for me as well. My immediate reaction there is that Paul's point from 5.12-21 is typology between Adam and Jesus, so I'm still inclined to think Paul intends for Adam to be identified as the one who 'was a type of the one who was to come. I'll have to come back to that to explore if / how Paul intends Moses instead, though.

markedward
Apr 26th 2013, 05:21 AM
Lamb slain from the foundation, not names not written from the foundation
I know what the KJV says, but you didn't address anything from the OP. Even the way the KJV reads can be understood according to the conclusion I came to above.

TrustGzus
Apr 26th 2013, 01:22 PM
KJV
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life ..............
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Lamb slain from the foundation, not names not written from the foundation

And this could be countered with the NASB . . .


Revelation 13:8 (NASB95)
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

written from the foundation of the world, not slain . . .

Now what?

RabbiKnife
Apr 26th 2013, 01:26 PM
I think the NASB is closer to the Greek than the KJV in this passage.

TrustGzus
Apr 26th 2013, 01:31 PM
I think the NASB is closer to the Greek than the KJV in this passage.

Rabbi, can you give an further info as to why you think that? I ask because as I pointed out, none of my commentaries that I've checked have an appeal to arguments from the Greek for one or the other. If the Greek were clear, I would think someone would give it and Bibles wouldn't have footnotes offering the other option. And also, as I said, A.T. Robertson leans the other way and I have a friend who teaches Greek in college and Robertson is my friends home boy.

Thanks.

RabbiKnife
Apr 26th 2013, 01:39 PM
I think Markedward hit it...

First, the positioning of the phrase in question looks like a modifier or descriptor of the scroll, and the exact parallel in Rev 17 seems key to me.

Aijalon
Apr 26th 2013, 03:08 PM
KJV
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life ..............
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Lamb slain from the foundation, not names not written from the foundation
Simple and very compelling logic. How can something be refered to as from a "time onward" if it did NOT occur? "Not written from the foundation" makes no sense, so I tend to agree that it is not saying that the wicked were preordained (although I do believe all of us are pre ordained wicked, and some are then saved).

In any regard, markedward's conclusion makes a giant leap right here:

So John is not referring to predestination of the wicked, nor is he referring to Jesus having been killed (or ordained to be killed) before the world was even created.
He must be rerring to one of the two. How could it be otherwise? Someone, "has been" something since sometime (the time of the foundation).

But is Since-before the intention? Or since-after? markedward has parsed the text as "since-after". Before, or after? Which one? Surely this cannot be that ambiguous?

The answer is, it is not ambiguous, because the entire point of mentioning the "foundation of the world" puts a beginning point in mind which confronts the reader with a very certain point of planning. Why is the foundation mentioned at all? What is the foundation? The foundation is the the design of the world. The foundation does not mean only "the beginning of history". It means "from the time God planned his creation". This is critically important to keep in view, and markedward has completely overlooked this.

Whatever it was that was planned, it was planned even prior to the completion of creation. If the point is to only convey that names were written in the book since-after creation, then there is no need to mention the foundation. The foundation of something is that wwhich is even before the structure. The foundation is a plan.

The world = creation -or- the result of the work of creation.

The Foundation = before creation -or- that which allowed the work of creation to begin.

The "foundation of the world" is not "creation"


What is being described is a scroll that contains the name of every person who has lived since the beginning of creation, and that their names are stricken out (or rather, not written in at all) when they live a life of active rebellion against Jesus.
The scroll you describe is not described by this verse. As I pointed out, "since the beginning of creation" is not what you suggest it is. You have made it out to be "since the completion of creation", which is the wrongheaded view. The proper view is, "since before the initiation of creation"

So the meaning of the verse is correct by either the NIV or NASB, one of the two is right. (markedward's version is the same as the JB Phillips translation)

I will suggest a more clear reading of it.

Revelation 13.8: [1] ων ου γεγραπται το ονομα εν τω βιβλιω της ζωης [2] του αρνιου του εσφαγμενου [3] απο καταβολης κοσμου

Here is a translation of the text:

Revelation 13.8: [1] any whose name has not been written in the scroll of life [2] belonging to the Lamb slaughtered [3] since the plan which preceded the creation of the world

(For "preceded" there may be a few other fitting words, like: enabled, caused, brought about.... But a very neat rendering for [3] could be thus: "since the plan of creation" )

The use of from might be "since" or it might be "before". Either is sufficient. THe meaning is that the slaughtering was intricately connected to the foundation of the world, they are together. The plainest sense is that the slaughter occured in eternity past, which is uncomfortable for markedward's one-sided theology. The slaughter was during, was with or before that which was foundational to creation.

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 26th 2013, 03:12 PM
For what it is worth, I would concur with ideas already expressed, namely that the passage in Revelation 17:8 offers ample clarity that "Those who live on the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will be astonished." (HCSB) I don't think you can argue that Revelation 13:8 should be translated one way because of Revelation 17:8, but I think it's safe to say that the idea that names have been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world is safe enough either way. The translation of Revelation 13:8 remains ambiguous in my mind either way.

Gadgeteer
Apr 26th 2013, 03:30 PM
Jesus said "the kingdom of Heaven belongs to children". (Matt19:14)
Arguably, everyone begins written in the "Book of Life".

...and each only gets blotted when he disbelieves... (Rev3:5, Ex32:32)

TrustGzus
Apr 26th 2013, 04:22 PM
For what it is worth, I would concur with ideas already expressed, namely that the passage in Revelation 17:8 offers ample clarity that "Those who live on the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will be astonished." (HCSB) I don't think you can argue that Revelation 13:8 should be translated one way because of Revelation 17:8, but I think it's safe to say that the idea that names have been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world is safe enough either way. The translation of Revelation 13:8 remains ambiguous in my mind either way.

Pilgrimtozion quotes the HCSB from John 17:8. At 13:8 they go with markedwards idea that phrase 3 modifies phrase 1 by flip-flopping the order of the phrases 2 & 3 just like the NASB did. However, just like the NASB did in the footnote, so too the HCSB offers the alternate in the footnote of the phrase being in order of 1, 2 then 3 making it look like 3 affects 2 rather than 1.

