|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 1, 2009 20:57:35 GMT -5
J. L. Vaughn has appeared over at CARM and is being challenged by PT on this subject. Mr. Vaughn has a book out on his site but has no articles on the subject itself. Can anybody give me the gist of what this doctrine is about?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Apr 1, 2009 21:10:38 GMT -5
Good evening Robin, Amazing, I just finished today reading an article at Fulfilled Magazine on that very topic. Go to this link and download the Winter 2008 issue. The article is authored by Timothy Martin and Jeffery Vaughn. www.fulfilledmagazine.com/PastIssues.htmI'm going to have to read it again but the jist of the topic is how is the account of the "heavens and earth" in Genesis related to the "New heavens and earth". A rethinking of Genesis according to preterist principles. Like I said, I'm going to have to re-read it. For me it was difficult to comprehend. Steve PS I just checked and to make it easier to find it is the top PDF on the far right side of the page. They don't have the date listed on them. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 1, 2009 22:31:20 GMT -5
Thanks Stephen I will check it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 2, 2009 8:28:22 GMT -5
J. L. Vaughn has appeared over at CARM and is being challenged by PT on this subject. Mr. Vaughn has a book out on his site but has no articles on the subject itself. Can anybody give me the gist of what this doctrine is about? I don't know if I can give you a "gist," but I will try by giving some examples. I hope I don't mess up covenant creation in doing so... First of all, I have read the book and met both authors, although very briefly. (That is supposed to give me some credibility - smile) Dispensationalism (and most others isms) believes in a physical creation, the first one being the (old) heavens and earth. They also believe in a physical (new) heavens and earth for their end-time scenario. They are consistent in their view that both the beginning and ending are "physical." The preterist view, on the other hand, believes in a physical creation but the (new) heavens and earth are spiritual and covenantal in nature. To me, that view is inconsistent. May I ask that a study be done on just one thing: 1) creeping things Apparently, the Genesis usage is supposed to be bugs and stuff. But I have found its usage to be representative of more than that. The OT usage "seems" to refer them as people as well, unless one believes that covenant status can be made with bugs... Hosea 2:18 - And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. Peter's vision in Acts 10 correlates these creeping things with Gentiles...unless one believes that Cornelius was an insect... And a personal favorite of mine not related to bugs is Jeremiah 4:23. Jeremiah 4:23 - I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void ; and the heavens, and they had no light. Compared with Genesis 1:2... Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. As I read more and more, I see the covenant creation view more and more. It is definitely not the popular view among preterists, but it does seem to represent the Bible as God's total plan of redemption... There is a one-day covenant creation conference on Thursday, May 14th of this year in Fairborn, Ohio. In fact, the same meeting room is being used for the yearly TruthVoice Conference of May 15 & 16 this year. A good site for other aspects of covenant creation is: www.newcreationministries.tv/There are still many questions to be answered in this particular view and the attacks by many preterists resemble the tactics of the futurist's presuppositions. Traditions die hard. Hi Ted, I may be agreeing with you concernint the idea that Hosea and Jeremiah and Peter are all referring to those of us who have come into the kingdom of God but I am not so sure that this does away with the creation story. Am I following you correctly? |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 2, 2009 10:27:33 GMT -5
Hi Ted,
If we consider typology, why would such a view be inconsistent? Why cannot Genesis be literal and therefore provide the basis for symbolic use elsewhere? Jeremiah 4 seems to do just that as it likens the destruction of the land with the Lord beginning over again.
