When we seek the theology of predestination, we find only such a term in Paul's letters, that is, the term itself is directly Greek. We must therefore know that a translation is often linked to the idea of ??the translator to facilitate the understanding of who reads but this can be flawed if the person does not know terms that exist in Greek but do not exist in Portuguese, for example the term "saudade" , the term does not exist in the nordic languages, so if this does not understand the operation of the term, no English word will be understood as saudade, because they do not have a synonym for the term. So it is with Greek terms and Hebrew terms, when one tries to translate them into Portuguese.
Therefore we have such a term only in the New Testament, and never bound to the messages of Christ, that is, it is a post-Christ concept. Nor is such a Greek term found anywhere in the seventeenth century. Therefore the idea of ??the term is only linked to the foundations of the Pauline concept. The texts we have with the term are five 1,2,3,4,5 . And the fundamental term is "???????? prooriz?" 6 , which is the union of two radicals, "??? pro" 7 , and "????? horiz?" 8 , dissociating itself from any theological concept the direct term is (beyond the horizon) seen that "??? pro" 7 , involves the term after or forward and "????? horiz?" 8 , comes from the concept of horizon.
Why analyze a term directly? For if the theological foundation of its translation is contrary or annulling the direct term then the theological foundation is correct, or the writer in the case of Paul, should use a correct term. What is analyzed in theology that is something wrong, if it is idealized that the biblical writer has chosen the correct term, soon the error binds to the translator when evading of the foundation of the direct translation. Thus in Portuguese the term is " predestined " 1 , the origin of the Latin word is " praedestinatio " 9, and here we have the first problem, his ethology is not Greek and Latin. The term "pre" is Greek (pre-anteriority, prenatal superiority, predominance), or the term pre involves something anterior, and the term "??? pro" 7 , something later. Let us for example exchange the meaning "??? pro" 7 , and "????? horiz?" 8 , the term beyond the horizon would not be correct to say pre-horizon, but post-horizon.
If we read from Romans 1 , we have its base in Greek 10 , in the translation we have " For those who knew before, also predestinated " 1 , in the Portuguese version we have two terms " os " 1 , in the original Greek version we have none. Since direct translation is "because those who have known also predestined (saw beyond)", so "the" is an addition. In other words, the term involves knowing who it is, and what it will do. Two things of course, if I know someone one can not predestinate, in the concept of making it different from what I know. Well, if I know myself and make myself something else then I do not know. The act of knowing involves knowing what you will do, so "???????? prooriz?" 6, is the term of seeing what one knows himself will do. The term to know in the text is "?????????? - progin?sk?" 11 , uses if the same term "??? pro" 7 , that is to say that to predestinate is to make someone be what I desire, then to know would be to make that person be who I want . What is irrational to say that knowing someone is to make you be what I want. To know someone is to know what that person is, and not to make him what I desire, in the same way to predestinate according to the Greek term can not be the idea that someone does what I want him to do, but rather to know what such an anger to do, because it is observed beyond the horizon, or if he sees what is hidden, since it is beyond sight.
In Ephesians 2 , we have a Greek origin, 12 we directly have (predestinated to us who adopted by Jesus), in the Portuguese translation we have " predestinated us to be children of adoption " 2 , does not have the term " to be " 2 , which we have that the translations add pronominal foundations that are not in the original. The NIV version still says " In love predestinated us, " 13 that is, added the term love where it did not exist. These changes are the basis for disrupting the direct understanding of the term "???????? prooriz?" 6,. That it is nothing less than to see what someone is going to do before he does it. And do not make someone do something they want, because knowing is not to make someone be what I want, but to know who someone is.
The point is that if we use the term incorrectly the other terms would have to change or it would be necessary to use textual hypocrisy. What would be textual hypocrisy, would be to define what term equals were different. It would be like saying that the term know, would be doing, and would be knowing, according to the will of who wants. Now knowing is the foundation in knowing and not doing. It is possible to know without making someone or something to be what I want to know, or if I make someone be what I want then I do not know, because I have become, knowing is independent of acting. That is why knowing is not synonymous with doing, but it is synonymous with knowing, for he who knows is impossible not to know.
So to predetermine in the concept of making someone do what I desire is not a concept of the biblical term "???????? prooriz?" 6 , but rather to know what someone is going to do before such a person does.
Let's look at these factors for example in Galatians 14 , he " And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith , preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall be blessed all the nations " 14 , the question is the scripture predicts? And does the Scripture foresee what God would do? And did the scripture announce the good news to Abram, seeing the writing appear with Moses? Now we have in Acts 15 , " foreseeing this, David spake of the resurrection of Christ, " 15 , or did David foresee? Now how does the scripture predict what God would do? See that the misuse of a Greek term does away with every logical and rational concept of the Bible.
Now the term broker would be pre-recognized, or predicted. (now foreseen in the scripture that God), and (predicted, David spoke). That is, the scriptures do not foresee, and David does not foresee, another being that he foresees, is not texts or people that has the ability to foresee, but was predicted before being written and before David speak. Again we have that the forecast is not to change but to report. And again we have the radical "??? pro" 7 , in verses 14 , 15 , showing that it is not related in modifying the future but in observing it. Now the Scripture does not foresee God.
See that the concept of predetermination is nothing more than the system of observing the future in what concerns the action of each person or object. When it is said that (Eve predetermined) it is that we knew what Eve was going to do, now the construction (Eve was predetermined), the term was is something that is included, and thus the term was altering the meaning of "predetermining" that should be the biblical "???????? prooriz?" 6 .
If we now look at 1Corinthians 5 , " we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which was hidden, which God foreordained before the ages for our glory; " 5 , here the term "???????? prooriz?" 6 , transformed into " foreordained to our glory " 5 , what was for the glory was the revelation of the anticipated mystery, or the creation of God? The previous verse cites 17 " In fact, among the perfect speak wisdom, yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who are coming to nothing; " 17, the text is clear that the glory is in speaking what God foresaw, not what he foreordained, that which preordains does not affect the glory of the speaker, for the foreordained unsaid is not glory to anyone who speaks; can speak what has not been foretold. Now only predicted is the concept of the term in Corinthians 5 , see that if we change the term we end with the logic of verse. The verse is truncated because of the change of a term.
Now concluding, and already described the term they use as "predestined", is nothing more than the concept of seeing the future, as regards actions and events. Any change in this meaning, ends up truncating the verses and irrationalizing the meaning of the texts.
Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!