Again, to me (who is not a Greek expert), this implies that the Greek doesn't mandate one over the other. I'm guessing the NASB & HCSB put in the text what they think it should be (based on Revelation 17:8 or whatever other argument[s] they might have) whereas I'm guessing the NIV committee chose to just put it word order (more or less) and put a footnote to let the reader know an alternate interpretive option.

This is an interesting verse. I don't see anything terribly wrong with going either way. The only thing that would be terribly wrong would to be dogmatically divisive over it and no one here is doing that.

John146
Apr 26th 2013, 05:32 PM
Great post, Mark (the original post in this thread). I agree completely. Jesus was not slain before the foundation of the world. He was slain about 2,000 years ago. And the book of life was not complete before the foundation of the world. It continues to have names added to it and blotted out of it (Rev 3:5) as time goes on.

John146
Apr 26th 2013, 05:43 PM
KJV
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life ..............
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Lamb slain from the foundation, not names not written from the foundationI disagree. As Mark pointed out (did you read his post carefully?), another verse, Rev 17:8, shows that it was the book of life that was written from the foundation of the world.

Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

What he pointed out, which may not be clear from how this is written, is that the book of life has been in the process of being written since the foundation of the world. It continues to have names added to it and blotted out (Rev 3:5) as times goes on. So, Rev 13:8 is not saying the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Here is what I believe is a better translation of the verse than the one you quoted:

Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (NASB)

This translation of the verse lines up with Rev 17:8 since it refers to the book of life as existing from/since the foundation of the world rather than saying that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. No, Jesus was not slain from the foundation of the world, He was slain about 2,000 years ago.

percho
Apr 26th 2013, 05:46 PM
The only problem I have with looking at Rev 13:8 in that manner is that to do so would negate in a way what I believe to be the same statement from 1 Peter 1:18-20. There, I believe the lamb was foreordained to shed his blood for redemption from the foundation of the world.

I also think it is important for it shows that even before Adam was created there was something on the earth which required redemption from, therefore God down laid a system on the earth to bring about that redemption by blood.

BTW in my OP I had 1 Peter in mind rather than Rev.

percho
Apr 26th 2013, 06:01 PM
I disagree. As Mark pointed out (did you read his post carefully?), another verse, Rev 17:8, shows that it was the book of life that was written from the foundation of the world.

Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

What he pointed out, which may not be clear from how this is written, is that the book of life has been in the process of being written since the foundation of the world. It continues to have names added to it and blotted out (Rev 3:5) as times goes on. So, Rev 13:8 is not saying the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. Here is what I believe is a better translation of the verse than the one you quoted:

Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (NASB)

This translation of the verse lines up with Rev 17:8 since it refers to the book of life as existing from/since the foundation of the world rather than saying that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. No, Jesus was not slain from the foundation of the world, He was slain about 2,000 years ago.

John how would you relate this verse to Rev 13:8 and 17:8. I will leave out the added, "help," words.

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all were written, in continuance were fashioned, when none of them. PS 139:16

Now consider this verse follows this: My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 15 And how are those verses relative to:
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Hebrews 5:9

And is all that relative to the lamb slain from the foundation of the world and or But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Because of something that preexisted: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.


I hope that makes some sense.

markedward
Apr 26th 2013, 06:04 PM
The plainest sense is that the slaughter occured in eternity past, which is uncomfortable for markedward's warped theology.
You're free to disagree how you see fit, but I'm not sure why this ad hominem was necessary at all. What, exactly, is 'warped' about my theology?

percho
Apr 26th 2013, 06:06 PM
BTW markedward, I also think your OP makes sense.

Noeb
Apr 26th 2013, 06:25 PM
Well Mark I did address the OP. Some translations agree, some don't, Greek isn't clear. You start by agreeing 'lamb slain' was part of God's plan and conclude with this verse not saying so simply because another verse doesn't say so. Why does it need to? Both are true. It's not difficult. There's also no reason to inject arbitrary predestination of some and not others because the concept is not here. From, is a starting point not an event. Things kept secret since the foundation -Mat 13:35. Lamb slain since the foundation. Doesnt mean it's when he was slain. Just that since then it was going to happen, just like since then thing were kept secret.

John146
Apr 26th 2013, 06:29 PM
John how would you relate this verse to Rev 13:8 and 17:8. I will leave out the added, "help," words.

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all were written, in continuance were fashioned, when none of them. PS 139:16

Now consider this verse follows this: My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 15 And how are those verses relative to:
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Hebrews 5:9

And is all that relative to the lamb slain from the foundation of the world and or But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Because of something that preexisted: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.


I hope that makes some sense.Sorry, but it didn't make any sense to me at all. As far as what you said in Post #17, I don't think interpreting Rev 13:8 the way Mark describes negates 1 Peter 1:18-20 as well. Both are true regardless of whether they are saying the same thing or not. The interpretation of Rev 13:8 that Mark described does not contradict 1 Peter 1:18-20.

markedward
Apr 26th 2013, 06:42 PM
Well Mark I did address the OP.
Quoting the KJV isn't the same thing as actually addressing the OP.


You start by agreeing 'lamb slain' was part of God's plan and conclude with this verse not saying so simply because another verse doesn't say so.
That's not an accurate summary of the OP in the slightest.


There's also no reason to inject arbitrary predestination of some and not others because the concept is not here.
Right... Why do you think this is what I'm doing? I specifically contradict the idea of predestination when I say that it is not the correct interpretation of Revelation 13.8.

Aijalon
Apr 26th 2013, 06:47 PM
You're free to disagree how you see fit, but I'm not sure why this ad hominem was necessary at all. What, exactly, is 'warped' about my theology?

I stand corrected. I disregarded the context of the word, using it too flipppantly. But this is your thread, do not let one poorly chosen word derail what might otherwise be a real response to what I have said.

In its own way, an accusation of ad-hominem attack is to say that my entire point was to debase your character, which it clearly was not. So your taking of offense is akin to a Red Herring argument. :thumbsdn:

Your OP makes good sense up to the point at the end. I appreciated your breakdown of the greek and I did not mean warped in the sense of perverted. I should have used a different word. Maybe 'one-sided' would have been better. The one-sided theological stance of all-important-free-will-of-man-at-all-costs leads to a complete avoidance of what the meaning of foundation is, which is what got 'warped'.

The on-going of both writing and erasing of names of the book cannot be related to a foundation if the writing process continues on into history. The writing takes place before creation, the erasing.... this is another matter.

