|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 25, 2011 0:15:20 GMT -5
Jeff, I'm not suggesting - I'm asking. Does Covenant Creation take Gen. 1 to be about the physical creation and a covenant creation? Allyn, I coined the term covenant creation to refer to Genesis 1 as the creation of the covenant only. Very good. Did any of these studies define "spiritual death?" Or did they merely mean, "not physical death?" Then please tell me, in detail what Genesis 1 says. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 25, 2011 7:46:38 GMT -5
Then please tell me, in detail what Genesis 1 says. Short answer: If I were an artist I could draw you a picture. Jeff, the burden is yours to prove unequivocally that Genesis 1 is not about the beginning of all things we see as shown to be created during that miraculous event. You need to prove that dry land does not mean soil without the water upon it. You need to show that the Seas are not actual H 2o. That the waters under heaven were not gathered into one place. You have the burden to prove that the "lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night' were something other than what we see every cloudless night. Your devlopment of this new concept needs to resolve the fact that " God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." How were these things good in the first covenant of God if you believe this is a covenant story? This is your burden and not the burden of the one who has the text in front of him, The blue sky overhead, the trees and shrubs and the grasses under his feet. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 25, 2011 9:57:49 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that David used heaven and earth as referring to physical creation and the author of Hebrews used heaven and earth in a covenantal sense. If so, I understand what you are saying, but it sounds so very familiar to dispensational thinking. The dispies say the same things in regard to Israel's land promises. The OT promises are actual real physical land promises to be put into effect sometime in their millennium. But Paul and other NT personnel use these same OT passages as spiritual promises for the church. The dualism is identical. What about tripleism, or quadism, or pentism. This could fit anyone's view... Ted, It could be those things - except that I was pretty specific which then isolated and insulated me from those things. The dispensationalists are pretty specific in the things they say too. Don't really understand the point you are making. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 25, 2011 10:05:24 GMT -5
Then please tell me, in detail what Genesis 1 says. Short answer: If I were an artist I could draw you a picture. Jeff, the burden is yours to prove unequivocally that Genesis 1 is not about the beginning of all things we see as shown to be created during that miraculous event. You need to prove that dry land does not mean soil without the water upon it. You need to show that the Seas are not actual H 2o. That the waters under heaven were not gathered into one place. You have the burden to prove that the "lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night' were something other than what we see every cloudless night. Your devlopment of this new concept needs to resolve the fact that " God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." How were these things good in the first covenant of God if you believe this is a covenant story? This is your burden and not the burden of the one who has the text in front of him, The blue sky overhead, the trees and shrubs and the grasses under his feet. Proverbs 18:17 - He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. Jeremiah 4:22-23 - For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. Genesis 1:1-2 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 25, 2011 10:08:11 GMT -5
Ted, It could be those things - except that I was pretty specific which then isolated and insulated me from those things. The dispensationalists are pretty specific in the things they say too. Don't really understand the point you are making. Welll, the point is you were saying that others say things I was not saying. You said others believe in dual fulfillment when I was not even approaching it from a fulfillment stand but rather a comparrison stand. King David compared the creation of all things to the glory of God while the Hebrews writer took theose things and compared them to the religious aspects of the Hebrew nation. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 25, 2011 10:11:48 GMT -5
Short answer: If I were an artist I could draw you a picture. Jeff, the burden is yours to prove unequivocally that Genesis 1 is not about the beginning of all things we see as shown to be created during that miraculous event. You need to prove that dry land does not mean soil without the water upon it. You need to show that the Seas are not actual H 2o. That the waters under heaven were not gathered into one place. You have the burden to prove that the "lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night' were something other than what we see every cloudless night. Your devlopment of this new concept needs to resolve the fact that " God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." How were these things good in the first covenant of God if you believe this is a covenant story? This is your burden and not the burden of the one who has the text in front of him, The blue sky overhead, the trees and shrubs and the grasses under his feet. Proverbs 18:17 - He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. Jeremiah 4:22-23 - For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. Genesis 1:1-2 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Explain your point, Ted. For example how is it you think by Jeremiah comparing Israel's wicked behavior to that of the earth being void and without form as proof that Genesis chapter 1 is not the creation story? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 25, 2011 10:20:44 GMT -5