It would seem to me to be the only way not to do damage to the original text. If we spiritualize Genesis, then where are the actual types to be found which provide the symbology for the antitype?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 2, 2009 11:31:41 GMT -5
Hi Ted, If we consider typology, why would such a view be inconsistent? Why cannot Genesis be literal and therefore provide the basis for symbolic use elsewhere? Jeremiah 4 seems to do just that as it likens the destruction of the land with the Lord beginning over again. It would seem to me to be the only way not to do damage to the original text. If we spiritualize Genesis, then where are the actual types to be found which provide the symbology for the antitype? I believe that is a fair point. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 2, 2009 13:09:08 GMT -5
Hi Allyn,
Some of these theories get so complicated, it seems best to keep it simple. If such a basic point is skipped - where is the boundary to be set? Which doesn't mean we can't still see a picture, only that we can't obliterate the truth the type reveals either.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 3, 2009 9:43:17 GMT -5
Well I guess my question remains as what is it that such teaching adds to the mix for our understanding of redemption that we don't have otherwise?
As for Jacob's understanding of Joseph's dream, such an interpretation could have been relevatory at that time. (Unless you have never had such a dream?) Since it is the first mention for those symbols being interpreted that way. The same goes for John in his gospel. He needn't have seen that truth before he met Christ. Although it may have been hinted at in the OT, it would seem this was revealed to John.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Apr 3, 2009 15:27:37 GMT -5
I don't have a lot to comment on this, except to say that the Genesis creation being an account of the physical creation seems to go right along with the "first the natural, then the spiritual" order of things (1 Corinthians 15:46).
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Apr 4, 2009 1:07:34 GMT -5
I will PERSONALLY vouch for JL(Jeff). He's a personal friend. 8) He lives near by and we see each other regularly. He's probably one if not the smartest and well educated guys I know. Even if I didn't agree with it at first glance, I would give anything he has to say a second and third look.
Clearly God created the Heavens and Earth...But I think the observations made in Beyond Creation Science regarding Genesis 1-11 are spot on at least in some near eastern semitic sense.
I wish all preterist's were as exhaustive as he is. 8)
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 3, 2009 22:30:49 GMT -5
Well I have been reading Noble's and Allyn's recent arguments for prehistoric man being in existence millions of years before Adam and the flood and I have to say I am not convinced. Where are the scientists with their proof of how a worldwide flood may have affected the aging of the fossil records? My point was how does one determine the age of a diamond created under great pressure because surely the weight of the ocean for a year upon bones would have affected their transformation into the petrified state. Where are the airtight and watertight caves that housed the fossils found that could have escaped the effects of the flood? Something is amiss in this scenario - like consideration of ALL the facts!
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jul 4, 2009 2:31:56 GMT -5
Well I have been reading Noble's and Allyn's recent arguments for prehistoric man being in existence millions of years before Adam and the flood and I have to say I am not convinced. Where are the scientists with their proof of how a worldwide flood may have affected the aging of the fossil records? My point was how does one determine the age of a diamond created under great pressure because surely the weight of the ocean for a year upon bones would have affected their transformation into the petrified state. Where are the airtight and watertight caves that housed the fossils found that could have escaped the effects of the flood? Something is amiss in this scenario - like consideration of ALL the facts! Hey Robin...Since you are almost a neighbor and all you might consider coming to a study group that gets together every other thursday night at 7:30 down here in Lakewood. It's a mixed bag of nuts regarding different beliefs and most of the guys there are about 100 I.Q. points smarter than I. 8) A bunch of PhD's...Engineers and Scientists. The guys house that we go to is Dr. Don Stoner. He wrote a book in the mid 90's called "A New Look At An Old Earth." An incredible book and as far as I am concerned it lays out an iron clad case for an old earth/universe. If you would like a copy of his book I can get one for you. And as far as the flood goes...It was a judgment of God and I think we have lost a lot in our modern day translations. Matter of fact I think we really do need to walk very gingerly regarding an overly literal method of interpretation in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. But I really do personally believe that it was a not global but regional. I mean hey...Even the oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13 is spoken of in global terms...Yet it was just a single nation. Earth shattering imagery is common throughout the Bible when speaking about the judgment of God. But don't take my word for it. I would actually recommend coming down and talking to Don Stoner about it yourself. Concerning, "ALL the facts!" Flood geology in the region where Noah and his family was at the time only shows that there was a regional flood. If there were a global flood there would be evidence of it. That and if it were a global flood with no survivors then the Nephilim would have been wiped out...Which they weren't. Genesis 6:4 There were giants(nephilim) on the earth in those days(<---BEFORE FLOOD), and also afterward(<---AFTER FLOOD) If only 8 people "literally" survived then the giants(nephilim) wouldn't have been around afterward. See Numbers 13:32-33 I've never really understood how people miss this verse. Also Josephus records in the "Antiquities of The Jews," that after the flood Shem, Ham and Japheth were the first to descend from the mountains and that they had to persuade the others because they were afraid that it would happen again. That and a bunch of other ancient flood accounts of a regional flood. So until I can find a better answer I think it safe to say that the view with the least amount of problems is a regional flood. Mike |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jul 4, 2009 6:55:18 GMT -5
