53 replies to this topic

[luke]

In some correspondence I was going to use Rev. 13:8 as a verse to talk about God knowing from the very beginning that He would send Jesus. In the KJV it says:

Rev. 13:8 KJV said:

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.

That's the one I was after, and it works for the purpose I needed it for (the emphasis is on the fact that the Lamb was slain 'from the foundation of the world').

However, I checked it out in the ESV and it said:

Rev. 13:8 ESV said:

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

That's a bit different from the KJV (the emphasis is now on the fact that the names weren't written 'before the foundation of the world').

Is the difference because the two different versions are from two different NT manuscripts? Or is the difference because the passage can validly be translated in the two different ways?
Which is the better translation, the ESV or the KJV?

Edited by luke, 11 November 2003 - 06:05 PM.

[itinerant]

It seems both are permissible translations.

NET:

13:8 and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.

Footnote
The prepositional phrase "since the foundation of the world" is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, "the Lamb who was killed" (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase "since the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs with no ambiguity.

NIV:

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

Footnote
13:8 Or written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain

[luke]

Thanks itinerant.
This bit seems to be the clincher, though, in suggest that it's supposed to be how the ESV translates it:

NET footnote on Rev. 13:8 said:

it is more likely that the phrase "since the foundation of the world" modifies the verb "written" (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" occurs with no ambiguity.

[Evangelion]

To my mind, the translators' preference will depend to a certain extent on their soteriology.

Those who favour a determinist position (such as the Calvinists and their evangelical children) will render it thus:

New American Standard Bible.
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 ofthe Lamb who has been slain.

Those who recognise the parallel to Eden will render it thus:

International Standard Version.
All those living on earth will worship it, everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that was slaughtered from the foundation of the world.

I favour the second gloss.

[itinerant]

In the quote above I've always taken it as a foreknowledge point, either on the writing in the book or on the lamb that was to be slain; so either rendering basically made no difference; but further to this:

From the manifestation thread:

Kremlin, on Nov 13 2003 04:41 AM, said:

Itinerant, I would contend that "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" is a direct correlation with the lamb slain in eden just before Adam and Eve were expelled.

How do we know that the animal slain to provide coats of skins in Genesis 3 was a lamb?

I had always assumed that "foundation of world" meant "from the very begining of creation". Is this assumption incorrect and if so why?

[luke]

Ev said:

To my mind, the translators' preference will depend to a certain extent on their soteriology.

What about Rev. 17:8, though, Ev?

[Adanac]

itinerant, on Nov 14 2003, 10:38 AM, said:

In the quote above I've always taken it as a foreknowledge point, either on the writing in the book or on the lamb that was to be slain; so either rendering basically made no difference; but further to this:

From the manifestation thread:

Kremlin, on Nov 13 2003 04:41 AM, said:

Itinerant, I would contend that "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" is a direct correlation with the lamb slain in eden just before Adam and Eve were expelled.

How do we know that the animal slain to provide coats of skins in Genesis 3 was a lamb?

I had always assumed that "foundation of world" meant "from the very begining of creation". Is this assumption incorrect and if so why?

I suggest that "foundation of the world" and other predestination language is telling us that what happens in the future has been written about in the Old Testament. Acts 4 is a good example of this where Psalm 2 is used as a proof passage for the adversaries of Jesus being predestined to put him to death. Therefore the reference to the lamb in Rev 13 must correlate with the slaying of a lamb in the OT. Whether that is Gen 3 or not is open to question and should be determined by the context of Rev 13:8.

[Fortigurn]

The phrase used consistently in the New Testament (every time, in fact) for the 'foundation of the world' (meaning the creation of the earth), is the 'themelios of the ktesis'. This literally means 'foundation of the creation'.

The word 'themelios' means the literal, physical foundation of a literal, physical building. The word 'ktesis' means the literal creation.

The phrase to which you have referred, translated 'foundation of the world', is the 'katabole of the kosmou'. This literally means 'the casting down of the age' - the fall, no less.