Proverbs 18:17 - He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him. Jeremiah 4:22-23 - For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. Genesis 1:1-2 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Explain your point, Ted. For example how is it you think by Jeremiah comparing Israel's wicked behavior to that of the earth being void and without form as proof that Genesis chapter 1 is not the creation story? It is not a comparison at all...it is a return to that same chaotic state. Now, your turn. Please explain Jeremiah's point in describing "Israel's wicked behavior" with rocks, trees, seas, land, creeping things, etc. - material creation things. And just one last point. Would you be willing to accept the Apostle Paul's teaching for Psalm 19? If so, then Romans 10 is for you (and us). |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 25, 2011 13:14:56 GMT -5
Then please tell me, in detail what Genesis 1 says. Short answer: If I were an artist I could draw you a picture. Jeff, the burden is yours to prove unequivocally that Genesis 1 is not about the beginning of all things we see as shown to be created during that miraculous event. You need to prove that dry land does not mean soil without the water upon it. You need to show that the Seas are not actual H 2o. That the waters under heaven were not gathered into one place. You have the burden to prove that the "lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night' were something other than what we see every cloudless night. Your devlopment of this new concept needs to resolve the fact that " God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." How were these things good in the first covenant of God if you believe this is a covenant story? This is your burden and not the burden of the one who has the text in front of him, The blue sky overhead, the trees and shrubs and the grasses under his feet. Allyn, I have proven my point. I have demonstrated that dozens of individual examples make sense from a covenant perspective. You claim that individual items also make sense from a physical perspective. Fair enough. But that doesn't prove a covenant perspective is wrong. It only proves that you have physical explanations for each example. The problem is, these examples don't make sense from a common physical perspective. The required physical perspectives are contradictory. We made that case throughout BCS. This is why you must produce a picture or model. Without comparing several of your responses against each other, you can't see the contradictions inherent among your numerous pieces. For example, What precisely happened on the sixth day of creation? Why does Genesis 2 change the order of creation? If the purpose of creation is physical, then there is no point to reorder anything. Think about it. Every answer you have been given for why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have a different order claims that Genesis 2 was reordered for a theological purpose. (Can someone say covenantal?) And how do we know this? Because we took Genesis 1 "literally" and Genesis 2 says something different. Why should we accept that standard? Who says? No one will give you a straight answer. Physical creationism is bankrupt. Physical creationism can not answer this simple little issue. Why did the order of creation change between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 25, 2011 17:37:28 GMT -5
Short answer: If I were an artist I could draw you a picture. Jeff, the burden is yours to prove unequivocally that Genesis 1 is not about the beginning of all things we see as shown to be created during that miraculous event. You need to prove that dry land does not mean soil without the water upon it. You need to show that the Seas are not actual H 2o. That the waters under heaven were not gathered into one place. You have the burden to prove that the "lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night' were something other than what we see every cloudless night. Your devlopment of this new concept needs to resolve the fact that " God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." How were these things good in the first covenant of God if you believe this is a covenant story? This is your burden and not the burden of the one who has the text in front of him, The blue sky overhead, the trees and shrubs and the grasses under his feet. Allyn, I have proven my point. I have demonstrated that dozens of individual examples make sense from a covenant perspective. You claim that individual items also make sense from a physical perspective. Fair enough. But that doesn't prove a covenant perspective is wrong. It only proves that you have physical explanations for each