Additionally, please consider this - if Jesus was not planned to be slain, and his death is not regarded as being in 'eternity past' then doesn't this cast into doubt the true faith and salvation of anyone dying before Jesus was incarnated as flesh, and revealed to mankind? It does make sense that his death planned and began at the word's foundation because it is through this scheme that all sin for all time past-present-future is able to be atoned for.

markedward
Apr 26th 2013, 06:51 PM
Additionally, please consider this - if Jesus was not planned to be slain,
From the OP: 'This is somewhat similar to the idea found in other NT texts, but that's not what I'm getting into.'

I didn't say it wasn't true. I said that it wasn't the focus of the OP.

Noeb
Apr 26th 2013, 08:01 PM
Quoting the KJV isn't the same thing as actually addressing the OP.True, but that's not all I did.



That's not an accurate summary of the OP in the slightest.I didn't say it was a summary. It is what you said.



Right... Why do you think this is what I'm doing? I specifically contradict the idea of predestination when I say that it is not the correct interpretation of Revelation 13.8.I didn't say it was what you were doing, and how 13:8 is translated (names or lamb) doesn't matter either way concerning arbitrary predestination.

percho
Apr 26th 2013, 08:33 PM
Sorry, but it didn't make any sense to me at all. As far as what you said in Post #17, I don't think interpreting Rev 13:8 the way Mark describes negates 1 Peter 1:18-20 as well. Both are true regardless of whether they are saying the same thing or not. The interpretation of Rev 13:8 that Mark described does not contradict 1 Peter 1:18-20.

I agree with you as both could be accepted in their context.

I see Christ perfected in death by resurrection in three days in Psalms 139 and we, those written in the book life, in continuance were fashion in the resurrected Christ, when yet none of us existed.

divaD
Apr 26th 2013, 09:20 PM
Great post, Mark (the original post in this thread). I agree completely. Jesus was not slain before the foundation of the world. He was slain about 2,000 years ago. And the book of life was not complete before the foundation of the world. It continues to have names added to it and blotted out of it (Rev 3:5) as time goes on.

I agree with you for at least 2 reasons. One is that you agree with the OP. I too agree with the OP. The other is what you stated here..."And the book of life was not complete before the foundation of the world. It continues to have names added to it and blotted out of it (Rev 3:5) as time goes on". That's pretty much how I've been seeing and reasoning it for quite some time now myself.

LookingUp
Apr 26th 2013, 11:26 PM
...
So John is not referring to predestination of the wicked, nor is he referring to Jesus having been killed (or ordained to be killed) before the world was even created. What is being described is a scroll that contains the name of every person who has lived since the beginning of creation, and that their names are stricken out (or rather, not written in at all) when they live a life of active rebellion against Jesus.If the book has everyone's names in it until and unless they are blotted out, why does Paul speak of his co-workers as those "whose names are written in the book of life" (Phil. 4:3)? Why is Paul distinguishing these believers in this way if everyone's name starts out in the book and if names can be blotted out upon losing salvation? What makes them special? Their names are in there like everyone else's names. Their names can be blotted out like everyone else's names can be blotted out.

Noeb
Apr 27th 2013, 12:35 AM
If the book has everyone's names in it until and unless they are blotted out, why does Paul speak of his co-workers as those "whose names are written in the book of life" (Phil. 4:3)? Why is Paul distinguishing these believers in this way if everyone's name starts out in the book and if names can be blotted out upon losing salvation? What makes them special? Their names are in there like everyone else's names. Their names can be blotted out like everyone else's names can be blotted out.I believe this is why people believe it is written first and everyone starts off in it.
"Exo 32:32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written."

With this line of reasoning this
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Should say this
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names have been blotted out of the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

but it doesn't ;)

Or, if everyone is written in it why does it say "whose names are not written"?

Then,
Exo 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Which is ALL, so we would have to be added back. Bunch of speculation is what all this is. But somehow people conclude "from the foundation of the world" is not in reference to "the Lamb slain" just because "the Lamb slain" is not found in another chapter, so....weird.....if we used such methods throughout scripture we'd be a mess theologically....and many are

Noeb
Apr 27th 2013, 12:58 AM
I agree with you for at least 2 reasons. One is that you agree with the OP. I too agree with the OP. The other is what you stated here..."And the book of life was not complete before the foundation of the world. It continues to have names added to it and blotted out of it (Rev 3:5) as time goes on". That's pretty much how I've been seeing and reasoning it for quite some time now myself.Where does scripture say "It continues to have names added to it......as time goes on"?

divaD
Apr 27th 2013, 02:14 PM
Should say this
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names have been blotted out of the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

but it doesn't ;)





Maybe you're just not looking at it from a different perspective? What does it say right after that verse?

Revelation 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.


Shouldn't that tell us there's more to this than meets the eye? Plus we have to keep in mind that John is taking notes as he goes along, and that he then later pieces together the book from these notes, meaning a lot of his conclusions are based on what he's seen and heard overall. So by the time he writes this book, he would then know that those not written in the book of the Lamb who was slain, that they would be the ones worshiping the beast. What might he be basing that on? Revelation 3:5 for one. Clearly the ones that worship the beast, these would not be overcomers, but those that failed to overcome. So John knows they got blotted out of the book of life before it was thru, the fact he sees them in the visions worshiping the beast, instead of worshiping God like they likely started out doing but failed to continue doing. But i tend to think one gets blotted out on judgment day. But John would deduce they're blotted out, the fact he sees them worshiping the beast.

divaD
Apr 27th 2013, 02:17 PM
Where does scripture say "It continues to have names added to it......as time goes on"?

I'm not certain if there's a Scripture that comes out and says this plainly. So it would be something deduced, the same way one might deduce Jesus is God, tho there are no Scriptures that plainly come right out and say so.

TrustGzus
Apr 27th 2013, 02:23 PM
I'm not certain if there's a Scripture that comes out and says this plainly. So it would be something deduced, the same way one might deduce Jesus is God, tho there are no Scriptures that plainly come right out and say so.

There is no Scripture that plainly says that. But how do you deduce it's truth? It's easy with the deity of Jesus.

Jesus is the Word (John 1:14)
The Word is God (John 1:1)
Therefore, Jesus is God.