The word 'katabole' literally means 'to throw down'. It is always used in this sense. It simply does not mean 'foundation', except metaphorically - and the creation was not a metaphor. Where the foundation of the creation is spoken of, the NT invariably uses the word 'themelios', which is as literal as you could wish to get.

In just one place the NT uses the word 'katabole' in a metaphorical sense, and that is to use one of its secondary meanings, 'to sow seed'. The reference is in Hebrews, speaking of Sarah and Abraham.

The word 'kosmou', is of course the genetive singluar form of the word 'kosmos', and we know that the word 'kosmos' is not used to speak of the physical creation. Consistently, the word 'ktesis' is used when speaking of the literal, physical creation, which agrees perfectly with the word 'themelios', which also has a fundamental physical meaning.

Quote

Matthew 13:
35That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 25:
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

John 17:
24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Hebrews 4:
3For we which have believed do enter into rest, as He said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into My rest: although [or, 'and yet']the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Undoubtedly the work of creation was finished before the fall. However, despite this, the purpose of God (them entering into His 'rest'), could not be fulfilled subsequent to the fall, despite the work of creation itself being ready from the fall.

The contrast is between who was ready from the fall.

1) God was ready.
2) The creation (excluding Adam and Eve) was ready.
3) Adam and Eve were not ready.

[Fortigurn]

Let's have a look at four key 'foundation of the world' passages:

Quote

Revelation 17:
8  The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Were our names only written in this book after the fall?

This book was only 'written', as it were, subsequent to the fall. From the fall, individuals have either been in it, or not. Prior to the fall, there was no need for such a record - there were only 2 individuals, and neither had sinned.

Quote

Luke 11:
50That the blood of all the prophets, which was [/b]shed from the foundation of the world[/b], may be required of this generation;

Was anyone's blood shed between Genesis 1:1 and the fall? No.
This helps to demonstrate that the phrase 'katabole kosmou' refers to the fall.

Further evidence is in the very next verse:

51From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Was Abel around in Genesis 1:1. No, he did not come into being until after the fall.

Quote

Hebrews 9:
26For then must he [Christ] often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

This makes sense when we understand that the 'katabole kosmou' here refers to the fall. It makes no sense if the 'katabole kosmou' refers to Genesis 1:1. Christ did not have to suffer before Adam and Eve sinned.

Quote

Revelation 13:
8And 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.

See above note on Revelation 17.

[Tarkus]

Fortigurn, on Nov 15 2003, 09:50 AM, said:

The word 'katabole' literally means 'to throw down'. It is always used in this sense.  It simply does not mean 'foundation', except metaphorically - and the creation was not a metaphor.

With this compare

BDAG said:

1. The act of laying someth. down, with implication of providing a base for someth., foundation. Readily connected with the idea of founding is the sense beginning (Jos. Bell. 2, 260 apostasews katabolh) t. katabolhn t. stasews poiein be responsible for beginning the dissension (cp. Polb. 13, 6, 2 katabolhn epoieto turannidos) 1 Cl 57:1. Esp. katabolh kosmou (Plut., Mor. 956a ama th prwth katabolh t. anqrwpwn): apo katabolhs kosmou from the foundation of the world (Theoph., Ant. 3, 26 [p 258, 27]; difft., Polyb. 1, 36, 8; 24, 8, 9; Diod. S. 12, 32, 2 - all three ek katabolhs) Mt 13:35; 25:34; Lk 11:50; Hb 4:3; 9:26; Rv 13:8; 17:8; B 5:5. pro katabolhs kosmou (AssMos fgm. a) J 17:24; Eph 1:4; 1 Pt 1:20. - OHofius, ZNW 62 '71, 123-38. Also abs. (without kosmou, s. kosmos 3; cp EpArist 129) Mt 13:35 v.l. This may be the meaning of Hb 11:11, where it is said of Sarah dunamin eis katabolhn spermatos elaben she received the ability t establish a posterity s. NRSV mg). But
2. k., a t.t. for the sowing of seed, used of begetting (tou spermatos [eis ghn h mhtran M. Ant. 4, 36]: Plut., Mor. 320b spora k. katabolh of the procreation of Romulus by Ares and Silvia; 905e; Ps.-Lucian, Amoe. 10; Galen, Aphorism. 4, 1, XVII/2, 653 K.; cp Philo Op M. 132; Epict. 1, 13, 3; Herm. Wr. 9, 6; Ath., R. 17 p 69, 6 spermatwn katabolhn; s. Field, Notes 232). If this mng. is correct for Hb 11:11, there is prob. some error in the text, since this expression could not be used of Sarah, but only of Abraham (e.g. arth Sarra='together w. Sarah' is read by W-H margin; Riggenbach; Michel; B-D-F 194,1.
etcetera