example. The problem is, these examples don't make sense from a common physical perspective. The required physical perspectives are contradictory. We made that case throughout BCS. This is why you must produce a picture or model. Without comparing several of your responses against each other, you can't see the contradictions inherent among your numerous pieces. For example, What precisely happened on the sixth day of creation? Why does Genesis 2 change the order of creation? If the purpose of creation is physical, then there is no point to reorder anything. Think about it. Every answer you have been given for why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have a different order claims that Genesis 2 was reordered for a theological purpose. (Can someone say covenantal?) And how do we know this? Because we took Genesis 1 "literally" and Genesis 2 says something different. Why should we accept that standard? Who says? No one will give you a straight answer. Physical creationism is bankrupt. Physical creationism can not answer this simple little issue. Why did the order of creation change between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Jeff, It is not beneficial to pre-empt the debate so I am going to let your questions rest until after the debate between you and Roo. Does that sound sensible to you, not to mention I just made a rhyme? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 25, 2011 18:03:42 GMT -5
Allyn, I have proven my point. I have demonstrated that dozens of individual examples make sense from a covenant perspective. You claim that individual items also make sense from a physical perspective. Fair enough. But that doesn't prove a covenant perspective is wrong. It only proves that you have physical explanations for each example. The problem is, these examples don't make sense from a common physical perspective. The required physical perspectives are contradictory. We made that case throughout BCS. This is why you must produce a picture or model. Without comparing several of your responses against each other, you can't see the contradictions inherent among your numerous pieces. For example, What precisely happened on the sixth day of creation? Why does Genesis 2 change the order of creation? If the purpose of creation is physical, then there is no point to reorder anything. Think about it. Every answer you have been given for why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have a different order claims that Genesis 2 was reordered for a theological purpose. (Can someone say covenantal?) And how do we know this? Because we took Genesis 1 "literally" and Genesis 2 says something different. Why should we accept that standard? Who says? No one will give you a straight answer. Physical creationism is bankrupt. Physical creationism can not answer this simple little issue. Why did the order of creation change between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2? Jeff, It is not beneficial to pre-empt the debate so I am going to let your questions rest until after the debate between you and Roo. Does that sound sensible to you, not to mention I just made a rhyme? Allyn, That is fine. Thank-you. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 25, 2011 20:44:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 25, 2011 21:26:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 25, 2011 22:13:50 GMT -5
Hi Ted,
I decided to deal with your question concerning Jeremiah 4 tonight.
The whole chapter 4 of Jeremiah is poetry, Ted. Jeremiah is using expressions that really don't mean what the words are saying but do have meaning apart from those words expressed. For example take a look at Jeremiah 4:4 in which the Lord God, through Jeremiah tells the people to
4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD,
And take away the foreskins of your hearts,
You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,
Lest My fury come forth like fire,
And burn so that no one can quench it,
Because of the evil of your doings.”
Do people really have foreskins of their heart?
One can read this whole chapter and see that the expressions used here are not about the real thing but rather the real thing is being used to express a meaning for the lives of the people the prophet was speaking to. See another one.
“ A dry wind of the desolate heights blows in the wilderness
Toward the daughter of My people—
Not to fan or to cleanse—
12 A wind too strong for these will come for Me;
Is Jeremiah talking about wind - which we know is a created part of weather - or is he expressing something else?
So then we look at your verses that make you think that this proves a covenant creation.
Jeremiah 4:22-23 - For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
When during the creation moments, Moses tells us that the earth was without form and void. Jeremiah uses these real things that indicated an early stage of the earth describing it in terms of desolation and applies those same terms and to express the condition of the Hebrew people in terms no less understandable then circumcising the foreskin of the heart.
Jeremiah was doing the job of a prophet by speaking the cause and effect of a disobedient people.
27 For thus says the LORD:
“ The whole land shall be desolate;
Yet I will not make a full end.
28 For this shall the earth mourn,
And the heavens above be black,
Because I have spoken.
