|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 3, 2011 16:48:30 GMT -5
To all, I understand fully that most who respond have taken very little time to inform themselves of the CC view from the perspective of the CC view. There is much to be learned and few will ever even attempt it. That is fine. That's so typical of Christianity today. Preterism is wrong simply on the basis that futurists know that it is wrong, right? Nothing much has changed there. Futher to the use of "Adam": deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/adam-and-english-translationsBut then you were already aware of this, right Roo? INFORM YOURSELVESIf the prophet Hosea isn't to be believed... Here is a link by a non-preterist on the covenant of works: www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/covofworks.htmlIt is barely a page and a half... And another blurb for those inclined: An Overview of O Palmer Robertson’s Views of Covenant Theology Taken from His Book, The Christ of the Covenants
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
"Covenants are not continually mentioned by the word “covenant” in Scripture. For instance, there is no mention of the word “covenant” before Genesis 6:18, but there is ample Scriptural and theological evidence for a covenant based on the analogy of faith during those chapters in various circumstances, both with Adam and with the New Covenant echoed in Genesis 3:15. Covenantal relationships are clearly present though covenantal terms may be absent. For instance, creation is covenantal, as Jeremiah 33:20-26 asserts, but in the creation narrative there is no mention of “covenant.” Hosea 6:7 also demonstrates that Adam was in covenant with God though the passages concerning his creation and placement in the Garden of Eden does not mention “covenant” as a term. Thus, covenantal concepts do not have to utilize covenantal terms in order to convey those covenantal realities."So, that's three small things...I hope you will actually attend to them. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 3, 2011 17:59:46 GMT -5
Mellontes wrote:
Please stop with the rhetoric Ted. It is a question of which translation to believe.
In the NEB Hosea 6:7 says, "At Admah they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me."
All the translations say "THERE" in the second part of the verse. The word "there" makes no sense if the word "adam" is a who instead of a where.
Nonsense translation: Like Adam they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me."
Sensible translation: "At Admah they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me."
The NEB translation "At Admah...there" makes sense.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 3, 2011 19:42:21 GMT -5
Mellontes wrote: Please stop with the rhetoric Ted. It is a question of which translation to believe. In the NEB Hosea 6:7 says, " At Admah they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." All the translations say "THERE" in the second part of the verse. The word "there" makes no sense if the word "adam" is a who instead of a where. Nonsense translation: Like Adam they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." Sensible translation: " At Admah they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." The NEB translation "At Admah...there" makes sense. Roo And the NKJV (my preferred) says "like men they have all transgressed." |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 3, 2011 20:01:13 GMT -5
Hey Bev, I'm still trying to digest this. My initial reaction is that it's a theory which goes against a natural reading of scripture. Genesis 1-2 appears to be an account of physical creation. If it isn't, then I'm not sure how we can say with any degree of certainty that anything means what it says elsewhere in scripture. I get the whole "the world that ended must be the same as the one which began" argument and, I suppose, that's reasonable. But I also believe in a text saying what it says. Were the Jews wrong for thousands of years to believe that Genesis 1-2 was referring to physical creation? Why would God leave them in such error? But the main question which springs to mind is: who created the physical heavens and the physical earth? If the creation account isn't referring to a physical creation, and all subsequent creation accounts refer back to Genesis, then we can't really prove that God created anything of the physical world. Just my penny's worth. Paul Great comments, Paul! And nice to see you here again! Of course the Bible is not without metaphor. If it was, we should have to eat and drink the literal flesh and blood of Christ. Maybe the issue of who created the physical heavens and earth doesn't need proving. We believe God created everything, but what if the text of the Bible was never meant to show or prove that? We can plainly see in the NT where the disciples of Christ used the OT scriptures to prove the fulfillment of prophecy regarding the coming of the Messiah, but is there anyplace where they use the OT to prove creation of the physical heavens and earth? Has man created an apologetic where none was intended? I'm just exploring this stuff out of curiosity. |
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Jan 3, 2011 20:06:50 GMT -5
Deut. 29:23: "And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:"
Admah was one of the cities destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 3, 2011 20:13:56 GMT -5
