|
Post by mellontes on Jan 11, 2011 11:56:46 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. Morris, I think Jeff has your best interests at heart (not that I am saying you believe otherwise). It's like talking about the corporate resurrection with dispies...there is just so much for them to cover BEFORE one can even begin that discussion. One poster has mentioned that he is inclined to be suspicious about a doctrinal position that takes a lot of explanation. On that basis, all futurists are correct...because they have such a shallow understanding of what the last days actually entailed. Jeff has a debate to get ready for; he has a family; he works full time. All these questions and his short answers take time. He has just suggested that you spend $16 to get the full version. It is just too time demanding. Can you imagine how much time Allyn has spent on CARM trying to explain the same concepts over and over and over again to all that ask in civility? He should (if he hasn't already) keep the answers to frequently asked questions so that he can just copy and paste the response. To do it over and over is very time consuming, all the while fighting off the ignorant alligators whose only purpose is to condemn... Jeff has already spent the effort; it's your turn. You get the better picture that way, instead of a blurb here and a blurb there. He might even leave out something he should have included...
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 11, 2011 12:15:49 GMT -5
Morris, I think Jeff has your best interests at heart (not that I am saying you believe otherwise). It's like talking about the corporate resurrection with dispies...there is just so much for them to cover BEFORE one can even begin that discussion. One poster has mentioned that he is inclined to be suspicious about a doctrinal position that takes a lot of explanation. On that basis, all futurists are correct...because they have such a shallow understanding of what the last days actually entailed. Jeff has a debate to get ready for; he has a family; he works full time. All these questions and his short answers take time. He has just suggested that you spend $16 to get the full version. It is just too time demanding. Can you imagine how much time Allyn has spent on CARM trying to explain the same concepts over and over and over again to all that ask in civility? He should (if he hasn't already) keep the answers to frequently asked questions so that he can just copy and paste the response. To do it over and over is very time consuming, all the while fighting off the ignorant alligators whose only purpose is to condemn... Jeff has already spent the effort; it's your turn. You get the better picture that way, instead of a blurb here and a blurb there. He might even leave out something he should have included... I fully appreciate this response, Ted. However, my time is just as valuable, and right now I am only interested in some basic symbology to begin my own search. I don't want the spoon, I want the shovel. We all have repeated the same answers to the same questions in various places and times. It is in the nature of study and of discussions for this to happen. And it takes both time and effort. Jeff, if you are too busy at this juncture I completely understand, but realize I am only looking for basics at this point. And not to judge the view but to begin study.
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 25, 2011 16:56:41 GMT -5
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. Jeff should have said, " Some Preterists take those to be corporate bodies." Roo
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 25, 2011 17:01:15 GMT -5
Mellontes said: Then let Jeff take a sabbatical from here and get ready for the deabte.
Roo
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 25, 2011 17:04:19 GMT -5
Morris, I think Jeff has your best interests at heart (not that I am saying you believe otherwise). It's like talking about the corporate resurrection with dispies...there is just so much for them to cover BEFORE one can even begin that discussion. One poster has mentioned that he is inclined to be suspicious about a doctrinal position that takes a lot of explanation. On that basis, all futurists are correct...because they have such a shallow understanding of what the last days actually entailed. Jeff has a debate to get ready for; he has a family; he works full time. All these questions and his short answers take time. He has just suggested that you spend $16 to get the full version. It is just too time demanding. Can you imagine how much time Allyn has spent on CARM trying to explain the same concepts over and over and over again to all that ask in civility? He should (if he hasn't already) keep the answers to frequently asked questions so that he can just copy and paste the response. To do it over and over is very time consuming, all the while fighting off the ignorant alligators whose only purpose is to condemn... Jeff has already spent the effort; it's your turn. You get the better picture that way, instead of a blurb here and a blurb there. He might even leave out something he should have included... I fully appreciate this response, Ted. However, my time is just as valuable, and right now I am only interested in some basic symbology to begin my own search. I don't want the sthingy, I want the shovel. We all have repeated the same answers to the same questions in various places and times. It is in the nature of study and of discussions for this to happen. And it takes both time and effort. Jeff, if you are too busy at this juncture I completely understand, but realize I am only looking for basics at this point. And not to judge the view but to begin study. Morris, Follow the debate. Roo
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 26, 2011 13:40:45 GMT -5
...right now I am only interested in some basic symbology to begin my own search. I don't want the sthingy, I want the shovel. Hmm... I'm not sure what on earth I typed here but it was supposed to be "I don't want the spoon, I want the shovel". Meaning, I don't want to be feed the stuff, I want the tools to do my own digging. Sorry to those who read that and went .
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 26, 2011 18:48:44 GMT -5
...right now I am only interested in some basic symbology to begin my own search. I don't want the sthingy, I want the shovel. Hmm... I'm not sure what on earth I typed here but it was supposed to be "I don't want the sthingy, I want the shovel". Meaning, I don't want to be feed the stuff, I want the tools to do my own digging. Sorry to those who read that and went . You will probably have to type the word with spaces between the characters or something. The Proboards software catches cuss words and inappropriate words and converts them to something else. This also happened recently in someone's post here who mentioned the name of an author. I think the author's name was D!ck Francis (or Frances) and it came out as "thingy Francis." The feature is a pain in situations like this; but I'm thankful in the long run that it is there to hide the really bad words. I think Allyn said one time that he can edit the word list. What word did you use?
