|
Post by Morris on Jan 4, 2011 16:41:39 GMT -5
For me personally, I see CC as taking the things which were used to create metaphor, object lessons, and symbolic meaning, and turn those very things into the same. This destroys the reality of what the metaphors, etc., are based on.
In OT times, the peoples of the east were sometimes described as like "locusts" (e.g. Judges 6:5, 7:12, Jeremiah 51:14). Men were described using the created thing, the locusts. It would be inappropriate for us to then say that the nature of the locust came after the metaphor, or because of the metaphor. Rather, the locust came first and its nature was used to describe something else.
The Sabbath was instituted because God "rested" on the seventh day of creation. As far as I can tell, the CC thought-process is along the lines that the creation story says God rested on the seventh day because of the Sabbath had been instituted.
It's like taking the tabernacle and saying it was never actually built the way it was stated, but rather was only described that way for symbolic purposes.
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 16:56:54 GMT -5
For me personally, I see CC as taking the things which were used to create metaphor, object lessons, and symbolic meaning, and turn those very things into the same. This destroys the reality of what the metaphors, etc., are based on. Are we preterists here? I'm destroying metaphors? All that talk of destroying the temple, not leaving a stone on top of another, was all metaphors? Is that all it is? Who told you that? I wished we'd talked to him sooner. He would have saved us 529 pages and thousands of dollars. Now you're talking. There was never a Temple in Israel either. Jesus just described it. The Apostles saw it in their mind's eye.
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 4, 2011 17:27:04 GMT -5
For me personally, I see CC as taking the things which were used to create metaphor, object lessons, and symbolic meaning, and turn those very things into the same. This destroys the reality of what the metaphors, etc., are based on. Are we preterists here? I'm destroying metaphors? All that talk of destroying the temple, not leaving a stone on top of another, was all metaphors? Hmm... point missed. Let me try again. Water was created... ... Gentiles are described as water. The water came first and is then used to describe the Gentiles. The first statement is independent of the other, but the second relies on the first. Reversed; Let's take Gentiles as water. Now, we say water is created. It sounds like Gentiles were created, but now water is not created because Gentiles were created instead. This is what I meant by "destroys the reality of what the metaphors, etc., are based on". What has been 'destroyed' is the creation of plain old water. Please note the difference between a thought-process and an exclusive conclusion when reading my comment. I didn't say "this is CC in its totality", I said this is along the way the thinking runs, as far as I can tell. As for "All that talk of destroying the temple", it wasn't all metaphor, which is the point. Because there was a real temple, and real events were going to happen to that temple, Jesus could say what He did. John 2:19-21 " Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body." He could talk about His body being the temple only because a real physical temple had been built. I'm not sure how to respond to this.
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 4, 2011 17:52:21 GMT -5
Are we preterists here? I'm destroying metaphors? All that talk of destroying the temple, not leaving a stone on top of another, was all metaphors? Hmm... point missed. Let me try again. Water was created... ... Gentiles are described as water. The water came first and is then used to describe the Gentiles. The first statement is independent of the other, but the second relies on the first. Reversed; Let's take Gentiles as water. Now, we say water is created. It sounds like Gentiles were created, but now water is not created because Gentiles were created instead. This is what I meant by "destroys the reality of what the metaphors, etc., are based on". What has been 'destroyed' is the creation of plain old water. Please note the difference between a thought-process and an exclusive conclusion when reading my comment. I didn't say "this is CC in its totality", I said this is along the way the thinking runs, as far as I can tell. As for "All that talk of destroying the temple", it wasn't all metaphor, which is the point. Because there was a real temple, and real events were going to happen to that temple, Jesus could say what He did. John 2:19-21 " Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body." He could talk about His body being the temple only because a real physical temple had been built. I'm not sure how to respond to this. So far that is how I see it too.