Well I have been reading Noble's and Allyn's recent arguments for prehistoric man being in existence millions of years before Adam and the flood and I have to say I am not convinced. Where are the scientists with their proof of how a worldwide flood may have affected the aging of the fossil records? My point was how does one determine the age of a diamond created under great pressure because surely the weight of the ocean for a year upon bones would have affected their transformation into the petrified state. Where are the airtight and watertight caves that housed the fossils found that could have escaped the effects of the flood? Something is amiss in this scenario - like consideration of ALL the facts! Robin, concerning the pressure on the bones as compared to the creation of a dimaond because of pressure. You know first that a chunk of coal must sustain tons and tons of pressure be fore a dimond is formed. Bones are not found as deep as diamonds and they bones we find from prehistoric times are not the bone material of the animal but rather the mineral that has settled in to the bone thus taking its shape and even its cellular look. Petrified trees are this way as well but are so well preserved that it looks like the wood of the tree but instead is the rock that seeped in over eons. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jul 4, 2009 8:31:22 GMT -5
OK, now after stating the above, and even though it seems I am in agreement with noble, my part in the conversation at CARM was not to try and establish a fact that man of some kind wandered the earth thousands of years before Adam but that death occurred before Adam sinned.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 4, 2009 9:08:41 GMT -5
Hi Mike,
The study group sounds interesting, I will have to think about it.
Gen 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
This is describing the conditions that led up to the flood as wicked men filled the earth and the sons of God did not keep separate. The term for giant is defined in that they were mighty men. And it is not speaking of after the flood but after God said that man's life span would be 120 years - and then He gives this as the reason why. Both the line of the godly and ungodly men in the earth became corrupted. So it is after the giants showed up and became mighty in the earth, the sons of God took their daughters to wife. Only Noah's family was kept from being part of this corrupted line.
As for a regional flood only - what are you going to do with the mammoths found in Iceland (Greenland?) with trees branches still in their mouth?
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 4, 2009 9:17:05 GMT -5
Hi Allyn, I didn't know that about how fossils are formed so my ignorance is no doubt showing. But I do know that water is a very corrosive element and this transfer of minerals could very likely have been formed by its ability to leach out minerals. Add to that the pressure of the water and you would have a similar process but apparently not the same as how a diamond is formed. IOW, it could make this transformation happen much quicker - like in a year as opposed to millions. Which is just my brain trying to work this morning... As for proving physical death had occurred prior to Adam - I'm still not buying it  |
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jul 4, 2009 9:39:01 GMT -5
Hi Mike, The study group sounds interesting, I will have to think about it. Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. This is describing the conditions that led up to the flood as wicked men filled the earth and the sons of God did not keep separate. The term for giant is defined in that they were mighty men. And it is not speaking of after the flood but after God said that man's life span would be 120 years - and then He gives this as the reason why. Both the line of the godly and ungodly men in the earth became corrupted. So it is after the giants showed up and became mighty in the earth, the sons of God took their daughters to wife. Only Noah's family was kept from being part of this corrupted line. As for a regional flood only - what are you going to do with the mammoths found in Iceland (Greenland?) with trees branches still in their mouth? Well who's to say that there haven't been floods in places like Iceland (Greenland?) Floods aren't anything out of the ordinary. Don't forget the rest of my post Robin. There are other accounts of the Noahic flood too INCLUDING Josephus that record the event as regional. This is nothing new especially to preterists. Global language used to describe a local judgment of God. I'm not going to argue the Genesis 6:4 passage because I've not really done enough study on how it should be understood in the original and within its context. However one thing that is very clear is that Genesis 6 say that the Nephilim existed before the flood and Numbers 13:32-33 says that the Nephilim existed after the flood. So even if one were to ignore all of the other data the fact of the matter still stands that the Bible records a specific group of people on both sides of the flood that were outside of the Noahic bloodline. Mike |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 4, 2009 10:12:24 GMT -5
Mike wrote:
Even a brief look at the genealogy from the flood to the Exodus shows about 1,000 years had passed. The sons of Anak dwelt in the city of his father Arba which city was Hebron. Cush beget Canaan and Hebron was a city built there from his descendants. So the 'return' of the giants came from Noah's own seed!
