|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 4, 2011 22:22:56 GMT -5
Since you have yet to provide a factual presentation, how do you know I won't consider it. Besides, where have I said that I would not consider a factual presentation? Tom, you are kidding, of course??? Was it not you who said: " I have studied enough to know this doctrine of yours is false. Once making that determination, why study it any further." Yes I said that, simply because there is nothing factual about the foundations of this doctrine. I never said that I would never consider a factual presentation. Ah, but I am looking into it. How does that square with your understanding of what I said? You can't come up with facts, so you insult all preterists that disagree with you. Are you saying that I am causing division? I have not read or listened too any thing you mentioned, but I have read, and listened too enough to know that one of the foundational principles of Covenant Creation is that Genesis 1 is metaphorical. Yet you have not one shred of proof. Why should I go any further if you can not factually establish Genesis 1 as metaphorical, and that any covenant was established in Genesis 1? Where is the factual evidence of this. I may not be the most intelligent person in the world, but I am not a gullible weak-minded person either. I understand what facts are, and I understand what proof is. So far I have not seen any regarding this doctrine.  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 1:58:27 GMT -5
I have not read or listened too any thing you mentioned, but I have read, and listened too enough to know that one of the foundational principles of Covenant Creation is that Genesis 1 is metaphorical. And since that is not a foundational principle of Covenant Creation, you then know nothing. And why should we listen to someone who spreads falsehoods about things he knows nothing about? You look awfully gullible and weak-minded to me. Who sold you the line you currently believe? You understand nothing. How could you? You have divined what we believe through what means? Not any that a Berean would recognize. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 2:18:43 GMT -5
Since you have yet to provide a factual presentation, how do you know I won't consider it. Besides, where have I said that I would not consider a factual presentation? I provided a factual presentation 3 years ago. You still haven't read it. You have made numerous false statements. You refuse to correct them. You have accused me of spreading a false doctrine. To make that judgment honestly and truthfully, would require you to have actually studied my view. Instead, it is a false perjorative by a willfully ignorant person. You are bearing false witness. You are the one making the claim. You are the one making the judgment. The burden of proof is not on me, but on you. The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him. Prov. 18:17 |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 5, 2011 2:34:13 GMT -5
And since that is not a foundational principle of Covenant Creation, you then know nothing. And why should we listen to someone who spreads falsehoods about things he knows nothing about? You look awfully gullible and weak-minded to me. Who sold you the line you currently believe? You're intelligence isn't showing too well either. AD70.net had several programs on this that I listened to. Not the podcasts, but live. The idea that Genesis 1 is not about a physical creation came out then. If it wasn't a metaphorical creation, what was it? I'm just a simple man. You are the one that has an alpha-bet after your name. And if you can't explain your position so that simple people like me can understand it, who do you expect to believe it. Is this a doctrine that's just for the alpha-bet soup crowd. And do you think a Berean would recognize your doctrine. They searched the Scriptures, not a science-fiction manual. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 2:41:03 GMT -5
You're intelligence isn't showing too well either. AD70.net had several programs on this that I listened to. Not the podcasts, but live. The idea that Genesis 1 is not about a physical creation came out then. If it wasn't a metaphorical creation, what was it? Didymus, Do you know the difference between a "foundational principle" and a conclusion? I have explained it well enough that a simple man who is willing to read can understand it. You already told Ted that you would not read. I can't do anything to help your willful ignorance. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 5, 2011 3:09:07 GMT -5
Why can't you just answer my questions about Genesis 1 instead of hurling insults and personal attacks. How do I respond to insults and personal attacks, except with more insults and personal attacks? If that's your brand of Christianity, why would I want to study any of your doctrines. It certainly doesn't give me any incentive to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 5, 2011 7:20:04 GMT -5
On Robin's suggestion that we start a thread to study through BCS, I'm all for it. I ask that we not start immediately. I ordered the book a few days ago and it should be here soon. It may even be here now, I haven't been to the Post Office to check mail in a couple of days. I'll check tomorrow.? Hey Bev...I will start a thread tomorrow or Friday for the first section of the book which is a foundational overview of preterism. Unless Allyn or Jeff would rather do it?? Maybe in sections that relate to each other instead of chapter by chapter might be better. We wont move on till everyone interested agrees, ok? I am glad you are here Jeff! I have wanted to finish our book study but Larry's site is difficult to navigate. My prayer is that we can have discussion adn dialogue adn debate withOUT the sarcasm (i know it is tough JL since your sense of humor is often quick wit) and the personal attacks. I get enough of that elsewhere. blessings, w |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 7:37:20 GMT -5
I want to make a public point of observation. I see that sometimes our personalities clash and especially over issues we hold dear to our heart. We all wish to maintain what we believe is correct. But from my own personal experience I have found that what I once absolutely knew was correct and unchangable wound up changing as I matured and handled Scripture differently.