Again, I see no covenant at in Genesis 1. Few people do, Thomas. But as preterists, we should be familiar with taking the whole Bible into consideration, and considering what other Scriptures say about other Scriptures. Take this one reference for example: Hosea 6:7 (YLT) - And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (MKJV) - But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant. They have acted like traitors against Me there. Hosea 6:7 (ASV) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (Bishops 1568) - But euen like as Adam did, so haue they broken my couenaunt, and set me at naught. Even John Darby agrees: Hosea 6:7 (DARBY) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (ESV) - But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. And previously in Hosea: Hosea 2:18 (KJV) - 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. This non-preterist site seems to agree also: www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/01CovenantofWorks.htmBut we fully realize that not all will come to the same understanding... The NASB agrees with those translations, as well. However, a few translations translate Adam as a place, the city of Adam, which is mentioned in Joshua 3:16. However, I agree that translating Adam as the man makes much more sense in Hosea 6:7. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 3, 2011 20:49:51 GMT -5
... The word "adam" may also refer to the place where the people dealt treacherously with God. This is what the context indicates. Note the rendering of the NEB: The context clearly indicates that "adam" was the place where the people dealt treacherously with God. It says, " THERE they dealt treacherously with Me." Good job pointing out the "there." That would seem to make Adam refer to a place. Commentators, as usual, represent all the views. Albert Barnes supports Adam here as being the first man: "As Adam our first parent, in Paradise, not out of any pressure, but wantonly, through self-will and pride, broke the covenant of God, eating the forbidden fruit, and then defended himself in his sin against God, casting the blame upon the woman..." JFB supports "men" without meaning Adam specifically; however, they caveat it with "the expression 'covenant' is not found elsewhere applied to Adam’s relation to God; though the thing seems implied (Romans 5:12-19)." Clarke, Wesley, and Gill see "there" as meaning the promised land. Clarke makes comparison with Adam in Paradise: "Adam, in Paradise, transgressed the commandment, and I cast him out: Israel, in possession of the promised land, transgressed my covenant, and I cast them out". |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 3, 2011 20:56:43 GMT -5
Mellontes wrote: Please stop with the rhetoric Ted. It is a question of which translation to believe. In the NEB Hosea 6:7 says, " At Admah they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." All the translations say "THERE" in the second part of the verse. The word "there" makes no sense if the word "adam" is a who instead of a where. Nonsense translation: Like Adam they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." Sensible translation: " At Admah they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." The NEB translation "At Admah...there" makes sense. Roo And the NKJV (my preferred) says "like men they have all transgressed." If "men" is correct, then how would you explain "there"? Where is there? Most commentators seem to ascribe "there" to the Promised Land or the land of Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 3, 2011 21:03:44 GMT -5
Deut. 29:23: "And that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath:" Admah was one of the cities destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah. That's the best argument yet against Adam being the man. Especially when you look a few verses later: Deuteronomy 29:23-25 NASB (23) 'All its land is brimstone and salt, a burning waste, unsown and unproductive, and no grass grows in it, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in His anger and in His wrath.' (24) "All the nations will say, ' Why has the LORD done thus to this land? Why this great outburst of anger?' (25) "Then men will say, ' Because they forsook the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them out of the land of Egypt. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 3, 2011 21:05:06 GMT -5
I believe it means there at the covenant. Seems natural to me to say "there" meaning at that point they transgressed the covenant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 3, 2011 21:13:10 GMT -5
I believe it means there at the covenant. Seems natural to me to say "there" meaning at that point they transgressed the covenant. Okay, I see how you are seeing it. More like "in regards to" or "on that point" they dealt treacherously against me. Is that how you view it? Hosea 6:7 RNKJV (7) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 3, 2011 21:21:30 GMT -5
I believe it means there at the covenant. Seems natural to me to say "there" meaning at that point they transgressed the covenant. Okay, I see how you are seeing it. More like "in regards to" or "on that point" they dealt treacherously against me. Is that how you view it? Hosea 6:7 RNKJV (7) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Yes, that's how I take it. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 3, 2011 21:32:35 GMT -5
Okay, I see how you are seeing it. More like "in regards to" or "on that point" they dealt treacherously against me. Is that how you view it? Hosea 6:7 RNKJV (7) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Yes, that's how I take it. I can totally see it. My only concern would be that it is not quite fitting with the definition of and usage elsewhere of that word. The word seems predominantly to refer to a physical place or location. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 3, 2011 21:39:18 GMT -5
