|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 15, 2011 10:45:30 GMT -5
Bev, Sorry, I had forgotten, we left Josephus' comments about Noah's tribulations out of BCS. They are in Antiquities, Book 1, Chapter 3, at the end of Paragraph 1. www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-1.htmBut Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land. Noah thought leaving would solve the problem. Unfortunately for Noah, God sent him back. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 15, 2011 15:13:19 GMT -5
Taking Bev's point that those in the ark were saved like those who fled Jerusalem, I agree. Jesus taught that some were taken and some were left which sounds backwards to what we saw with the ark and Jerusalem but those who were taken were the ones who paid the price with their lives in those two events while the ones who were left were the living - safe from the destruction. As a futurist, I had always been taught that those who were taken were the ones who were raptured. I have since learned that these are the ones taken in judgment. Those that were left were the ones who could escape. I liken the ark to the same thing. Those who were taken in the flood were the ones who were judged, those that were still left (in the ark) were the ones spared... Here is a comparison i did a while back. Feel free to punch holes in it... 1. The people who rejected the preaching of Noah were the ones taken in judgment. 2. The saved were told how to flee the judgment by building an ark and getting into it. 3. The saved remained upon the earth (land) and continued their earthly existence. 4. Once judgment had begun, the people were given no second chance for repentance. 5. The people had 120 years of opportunity to repent. 6. Noah (likely with his sons) had done the preaching of righteousness. 7. God had shut the door of the ark and had sealed in Noah and his family. 8. The judgment came at the time appointed, 120 years later from Genesis 6:3. Compare this to Matthew 24: 1. The people who rejected Christ and His only way of salvation were taken in judgment. 2. The saved were warned to flee Judah and hide in the mountains. 3. The saved remained upon the earth and continued their earthly existence. To say the saved were taken off the earth goes against the comparison Christ made (Matthew 24:37). 4. Once judgment had begun, the people were given no second chance for repentance. Dispensational theology states that once those being judged understand (perceive or see) God coming in judgment, that they will look upon Him and be saved. This manner of deliverance is inconsistent with all of Scripture. 5. The people had 40 years of opportunity to repent, the equivalent of one generation. It was “this generation” that Christ was referring to in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34. 6. They had the preaching of Christ, the disciples, and by many others who were partakers of His saving grace. 7. Jesus Christ was the Door and His people were sealed by the Holy Spirit. Those not abiding in The Door at the time of judgment would be judged. 8. The judgment came at the time appointed in 70 AD, within their generation of 40 years as Christ had said in: o Matthew 23:36 – Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. o Matthew 24:34 – Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. o Mark 13:30 – Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. o Luke 11:50 – That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; o Luke 11:51 – From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. o Luke 17:25 – But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. o Luke 21:32 – Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 15, 2011 15:55:53 GMT -5
Taking Bev's point that those in the ark were saved like those who fled Jerusalem, I agree. Jesus taught that some were taken and some were left which sounds backwards to what we saw with the ark and Jerusalem but those who were taken were the ones who paid the price with their lives in those two events while the ones who were left were the living - safe from the destruction. As a futurist, I had always been taught that those who were taken were the ones who were raptured. I have since learned that these are the ones taken in judgment. Those that were left were the ones who could escape. I liken the ark to the same thing. Those who were taken in the flood were the ones who were judged, those that were still left (in the ark) were the ones spared... Here is a comparison i did a while back. Feel free to punch holes in it... 1. The people who rejected the preaching of Noah were the ones taken in judgment. 2. The saved were told how to flee the judgment by building an ark and getting into it. 3. The saved remained upon the earth (land) and continued their earthly existence. 4. Once judgment had begun, the people were given no second chance for repentance. 5. The people had 120 years of opportunity to repent. 6. Noah (likely with his sons) had done the preaching of righteousness. 7. God had shut the door of the ark and had sealed in Noah and his family. 8. The judgment came at the time appointed, 120 years later from Genesis 6:3. Compare this to Matthew 24: 1. The people who rejected Christ and His only way of salvation were taken in judgment. 2. The saved were warned to flee Judah and hide in the mountains. 3. The saved remained upon the earth and continued their earthly existence. To say the saved were taken off the earth goes against the comparison Christ made (Matthew 24:37). 