Now this is not to say one is wrong in what they presently hold to but rather since we all must admit to ourselves that we have changed over the years then we must conclude that it is still possibly going on.
Therefore the point I wish to make here is to respect the position another person holds no matter how defensive it makes you feel inside because it really is not usually a jab at what you presently believe but rather how it has been said.
Like you, I am guilty of this and being the owner of this board I am at an advantage in that I understand being a moderator means moderation. Therefore I am making all of you joint owners of Preterist Vioce in the interest of others and for the sake of a servant kind of attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 9:27:23 GMT -5
Why can't you just answer my questions about Genesis 1 instead of hurling insults and personal attacks. How do I respond to insults and personal attacks, except with more insults and personal attacks? If that's your brand of Christianity, why would I want to study any of your doctrines. It certainly doesn't give me any incentive to do so. Your very first post. Not one question. You called it false doctrine. You said it is tearing preterism apart. You have not proven these charges. They are false. Either prove your charges or apologize bearing false witness. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 5, 2011 12:33:39 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 The word protos can be interpreted first or former; if former then it means the one before - which is the one that we see did pass away. In 2 Peter 3:4 when the scoffers ask where is the promise of His coming, Peter says they forgot about the flood that had preceded Israel's own creation. The world destroyed by flood was thus a former world to the one Israel came into being afterwards. Thus it would be that former world which was destroyed by fire that preceded the new H & E we are in. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 5, 2011 12:36:14 GMT -5
I understand Morris' point about the reality needing to exist before a metaphor can be made from it. This is why I questioned very early in this thread about why Genesis 1 can't be describing a physical creation as well as a covenant metaphor. Nobody but me seems to think that is a possibility! So, even if Genesis 1 was written entirely as a covenant creation narrative, we can still discern from it information about the physical creation, because metaphor has its basis in a reality. On Robin's suggestion that we start a thread to study through BCS, I'm all for it. I ask that we not start immediately. I ordered the book a few days ago and it should be here soon. It may even be here now, I haven't been to the Post Office to check mail in a couple of days. I'll check tomorrow. I was also concerned that if a debate takes place between Roo and Jeff, that Jeff will not have the time to provide his valuable input as co-author in the BCS discussion. Can you do both, Jeff? I'm pretty sure that suggestion didn't come from me. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 13:53:29 GMT -5
If you would rather I choose the topic then just say so. No need to play games here. The topic will be "The First H & E." Roo, Works for me. In my published discussion of the nature of the First H&E, I started with a 60-page demonstration of preterism. So, we will first need to establish preterism. Are you a preterist? What type? Do you believe that all of the Olivet discourse is fulfilled? Vaughn, I am a FULL Preterist. I believe that ALL of the Olivet discourse has been fulfilled. I even go further in that I believe that all of Ezekiel has been fulfilled. Moreover, I like Wanda am a Reformed Preterist. I want to make two suggestions about the debate: 1. That you take the affirmative position meaning that you defend your view that the creation of Genesis 1 is the first H&E. I will take the negative position attacking your view. This is how we started so it is natural to continue it this way. 2. Allyn has informed me that Bev will be the moderator. But I would like to ask a person who is a debate judge in real life academia and also on another discussion board. He judged a debate between me and another person before. His name is Dennison. If he is available I would like to ask him. I don't have a problem with Bev moderating. I just like having a professional debate judge. If he is not available Bev is fine with me. I trust that she will do research on being a debate judge. Dennison even has different formats we can look at. In the formats he uses nobody wins or loses though I will hang you up like wallpaper regardless.  Dennison is not a Preterist but I have found him friendly toward Preterism. Inviting him here to judge may just cause him to become a part of our family. Then we can work out format and timing and starting date. I will copy and paste this on a new thread "Defining and Setting the Terms." Please reply there from now on relating to the details of the debate. We should not clutter this thread working out the details. Okay so we agree on the topic which is "The First H&E."