T

Edited by tarkus, 15 November 2003 - 04:19 AM.

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 15 2003, 10:42 AM, said:

With this compare

With this compare LSJ 9:

Quote

katabol-ê , hê, throwing down: hence, sowing, Corp.Herm.9.6; esp. of begetting, k. spermatos, spermatôn, Philol.13, Luc.Am.19, cf. Ep.Hebr.11.11, Arr.Epict.1.13.3; hê Rhômulou spora kai k. Plu.2.320b.

b. congenital defect, apo xungenikês aitias kai k. Plu.Tim.37.
c. Astrol., nativity, hê ex archês k. Vett.Val.220.29, al.

2. paying down, esp. by instalments, kataballein tas k. D.59.27; to argurion ephere katabolên têi polei paid money as a deposit (by way of caution), Docum.ib.37.22, cf.IG12(7).515.26 (Amorgos, ii B. C.), UPZ112v12 (pl., ii B. C.), etc.; echein tês gês . . katabolênliability for rent, PEleph. 23.17 (iii B. C.): pl., instalments, PLips.12.17 (iii A. D.), etc.

II. laying of a foundation: hence, building, structure, LXX2 Ma.2.29; tês architektonias Bito 49.2 ; ergou J.AJ12.2.9 : but usu. metaph.,

1. foundation, beginning, hierôn agônôn Pi.N.2.4 ; tês periodou Arist.Mete.352b15 ; k. epoieito kai themelion hupeballeto turannidos Plb.13.6.2 ; k. kosmou Ev.Matt.13.35 ,Ep.Eph.1.4; k.kosmikê Cat.Cod.Astr.8(3).138 (Thessal.); hê prôtê k. tês philosophou theôrias Procl. in Alc.Praef.p.8C.; ek katabolês from the foundations: hence, anew, skaphê ek k. enaupêgounto, of fresh construction, Plb.1.36.8; ek k. plattôn, of pure invention, Id.15.25.35: hence, of set purpose, deliberately, Id.1.47.7, 24.8.9.

2. = thusia, teletê, Hsch., cf. katêbolê.

III. periodical attack of illness, fit, tês astheneias Pl.Grg.519a , cf. katêbolê; puretou D.9.29 , Ph.1.399, 2.563, cf. Aristid.Or.50(26).59, Id.2.166J.; trance, Poll.1.16; cf. Lat. catabolicus.

IV. detraction, abuse, Phld.Rh.2.56S.: pl., Ph.2.571 codd.

V. perh. outer wrapper (cf. katablêma 11.4 ) of a bandage, Hp.Off.9.

...and compare to the passages of Scripture I have quoted.

The point is that the reason why it is applied to a foundation is because what you do with a foundation is you throw things down, and then build on top of them. The underlying meaning (throwing down), is the meaning here appealed to.

Edited by Fortigurn, 15 November 2003 - 12:17 AM.

[Tarkus]

Fortigurn, on Nov 15 2003, 12:16 PM, said:

With this compare LSJ 9:
<snip>...and compare to the passages of Scripture I have quoted.

