Re: For Arminians and Calvinists.....

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:07:52 -0400, gary <biblicist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Further, the abominable abuse that Calvinists and Reformed Theology have
> done
> to the word "foreknow," is beyond contempt. To understand this read the
> following
> if you've not already done so:

> http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/Vol%209-1%20ar3.pdf

This is an interesting paper.  His argumentation is fairly well developed,
 
but I find it unconvincing on several counts.

First:

I would take issue with the following:

> It is erroneous to say, as Baugh does, that we can legitimatelyinterpret
 
> proginwskw by "studying the verb without the prefix pro-('fore-')."[60] 

> It is not true that one should study a word withoutits prefix. For  
> comparison in English, one cannot interpret "uneasy"by studying the word
 
> "easy" and ignoring or dismissing the prefix, "un."

> [60] Baugh, "Foreknowledge," 192, who also states that the prefix only  
> indicates tem****al priority.

(p63, num 21)


While I certainly agree that prefixes change the meaning of a word, it is 

very rare in my experience (i.e., I cannot think of an example off the top
 
of my head) that a prefix would generalize the meaning.  It rather  
specifies it, and each of Edgar's examples go to the point.  "Uneasy" is  
not the same as "easy," and in fact means the opposite; but while the  
prefix negates the meaning, it does not generalize it at all.   
"Forestall," we agree, does not mean the same thing as "stall"; but it  
again does not generalize meaning.

Should GINWSKW in some context imply a knowledge of acquaintance, we  
should not expect the prefix PRO to somehow generalize that meaning to  
include knowledge of fact (especially knowledge of fact *instead of*  
acquaintance).  PROGINWSKW should have a different (i.e., more specific)  
meaning than GINWSKW, but it seems a bit disingenuous for him to say, "the
 
Greek word ginwskw is not proginwskw. Thus, it does not reveal the meaning
 
for proginwskw" (p64, num 22).

By his examples, we may say, "The English word 'uneasy' is not 'easy'.   
Thus it does not reveal the meaning for 'easy'."  It is perfectly clear to
 
anyone that without first understanding what "easy" means, the derivative 

"uneasy" is meaningless.  The same holds true for "stall" and "forestall,"
 
even though the common use of the verb "to stall" is intransitive (has no 

object) and the common use of "forestall" is transitive (has an object).


Second:

There are two words for "to know" in Greek, and the author treats only one
 
(and that a specialized case of its use).  There are cases in which the  
words might be interchanged, but certainly there are cases in which they  
may not be.  It is generally agreed (in my experience) that GINWSKW  
connotes experiential knowledge and OIDA factual knowledge (some of the  
B-Greek references below contest this understanding, drawing no  
distinction between the terms, but the position is not universal and does 

not, I think, reflect the majority of current translators).

This sort of thing happens in other languages; if Helmet has been  
unfortunate enough to have read this thread, he might be able to comment  
more knowledgably about the uses of kennen and wissen in German than I.   
The former is used as a knowledge of acquaintance (as in, "I know that  
person," or "I know that word") and the latter as knowledge of data ("I  
know the answer").

While it is undoubtedly true that some theologians and translators,  
including those specifically mentioned in the article, have lent overdue  
weight to the distinction of GINWSKW and OIDA, it is equally true that Mr 

Edgar here has obscured them.  He argues agains the use of antonyms as a  
means of understanding words (p 67, numbered 25), but omits synonyms  
entirely from consideration.


An accessible discussion of the words with references is at

    http://www.stempubli****ng.com/authors/trench/jat311.html

B-Greek has also discussed the words at some length (usually a bit more  
technical, but I think also more precise and with greater depth and  
attention):

    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1998-November/002880.html

    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2000-March/010407.html

    http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2005-June/034763.html

    http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00650.html

The last is rather lengthy but contains information about how often the  
words were used, in what form, and treats specifically occurrences of the 

words.  The first, I think, treats how the Greek conjunction hOTI might  
influence our understanding of the relation****p between the knower and the
 
known.

> An entire hoax has been perpetrated on the meaning of this word, and has
> penetrated
> even to the lexicons and dictionaries.

Do you have other sources that might suggest this?


Best,

Ethan


-- 
Ethan Metsger
uppertank.net/ethanm/


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))