If what transpired at the Jordan near the city of Adam (Josh 3:15) is what Hosea is speaking about, he is comparing the men who carried the covenant thru the waters into the promised land - much as the same miracle Moses had done bringing the people thru the Red Sea. These men who had this honor is who he is saying then dealt treacherously with the Lord. And then Hosea goes on to speak about another city - Gilead, which is also a city of them that work iniquity and is polluted with blood. So much for miracles alone being able to convert the hearts of men - even when they are part of them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 3, 2011 22:11:52 GMT -5
If what transpired at the Jordan near the city of Adam (Josh 3:15) is what Hosea is speaking about, he is comparing the men who carried the covenant thru the waters into the promised land - much as the same miracle Moses had done bringing the people thru the Red Sea. These men who had this honor is who he is saying then dealt treacherously with the Lord. And then Hosea goes on to speak about another city - Gilead, which is also a city of them that work iniquity and is polluted with blood. So much for miracles alone being able to convert the hearts of men - even when they are part of them! That's true, and that is the only place where the city of Adam is referred to. On that count, it would not make sense that the city is the subject. But in Deuteronomy 29:23 there is a city called Admah where, it is written, covenant was broken. However, the spelling is not the same between the two verses. So it's not a lock-tight argument, but it is the the only one I can see, however weak, that can be used against Adam not referring to mankind or the man Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 3, 2011 23:51:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Jan 4, 2011 2:04:43 GMT -5
Actually, Hosea mentions Admah again: "How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together." (Hosea 11:8)
preteristmouse
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 4, 2011 2:27:52 GMT -5
First of all, my name is not Theodore. You should always clarify or ask before going ahead on preconceived notions... You called me Thomas for the same reason. My name is Tom, and that's what I like to be called. It's a moot point since it is explained later. But, doesn't it seem strange that when God made covenants with, Noah, the earth, Abram, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel), he said so? If He made a covenant with Adam, why didn't He say so? Where did you get the idea I don't believe Hosea. And, as I said, it's explained by others. And I did not call you a coward. I said, you have hijacked a thread I started, which, I have not been able to get it back on track, thank you very much, and now that you have a place to make your case, you had indicated you weren't going to do that unless you were PMed. I said you turned coward, and that the action was cowardly. But I made it plain that it was in that instant. I'm sure you don't act cowardly other times. No one is forcing me to do what, Theodore? I believe false doctrines like this must be defeated.  |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 4, 2011 6:56:45 GMT -5
Hey everyone...I am very interested in this discussion - especially on the establishment of covenants and the law. Maybe we can have separate threads for these areas so it is easier to keep focused?
Also since Allyn gave us this specific area for Cov Creation then I would like to get deeper into that view and as such I agree wholeheartedly with Ted's exhortation that before discussing we do some research from the source - BCS & NCMI articles. Would anyone be willing to walk slowly through the basics FIRST (slowly) chapter by chapter? Over at Larry's site we had been doing a book study with Jeff and I got to chapter 11 before having to focus elsewhere but I am ready to begin this again. I think Jeff is a member here too so maybe he will interject? It is hard for me to pick one piece of the CC model and try to discuss or understand and it would be very helpful to me to systematically work through it step by step with you all...
If this is something you are interested in then I will start a thread with Chapters 1-4 of BCS. What do you all think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 4, 2011 7:55:32 GMT -5
I'd be willing to go through it. I have the book and we attempted it here a year ago but I was the only one with the book at the time I think, besides JL, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 4, 2011 10:29:20 GMT -5
Ok, cool! I will dig out my copy and we can go as long as it lasts. I will be buying a new copy this week for our church's library (mine is covered in notes) and am willing to grab an extra copy if someone here would like it but doesnt have the extra money for it. Just let me know and I will have it drop shipped out!
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 4, 2011 10:53:58 GMT -5
Sorry, Didymus. I thought others on this forum had referred to you as Thomas. I was just trying to be friendly. I will address you as Tom from now on if you will allow me to.
But what I do find a tad inconsiderate is that you deliberately called me Theodore again when you knew it was not my name. That's not being friendly and is one of the reasons I don't interact with you on stuff you haven't even studied...