Even Liddell & Scott do not support your contention that

Quote

The word 'katabole' literally means 'to throw down'. It is always [my emphasis - T] used in this sense

L&S also give "the beginning" as the meaning of katabolh kosmou:

Quote

1. foundation, beginning, hierôn agônôn Pi.N.2.4 ; tês periodou Arist.Mete.352b15 ; k. epoieito kai themelion hupeballeto turannidos Plb.13.6.2 ; k. kosmou Ev.Matt.13.35 ,Ep.Eph.1.4;

You also said

Quote

In just one place the NT uses the word 'katabole' in a metaphorical sense, and that is to use one of its secondary meanings, 'to sow seed'. The reference is in Hebrews, speaking of Sarah and Abraham

This is the one biblical reference which LSJ says is not metaphorical!

Thirdly

Quote

The point is that the reason why it is applied to a foundation is because what you do with a foundation is you throw things down, and then build on top of them. The underlying meaning (throwing down), is the meaning here appealed to.

By using this in the sense of the Fall, you are adopting a meaning more akin to "overthrow". This is not justified at all. Consider

Heb 6:1 said:

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying {kataballo} again the foundation {themelios} of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God

Quote

The phrase used consistently in the New Testament (every time, in fact) for the 'foundation of the world' (meaning the creation of the earth), is the 'themelios of the ktesis'. This literally means 'foundation of the creation'.

Sme mistake surely. Themelios and Ktisis are not used together in the Bible. Anywhere. Nor are themelios and kosmos.

Quote

The phrase to which you have referred, translated 'foundation of the world', is the 'katabole of the kosmou'. This literally means 'the casting down of the age' - the fall, no less.

Now I think you are confusing kosmos and aion.

Katabolh kosmou appears to be a portmanteau phrase referring to the beginning of the world. The lexicons agree with this.

T

Edited by tarkus, 15 November 2003 - 04:52 AM.

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 15 2003, 03:43 PM, said:

Even Liddell & Scott do not support your contention that

Quote

The word 'katabole' literally means 'to throw down'. It is always [my emphasis - T] used in this sense

I didn't mean 'always' in the sense that it never has any other meaning anywhere (I gave you plenty of examples of the other meanings), I meant in the NT, and I'm prepared to disagree with them on the two passages they quote.

Are you going to address the passages of Scripture I posted?

Quote

You also said

Quote

In just one place the NT uses the word 'katabole' in a metaphorical sense, and that is to use one of its secondary meanings, 'to sow seed'. The reference is in Hebrews, speaking of Sarah and Abraham

This is the one biblical reference which LSJ says is not metaphorical!

I'm not sure you understood what I meant by 'metaphorical'. What is described there in Hebrews is not 'sowing seed' in the sense of broadcasting grain. It is a metaphor for a biological function.

Quote

By using this in the sense of the Fall, you are adopting a meaning more akin to "overthrow". This is not justified at all.

Why not?

Quote

Consider

Heb 6:1 said:

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying {kataballo} again the foundation {themelios} of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God

What of it? Here Paul is using a completely different word for 'foundation' - he is using themelios, and using the metaphor of a building.

Quote

Sme mistake surely. Themelios and Ktisis are not used together in the Bible. Anywhere. Nor are themelios and kosmos.

You're right, I don't know what I was doing there. I've pulled some of this from some of my notes, and they're a bit scrappy. I think I mixed two sentences together there.

Quote

Katabolh kosmou appears to be a portmanteau phrase referring to the beginning of the world. The lexicons agree with this.

Which beginning? Again, at some point you'll have to address the Scriptural passages which use this phrase.

I think what's happening here is that you want a semantic debate on katabolh kosmou. I want a Scriptural discussion on the topic of this thread.

[Tarkus]

Fortigurn, on Nov 15 2003, 05:24 PM, said:

I think what's happening here is that you want a semantic debate on katabolh kosmou. I want a Scriptural discussion on the topic of this thread.