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 18:02:34 GMT -5
Hmm... point missed. Let me try again. Water was created... Do you really think that I never considered that? The point that has been missed is, how do you know that Genesis 1 really describes water and not gentiles? An even more fundamental point that you have not considered is, Genesis 1 nowhere discusses the creation of water. The heavens and the earth were created. The heavens and the earth were created out of the water. The water was not part of the heavens and the earth. Not in Genesis 1, nor in Revelation 20. Yes, I get the thought process. It is unfortunate that you don't understand basic hermeneutic principles. Scripture interprets Scripture. In Hebrew, you "bara" a "berith." In Hebrew, it isn't a "metaphor, which is the point." Was I wrong to assume you had read my comments before responding? Apparently. You ignore what I say, then make a claim about what I believe that is contrary to my very words. How am I supposed to respond to that? Try reading a bit. Try assuming that I am conversant in the usual ways of viewing Genesis creation. Explaining to me what I know and have rejected, warrants sarcasm. It demonstrates that you are not a thoughtful critic and that you think I'm a child, that I'm new to all of this. I have been through dozens of physical creation views of Genesis 1. They do not work. Not a one of them. They all compromise the text of Genesis. When mixed with any form of preterism, the situation only gets worse. Your definition of metaphor doesn't help. Genesis promises things. If Genesis 1 is physical, then those things promised are physical. Jesus and the apostles invoked the early chapters of Genesis to explain prophecy. The fulfillment of those prophecies must match the nature of the events in Genesis. You can not take a physical example and fulfill it with a metaphor. The example in Genesis must match the fulfillment. We know what the fulfillment was. Genesis must match. Otherwise, Jesus and the apostles lied, they did not tell us the truth about the nature of Genesis.
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 18:42:09 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
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 18:45:54 GMT -5
kangaroojack wrote: Vaughn replied: Yes and no. Roo
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 18:48:50 GMT -5
Roo,
If Genesis 1 is the creation of the Old Covenant, then in a sense, Adam was Israel.
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 18:49:27 GMT -5
kangaroojack said to Vaughn:
Vaughn replied:
Allyn,
Would you please set this up. I want to get to the bottom of the issues one on one with Vaughn. I will pm you to make sure you see this.
Thanks,
Roo
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 4, 2011 18:49:46 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 Not so fast Roo. Several posts ago, Allyn said this, "I believe it means there at the covenant. Seems natural to me to say "there" meaning at that point they transgressed the covenant." A similar thought occurred to me as well. "There" could be a geographical place. It also could be a place in time. And, in evangelism, when we say, "we must meet them there where they are," what are we saying? Are we not speaking of someone's spiritual condition? I am not saying you are wrong, Roo. I am saying, in regards to the word "there" Ted could be right. However, that does not change my opinion that there is no covenant in the creation narratve in Genesis.
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 18:55:27 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, Do you understand the concept of context? Would you please read more carefully? I was responding specifically to a claim and observation by Morris. It is not right for you to go any farther than the context of the conversation allows. And no, I'm not asking you to commit intellectual suicide. I'm asking you to read more carefully than you are used to doing and to not jump to conclusions about things you know nothing about.
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 19:00:39 GMT -5
kangaroojack said to Vaughn: Vaughn replied: Allyn, Would you please set this up. I want to get to the bottom of the issues one on one with Vaughn. I will pm you to make sure you see this. Thanks, Roo I trust you intend to debate the issues in my book. Please tell me which chapters or sections you agree with and we can dispense with those.
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 19:06:24 GMT -5
Didymus wrote:
If "there" refers to a place in time then it would preferably read, "At [the time of] Admah they trangressed My covenant." I can live with this.
To say, "At [the time of] the covenant they transgressed My covenant makes no sense. See Hosea 11:8.
Roo
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 19:12:57 GMT -5
Vaughn wrote: No! I will debate from scripture alone! I have told Ted this before. I would give him an argument from scripture and he would just give me a link to click on and read. I am not interested in your book. Again, I will debate from scripture alone. You may choose the topic.
Roo
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 19:26:13 GMT -5
Vaughn wrote:
Vaughn,
You previously said this:
Come on! Jews had not existed yet. So how could Genesis 1 refer to Gentiles?
Oh yes you are sir. Morris put his finger on it by noting this:
Roo
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 19:29:00 GMT -5
Roo, If Genesis 1 is the creation of the Old Covenant, then in a sense, Adam was Israel. Okay. Clarify the "sense" that Adam was Israel. Roo
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 4, 2011 19:32:08 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?
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 19:32:25 GMT -5
Vaughn wrote: No! I will debate from scripture alone! I have told Ted this before. I would give him an argument from scripture and he would just give me a link to click on and read. I am not interested in your book. Again, I will debate from scripture alone. You may choose the topic. Roo Again, it appears you have trouble reading. I asked what issues (topics) and you say "Scripture alone." You said you don't care about the topics. I know nothing about you. Are you a preterist? Full or partial? Corporate Body or Individual Body Resurrection? A follower of the Seventh-Day Adventist Apologists Henry Morris, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind, or some other view of physical creation? Maybe Gap theory like John Lightfoot or Cyrus Scofield or Day-age like James Ussher or Hugh Ross. Framework? Evolutionary Creationist? Analogic? Local? Apocalyptic Creation like Milton Terry? What was the scope of the Flood? Do you agree with James Jordan that the Flood and Babel were both covenantal judgments? What type of death occurred at the Fall? But you want to debate Scripture alone without a topic, yet you want me to choose a topic. You make no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 4, 2011 19:40:09 GMT -5
Vaughn wrote: 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." We will have to continue working this out tomorrow. I am done for this evening. Roo
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 4, 2011 19:55:27 GMT -5
Didymus, Did you have a similar reaction, the first time you were told about Covenant Eschatology? Nope. My reaction was, "now this makes sense." But nothing you propose makes any sense to me. I have studied enough to know this doctrine of yours is false. Once making that determination, why study it any further. In an earlier post, Ted provided a link, which I followed. I e-mailed those folks. I was sent several links to articles on the is subject. One of those articles began, "For a moment, let’s pretend Genesis was never in the Bible." That's like saying, "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try." That comes out of the Beatle's School of Theology. I don't trust doctrinal pretentions, for they can lead anywhere. It's like saying, "For a moment, let's pretend Jesus never existed." Give me a factual presentation, and I will consider it. But you guys can't even factually answer one little question. Where did God say to Adam, "I will make My covenant with you"?
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 20:05:58 GMT -5
Bev, I understand Morris' point about the reality needing to exist before a metaphor can be made from it. Morris' point was not that reality had to exist before a metaphor can be made from it, but that "reality" had to be expressed in Scripture, before a metaphor can be made from it. This is different. First, he assumes that these terms are metaphors. They may look like metaphors to us moderns, but that is a question that no one has actually addressed. For example, the Greek word kosmos is frequently translated world. But as it is consistently used in the New Testament, it means a people of a specific generation. For example, first century Jews were the most common NT kosmos. Is "planet" or "universe" the primary definition of kosmos? If so, it is always used as a metaphor. Or is the contextual definition, the primary? Second, he assumes that the author of Genesis 1 was not capable of using metaphors. Think about it for a moment. Morris is assuming evolutionary development in his understanding of Genesis. How can he do that? He has a fundamental contradiction in his assumptions. Before I suggested Covenant Creation, no one had ever suggested this both/and approach you are now suggesting. Everyone believed some form of physical creation. We all once believed in a physical creation and a physical eschaton. We full preterists now believe in a covenantal eschaton and the partial preterists now believe both/and. You probably see where this is going. I invent and define covenant creation to match our covenant eschaton. Some people see it and are fully convinced. Some people become partial preterists in Genesis. And the "futurists" still deny that there is any covenant in Genesis. Your concerns and Didymus' concerns are completely at odds. I would not discuss preterism with a partial preterist and a dispensationalist at the same time. The dispensationalist is just plain wrong. The partial preterist understands covenant eschatology but questions my interpretation of specific issues, things we can't settle. I don't know the solution to a particular issue and neither does the partial preterist. He prefers to place the things we don't understand in the future. I prefer to place them in the past. Is there any covenant at all in the eschaton? If "Yes," then should we drop all of our former beliefs of a physical eschaton? Is there any covenant at all in Genesis 1 & 2? Didymus, Morris, and Roo say "No." That's what I have to answer with them. For you, you've already said "Yes." The question then is how far does that covenant extend and should you drop all of your former beliefs in a physical creation? Very different questions. It would be my pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 4, 2011 20:16:53 GMT -5
Hmm... point missed. Let me try again. Water was created... Do you really think that I never considered that? The point that has been missed is, how do you know that Genesis 1 really describes water and not gentiles? An even more fundamental point that you have not considered is, Genesis 1 nowhere discusses the creation of water. The heavens and the earth were created. The heavens and the earth were created out of the water. The water was not part of the heavens and the earth. Not in Genesis 1, nor in Revelation 20. Yes, I get the thought process. It is unfortunate that you don't understand basic hermeneutic principles. Scripture interprets Scripture. In Hebrew, you "bara" a "berith." In Hebrew, it isn't a "metaphor, which is the point." Was I wrong to assume you had read my comments before responding? Apparently. You ignore what I say, then make a claim about what I believe that is contrary to my very words. How am I supposed to respond to that? Try reading a bit. Try assuming that I am conversant in the usual ways of viewing Genesis creation. Explaining to me what I know and have rejected, warrants sarcasm. It demonstrates that you are not a thoughtful critic and that you think I'm a child, that I'm new to all of this. I have been through dozens of physical creation views of Genesis 1. They do not work. Not a one of them. They all compromise the text of Genesis. When mixed with any form of preterism, the situation only gets worse. Your definition of metaphor doesn't help. Genesis promises things. If Genesis 1 is physical, then those things promised are physical. Jesus and the apostles invoked the early chapters of Genesis to explain prophecy. The fulfillment of those prophecies must match the nature of the events in Genesis. You can not take a physical example and fulfill it with a metaphor. The example in Genesis must match the fulfillment. We know what the fulfillment was. Genesis must match. Otherwise, Jesus and the apostles lied, they did not tell us the truth about the nature of Genesis. So far, all you have proven is that you don't understand that there are two realms of existence. If you go to the following link, you will go to the thread entitled, "Two Realms of Existence." There you can see where this debate got started. livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=any&action=display&thread=712
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 20:23:15 GMT -5
I have studied enough to know this doctrine of yours is false. Once making that determination, why study it any further. ... Give me a factual presentation, and I will consider it. No you won't. You've already said you won't.
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 4, 2011 20:30:49 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?
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 4, 2011 20:32:49 GMT -5
JL and Roo please check the two PM's I sent your way concerning the debate set up.
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 4, 2011 20:53:40 GMT -5
Didymus wrote: If "there" refers to a place in time then it would preferably read, "At [the time of] Admah they trangressed My covenant." I can live with this. To say, "At [the time of] the covenant they transgressed My covenant makes no sense. See Hosea 11:8. Roo As I said before, I don't disagree with your conclusion. But you are misplacing the "[the time of]." "But like men they transgressed the covenant; [at that point in time] they dealt treacherously with Me." Meaning, as Allyn put it, at the point of the covenant. There had to be a covenant for men to transgress. And that is why this verse can not be referring to Adam, the first human, as there was no covenant at that point in time. The first covenant God made was with Noah. Now, let's understand this in the framework of Hosea. Hosea is a prophet to whom? Certainly not to Adam, the first man. Hosea was a prophet to Israel and Judah. Within that framework, what covenant in mentioned in 6.7? Would it not be the covenant God gave Israel on their way out of Egypt to the promised land?
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 4, 2011 21:08:48 GMT -5
I have studied enough to know this doctrine of yours is false. Once making that determination, why study it any further. ... Give me a factual presentation, and I will consider it. No you won't. You've already said you won't. 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?
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 4, 2011 21:16:51 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? You can't see that one can be a full preterist without seeing Genesis 1 as a metaphorical creation. Then, by that reckoning, I am not a preterist. Yet I believe all prophecies in the Bible have been fufilled. You seem to be suggesting that there is something more to preterism than all Biblical prophecies being fulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 4, 2011 21:20:56 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." You clearly said that you KNOW the doctrine to be false. You also said. "Why study it any further?" Based upon those two statements alone it is clear that you are not the least bit interested. You already allegedly KNOW and you won't study further. That is one closed mind you got there, Tom. You do realize that is EXACTLY the futurist's attitude towards preterism, right? They know preterism is false so there is no reason for them to even concern themselves with it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if futurists pull out the old Romans 16 card especially for us...it seems that you are using it too for the CC people. Romans 16:17 - Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Have you read Beyond Creation Science? Have you read any articles right through. Listened to any podcasts or any of the 2009 or 2010 Covenant Creation Conferences. Not likely, right?
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 4, 2011 21:24:23 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 That's exactly what the futurists say about the preterists. And all because these futurists have a wrong understanding of the NATURE of the resurrection, parousia, and judgment.
|
|