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 26, 2011 19:43:45 GMT -5
Hmm... I'm not sure what on earth I typed here but it was supposed to be "I don't want the sthingy, I want the shovel". Meaning, I don't want to be feed the stuff, I want the tools to do my own digging. Sorry to those who read that and went . You will probably have to type the word with spaces between the characters or something. The Proboards software catches cuss words and inappropriate words and converts them to something else. This also happened recently in someone's post here who mentioned the name of an author. I think the author's name was D!ck Francis (or Frances) and it came out as "thingy Francis." The feature is a pain in situations like this; but I'm thankful in the long run that it is there to hide the really bad words. I think Allyn said one time that he can edit the word list. What word did you use? I will remove all the word filter safetys. I don't think we will need them here. If the time comes we do then it may mean the board has run its course anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 27, 2011 17:17:33 GMT -5
Let's try this again and see what happens! "I don't want the spoon, I want the shovel". I can't believe that was filtered.
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 27, 2011 18:49:39 GMT -5
Let's try this again and see what happens! "I don't want the spoon, I want the shovel". I can't believe that was filtered. I can't believe it, either. Silly!
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 13, 2011 10:05:01 GMT -5
Lets address this thread from another angle. Lets say that all of us are well versed in Scripture. Lets also say that all of us hold to the CC view. Now I know this is where the shrugged shoulders may come in but lets just give it a try. Lets take it from this point and break down the position to its most elementary elements for the purpose of giving the reader the advantage in understanding how the CC holders have put together their concept of Covenant Creation.
Since I am already out of my league I will start it off by submitting the beginning from the end. Genesis 1:1 says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - Rev 21:1 says "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea."
CCers say that since Rev. 21:1 refers to the first heaven and the first earth then what is the next stepping stone the holder of this view would take to validate further the view? In otherwords, I am asking that one verse or one passage be given by the next poster which will eventually give the full mosaic support for Covenant Creation - one passage leading to or supported by the next.
so then what we have so far is: Genesis 1:1 leads to Rev 21:1
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 13, 2011 10:38:35 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. The entire human race descended from Adam, did it not? Is the whole human race the Old Covenant Body?
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 13, 2011 13:11:40 GMT -5
Perhaps this is a question to ask Jeff after the debate.
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 13, 2011 15:17:20 GMT -5
Perhaps this is a question to ask Jeff after the debate. You can't answer that? It's a simple question. Adam's name means "man," does it not? And unless there is a gap between the creation of man in Genesis 1, which really wasn't the creation of man, as it was all about the creation of a covenant. So, then the only Scripture we have that man was created is Genesis 2. Therefore, Adam had to be the first man, unless Gen. 2 was all about the covenant too. Then we have no account of the first man being created. You know, I don't believe anyone told us what those foundational principles are for covenant creation. It seems a foundational principle would be at the beginning. So when you begin to explain it, where do you begin? It seems Genesis 1 is a good beginning point.
|
|
|
Post by Ken P on Feb 18, 2011 23:54:14 GMT -5
Tom,
What about Cain being a worker of Bronze and Iron...where does that put him? He can't be the son of the progenitor of the entire human race....that would mean the human race began in 7000 BC!
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 19, 2011 0:49:37 GMT -5
Tom, What about Cain being a worker of Bronze and Iron...where does that put him? He can't be the son of the progenitor of the entire human race....that would mean the human race began in 7000 BC! Where do you get that, Ken P?
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 19, 2011 0:50:36 GMT -5
You can't answer that? It's a simple question. Adam's name means "man," does it not? Tom, Is it a simple question? Does Adam mean man? Consider Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that He should lie,Nor a son of man, that He should repent." What is the difference between "man" and "son of man?" Why should the first lie, yet the second repent? The first man is "ish," the second is "a son of Adam." Two different words translated man. What if an "ish" is a man outside of the covenant? He would be expected to lie, but why would he repent? He has no one to repent to. But a son of Adam, he is in the covenant. If he lies, Go expects him to repent. Psalm 8:4, "What is man that You are mindful of him,And the son of man that You visit him?" Did got visit man in general? No. He visited Israel, the sons of Adam. Any idea how many comparisons are in Scripture between ish and ben Adam? Are there any examples of ben ish in Scripture? Or are they all ben Adam? Why is more always expected of ben Adam than is expected of ish? I think the common belief that Adam=man is suspect. We should at least translate Adam as Adam and quit hiding these little problems. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 19, 2011 0:53:09 GMT -5
Tom, What about Cain being a worker of Bronze and Iron...where does that put him? He can't be the son of the progenitor of the entire human race....that would mean the human race began in 7000 BC! Where do you get that, Ken P? Tubal-Cain, Gen. 4:22.
|
|
|
Post by Ken P on Feb 19, 2011 21:05:01 GMT -5
Where do you get that, Ken P? Tubal-Cain, Gen. 4:22. Thanks Jeff...and Tom...I apologize for the misprint..the grandson of Adam....but either way....the Bible defines things on its own terms does it not?
|
|