Well OK, but you posted your gloss on the phrase as part of your contribution to this thread, and I think it should be pointed out that it doesn't have any lexical support.

BTW, both bre JT and RR at various times quoted this phrase as referring to
a. creation
b. the establishment of the constitution of Sin
c. the giving of the Law of Moses

T

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 15 2003, 05:13 PM, said:

Well OK, but you posted your gloss on the phrase as part of your contribution to this thread, and I think it should be pointed out that it doesn't have any lexical support.

You think?

Quote

BTW, both bre JT and RR at various times quoted this phrase as referring to
a. creation
b. the establishment of the constitution of Sin
c. the giving of the Law of Moses

I don't think it can universally apply to all three. I think it refers to one of them. Which do you think is most likely?

[Tarkus]

Fortigurn, on Nov 15 2003, 06:24 PM, said:

I don't think it can universally apply to all three. I think it refers to one of them. Which do you think is most likely?

A.

Incidentally, in favour of B at least RR is using katabolh in a reasonable way, as sin becoming "established" in the world. He doesn't take the very dubious katabolh = "cast down" = "Fall" path.

T

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 15 2003, 06:37 PM, said:

Fortigurn, on Nov 15 2003, 06:24 PM, said:

I don't think it can universally apply to all three.  I think it refers to one of them.  Which do you think is most likely?

A.

So Abel was slain some time during the first 7 days of creation?

[Evangelion]

I guess he must of been!

[Evangelion]

luke, on Nov 15 2003, 02:11 AM, said:

Ev said:

To my mind, the translators' preference will depend to a certain extent on their soteriology.

What about Rev. 17:8, though, Ev?

The emphasis in that particular verse is on the fact that their names were written in the book of life (from the foundation of the world.) There is no alternative modifier in this case (as with the other passage.)

Merember, context is :king:

[Tarkus]

Fortigurn, on Nov 15 2003, 07:39 PM, said:

So Abel was slain some time during the first 7 days of creation?

Moderator edit: please be more respectful in your comments even if you don't agree. Thanks!

If "from the foundation of the world" means starting precisely at the time of the Fall then Abel's blood was slain before he was born. You don't believe this so your argument is worthless.

Proposition: a man will be judged for every sin he has commited since birth. According to your reasoning, either he cursed the midwife as he emerged or he wasn't truly alive until he sinned.

T

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 16 2003, 07:40 AM, said:

If "from the foundation of the world" means starting precisely at the time of the Fall then Abel's blood was slain before he was born. You don't believe this so your argument is worthless.

No, it means 'since'.

Quote

Proposition: a man will be judged for every sin he has commited since birth. According to your reasoning, either he cursed the midwife as he emerged or he wasn't truly alive until he sinned.

How do you get that? The terminus ad quo has to be from his first sin, not from his birth.

[Tarkus]

Fortigurn, on Nov 16 2003, 09:22 AM, said:

tarkus, on Nov 16 2003, 07:40 AM, said:

If "from the foundation of the world" means starting precisely at the time of the Fall then Abel's blood was slain before he was born. You don't believe this so your argument is worthless.

No, it means 'since'.

Quote

Proposition: a man will be judged for every sin he has commited since birth. According to your reasoning, either he cursed the midwife as he emerged or he wasn't truly alive until he sinned.

How do you get that? The terminus ad quo has to be from his first sin, not from his birth.

Jolly good, Fort. You can have no quibble with the blood of the prophets slain since the foundation of the world then: since you are happy with waiting at least a dozen years what's an extra week?

T

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 16 2003, 02:20 PM, said:

Jolly good, Fort. You can have no quibble with the blood of the prophets slain since the foundation of the world then: since you are happy with waiting at least a dozen years what's an extra week?

Did you read the passage? It dates it from Abel.

[Tarkus]

Fortigurn, on Nov 16 2003, 03:22 PM, said:

tarkus, on Nov 16 2003, 02:20 PM, said:

Jolly good, Fort. You can have no quibble with the blood of the prophets slain since the foundation of the world then: since you are happy with waiting at least a dozen years what's an extra week?