How do you do the same thing and properly deduce that names get added to the book of life?

divaD
Apr 27th 2013, 02:31 PM
There is no Scripture that plainly says that. But how do you deduce it's truth? It's easy with the deity of Jesus.

Jesus is the Word (John 1:14)
The Word is God (John 1:1)
Therefore, Jesus is God.

How do you do the same thing and properly deduce that names get added to the book of life?

How can names get added to the Lamb's book of life before one is even saved? How is that logical? Do you you think God already determined who would be saved and who wouldn't be saved, before the creation of the world? If that is true, then the Scripture that says God would that all be saved, that would not be true, the fact He had already predestined many to never be saved.

TrustGzus
Apr 27th 2013, 02:34 PM
How can names get added to the Lamb's book of life before one is even saved? How is that logical? Do you you think God already determined who would be saved and who wouldn't be saved, before the creation of the world? If that is true, then the Scripture that says God would that all be saved, that would not be true, the fact He had already predestined many to never be saved.

If God knows all things, and if God wrote the book before the foundations of the world (i.e. before time even existed), what's not logical about having names in it? He knows the end from the beginning. What would be illogical is God having a name in their of someone who he knew would be saved but ended up not being saved. That would be illogical.

divaD
Apr 27th 2013, 02:43 PM
If God knows all things, and if God wrote the book before the foundations of the world (i.e. before time even existed), what's not logical about having names in it? He knows the end from the beginning. What would be illogical is God having a name in their of someone who he knew would be saved but ended up not being saved. That would be illogical.



I have a different view about things than you I guess. I see God predicting what He wants to happen, and then causing the predictions to come to pass. But I'm not saying it's this way in all cases, but I do reason it being like that in many cases. So the reason He can know the end from the beginning is because He already declared what the end would be, and that He would then make it come to pass exactly as He had declared. I already realize a lot of folks simply can't see it being this way. That's fine. Each of us simply understands things the way we understand things, and that we all don't always understand things exactly the same way.

TrustGzus
Apr 27th 2013, 03:39 PM
I have a different view about things than you I guess. I see God predicting what He wants to happen, and then causing the predictions to come to pass. But I'm not saying it's this way in all cases, but I do reason it being like that in many cases. So the reason He can know the end from the beginning is because He already declared what the end would be, and that He would then make it come to pass exactly as He had declared. I already realize a lot of folks simply can't see it being this way. That's fine. Each of us simply understands things the way we understand things, and that we all don't always understand things exactly the same way.

Let me ask you about a passage where God knew what would happen even if He didn't cause the event to happen. 1 Samuel 23 . . .


1 Samuel 23:7–12 (NIV)


Saul Pursues David
7*Saul was told that David had gone to Keilah, and he said, “God has delivered him into my hands, for David has imprisoned himself by entering a town with gates and bars.” 8*And Saul called up all his forces for battle, to go down to Keilah to besiege David and his men.
9*When David learned that Saul was plotting against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod.” 10*David said, “LORD, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. 11*Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? LORD, God of Israel, tell your servant.”
And the LORD said, “He will.”
12*Again David asked, “Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?”
And the LORD said, “They will.”

So David is running from Saul. He goes to a town called Keilah. Saul hears of it and pursues him. David asks God if the citizens will turn him over if he stays. God says he will. Based on your approach (God knows what will happen because he predicts and causes what he predicts to happen), how did God know the citizens will do that?

Noeb
Apr 27th 2013, 03:55 PM
Maybe you're just not looking at it from a different perspective? What does it say right after that verse?

Revelation 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

Shouldn't that tell us there's more to this than meets the eye?That's what I said
"Bunch of speculation is what all this is."



Plus we have to keep in mind that John is taking notes as he goes along, and that he then later pieces together the book from these notes, meaning a lot of his conclusions are based on what he's seen and heard overall.I believe all scripture is inspired.



So by the time he writes this book, he would then know that those not written in the book of the Lamb who was slain, that they would be the ones worshiping the beast. What might he be basing that on? Revelation 3:5 for one. Clearly the ones that worship the beast, these would not be overcomers, but those that failed to overcome. So John knows they got blotted out of the book of life before it was thru, the fact he sees them in the visions worshiping the beast, instead of worshiping God like they likely started out doing but failed to continue doing. But i tend to think one gets blotted out on judgment day. But John would deduce they're blotted out, the fact he sees them worshiping the beast.Thanks for the explanation but again I believe all scripture is inspired.

LookingUp
Apr 27th 2013, 04:59 PM
How can names get added to the Lamb's book of life before one is even saved? How is that logical?Psalm 69:28 gives the idea that everyone’s name is written in the book of life and blotted out later. This would mean no one’s name could have never been written in the book of life.

Paul speaks of his co-workers as those “whose names are written in the book of life” (Phil. 4:3) as if they’re special. Paul distinguishes them in some way—he is suggesting that either their names are permanently there and can’t be erased or their names are there while others’ names are not yet written there. Rev. 3:5 gives the impression that overcomers (i.e. believers) won’t be blotted out from the book, so this would align with Paul’s suggestion that believers’ names are permanently there and can’t be erased.

According to Mark’s analysis, Rev. 13:8 and 17:8 reveal that it is should be rendered “any whose name is not written upon the scroll of life before (since) the foundation of the world.” This seems to align with all the other “book of life” uses.


the scroll belongs to the slaughtered Lamb, so the only way to be written in the scroll is to have faith in the Lamb.By the way, I wanted to mention that there is nothing to suggest that one has to have faith in the Lamb to be in the book. It simply says the scroll belongs to the Lamb. The Master bought all men, even those who at some point in their lives deny him.

TrustGzus
Apr 27th 2013, 05:15 PM
One other thing to think about --- all of this is being taken discussed literally as though the book of life is an actual physical object with length, width and depth and paper and ink. I'm not sure it all should be taken that way and thus names being blotted out of the book of life might not be so woodenly literal either but metaphorical for having life or not having life.

LookingUp
Apr 27th 2013, 05:50 PM
One other thing to think about --- all of this is being taken discussed literally as though the book of life is an actual physical object with length, width and depth and paper and ink. I'm not sure it all should be taken that way and thus names being blotted out of the book of life might not be so woodenly literal either but metaphorical for having life or not having life.I agree. It’s certainly metaphorical. I’ve considered the idea that the “book of life” metaphor means different things at different times. But, it seems for the most part, after looking at each use of the phrase, it seems they’re basically consistent.