This is all I have time for today. We will hammer out a lot of the details tomorrow.blessings, Roo |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 5, 2011 14:07:14 GMT -5
On Robin's suggestion that we start a thread to study through BCS, I'm all for it. I'm pretty sure that suggestion didn't come from me. Yeah, that was me! LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 14:07:53 GMT -5
Vaughn wrote: Rubbish! So Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman? Vaugn is asking us to commit intellectual suicide! Roo And all because these futurists have a wrong understanding of the NATURE of the resurrection, parousia, and judgment. The First H&E was Israel. The H&E of the Genesis narrative predated Israel. Your buddy Vaughn has half admitted that the First H&E was Israel. To cover his inconsistencies he then says that Adam was Israel "in a sense." The debate will go easier for me than I had originally thought. I hope Vaughn's family does not rely on the sales of his book to eat.  Roo |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 5, 2011 14:45:10 GMT -5
[I hope Vaughn's family does not rely on the sales of his book to eat. Roo Spoken like a true Calvinist... |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 14:57:07 GMT -5
[I hope Vaughn's family does not rely on the sales of his book to eat. Roo Spoken like a true Calvinist... Ouch! I was joking of course. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 14:59:52 GMT -5
Vaughn,
Please note that Dennison has agreed to judge the debate. I hope this is acceptable with you. Go to the "Prearranged" forum on the "Defining and setting the terms" thread.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 15:39:53 GMT -5
Vaughn, Please note that Dennison has agreed to judge the debate. I hope this is acceptable with you. Go to the "Prearranged" forum on the "Defining and setting the terms" thread. Roo Having a proper judge should be useful. I've not been in such a debate before. But given how my critics generally fail to address my actual words, this looks like a plus to me. I accept Dennison as judge. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 5, 2011 16:12:51 GMT -5
Vaughn, Please note that Dennison has agreed to judge the debate. I hope this is acceptable with you. Go to the "Prearranged" forum on the "Defining and setting the terms" thread. Roo Having a proper judge should be useful. I've not been in such a debate before. But given how my critics generally fail to address my actual words, this looks like a plus to me. I accept Dennison as judge. Hi Vaughn, Please post your acceptance of Dennison in the "Prearranged" forum on the "Defining and setting the terms" thread so he can see it. He is expecting all details to be worked out there. You will like him. He is unbiased and fair. He will decide which points are valid and which are not valid. He will have the final say. Check out the link he gave for debate formats to use. We can agree on which format to use. From here on we should work out the details in "Defining and setting the terms" instead of cluttering this thread. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 17:28:57 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that suggestion didn't come from me. Yeah, that was me! LOL! Sorry, sisters! I got confused. :-) Thanks for straightening me out! |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 17:35:07 GMT -5
Sorry, sisters! I got confused. :-) Thanks for straightening me out! I got the 3 of you confused. ;D But I realized this morning that it's easy to tell you 3 apart. Bev is the brunette. Wanda is the blond. And Robin is the redhead.  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 18:04:39 GMT -5
Sorry, sisters! I got confused. :-) Thanks for straightening me out! I got the 3 of you confused. ;D But I realized this morning that it's easy to tell you 3 apart. Bev is the brunette. Wanda is the blond. And Robin is the redhead. Bev Brunette, Wanda Blonda, and Robin Redhead? You're funny! |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 6, 2011 8:53:03 GMT -5
I went back and re-read the posts up to where the debate challenge was made and a little beyond in order to get the context of the request for a debate.