Ted, these words are meant to have impact and concern in their thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 26, 2011 8:43:37 GMT -5
Good Morning Ted, You asked: Would you be willing to accept the Apostle Paul's teaching for Psalm 19? If so, then Romans 10 is for you (and us). I am willing. I always accept what Paul says. Of course you don't mean that. You mean do I accept the interpretation of what Paul says. I would like to know then in that case what interpretation you want me to consider to accept. Would you be willing to indulge me?  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 26, 2011 10:07:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 26, 2011 10:29:53 GMT -5
Hi Ted, I decided to deal with your question concerning Jeremiah 4 tonight. The whole chapter 4 of Jeremiah is poetry, Ted. Allyn, I'm glad you recognize much of this stuff as being poetical. The "whole" of chapter 4 is not poetical, but much of it is. Yet you will not allow the same distinction for the early chapters of Genesis because you are presupposing that it must be physical, material creation. Jeremiah alludes to Genesis 1 in his description of Israel. If you disagree with that statement, then what is Jeremiah alluding to? Jeremiah offers evidence that Genesis 1 is not what it traditionally seems (comparing Scripture with Scripture) but you have to dismiss it based upon your presupposition that Genesis 1 MUST be physical material creation. Nothing personal, but what you are doing reminds me of what the dispies do. For example, take Isaiah 11 which you and I are both familiar with. Dispies believe that the wolf and lamb lying down together refers to their physical 1000-year millennium. That is their presupposition based upon their view of creation - a perfect world in which predators and prey lived in total harmony. They realize that salvation is a return to this Garden state just as we do. One slight difference, as preterists, we know that the Garden state with its tree of life is a lot more non-physical than the dispies view of things. Anyway, back to the wolf and the lamb. Paul, in Romans 15:9-12, quotes Isaiah 11:10 (and 3 other OT passages) as to what had already come to pass in his day - that the Gentiles were seeking the Lord and being saved. Dispies totally reject what Paul said saying that it was not the completed fulfillment (all Gentiles being saved) based upon what they believe the word "fulfill" means. It doesn't even matter that Isaiah said, "TO IT SHALL THE GENTILES SEEK." And since what Isaiah said allegedly wasn't fulfilled, they say it will be fulfilled in their millennium, allowing them to still hold to their faulty paradigm of a physical future millennium. They will not allow NT illumination upon the OT's seemingly physical promises. They will not allow other Scripture to interpret other Scripture. They have a physical millennium and that's that. You have a physical creation and that's that. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 26, 2011 10:34:36 GMT -5
Good Morning Ted, You asked: Would you be willing to accept the Apostle Paul's teaching for Psalm 19? If so, then Romans 10 is for you (and us). I am willing. I always accept what Paul says. Of course you don't mean that. You mean do I accept the interpretation of what Paul says. I would like to know then in that case what interpretation you want me to consider to accept. Would you be willing to indulge me? Yes. You are right. I know you would be willing to accept what Paul says. I was being rudely sarcastic and didn't even realize it. I apologize for that slip of the tongue/keyboard. Bad habits are the hardest to break. Sorry. I would be willing to indulge you as far as this - I do not see physical creation in Romans 10. You need to determine if what you said about Psalm 19 is in line with what Paul said. We all must come to our own conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 26, 2011 11:44:31 GMT -5
But with all due respect, the Bible says nothing of PHYSICAL creation. It only speaks of creation without the adjective "physical." Mark 10:6 " But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ " If "male and female" are not referring to physical then I am uncertain that I can differentiate anything the bible speaks about. And conversely... Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. If "male and female" are not referring to covenant then I am uncertain that I can differentiate anything the bible speaks about.  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 26, 2011 11:58:16 GMT -5
To all concerned, I think it would be best if I refrained from further expressing myself on the tenets of covenant creation until the debate between Jeff and Roo has been completed. I'm fairly certain that the items we are dealing with now will be dealt with in the debate. Perhaps we could again pursue your questions unanswered within the debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 10:35:46 GMT -5
I asked Jeff that we not preempt the debate and he agreed but this has been gnawing at me and I feel that it is essential that I at least try to respond to Jeff's question. It may not even come up in the debate.
Jeff said:
And how do we know this? Because we took Genesis 1 "literally" and Genesis 2 says something different. Why should we accept that standard? Who says? No one will give you a straight answer. Physical creationism is bankrupt. Physical creationism can not answer this simple little issue. Why did the order of creation change between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
I will attempt at giving a straight answer.
Certain critics (none here that I know of) have denied that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy despite the fact that they were sttributed to Moses by the Lord Jesus Christ. The arguments against Mosaic authorship are chiefly based on the variation of the names of God (Elohim and Jehovah), the differences in style and vocabulary, and the presence of more than one account of the same event, e.g. the creation of man in Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7.
These contentions have been adequately answered in that the variation in devine names is for the purpose of revealing certain aspects of God's character; the style is dependent on the subject matter; and the so-called parallel accounts, well known in ancient Near Eastern literature, are intended to add details to the first account.