4. Once judgment had begun, the people were given no second chance for repentance. Dispensational theology states that once those being judged understand (perceive or see) God coming in judgment, that they will look upon Him and be saved. This manner of deliverance is inconsistent with all of Scripture. 5. The people had 40 years of opportunity to repent, the equivalent of one generation. It was “this generation” that Christ was referring to in Matthew 23:36 and Matthew 24:34. 6. They had the preaching of Christ, the disciples, and by many others who were partakers of His saving grace. 7. Jesus Christ was the Door and His people were sealed by the Holy Spirit. Those not abiding in The Door at the time of judgment would be judged. 8. The judgment came at the time appointed in 70 AD, within their generation of 40 years as Christ had said in: o Matthew 23:36 – Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. o Matthew 24:34 – Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. o Mark 13:30 – Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. o Luke 11:50 – That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; o Luke 11:51 – From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. o Luke 17:25 – But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. o Luke 21:32 – Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. We agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 15, 2011 23:19:58 GMT -5
Regarding vs. 21, are you implying that because there would be tribulation greater than what had occurred before, the flood of Noah's day could not have been global? My question then is what tribulation was there in Noah's day leading up to the flood? You might respond that the earth was filled with violence (Genesis 6:11-13), but that was a reason for bringing the flood, not a sign of its imminence. Noah did not have to look for signs because God told him when he should enter the ark (Genesis 7:1-4). Bev, I believe you will see that Josephus disagrees with you. When we get to Chapters 7-9, the major issue we tackle is the physical scope of the flood. Josephus disagrees about what? That there was tribulation before the flood? Or regarding the scope of the flood? I was questioning the reason you asked me if I considered verse 21 (Matthew 24:21). Was it to imply the existence of a pre-flood tribulation? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 15, 2011 23:33:13 GMT -5
Bev, Sorry, I had forgotten, we left Josephus' comments about Noah's tribulations out of BCS. They are in Antiquities, Book 1, Chapter 3, at the end of Paragraph 1. www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-1.htmBut Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land. Noah thought leaving would solve the problem. Unfortunately for Noah, God sent him back. Thanks, Jeff. Gosh, Josephus seems to know more than what is revealed in the biblical record, don't you think? What he wrote sounds like Jewish midrash, and thus should not be relied upon as fact. But it is interesting to see how the Jews of the first century interpreted biblical events. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 15, 2011 23:41:44 GMT -5
Bev, I believe you will see that Josephus disagrees with you. When we get to Chapters 7-9, the major issue we tackle is the physical scope of the flood. Josephus disagrees about what? That there was tribulation before the flood? Or regarding the scope of the flood? I was questioning the reason you asked me if I considered verse 21 (Matthew 24:21). Was it to imply the existence of a pre-flood tribulation? Bev, Sorry, I lost track of the discussion. I take Matt. 24:21 to mean the destruction of Jerusalem was the greatest judgment against any covenant people. Jesus claimed this event would be bigger than the flood, bigger than the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, and the fulfillment of Dan. 12:1 and Joel 2:2. Luke 17:25-30 25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. There are lots of limited ways to possibly take these passages. But once you see the demonstration from Scripture that the flood was not worldwide, I believe you will understand the comparison better. Or at least understand my view of the comparison better. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 15, 2011 23:59:49 GMT -5
Josephus disagrees about what? That there was tribulation before the flood? Or regarding the scope of the flood? I was questioning the reason you asked me if I considered verse 21 (Matthew 24:21). Was it to imply the existence of a pre-flood tribulation? Bev, Sorry, I lost track of the discussion. I take Matt. 24:21 to mean the destruction of Jerusalem was the greatest judgment against any covenant people. Jesus claimed this event would be bigger than the flood, bigger than the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, and the fulfillment of Dan. 12:1 and Joel 2:2. Luke 17:25-30 25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. There are lots of limited ways to possibly take these passages. But once you see the demonstration from Scripture that the flood was not worldwide, I believe you will understand the comparison better. Or at least understand my view of the comparison better. Okay, I'll wait and see how it develops in the text because I'm not seeing the comparison with the size of the judgment in the passage you are quoting. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 16, 2011 9:30:02 GMT -5
Excuse me if I am jumping ahead but something struck me in my nightly Bible reading I had last night and it has to do with the Garden of Eden. The question first is do Covenant Creationists understand the Garden to be a real place that existed or an allusion to something deeper?