Whatever caused the giants to develop in the first place, very likely happened again. I have a friend with miniature horses which breed was created by selective breeding over a period of time - the reverse could be just as true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jul 4, 2009 10:12:27 GMT -5
The term "Nephilim" has sort of been up for grabs in meaning in our modern times. Some say its the fallen angels, some say its the over sized animals like the couple mentioned in Job, and others say it is the offspring of angels who bred with human women.
I think it refers to dinosaur type animals that may even still linger in the depths today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jul 4, 2009 10:49:01 GMT -5
Antiquities of the Jews 1.4.1
Now the sons of Noah were three, - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the earth,
"Persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood."
Josephus records that there were others that were up in the mountains that were afraid to come down to the lower grounds because of the flood.
God also commanded them to send "COLONIES" abroad for the thorough peopling of the earth.
I don't see any way that 3 groups of 2 could be "COLONIES."
Miguelito
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jul 4, 2009 11:03:18 GMT -5
Antiquities of the Jews 1.4.1 Now the sons of Noah were three, - Shem, Japhet, and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and so were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain in which they first dwelt was called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the earth, "Persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood."Josephus records that there were others that were up in the mountains that were afraid to come down to the lower grounds because of the flood. God also commanded them to send "COLONIES" abroad for the thorough peopling of the earth. I don't see any way that 3 groups of 2 could be "COLONIES."Miguelito I suppose this is a place I will part company with Josephus. If he had been there then that's one thing (like he was during the jewish wars) but since this is an account seemingly in contradiction with what Moses gave then I won't go by Josephus' account. God said there were 8 in all that were saved. That "in all" is all encompassing (I think). |
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jul 4, 2009 11:31:55 GMT -5
I suppose this is a place I will part company with Josephus. If he had been there then that's one thing (like he was during the jewish wars) but since this is an account seemingly in contradiction with what Moses gave then I won't go by Josephus' account. God said there were 8 in all that were saved. That "in all" is all encompassing (I think). But why Allyn? Let's really examine this. We can both agree that the Bible numerous times uses global language about judgment when a national/regional judgment is in scope. Yes only 8 were saved through this judgment upon the land. Something we also see throughout the Bible wherein only a remnant were saved from a judgment of God. I guess the point I am trying to make is that Truth is truth and it is not effected by mans interpretation of it. That there are many truths that God conveys to us through many sources. Even fallen man. Hitler was a sick and twisted example of fallen man. Yet his conclusion that smoking was bad is ultimately truth. And so we have many different sources that demonstrate that "YES" there was a flood at the time that we know that Noah lived. But it was only a regional flood. We have written evidence from numerous sources that support that the flood was regional. Now by no means am I suggesting that scientific discovery can ever reach 100% validity. But it can continue to test the findings over and over and over to something like a 99.7% success rate. And mind you the reason that they continue to test over and over again is so that they can rule out the possibility of error in the conclusions. The physical/geological evidence demonstrates a regional flood. The overwhelming written testimony from the time and region of Noah's time supports a regional flood. And once again...the Bible numerous times uses global language about judgment when a national/regional judgment is in scope. So why should I treat Genesis 6-9 differently? If you or Mo have a compelling reason other than, "Because that's what the Bible literally says," I'm all ears. I've been wrong before and that is why I am a preterist today. Mike |