It starts out with JL saying to Didymus that "covenant" in its Hebrew form means "create" . JL doesn't tip his hand too much in that post but is implying therefore that since Genesis 1 begins with 'in the beginning God "created" the heavens and the earth' that it then must begin to be understood there that we are not necessarily witnessing the creation of all material things but rather the declaration of God's promise to men.
JL then says:
*************
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.
****************
At this point Roo steps in and says:
***************
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 is saying Israel is the new H and E
Jl Replies later saying:
**************
Roo,
If Genesis 1 is the creation of the Old Covenant, then in a sense, Adam was Israel.
***************
So where does this leave us in the debate except that JL says Adam is Israel and Roo says by implication that Israel of Moses' day is the New H and E.
It seems the debate is not whether Israel is the New H and E but rather who is Israel and when did Israel have its beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 6, 2011 17:00:45 GMT -5
Allyn wrote: Allyn, This is about whether the H & E of Genesis 1 is the FIRST H & E. It is not. It is the physical universe. Israel is the FIRST H & E which antedates the H & E of Genesis 1. You even cited what I said: Allyn I said that Israel is the FIRST H & E. Later I said that it passed away and we are now living in the new H & E  Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 6, 2011 19:11:35 GMT -5
Allyn wrote: Allyn, This is about whether the H & E of Genesis 1 is the FIRST H & E. It is not. It is the physical universe. Israel is the FIRST H & E which antedates the H & E of Genesis 1. You even cited what I said: Allyn I said that Israel is the FIRST H & E. Later I said that it passed away and we are now living in the new H & E Roo MY BAD!!! You are right and I did not make the proper distinction. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 6, 2011 19:19:08 GMT -5
Allyn wrote: You're too cool Allyn Roo |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Feb 20, 2013 15:03:19 GMT -5
 Hi, TomL here, A.K.A. Didymus, Son of David, and Samson. Those are the various names I have used in various forum sites. Now I only use TomL. Anyway, has anyone ever given a credible answer to my question about Genesis?
|
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Apr 4, 2014 18:59:55 GMT -5
Paul makes clear that death entered the world through Adam. That death was spiritual, represented by his separation from God. Where Adam brought death, Christ brought life, reuniting those who believe in Him to fellowship in God. That is the comparison that Paul makes between Adam and Christ. It's not a physical comparison but a spiritual one. But just because both are archetypes does not make either one allegorical. They are both real. And therein lies the problem for CC: if Christ is real (and not just a "type"), isn't Adam real, too? And if Adam is real, isn't his creation account equally real? I trust we all believe in the virgin birth of Christ. Why is the creation of Adam any less real or miraculous?