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 12:31:32 GMT -5
Sorry, Didymus. I thought others on this forum had referred to you as Thomas. I was just trying to be friendly. I will address you as Tom from now on if you will allow me to. But what I do find a tad inconsiderate is that you deliberately called me Theodore again when you knew it was not my name. That's not being friendly and is one of the reasons I don't interact with you on stuff you haven't even studied... Ted, I don't know what's up with Didy lately. His calling you a "coward" was especially objectionable to me. He needs to chill a little. An apology to you is in order I think. About your assertion that the NEB is a "bias" translation of Hosea 6:7. Can't you see that the reading "Like Adam" does not fit at all? The word "there" in the second clause makes no sense if the word "adam" refers to a who. Mograce2u has it right that it is a reference to the city of Adam. "At Admah the people transgressed My covenant. There they dealt treacherously with me."Cities are sometimes named after men you know. Your argument from Hosea 6:7 is very weak indeed. The Genesis account gives no hint that God made a covenant with Adam. God gave Adam a law to follow and that was it. The first covenant of salvation was made with Abraham. He is called the "father" of them that believe and not Adam. You must be on your toes when commenting on verses like Hosea 6:7 becuase there are some sharp people here. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 4, 2011 12:46:35 GMT -5
Mellontes wrote: Please stop with the rhetoric Ted. It is a question of which translation to believe. In the NEB Hosea 6:7 says, " At Admah they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." All the translations say "THERE" in the second part of the verse. The word "there" makes no sense if the word "adam" is a who instead of a where. Nonsense translation: Like Adam they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." Sensible translation: " At Admah they have broken my covenant. There they have dealt treacherously with me." The NEB translation "At Admah...there" makes sense. Roo Hey, Roo! Hope you had a great Christmas! I find this idea of a place quite interesting, and quite likely seeing as the next two verses mention two more places. What I really find interesting is the nature of the covenant being spoken of here. Hosea 6:4-6 reads, "4 O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, And like the early dew it goes away.5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets, I have slain them by the words of My mouth; And your judgments are like light that goes forth.6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." Verse 4 speaks of Israel's faithfulness to this covenant - it was fleeting, momentary, and vapourous like the morning dew. Verse 5 tells us how God, via the prophets, continually tried to shape them to the image He intended for them, and those who would not be 'carved' were 'split'. Verse 6 specifies for us the covenant - the Mosaic covenant; not not simply the outward ceremonies, but the purpose underlying all those ordinances. That purpose is found within the covenant itself. Deuteronomy 10:12-21, "And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the LORD and His statutes which I command you today for your good? ... The LORD delighted only in your fathers, to love them; ... Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name. He is your praise, and He is your God..." Deuteronomy 6:1,3-6,25 " Now this is the commandment...Therefore hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe it...Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart...Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us" The ceremonies and acts were not what brought righteousness. They were only instruments that, when played by a person's heart, fulfilled what God desired. We see this in several OT places, including Hosea 6:6. To the people, the rituals became the covenant, yet they broke it with their hearts. Once the rituals are the focus, what difference is one from the other? And so the people became idolatrous in their 'worship'. Hosea ends with a call for the people to return to the Lord. Hosea 14:1,2 reads " O Israel, return to the LORD your God, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity; Take words with you, And return to the LORD. Say to Him, “ Take away all iniquity; Receive us Graciously, For we will offer the sacrifices of our lips"." So, Hosea speaks neither of Adam (the specific man) or a covenant with him. That's my interpretation anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 4, 2011 13:04:35 GMT -5
If what transpired at the Jordan near the city of Adam (Josh 3:15) is what Hosea is speaking about, he is comparing the men who carried the covenant thru the waters into the promised land - much as the same miracle Moses had done bringing the people thru the Red Sea. These men who had this honor is who he is saying then dealt treacherously with the Lord. And then Hosea goes on to speak about another city - Gilead, which is also a city of them that work iniquity and is polluted with blood. So much for miracles alone being able to convert the hearts of men - even when they are part of them! That's true, and that is the only place where the city of Adam is referred to. On that count, it would not make sense that the city is the subject. But in Deuteronomy 29:23 there is a city called Admah where, it is written, covenant was broken. However, the spelling is not the same between the two verses. So it's not a lock-tight argument, but it is the the only one I can see, however weak, that can be used against Adam not referring to mankind or the man Adam. I agree it is weak. But like mtymouse showed another city called Admah is also mentioned in Hosea. So you have one city where the waters of the Jordan when they were split flooded that city, and another that was destroyed by the fire that hit Sodom. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 13:56:08 GMT -5