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Jul 4, 2009 13:58:33 GMT -5
I suppose this is a place I will part company with Josephus. If he had been there then that's one thing (like he was during the jewish wars) but since this is an account seemingly in contradiction with what Moses gave then I won't go by Josephus' account. God said there were 8 in all that were saved. That "in all" is all encompassing (I think). Is eye witness testimony necessary to for one to be accurate in their accounting of details? Mike |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jul 4, 2009 14:02:12 GMT -5
I suppose this is a place I will part company with Josephus. If he had been there then that's one thing (like he was during the jewish wars) but since this is an account seemingly in contradiction with what Moses gave then I won't go by Josephus' account. God said there were 8 in all that were saved. That "in all" is all encompassing (I think). But why Allyn? Let's really examine this. We can both agree that the Bible numerous times uses global language about judgment when a national/regional judgment is in scope. Yes only 8 were saved through this judgment upon the land. Something we also see throughout the Bible wherein only a remnant were saved from a judgment of God. I guess the point I am trying to make is that Truth is truth and it is not effected by mans interpretation of it. That there are many truths that God conveys to us through many sources. Even fallen man. Hitler was a sick and twisted example of fallen man. Yet his conclusion that smoking was bad is ultimately truth. And so we have many different sources that demonstrate that "YES" there was a flood at the time that we know that Noah lived. But it was only a regional flood. We have written evidence from numerous sources that support that the flood was regional. Now by no means am I suggesting that scientific discovery can ever reach 100% validity. But it can continue to test the findings over and over and over to something like a 99.7% success rate. And mind you the reason that they continue to test over and over again is so that they can rule out the possibility of error in the conclusions. The physical/geological evidence demonstrates a regional flood. The overwhelming written testimony from the time and region of Noah's time supports a regional flood. And once again...the Bible numerous times uses global language about judgment when a national/regional judgment is in scope. So why should I treat Genesis 6-9 differently? If you or Mo have a compelling reason other than, "Because that's what the Bible literally says," I'm all ears. I've been wrong before and that is why I am a preterist today. Mike Mike, I believe it was a regional flood also. I am not arguing that point. I am saying God destroyed all men but eight. This is what He said He did and I have no reason to doubt that. Men had progressed (degressed actually) that God had only Noah to trust. The other seven were maybe not any better then the ones destroyed but they were needed for mankind to repopulate the world. If there were other creatures left alive after the flood then they were creatures who were not the ones created in the image of God. It has to be that way otherwise God must have made a mistake with His judgement on mankind. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jul 4, 2009 14:03:27 GMT -5
I suppose this is a place I will part company with Josephus. If he had been there then that's one thing (like he was during the jewish wars) but since this is an account seemingly in contradiction with what Moses gave then I won't go by Josephus' account. God said there were 8 in all that were saved. That "in all" is all encompassing (I think). Is eye witness testimony necessary to for one to be accurate in their accounting of details? Mike No but if it contradicts Scripture especially when Scripture is very clear then the eyewitness account is what is flawed. Besides, I already said that Josephus was not an eye witness of the flood. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 4, 2009 14:06:41 GMT -5
Mike,
The most compelling reason I can think of to stick with what the bible says is for exactly this reason - that your oursourced info is causing you to now change how the bible delivers its INSPIRED truth to us. Rather to remain in doubt of science's supposed evidence, is a more wise position to hold than to question scripture with 'Hath God really said?'.