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 16, 2011 11:31:12 GMT -5
Excuse me if I am jumping ahead but something struck me in my nightly Bible reading I had last night and it has to do with the Garden of Eden. The question first is do Covenant Creationists understand the Garden to be a real place that existed or an allusion to something deeper? Allyn, In BCS, we assume the garden existed. We have no discussion of other possibilities. I see the Garden as a real place. Eridu-Eden was a historical place, an ancient city-state. They controlled the region where the Tigris, Euphrates, and two now extinct rivers once joined, the area of the garden. The geophysical details in Genesis 2 match the details in Genesis 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 16, 2011 11:52:47 GMT -5
Excuse me if I am jumping ahead but something struck me in my nightly Bible reading I had last night and it has to do with the Garden of Eden. The question first is do Covenant Creationists understand the Garden to be a real place that existed or an allusion to something deeper? Allyn, In BCS, we assume the garden existed. We have no discussion of other possibilities. I see the Garden as a real place. Eridu-Eden was a historical place, an ancient city-state. They controlled the region where the Tigris, Euphrates, and two now extinct rivers once joined, the area of the garden. The geophysical details in Genesis 2 match the details in Genesis 2. That's good to hear, Jeff, because Ezekiel 36:35 absolutely supports a real Garden of Eden. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 16, 2011 21:24:57 GMT -5
That's good to hear, Jeff, because Ezekiel 36:35 absolutely supports a real Garden of Eden. Sounds like "chaos" restored similar to Jeremiah 4:23... |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 16, 2011 21:43:40 GMT -5
That's good to hear, Jeff, because Ezekiel 36:35 absolutely supports a real Garden of Eden. Sounds like "chaos" restored similar to Jeremiah 4:23... No actually the context is that Israel comes back to the land after the 70 year exile and God is blessing the productivity of the land for the sake of those returning and for His good name. When outsiders see the lushness of the land they will compare it to the garden of Eden itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 16, 2011 23:49:19 GMT -5
... because Ezekiel 36:35 absolutely supports a real Garden of Eden. I have to disagree that Ezekiel 36:35 "absolutely supports a real garden of Eden." It could just as easily support the garden of Eden as a well-known place of legend, just like someone might come upon a beautiful valley and say that they've found their Shangri-La. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 17, 2011 8:03:57 GMT -5
... because Ezekiel 36:35 absolutely supports a real Garden of Eden. I have to disagree that Ezekiel 36:35 "absolutely supports a real garden of Eden." It could just as easily support the garden of Eden as a well-known place of legend, just like someone might come upon a beautiful valley and say that they've found their Shangri-La. It could  but does it? I think God and His witness through the prophet knew which place it would be they spoke of. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 17, 2011 10:25:48 GMT -5
... because Ezekiel 36:35 absolutely supports a real Garden of Eden. I have to disagree that Ezekiel 36:35 "absolutely supports a real garden of Eden." It could just as easily support the garden of Eden as a well-known place of legend, just like someone might come upon a beautiful valley and say that they've found their Shangri-La. Bev, Could be. There may be better examples that Allyn could have used to make the same point. On pages 221-222 of BCS, we discuss two examples from Gen. 13 and a similar one to the Ezekiel passage in Joel 2. |
|