Did you read the passage? It dates it from Abel.

You date it from Gen 3. Why do you do that?

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 16 2003, 02:39 PM, said:

You date it from Gen 3. Why do you do that?

DId you read the other passages? I gave you three.

[Tarkus]

Fortigurn, on Nov 16 2003, 05:00 PM, said:

tarkus, on Nov 16 2003, 02:39 PM, said:

You date it from Gen 3. Why do you do that?

DId you read the other passages? I gave you three.

Anything that has happened since Gen 3 has happened since the beginning of the world. Your "since" argument is valueless.

And I haven't yet seen your "before" argument.

Ephesians 1:4 said:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Now if I understand you correctly names cannot be "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" if the k.k. is anything other than the Fall, because there was no necessity for it. So who or what did he choose before the Fall?

1 Peter 1:20 said:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Foreordained before the Fall. Did Christ's foreordained purpose change after the Fall? No - it couldn't have been foreordained if it had to change. This pulls the carpet from under a few of your other quotes too.

A lot of your problems stem fromthis post, a lot of which is confused, and some of which isn't wrong interpretation so much as plainly wrong facts.

Why don't you repost it with all the errors sorted out?

Regards
T

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 16 2003, 07:40 AM, said:

Proposition: a man will be judged for every sin he has commited since birth. According to your reasoning, either he cursed the midwife as he emerged or he wasn't truly alive until he sinned.

According to this proposition, he must have actually sinned from his birth. Can you see that?

[Rapunzel]

I can't see that....
can I ask a question? I don't really know how to put it.....but is a *sin* a sin until you know better or what? I mean babies don't sin cos they really have no idea about anything ummm Fort does that make sense?

[Lawpark]

okay first, sin is used in two princible ways.

it is synomous with human nature, and it is also transgression.

A baby is not guilty of transgression, but that doesnt mean it deserves to be in the kingdom. (not sure if you were headed in that direction?)

A baby is born with human nature which is worthy of death...

okay so your question, i think people transgess the law, even if they don't know they are. About a baby though, they can transgress just as the rest of us, they just don't know any better, which is why we correct them

[Fortigurn]

tarkus, on Nov 17 2003, 11:43 AM, said:

Anything that has happened since Gen 3 has happened since the beginning of the world. Your "since" argument is valueless.

But you read the word 'since' or 'from' as 'any time after', where as I read it as 'from this point onwards'.

Quote

And I haven't yet seen your "before" argument.

Ephesians 1:4 said:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Now if I understand you correctly names cannot be "written in the book of life since the foundation of the world" if the k.k. is anything other than the Fall, because there was no necessity for it. So who or what did he choose before the Fall?

I've dealt with this before in a foreknowledge thread - God foreknew whom He would glorify. But He did not predestinate them. Do you think He predestinated them?

Quote

1 Peter 1:20 said:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Foreordained before the Fall. Did Christ's foreordained purpose change after the Fall? No - it couldn't have been foreordained if it had to change. This pulls the carpet from under a few of your other quotes too.

I don't think so. Why do you think so? Do you believe it was God's intention for man to be obedient or disobedient?

Quote

A lot of your problems stem fromthis post, a lot of which is confused, and some of which isn't wrong interpretation so much as plainly wrong facts.

Why don't you repost it with all the errors sorted out?

Sure. Suppose we take 'the foundation of the world' here as 'Genesis 1:1':

Quote

Matthew 25:
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

John 17:
24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

The Kingdom, filled with people holy and without blame, was God's purpose before the foundation of the world.

While we're in Ephesians 1:

Quote

Ephesians 1:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world...

He chose us in Himself before the foundation of the world. Why?

Quote

...that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love...

To be holy and without blame (His character), before Him in love.

Quote

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of his will...

Having identified us as those He intended to adopt in Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...

Quote

6  To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved.

...to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted.