|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 7:23:17 GMT -5
This kind of question seems to be what is causing some trouble between posters on the Genesis thread so I think it will be great to sort of get a better understanding about what this view is using as the basic foundation for Covenant Creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 9:34:36 GMT -5
The one foundational principle is that all truth is God's truth. A correct view/interpretation/understanding of Scripture must explain all truth. It can not explain one thing while explaining away something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 9:42:04 GMT -5
The one foundational principle is that all truth is God's truth. A correct view/interpretation/understanding of Scripture must explain all truth. It can not explain one thing while explaining away something else. How can we know that all truth is God's truth? Who is it among men who can determine that? There are varieties of truth but God's truth is not made up of varieties. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 9:59:05 GMT -5
There are varieties of truth but God's truth is not made up of varieties. What do you mean by "varieties of truth?" |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 11:29:50 GMT -5
There are varieties of truth but God's truth is not made up of varieties. What do you mean by "varieties of truth?" Everyone thinks they hold to the truth. Dispensationalism is a truth in those who hold to it. Preterism is to another and athieism to still others and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 12:46:37 GMT -5
Everyone thinks they hold to the truth. Dispensationalism is a truth in those who hold to it. Preterism is to another and athieism to still others and so on. Allyn, I see all of those as interpretations, not as truth. An interpretation is never truth. An interpretation is either false or it is so far consistent with the truth, but it can never be proven true. The only things that can be proven true are those that can be reduced to purely mathematical constructs. Atheism and preterism might also be starting principles, like axioms in mathematics. They are assumed to be true and used as starting points, but they are not necessarily true. Assumed principles are only truth inside the mind of the mathematician, inside a contrived and closed mental universe. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 5, 2011 12:51:50 GMT -5
All truth is God's truth is merely a man made maxim intended to convey that truth whereever it is found is absolute God given truth. But that is not what scripture says, because it reveals that there is a wisdom that only comes from above and also a wisdom that comes from men and a devil. So perhaps for the truth we want to discuss, we should stick to revealed truth as it is written for our foundation.
Otherwise fables, myths, legends and so-called science, if added to the mix, are liable to become the foundation on which we establish our beliefs in the vain imaginations of men and not upon what God alone has said for our edification.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 13:08:50 GMT -5
Everyone thinks they hold to the truth. Dispensationalism is a truth in those who hold to it. Preterism is to another and athieism to still others and so on. Allyn, I see all of those as interpretations, not as truth. An interpretation is never truth. An interpretation is either false or it is so far consistent with the truth, but it can never be proven true. The only things that can be proven true are those that can be reduced to purely mathematical constructs. Atheism and preterism might also be starting principles, like axioms in mathematics. They are assumed to be true and used as starting points, but they are not necessarily true. Assumed principles are only truth inside the mind of the mathematician, inside a contrived and closed mental universe. Thanks JL because you have answered your own question. CC is not a truth but an interpretation. This is evident to all who read the Bible naturally. Its not until one questions wheather the water of the Genesis is the same water as the Revelation. Even Genesis itself offers a solution to the problem of life created to Life that dies. Genesis 1 begins with the creation of all living things and in contrast ends with a man in a coffin in Egypt. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 13:47:05 GMT -5
All truth is God's truth is merely a man made maxim intended to convey that truth whereever it is found is absolute God given truth. But that is not what scripture says, because it reveals that there is a wisdom that only comes from above and also a wisdom that comes from men and a devil. So perhaps for the truth we want to discuss, we should stick to revealed truth as it is written for our foundation. Otherwise fables, myths, legends and so-called science, if added to the mix, are liable to become the foundation on which we establish our beliefs in the vain imaginations of men and not upon what God alone has said for our edification. Robin, You have not read Beyond Creation Science, nor likely even seen a copy. What Scripture says and what it reveals is the subject of that book. Your comments here demonstrate your vain imaginations. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 14:29:50 GMT -5
Thanks JL because you have answered your own question. CC is not a truth but an interpretation. This is evident to all who read the Bible naturally. Its not until one questions wheather the water of the Genesis is the same water as the Revelation. Even Genesis itself offers a solution to the problem of life created to Life that dies. Genesis 1 begins with the creation of all living things and in contrast ends with a man in a coffin in Egypt. Allyn, What is the "natural reading?" As Paul uses "natural" in 1 Cor. 15:44-46, covenant creation of some sort is the "natural" reading. I have published and posted my view hoping that open critics would put the view to the test. To date, the most common response is rejection because it doesn't match "a natural reading," by which the critic means "his own reading." Not a single one of these critics has reciprocated and posted their view of Genesis 1 so that we can test it against Scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 5, 2011 14:48:18 GMT -5
All truth is God's truth is merely a man made maxim intended to convey that truth whereever it is found is absolute God given truth. But that is not what scripture says, because it reveals that there is a wisdom that only comes from above and also a wisdom that comes from men and a devil. So perhaps for the truth we want to discuss, we should stick to revealed truth as it is written for our foundation. Otherwise fables, myths, legends and so-called science, if added to the mix, are liable to become the foundation on which we establish our beliefs in the vain imaginations of men and not upon what God alone has said for our edification. Robin, You have not read Beyond Creation Science, nor likely even seen a copy. What Scripture says and what it reveals is the subject of that book. Your comments here demonstrate your vain imaginations. Yet I am not the one who said the foundational principle should be that 'all truth is God's truth' - you did. I was merely trying to show why such a maxim is not valid according to the scriptures. No vain imaginations needed for that! And you are right, I have not yet obtained a copy of BCS because I still don't see a need to read it - since we are already at odds on what should constituent truth! |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 5, 2011 17:34:31 GMT -5
Still eagerly looking forward to seeing these foundational principles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 18:09:01 GMT -5
Thanks JL because you have answered your own question. CC is not a truth but an interpretation. This is evident to all who read the Bible naturally. Its not until one questions wheather the water of the Genesis is the same water as the Revelation. Even Genesis itself offers a solution to the problem of life created to Life that dies. Genesis 1 begins with the creation of all living things and in contrast ends with a man in a coffin in Egypt. Allyn, What is the "natural reading?" As Paul uses "natural" in 1 Cor. 15:44-46, covenant creation of some sort is the "natural" reading. I have published and posted my view hoping that open critics would put the view to the test. To date, the most common response is rejection because it doesn't match "a natural reading," by which the critic means "his own reading." Not a single one of these critics has reciprocated and posted their view of Genesis 1 so that we can test it against Scripture. I see I haven't answered your question. Reading the Bible naturally is taking the message as it is delivered up to and including another verse or passage on the subject which clarifies a teaching for us as delieverd by either the same inspired writer or a different inspired writer or prophet. For example I think the resurrection of the dead is always assumed to involve every person who has ever lived on earth. The person may make that assumption from a natural reading of a verse or passage in one place but then find other clearer natural reading of a verse or passage that explain explicitly that the reusrrection of the dead is not all inclusive. So when I said the natural reading then it would take into account the natural reading of the teaching on the subject studied until that subjects message is found in its clearest form. I find this principal works 100% of the time but I also admit that I have not come to where I have found all of the clearest teachings on every subject since I have not exhausted every subject. I feel like I was rambling so I hope this made at least some sense. The clearest natural reading of the Genesis account is in the physical creation account but the clearest covenant account includes the examples of the creation elements used as metaphors for the spiritual aspects of life as we find them used much further in to the Bible.. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 18:33:10 GMT -5
Reading the Bible naturally is taking the message as it is delivered up to and including another verse or passage on the subject which clarifies a teaching for us as delieverd by either the same inspired writer or a different inspired writer or prophet. Allyn, I maintain that by this definition, covenant creation is the result of reading the Bible naturally. You just haven't included enough of this, "another verse or passage on the subject which clarifies a teaching for us as delieverd by either the same inspired writer or a different inspired writer or prophet."  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 18:56:45 GMT -5
All truth is God's truth is merely a man made maxim intended to convey that truth whereever it is found is absolute God given truth. But that is not what scripture says, because it reveals that there is a wisdom that only comes from above and also a wisdom that comes from men and a devil. So perhaps for the truth we want to discuss, we should stick to revealed truth as it is written for our foundation. Otherwise fables, myths, legends and so-called science, if added to the mix, are liable to become the foundation on which we establish our beliefs in the vain imaginations of men and not upon what God alone has said for our edification. Robin, You have not read Beyond Creation Science, nor likely even seen a copy. What Scripture says and what it reveals is the subject of that book. Your comments here demonstrate your vain imaginations. I tend to agree with what Robin said, unless I've misunderstood it. And, Jeff, I'm not sure how to take your final statement about vain imaginations. I hope it wasn't intended as an insult. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 5, 2011 19:10:44 GMT -5
Reading the Bible naturally is taking the message as it is delivered up to and including another verse or passage on the subject which clarifies a teaching for us as delieverd by either the same inspired writer or a different inspired writer or prophet. Allyn, I maintain that by this definition, covenant creation is the result of reading the Bible naturally. You just haven't included enough of this, "another verse or passage on the subject which clarifies a teaching for us as delieverd by either the same inspired writer or a different inspired writer or prophet." Well maybe but it could be that the Genesis 1 account was laid out as it was supposed to be (a creation account) but some have positioned themselves in such a way that it has lost its clarity. There was a baby camel who asked his mother why camels have such large flat feet. The mother camel said it was so we could walk the sands of the desert easily. The baby camel then asked why camels have such long eye lashes. The mother camel said it was to help keep the blowing sands out of the eyes. The baby camel asked why camels have humps on their back. The mother camel said it was to store water for long journeys through the desert between oasis'. The baby camel then asked "Why are we in a zoo?" Some things seemingly have perfectly correct explanations but then reality has its say. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 19:48:28 GMT -5
Bev,
I quoted Robin.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 5, 2011 19:59:49 GMT -5
lol Allyn
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 5, 2011 23:29:30 GMT -5
OK. What I saw was that she mentioned vain imaginations in a generic sense, but you applied it to her ideas personally. Maybe I was reading more into it than was intended. If so, I apologize! |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 6, 2011 2:27:03 GMT -5
OK. What I saw was that she mentioned vain imaginations in a generic sense, but you applied it to her ideas personally. Maybe I was reading more into it than was intended. If so, I apologize! Bev, Robin may have mentioned them in the generic sense, but that is not what she meant. Please delete my post, if you have a problem with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 6, 2011 13:30:29 GMT -5
OK. What I saw was that she mentioned vain imaginations in a generic sense, but you applied it to her ideas personally. Maybe I was reading more into it than was intended. If so, I apologize! Bev, Robin may have mentioned them in the generic sense, but that is not what she meant. Please delete my post, if you have a problem with it. I don't think that's necessary, Jeff. Robin has not indicated a problem, so maybe she wasn't bothered a bit by it. I was being preemptively empathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 10, 2011 14:26:30 GMT -5
Could someone let me know what the first heaven and earth is in Genesis 1 according to CC? I don't need a full explanation or defense of it, just a clear presentation of what it represents so I can follow along. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 10, 2011 14:29:14 GMT -5
Could someone let me know what the first heaven and earth is in Genesis 1 according to CC? I don't need a full explanation or defense of it, just a clear presentation of what it represents so I can follow along. Thanks. The Old Covenant Body, just as the Church is the New Covenant Body, New H&E in Rev. 21:1. That's the conclusion after 18 chapters in Beyond Creation Science, not the foundation or assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 10, 2011 14:40:02 GMT -5
The Old Covenant Body, just as the Church is the New Covenant Body, New H&E in Rev. 21:1. That's the conclusion after 18 chapters in Beyond Creation Science, not the foundation or assumption. Thanks for the quick reply. However, I thought CC viewed Adam as Israel, the old covenant body? I am trying to read the Genesis account using CC principles/imagery. What represents the covenant itself? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 10, 2011 16:14:50 GMT -5
The Old Covenant Body, just as the Church is the New Covenant Body, New H&E in Rev. 21:1. That's the conclusion after 18 chapters in Beyond Creation Science, not the foundation or assumption. Thanks for the quick reply. However, I thought CC viewed Adam as Israel, the old covenant body? I am trying to read the Genesis account using CC principles/imagery. What represents the covenant itself? Morris, Please look at 1 Cor. 15:44-46. Adam-natural body. Christ-spiritual body. Preterists take those to be corporate bodies. Christ's body is the Church. Adam's body is the Old Covenant analog. Call it Israel. The Old Covenant is what was created in Genesis 1. H&E is the Old Covenant. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 10, 2011 16:28:24 GMT -5
So, we have;
Adam as Israel, the congregation of God's people.
Heavens and Earth as the Old Covenant, the Law as given by Moses.
Am I correct in these?
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 10, 2011 16:46:10 GMT -5
So, we have; Adam as Israel, the congregation of God's people. Heavens and Earth as the Old Covenant, the Law as given by Moses. Am I correct in these? Adam was a man. The first Adam. Israel descended from him. The Law given by Moses came later. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 10, 2011 17:20:59 GMT -5
As per the nature of this thread, I am not here to present any opposition to the CC view, merely to better understand its symbology within the Genesis 1 context. I felt that I should say that up front to put my questions here in their intended framework. So, we have; Adam as Israel, the congregation of God's people. Heavens and Earth as the Old Covenant, the Law as given by Moses. Am I correct in these? Adam was a man. The first Adam. Israel descended from him. Are you saying, Adam was the first man? And Israel came from him? Or, Adam was a man, the first to be of "Israel"? (Israel here meaning the people of God, not the person or nation). Also for clarification, Israel the man or Israel the nation "descended from him"? What I am asking here is simply whether Adam's descendants eventually lead to Israel the man (from whom Israel the people/nation would be reckoned), or all of Adam's descendants were reckoned as Israel the people/nation. I think I follow you here. The Covenant and the Law are separate entities, the "Law" being added. So again for clarification, with "H&E is the Old Covenant", what constitutes "the Old Covenant"? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 10, 2011 20:42:49 GMT -5
As per the nature of this thread, I am not here to present any opposition to the CC view, merely to better understand its symbology within the Genesis 1 context. I felt that I should say that up front to put my questions here in their intended framework. Adam was a man. The first Adam. Israel descended from him. Are you saying, Adam was the first man? And Israel came from him? Or, Adam was a man, the first to be of "Israel"? (Israel here meaning the people of God, not the person or nation). Also for clarification, Israel the man or Israel the nation "descended from him"? What I am asking here is simply whether Adam's descendants eventually lead to Israel the man (from whom Israel the people/nation would be reckoned), or all of Adam's descendants were reckoned as Israel the people/nation. I think I follow you here. The Covenant and the Law are separate entities, the "Law" being added. So again for clarification, with "H&E is the Old Covenant", what constitutes "the Old Covenant"? Morris, Why not get the book? It is 530 pages. I can't do the topic justice in a few sentences here. Mike Loomis is selling it for $16. But only for a few hours more. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 11, 2011 11:45:16 GMT -5
Morris, Why not get the book? It is 530 pages. I can't do the topic justice in a few sentences here. Mike Loomis is selling it for $16. But only for a few hours more. Is this all it comes down to? This is a discussion board and I would like to discuss some of the principal symbols of the covenant creation viewpoint. I'm not asking for an exhaustive exposition on the entire theory, just some interpretation of symbolism. |
|