Gadgeteer
Apr 27th 2013, 07:32 PM
How can names get added to the Lamb's book of life before one is even saved? How is that logical?Hi, Diva --- may I?

Jesus said children belong to the kingdom of Heaven. (Matt19:14) So their names must be written in the book, until they reach the age of accountability and disbelieve (and get removed)...


Do you you think God already determined who would be saved and who wouldn't be saved, before the creation of the world?"Predestinationists" do think that.


If that is true, then the Scripture that says God would that all be saved,

They reinterpret that into "not every last person, but only some of all TYPES".


that would not be true, the fact He had already predestined many to never be saved.

Right; making Him NOT a God of "love" for most (really for any), NOT just or fair, but fully partial and biased (Acts10:34-35 overturns this).


Each of us simply understands things the way we understand things, and that we all don't always understand things exactly the same way. Our understandings have to accommodate all of Scripture, and not have any conflicts. "Predestined Salvation" does not do this. The greatest offenses of "predestined salvation" are impugning God's character (casting Him as a false judge, hypocritical and causal of sin), as NOT a "God of love" (either way; certainly not love for those He WANTS sinful and perishing, neither love for those whom He gives no choice in loving Him back, violating 1Cor13:5).

No, God wants everyone to be saved, kindly leads everyone to repentance, and overtly puts (draws?) men when and where each CAN decide, judging them then on their decision...

ewq1938
Apr 28th 2013, 01:20 AM
So it would be something deduced, the same way one might deduce Jesus is God, tho there are no Scriptures that plainly come right out and say so.

That's untrue. Jesus is God because his Father, God, addressed him as "O God"- Hebrews 1:8 , Psalms 45:6

markedward
Apr 28th 2013, 04:38 AM
I wanted to mention that there is nothing to suggest that one has to have faith in the Lamb to be in the book. It simply says the scroll belongs to the Lamb. The Master bought all men, even those who at some point in their lives deny him.
I'm drawing on the theology of the Revelation as a whole, when I explain how the book belongs to the Lamb, particularly his statement to the seven churches about not blotting people out of the book in the event that they successfully 'conquer', and to 'conquer' in John's theology is to overcome sin and the satan 'by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even till death'.

In other words: the book of life belongs to the Lamb, and the only way to be written in it (and conversely, not stricken from it), is to have faith in the Lamb and to follow him with one's whole life (i.e. to 'conquer').

Noeb
Apr 28th 2013, 05:38 AM
Psalm 69:28 gives the idea that everyone’s name is written in the book of lifeIt does not give that idea.



he is suggesting that either their names are permanently there and can’t be erased or their names are there while others’ names are not yet written there.so everyone is not there?



Rev. 3:5 gives the impression that overcomers (i.e. believers) won’t be blotted out from the book, so this would align with Paul’s suggestion that believers’ names are permanently there and can’t be erased.Why do you think it gives the impression it's permanent?



According to Mark’s analysis, Rev. 13:8 and 17:8 reveal that it is should be rendered “any whose name is not written upon the scroll of life before (since) the foundation of the world.” This seems to align with all the other “book of life” uses.but you said Psalms 69 "gives the idea that everyone’s name is written in the book of life"

LookingUp
Apr 28th 2013, 05:59 AM
In other words: the book of life belongs to the Lamb, and the only way to be written in it (and conversely, not stricken from it), is to have faith in the Lamb and to follow him with one's whole life (i.e. to 'conquer').So babies aren’t written in the book of life?

I agree with your analysis that names are written “from” the foundation of the world, but it’s as they are born into the world, not as they believe. Psalm 69:28 gives the impression that everyone’s name is written in the book and blotted out later. Are David's enemies, who are written in the book of life, previous followers of Yahweh?

All are recorded among the living, because every infant born into the world is among the “living.” It is not until they mature and willfully reject God that they are blotted from His book.

markedward
Apr 28th 2013, 01:57 PM
So babies aren’t written in the book of life?
I didn't say this...

John's theology in the Revelation isn't systematic; he doesn't try to cover every possible contingency (what about babies?), or even to present a wholly consistent idea (are names not written in to begin with, or are they blotted out when they sin?), he only presents ideas as they are relevant to the message of his book. (For example, in the book's message, all Christians should be willing to endure even till death in order to 'conquer', so he portrays all Christians as 'conquering' by suffering martyrdom.)

Noeb
Apr 28th 2013, 02:39 PM
Psalm 69:28 gives the impression that everyone’s name is written in the book and blotted out later. Are David's enemies, who are written in the book of life, previous followers of Yahweh?

All are recorded among the living, because every infant born into the world is among the “living.” It is not until they mature and willfully reject God that they are blotted from His book.This impression is not given. The living are the righteous. Study.

LookingUp
Apr 28th 2013, 04:47 PM
edit due to misperceptions

LookingUp
Apr 28th 2013, 04:54 PM
I didn't say this...

John's theology in the Revelation isn't systematic; he doesn't try to cover every possible contingency (what about babies?), or even to present a wholly consistent idea (are names not written in to begin with, or are they blotted out when they sin?), he only presents ideas as they are relevant to the message of his book. (For example, in the book's message, all Christians should be willing to endure even till death in order to 'conquer', so he portrays all Christians as 'conquering' by suffering martyrdom.)So, would you say that the "book of life" metaphor means different things in different places depending on the point the author wants to make at the time of the writing? Can the use of the metaphor be contradictory without abusing the credibility of Scripture?

Noeb
Apr 28th 2013, 05:06 PM
Do you have 35 years experience in Hebrew and biblical study?20 is that enough?

LookingUp
Apr 28th 2013, 05:22 PM
con't editing...

Noeb
Apr 28th 2013, 05:31 PM
If you are going to make assertions you are going to be asked to provide evidence for them. If you can't, don't make them. You know better.

LookingUp
Apr 28th 2013, 05:37 PM
con't editing...

Noeb
Apr 28th 2013, 06:02 PM
I accept your apology.

I accept your retraction.

BrianW
Apr 28th 2013, 06:08 PM
With 20 and 35 years of study I would think that both of you would be mature enough not to get involved in tit for tat games. Engage in discussion of the issue raised in the OP or move on to another thread please.