I do see where you are coming from in the way scripture uses hyperbole later implying global events that are really only involving known regions. But that was after men spread AGAIN into the world. But how big a region would water raised to 15 cubits above Mt. Ararat have covered? Is Everest taller than that? And could men have made it up there in the few days it took to cover the surrounding area? Could they have survived for a whole year in such a barren place? It raises far more questions than it seems to solve. And speculation is not truth even if it comes from so-called scientists.
And if the region only covered the inhabited world (ie., men and beasts), why are you now going to exclude the areas on our side of the world from the flood? Did not ALL dinosaurs die out rather catastrophically in the same apparent period of time?
i think the scripture is more than adequate for what we need to know AND believe about the creation story we have been given. Else Jesus would not have confirmed it. He said Adam was the first man and that death came into the world thru his sin and spread to all mankind. If there were other men besides Adam, then sin had to pass some other way and the possibility that all men are not sinners by nature must be considered.
Do you see where this leads us? How can you take anything the bible says as factual? You can't, because you have added speculation which creates doubt rather than faith. And if what you believe is not of faith then it is of sin. And what you will lose from the error you embrace is the discernment to tell the difference.
YSIC,
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jul 14, 2010 4:38:37 GMT -5
Robin, excellent post.
After reading, now two threads about Covenant Creation, I have decided to put in my two cents.
Genesis 1.9 states, "Then God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens be gathered in one place, and let the dry land appear'; and it was so." The waters being in one place, indicates the dry land was in one place as well. Instead of 7 continents, there was one huge land mass. One super continent. If you google "continental drift," you can learn about this. This is why I believe the flood was worldwide, not just a local flood. More happened during the flood than just the covering of land by water. The land mass was separated forming the 7 continents we have now. If the flood was localized, how could that cause the landmass to separate.
Of course, the scientists that believe this claim it took millions of years. But, I believe it took the power of God to do in 40 days.
That would also prove that God created the physical universe as told in Genesis 1. But, this is one verse obviously ignore by the BCS folks. If indeed the waters were in one place and the land in one place, what did happen to separate the land, if the flood was localized?
Didy
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 14, 2010 9:49:10 GMT -5
Didy, that is also an excellent point that seems to be overlooked. The BCS crowd seems unable to accept simple statements from scripture.
Must we accept that creation evolved from an amoeba when God said Adam was created a fully formed man? It stands to reason that just because the earth appears to be old that that was how God created it so that it was fully inhabitable at that time. Faith is the evidence of things not seen - not science. We do like to ponder the 'how' but if scripture doesn't set our boundaries then speculation will only lead us into 'Hath God really said?', and I for one am not willing to go there.
It has only taken the Dispies 200 years to fill the world with their speculative mess. Hopefully it will not take that long to restore the gospel to its original glory!
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 14, 2010 9:58:30 GMT -5
I suppose this is a place I will part company with Josephus. If he had been there then that's one thing (like he was during the jewish wars) but since this is an account seemingly in contradiction with what Moses gave then I won't go by Josephus' account. God said there were 8 in all that were saved. That "in all" is all encompassing (I think). Is eye witness testimony necessary to for one to be accurate in their accounting of details? Mike Would you know the gospel of Christ is true otherwise? Myth spreads fast among men and Josephus did not hold fast to the scripture in retelling the tale of the flood he heard. Where is his testimony of Jesus to be found? It's not - because he didn't believe it - not because he hadn't heard it. He believed the myth and so that is what speaks about. That myth has a ring of truth to it is to be expected, since it only took a little prompting from the devil to get Eve to add her reason for why she thought God had said not to eat of the tree. And look at the error that led her into! |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jul 14, 2010 12:38:26 GMT -5
He believed the myth and so that is what speaks about. That myth has a ring of truth to it is to be expected... Kind of similar to all the legends of great floods that appear in so many cultures around the world. Or how man went from believing in a single God to many gods. There was truth at the beginning but being disconnected from the source of truth allowed distortion. |
|