That's true, and that is the only place where the city of Adam is referred to. On that count, it would not make sense that the city is the subject. But in Deuteronomy 29:23 there is a city called Admah where, it is written, covenant was broken. However, the spelling is not the same between the two verses. So it's not a lock-tight argument, but it is the the only one I can see, however weak, that can be used against Adam not referring to mankind or the man Adam. I agree it is weak. But like mtymouse showed another city called Admah is also mentioned in Hosea. So you have one city where the waters of the Jordan when they were split flooded that city, and another that was destroyed by the fire that hit Sodom. The argument is not as weak as you think. The writing style is called synthetic parallelism. This means that the second clause builds upon the first clause thus defining the first clause. " At Adam they transgressed My covenant, There they dealt treacherously with Me." See how the second clause builds upon the first? Moreover, the word "adam" is used more often of mankind then it is of the first man. So even if it is not a reference to the city of Adam the CCers are still without a solid case for their idea that God made a covenant with the first man. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 4, 2011 15:13:01 GMT -5
Ted, I don't know what's up with Didy lately. His calling you a "coward" was especially objectionable to me. He needs to chill a little. An apology to you is in order I think. About your assertion that the NEB is a "bias" translation of Hosea 6:7. Can't you see that the reading "Like Adam" does not fit at all? The word "there" in the second clause makes no sense if the word "adam" refers to a who. Mograce2u has it right that it is a reference to the city of Adam. "At Admah the people transgressed My covenant. There they dealt treacherously with me."Cities are sometimes named after men you know. Your argument from Hosea 6:7 is very weak indeed. The Genesis account gives no hint that God made a covenant with Adam. God gave Adam a law to follow and that was it. The first covenant of salvation was made with Abraham. He is called the "father" of them that believe and not Adam. You must be on your toes when commenting on verses like Hosea 6:7 becuase there are some sharp people here. Roo Actually, Roo, my statement about translation bias was directed in an overall fashion, not to one particular version. It was you who asserted that. Futurist bias is all throughout the Bible. YEC bias is all throughout the Bible. Physical universe creation is also throughout the Bible. Usually when defending a viewpoint we all tend to refer to a translation that reflects our own view... Maybe I should have started with Psalm 102:25 and asked whether this was referring to the physical creation of the universe or something else... Psalms 102:25 - Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. Because this is just one of many verses that futurists use to "prove" their case that the universe is to be destroyed and/or refurbished and/or restored...Their heaven and earth goes back to Genesis 1...I agree with their timing but not with their nature. It has always been the Genesis 1 creation that was the old heaven and earth...that is until preterism came along realizing what that does to their paradigm. So, rather than re-thinking the creation account of the old heaven and earth, they changed it to occur somewhere else...and now the argument ensues... By the way, Roo, do you believe the promise of gospel redemption was presented in the Garden of Genesis 3? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 15:22:58 GMT -5
Didymus,
Did you have a similar reaction, the first time you were told about Covenant Eschatology?
You can't see covenant in Genesis 1. Okay. Neither could the translators who also couldn't see covenant in Revelation 21 & 22. Do you? Do you believe in Covenant Eschatology? Do you believe that the "first heaven and first earth passed away and there is no more sea?" I do.
The Hebrew word "covenant" is the noun form of the Hebrew word "create." That is, "covenant" is "the created thing." Or "create" is the verb "covenanting."
You said you don't know much. Then why jump to conclusions? Why not either just leave it there, or study it.
Rev. 21:1 says we live in the new H&E because the first H&E has passed away and there is no more sea. Do you believe it? If you do, then the first H&E is not "the physical universe we all live in." The first H&E, the H&E of Genesis 1 has passed away. "The physical universe we all live in" has not passed away. The two are different.
Blessings.
Jeff Vaughn
Coauthor of Beyond Creation Science
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 15:46:08 GMT -5
JLVaughn wrote:
So Mellontes is calling out the "heavies" now eh?
Of course the first heaven and earth in Revelation 21 is not the physical universe. The first H&E is Israel. The H&E of the Genesis account predated Israel and is the physical universe and does not figure into the equation of things.
Would you like for me to set up with Allyn a one on one debate between us?
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 16:05:20 GMT -5
So Mellontes is calling out the "heavies" now eh? No comments about my weight please. So far we agree. Yes and no. You believe it. You assume it. But you have yet to question it, and therefore do not know. Genesis creation "does not figure into the equation of things." Beautiful. Then why all the allusions to creation in the passages on eschatology? Why does nearly every reference to the resurrection, the standing again, refer to Genesis 1, where the standing first started, and Genesis 3, where the standing ended? Sure. |
|