LookingUp
Apr 28th 2013, 06:17 PM
con't editing...

Noeb
Apr 28th 2013, 06:44 PM
My post was meant to suggest that a conclusion was made with a considerable amount of study.That's great. So back to my original question you have not answered. Where does
"Psalm 69:28 gives the idea that everyone’s name is written in the book of life."
????

Noeb
Apr 28th 2013, 06:47 PM
With 20 and 35 years of study I would think that both of you would be mature enough not to get involved in tit for tat games. Engage in discussion of the issue raised in the OP or move on to another thread please.I've been trying but getting only sarcasm and a challege of education and experience which is a common tactic when reasons cannot be given for assertions.

LookingUp
Apr 28th 2013, 08:30 PM
Jesus said children belong to the kingdom of Heaven. (Matt19:14) So their names must be written in the book, until they reach the age of accountability and disbelieve (and get removed)...Exactly. And this just so happens to align with Psalm 69:28.


Our understandings have to accommodate all of Scripture, and not have any conflicts. "Predestined Salvation" does not do this.Agreed.


No, God wants everyone to be saved, kindly leads everyone to repentance, and overtly puts (draws?) men when and where each CAN decide, judging them then on their decision...Nice way to interpret that verse.

divaD
Apr 28th 2013, 11:24 PM
Psalm 69:28 gives the idea that everyone’s name is written in the book of life and blotted out later. This would mean no one’s name could have never been written in the book of life.







I looked at that passage, not that I've never read it before, but that it didn't cross my mind at the time. I can see it meaning one is already in the book of life, likely when they're born. But the question is, when would they get permanently blotted out? I would think on judgment day since there is such a thing as a person changing their ways. But if a person is permanently blotted out in this life, tho they are doing evil things, how is that fair to them if they were to wake up, see the errs of their ways, then repent and change? So I'm thinking Matthew 7 here, where Jesus then tells them He never knew them. I feel that would be determined based on one's entire life, and on judgment day.

You gave me enough here to rethink this a little bit. I try and be reasonable about things as much as I can. No way do I think I'm always right about everything or something. Had to work this weekend, so a bit tired. But I'll keep Psalm 69:28 in mind, then see how the passages in Revelation read to me.

divaD
Apr 28th 2013, 11:27 PM
Let me ask you about a passage where God knew what would happen even if He didn't cause the event to happen. 1 Samuel 23 . . .



So David is running from Saul. He goes to a town called Keilah. Saul hears of it and pursues him. David asks God if the citizens will turn him over if he stays. God says he will. Based on your approach (God knows what will happen because he predicts and causes what he predicts to happen), how did God know the citizens will do that?

If I recall, I'm pretty certain I said it wasn't like I described in all cases. But I would have to go and look at what I said again to know for certain that had I said that.

divaD
Apr 28th 2013, 11:32 PM
That's what I said
"Bunch of speculation is what all this is."


I believe all scripture is inspired.


Thanks for the explanation but again I believe all scripture is inspired.



Are you insinuating by my explanations that perhaps you think I don't think Scriptures are inspired? Just because I think outside of the box like I do, that hardly means I don't think Scriptures are inspired. I would have rathered you said that you don't see it my way, rather than telling me that you believe Scriptures are inspired, giving the impression that maybe I don't.

divaD
Apr 28th 2013, 11:40 PM
That's untrue. Jesus is God because his Father, God, addressed him as "O God"- Hebrews 1:8 , Psalms 45:6


Tell that to a JW tho. I bet they don't think those Scriptures come out and plainly say Jesus is God. But I'm not arguing with you, since I agree with you. Yet some would debate you, and not just JWs either, that those Scriptures don't plainly say Jesus is God.

LookingUp
Apr 28th 2013, 11:43 PM
I looked at that passage, not that I've never read it before, but that it didn't cross my mind at the time. I can see it meaning one is already in the book of life, likely when they're born. I agree it’s likely when they’re born.


But the question is, when would they get permanently blotted out? I would think the norm would be on judgment day.


But if a person is permanently blotted out in this life, tho they are doing evil things, how is that fair to them if they were to wake up, see the errs of their ways, then repent and change? God wouldn’t blot out someone potentially redeemable.

ewq1938
Apr 28th 2013, 11:43 PM
Tell that to a JW tho. I bet they don't think those Scriptures come out and plainly say Jesus is God. But I'm not arguing with you, since I agree with you. Yet some would debate you, and not just JWs either, that those Scriptures don't plainly say Jesus is God.

There are any number of doubters of every type of biblical truth. It plainly states Jesus is God from the Father's own mouth. There are many more but this is succinct enough.

Nick
Apr 29th 2013, 12:22 AM
So John is not referring to predestination of the wicked, nor is he referring to Jesus having been killed (or ordained to be killed) before the world was even created. What is being described is a scroll that contains the name of every person who has lived since the beginning of creation, and that their names are stricken out (or rather, not written in at all) when they live a life of active rebellion against Jesus.

Thank God for good translators otherwise you would have made a very convincing argument to the contrary.

Rev 13:8 "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in bthe book of life of the Lamb who was slain."

"Written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." Before creation and by grace alone, God chose individuals to be redeemed by Christ’s death (Eph. 1:4–14; Eph. 1:11). God’s registry of life appears in Ex. 32:32–33; Dan. 12:1; Luke 10:20; Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:15. Those not enrolled in the Lamb’s book blindly worship the beast and will be cast with it into the lake of fire. The parallel expression in 17:8 shows that "before the foundation of the world" is best taken to modify “written” rather than “slain” as in some translations.

According to God’s eternal, electing purpose before creation, the death of Christ seals the redemption of the elect forever (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). Antichrist can never take away the salvation of the elect. The eternal registry of the elect will never be altered, nor will the saved in the Antichrist’s day worship him. The Lord Jesus who died to purchase the salvation of those whom God had chosen was fulfilling an eternal plan.