The first law was don't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The first sin was Adam's disobedience. The first death was Adam's (and Eve's) banishment from the presence of God. These are the lessons the creation story teaches, but how anyone can allegorize the entire creation account into the creation of a covenant, is beyond me. Quite frankly, I think full preterism has its hands full trying to convince the church the resurrection already happened. I don't think preterists need to fight this battle, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Apr 6, 2014 2:27:06 GMT -5
I think the CC metaphor runs aground on Genesis 1:14-19: Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19 (NASB) I don't know how you allegorize the creation of the sun and moon as the foundation for signs, seasons and calendars into the creation of a covenant, especially since to do so would be a description of the Mosaic Covenant, which came hundreds of years after the covenants God made with Noah and Abram. CC'ers seem to want perfect harmony between Genesis and Revelation at the expense of perfect harmony within the creation story itself, because if Genesis 1:14-19 can be taken literally, why not the rest of it? Even the author of the article linked earlier in the thread writes the following: The problem is, where do we "rightly divide the word of truth" in this new paradigm? Personally, this is a sleeping dog I'm more than willing to let lie. |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Apr 7, 2014 17:45:12 GMT -5
Well, since it looks like I'm the only one here, I may as well post this one for posterity! The following is a passage from Leviticus 26 outlining the penalties Israel would face for breaking His covenant with Him. “‘ But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will bring on you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and sap your strength. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you. “ ‘If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze. Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, nor will the trees of your land yield their fruit. “ ‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted. “ ‘If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. And I will bring the sword on you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands. Leviticus 26:14-25 (NIV2011) This covenant was conditional and was not revoked in the least until Christ fulfilled it in 70AD. Compare that to what happened with a similar curse God placed on the ground in Genesis 3: To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Genesis 3:17-19 (NIV2011) Was there an Adamic covenant with God? Yes. Does Genesis describe it? Yes. In its simplest terms, God said "don't eat the fruit of that tree" and Adam broke the very first law given to man. But what about the curse God placed on the ground? It was lifted! The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “ Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” Genesis 8:21-22 (NIV2011) The Bible is a series of repeating covenants, each with their own unique milieu: The Adamic covenant is set in the creation of the physical heavens and earth and man. The Abramic covenant is set in the creation of a multi-national faith-based people. The Mosaic Covenant is set in the creation of a law-based nation, and it is here that the idea of "heavens and earth" to describe national Israel is applied to this covenant. Go back to this phrase from Leviticus as translated in Young's Literal: `And if unto these ye hearken not to Me, --then I have added to chastise you seven times for your sins; and I have broken the pride of your strength, and have made your heavens as iron, and your earth as brass; and consumed hath been your strength in vain, and your land doth not give her produce, and the tree of the land doth not give its fruit. Leviticus 26:18-20 (YLT) Now, compare Leviticus 26:18-20 to Genesis 3, again from Young's Literal: And to the man He said, `Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and dost eat of the tree concerning which I have charged thee, saying, Thou dost not eat of it, cursed is the ground on thine account; in sorrow thou dost eat of it all days of thy life, and thorn and bramble it doth bring forth to thee, and thou hast eaten the herb of the field; by the sweat of thy face thou dost eat bread till thy return unto the ground, for out of it hast thou been taken, for dust thou art, and unto dust thou turnest back.' Genesis 3:17-19 (YLT) There is similarity here but also differences: God curses the ground in both, but only in Leviticus does He also curse the sky (heavens). In Leviticus, God personalizes the heavens and earth, calling them "your heavens" and "your earth", yet He does not do so in Genesis 3. Finally, we come to the Messianic covenant and the cross: a singular event that, once and for all, ends the curse of spiritual death brought into the world by Adam's sin. Now, see if you can detect a pattern in these four covenants, Adamic through Messianic: Each takes the reader deeper into the mind of God, beginning with general revelation, described by Paul in Romans 1, and ending with God's ultimate and very specific revelation in Christ. Along the way God used the patriarchs, judges, and prophets to speak to the people (Hebrews 1:1-2), but through these four covenants, we see the history of God's revelation unrolled like a scroll. Genesis describes the beginning of the world. Abraham describes the beginning of a faith-based world. Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy describe the beginning of a law-based kingdom. Revelation describes the beginning of a grace-based kingdom without end. The key here is to understand how the focus of God's revelation is refined; narrowing from the creation of the universe to the creation of man, to the birth of a nation, to the birth of a man, and how the work of Christ on the cross ended Adam's death for all mankind, and how His judgment in 70 AD ended the Law that continuously reminded mankind of it. I believe - when viewed this way - Genesis describes both the creation of a covenant (Adamic) and the creation of the physical heavens and earth (the universe). They are not mutually exclusive ideas, as the creation of a covenant is - first and foremost - necessitated by the creation of man. And, I suppose, if you're going to discuss the creation of man, you might as well discuss the creation of the universe in which man lives. This is to say that - of what I understand of CC - it seeks to harmonize Genesis and Revelation at the expense of everything in between. |
|