Gadgeteer
Apr 29th 2013, 01:28 AM
I looked at that passage, not that I've never read it before, but that it didn't cross my mind at the time. I can see it meaning one is already in the book of life, likely when they're born. But the question is, when would they get permanently blotted out? I would think on judgment day since there is such a thing as a person changing their ways. But if a person is permanently blotted out in this life, tho they are doing evil things, how is that fair to them if they were to wake up, see the errs of their ways, then repent and change? So I'm thinking Matthew 7 here, where Jesus then tells them He never knew them. I feel that would be determined based on one's entire life, and on judgment day. I understand it as Rom11 teaches; we (wild branches, Gentiles) should not be arrogant to the natural branches who were cut off, for we can be cut off too. God's kindness and severity fall on mankind; to those who fell, severity --- to us kindness, if we CONTINUE in His kindness else we also will be cut off. And those who were cut off will be restored if they don't continue in unbelief. PDC, no? (Pretty darned clear!) :-)


You gave me enough here to rethink this a little bit. I try and be reasonable about things as much as I can. No way do I think I'm always right about everything or something.lVery commendable and honorable outlook.
Had to work this weekend, so a bit tired.If you get tired twice in the same cay, you can only be RE-tired. :-P


But I'll keep Psalm 69:28 in mind, then see how the passages in Revelation read to me.

Matt7:21-23 was explained to me once as "never-knew", could encompass those whom He DID know, but by their apostasy it is as if they were "never known". In any case, I don't see how Gal4:9 can be dismissed --- although they knew God, that is were known BY God, they turned BACK to weak worthless things to become enslaved all over again. Then in chapter 5 they were described as "running well" and "obeying the truth", but became "severed/separated from Jesus and fallen from grace".

How can "fallen-from-grace" ever become "cannot fall from grace"?

Noeb
Apr 29th 2013, 01:47 AM
Are you insinuating by my explanations that perhaps you think I don't think Scriptures are inspired? Just because I think outside of the box like I do, that hardly means I don't think Scriptures are inspired. I would have rathered you said that you don't see it my way, rather than telling me that you believe Scriptures are inspired, giving the impression that maybe I don't.Not at all. Just differently or at a different level.

Noeb
Apr 29th 2013, 01:53 AM
Thank God for good translators otherwise you would have made a very convincing argument to the contrary.

Rev 13:8 "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in bthe book of life of the Lamb who was slain."

"Written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." Before creation and by grace alone, God chose individuals to be redeemed by Christ’s death (Eph. 1:4–14; Eph. 1:11). God’s registry of life appears in Ex. 32:32–33; Dan. 12:1; Luke 10:20; Rev. 3:5; 17:8; 20:15. Those not enrolled in the Lamb’s book blindly worship the beast and will be cast with it into the lake of fire. The parallel expression in 17:8 shows that "before the foundation of the world" is best taken to modify “written” rather than “slain” as in some translations.

According to God’s eternal, electing purpose before creation, the death of Christ seals the redemption of the elect forever (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). Antichrist can never take away the salvation of the elect. The eternal registry of the elect will never be altered, nor will the saved in the Antichrist’s day worship him. The Lord Jesus who died to purchase the salvation of those whom God had chosen was fulfilling an eternal plan.Why assume election and being written in the book took place during the same period (before)? Election was clearly "before" (greek- pro). Written in the book was clearly "from" (greek- apo). Words have meaning for the purpose of conveying understanding. If you ignore their meaning you will lack understanding.

Noeb
Apr 29th 2013, 02:04 AM
Jesus said children belong to the kingdom of Heaven. (Matt19:14) So their names must be written in the book, until they reach the age of accountability and disbelieve (and get removed)...Why must their names be written until they reach the age of accountability, disbelieve, and get removed? I understand the assumption and it's a possibility I guess, but scripture is not clear when we are written in the book. Could be that no one is written in until they reach accountability. We don't know.

Nick
Apr 29th 2013, 02:11 AM
Why assume election and being written in the book took place during the same period (before)? Election was clearly "before" (greek- pro). Written in the book was clearly "from" (greek- apo). Words have meaning for the purpose of conveying understanding. If you ignore their meaning you will lack understanding.

Please help me and the translators of the ESV understand exactly where we are lacking understanding.

Noeb
Apr 29th 2013, 05:30 AM
Please help me and the translators of the ESV understand exactly where we are lacking understanding.The ESV allowed their theology to influence the translation. While the two are tied they should have maintained the integrity of the text. While some or all involved in the translation may have a proper understanding of election, I know you do not, and that you reject understanding and knowledge in this area.

God, in his wisdom, knew and therefore decided, before the foundations of the earth, that salvation would be by and through faith in his Son. Who that would be would be written.

markedward
Apr 29th 2013, 06:32 AM
Thank God for good translators otherwise you would have made a very convincing argument to the contrary.
You say you're appealing to 'good translators', but you're really appealing to a translation that accommodates for what you already believe.

The ESV is rare when it translates the Greek word απο into English as 'before' in this verse. You didn't address why the ESV translated the word differently in the parallel text (17.8) as 'from', not 'before'. The majority of other English translations (i.e. other 'good translators') more accurately translate it as 'from', the literal meaning of the word. I go into detail on the meaning of the word απο, so simply citing one English translation that actually disagrees with the majority, is not simply selective reading, it's dishonest. Just for comparison, let's see how the ESV translates απο every other time it is used in the Revelation:



1.4: Grace and peace to you from him who was... and from the seven spirits
1.5: and from Jesus the Christ
2.17: I will give some of the hidden manna
3.12: which comes down from my God out of heaven
6.4: Its rider was given to take peace from the earth
6.10: how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?
6.16: hide us from the face of him... and from the wrath of the Lamb
7.2: Then I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun
7.17: God will wipe away every tear from their eyes
9.6: Death will flee from them.
12.6: where she has a place prepared by God
12.14: that she might fly from the serpent
13.8: before the foundation of the world
14.3: redeemed from the earth
14.4: redeemed from mankind
14.20: for 1,600 stadia [compare KJV: 'by the space of']
16.12: the kings from the east
16.17: a loud voice came out of the temple, from the throne
16.18: such as there has never been since man was on earth
17.8: from the foundation of the world
18.10: They will stand far off
18.14: has gone from you... lost to you
18.15: who gained wealth from her, will stand far off
18.17: stood far off
20.9: but fire came down from heaven
20.11: From his presence earth and sky fled away
21.2: coming down out of heaven from God
21.4: He will wipe away every tear from their eyes
21.10: coming down out of heaven from God
21.13: on the (east/north/south/west)
22.19: if anyone takes away from the words... God will take away his share [...] [second απο left untranslated; should read 'God will take away his share from']


Of all the times απο is used in the Revelation, the obvious majority are translated as 'from'. The ones not translated as 'from' all involve some kind of outward motion, X going out from Y, or X deriving from Y: receiving from the hidden manna, avenging the martyr's blood from the wicked, a place prepared from God, a voice coming from the temple, wealth lost from Babylon, merchants standing far away from Babylon, gates from each side of the new Jerusalem.

The ESV makes only two exceptions to this:

Revelation 13.8, which inexplicably translates απο as 'before' (going back, not forth as every other case above)...

And Revelation 16.18, which translates the word as 'since', as in, 'from that time onward', exactly as suggested in the OP.

If you really want to, we could go through all 600+ uses of the word απο in the New Testament and how the ESV chose to translate them, but what we are specifically discussing is how the author of Revelation uses the word, and every other case of απο in the Revelation, in the ESV, supports the conclusion that Revelation 13.8 should instead be translated as 'from the foundation of the world', the meaning being 'from that time forward' ('since the foundation of the world'), not 'from that time backward' ('before the foundation of the world').


Before creation and by grace alone, God chose individuals to be redeemed by Christ’s death (Eph. 1:4–14; Eph. 1:11).
Nothing in Ephesians 1.4-14 is about individuals being predestined to salvation. Paul is speaking of the predestination of the Church, the same as any Jew from the time would speak of the predestination of Israel.


the death of Christ seals the redemption of the elect forever (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28).
Neither of these passages in Acts says anything like the underlined portion. What they each specifically say is that Jesus' death was predetermined. They do not say, and cannot honestly be used to support, the predestination of all individuals.

John146
Apr 29th 2013, 09:34 PM
I agree with you for at least 2 reasons. One is that you agree with the OP. I too agree with the OP. The other is what you stated here..."And the book of life was not complete before the foundation of the world. It continues to have names added to it and blotted out of it (Rev 3:5) as time goes on". That's pretty much how I've been seeing and reasoning it for quite some time now myself.Since you agree with me, I'll have to reconsider my view on this.

I'm kidding, of course. :D

Aijalon
May 1st 2013, 12:27 AM
Would be nice to get an actual response on post #11:
................the entire point of mentioning the "foundation of the world" puts a beginning point in mind which confronts the reader with a very certain point of planning. Why is the foundation mentioned at all? What is the foundation? The foundation is the the design of the world. The foundation does not mean only "the beginning of history". It means "from the time God planned his creation". This is critically important to keep in view, and markedward has completely overlooked this.

Whatever it was that was planned, it was planned even prior to the completion of creation. If the point is to only convey that names were written in the book since-after creation, then there is no need to mention the foundation. The foundation of something is that wwhich is even before the structure. The foundation is a plan.

The world = creation -or- the result of the work of creation.

The Foundation = before creation -or- that which allowed the work of creation to begin.

The "foundation of the world" is not "creation"


The scroll you describe is not described by this verse. As I pointed out, "since the beginning of creation" is not what you suggest it is. You have made it out to be "since the completion of creation", which is the wrongheaded view. The proper view is, "since before the initiation of creation"

So the meaning of the verse is correct by either the NIV or NASB, one of the two is right. (markedward's version is the same as the JB Phillips translation)

I will suggest a more clear reading of it.

Revelation 13.8: [1] ων ου γεγραπται το ονομα εν τω βιβλιω της ζωης [2] του αρνιου του εσφαγμενου [3] απο καταβολης κοσμου

Here is a translation of the text:

Revelation 13.8: [1] any whose name has not been written in the scroll of life [2] belonging to the Lamb slaughtered [3] since the plan which preceded the creation of the world

(For "preceded" there may be a few other fitting words, like: enabled, caused, brought about.... But a very neat rendering for [3] could be thus: "since the plan of creation" )

The use of "from" might be "since" or it might be "before". Either is sufficient. THe meaning is that the slaughtering was intricately connected to the foundation of the world, they are together. The plainest sense is that the slaughter occured in eternity past, which is uncomfortable for markedward's one-sided theology.

markedward
May 1st 2013, 02:17 AM
[/B]................the entire point of mentioning the "foundation of the world" puts a beginning point in mind which confronts the reader with a very certain point of planning. Why is the foundation mentioned at all? What is the foundation? The foundation is the the design of the world. The foundation does not mean only "the beginning of history". It means "from the time God planned his creation". This is critically important to keep in view, and markedward has completely overlooked this.
It wasn't overlooked, it simply wasn't addressed. The same Greek phrase for 'foundation of the world' is used a few times in the NT, and while not every instance indicates a specific meaning, there are two that very clearly show us that the meaning of the phrase was understood by the writers as referring to the creation of the earth (i.e. Genesis One).

Luke 11.50 speaks of 'the blood shed from the foundation of the world', and explicitly begins with Abel. It is reading far too much into the phrase 'foundation of the world' to understand this to mean something like 'the blood shed from the plan which preceded the creation of the world'. Luke clearly has in mind something like 'since the world's beginning'. Hebrews 4.3 says that God's works were 'finished from the foundation of the world'. This is stated in the immediate context of sabbath rest. The writer specifically indicates that he is describing the seventh day of Genesis 2.2, when God completed his act of creating the world. In the two cases that explicitly identify the 'foundation of the world' with chronological references, they both point to the actual time period of the earth having just been created (the seventh day, and Abel).

The interpretation you're offering comes across as very eisegetical regardless, as 'the plan which preceded the creation' severely oversteps the meaning of the Greek word translated as 'foundation'. καταβολη literally describes the action of 'throwing down' something, with the common meaning of the NT period being construction, creation, conception (as in, becoming pregnant: Hebrews 11.11), placing something, or something's beginning point. The conjunction 'καταβολης κοσμου' refers to origin of the world, in that literal sense of the world having been created and formed. 'Since the creation of the world' would be a valid paraphrase of 'from the foundation of the world'... 'since the plan which preceded the creation of the world' would not be.

Noeb
May 1st 2013, 04:07 AM
[B]Would be nice to get an actual response on post #11:I didn't find it necessary to explain
"How can something be refered to as from a "time onward" if it did NOT occur?"
because it occurs from a time onward.

"Not written from the foundation"
makes perfect sense. Since the book started being written in, they were not written in it.
So of course they're not predestined