Some, rejecting the actuality of the events recorded in early chapters of Genesis, yet at the same time recognizing their religious value, call such accounts as those of eden and the fall "myths," (my word) meaning by "myth" not merely legend but, rather, a suprahistorical story that conveys spiritual teaching of permanent significance. In otherwords "Covenant Creation".
However, the historicity of the Genesis record is so related to the authority of Christ that it cannot be assigned to a mythical category without impugning the perfection of His knowledge. The inspiration of Genesis and its character as a devine revelation are authenticated by the testimony of Jesus Christ (Matt. 19:4-6; 24:37-39; Mark 10:4-9; Luke 11:49-51; 17:26-29, 32; John 7:21-23; 8:44,56) and supplemented by the testimony of history.
With Genesis begins also the progressive self-revelation of God which culminates in Christ. The three primary names of Deity - Elohim, Jehovah and Adonai - and the five compound names occur in Genesis, and these in an ordered progression which could not be changed without confusion.
The Bible begins with God, not with philosophic arguments for His existence. Scripture gives no data for determining how long ago the universe was created. Elohim (English for God), the first of the names of Deity, is a plural noun in form but is singular in meaning when it refers to the true God. Emphasis in Gen 1:26 is on the plurality in Deity; verse 27, on the unity of the devine Substance which can be found also in Gen 3:22. The plural form of the word suggests the Trinity.
Only three creative acts of God are recorded in chapter one.
1.) the heavens and the earth, verse 1
2.) animal life, verses 20-21
3.) human life, verses 26-27
From chapter 2 it is often said that Gen. 2:4-25 is a second account of creation differing from that in Gen. 1:1-2:3. In point of fact, however, Gen. 1 tells of the creation of the whole universe, including man and woman; while Gen. 2 specifically describes the origin of man and woman without repeating the story of the creation recorded in Gen 1. Thus Gen 2 says nothing of the creation of light, of the separation of the waters, or of the formathion of sun, moon, and stars. Nor does it actually describe the creation of vegetation or of animals.
Gen. 2:8 is sometimes erroneously interpreted as describing the creation of vegetation, but it only mentions the planting of a particular garden. Verse 19, often misinterpreted as another description of the creation of animals coming after rather than before the creation of man, actually refers back to the creation of the animals that were brought before Adam. To think that the planting of the garden described in verse 8 was not done until after man had been formed, as stated in verse 7, is unnecessary. In both cases (the "planting" of the garden and the "forming" of the animals) the Hebrew verb could be more correctly translated by the English "had planted" and "had formed".
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 27, 2011 11:26:11 GMT -5
Allyn, that last post of yours sure seems like it mirrors the views held by C.I. Scofield...
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 27, 2011 11:44:28 GMT -5
Allyn,
Two separate issues I'd like discussed. The first which I was alluding to and the second which you brought up.
1) Genesis 1 has the "creation" of animals followed by the "creation" of man and woman.
Genesis 2 has the "creation" of man followed by the "creation" of animals, then finally the "creation" of woman.
Genesis 2 is filled with physical details about the hydrology and geology of the land. Only one place on the planet's surface matches these details.
Genesis 1 has no such detail. In any physical sense, Genesis 2 is a lot more literal than Genesis 1.
2) If Moses wrote Genesis, what was his source? Moses lived some 2600 years after the events of Genesis 1&2. He had no knowledge of the land of Eden of that era, nor the people, the culture, nor the language. It was all long gone. What was Moses' source?
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 27, 2011 13:42:41 GMT -5
(I may have posted this idea somewhere here in the past, but here it is again.) What if "dust of the ground" refers to common ground (possibly opposed to "holy ground")? The man Adam was "formed" from the dust of the ground. In other words, Adam was set apart from all the other people for service to God. Adam was "returned" to the dust of the ground, that area outside the holy ground of the garden temple (Genesis 2:7; 3:19, 23). Basically, man (mankind) was created in Genesis 1 and the Adam of Genesis 2 was a man set apart from the rest of mankind and "formed" (molded) by God to be the keeper of His garden. An example of one of the things I've noticed that is making me think along these lines is that in Genesis 2:18-20, only beasts of the field and birds of the air were "formed" and then named by Adam, not the sea creatures and fish of the sea, nor "creeping things" of the earth. And these creatures were never part of temple offerings. __________________________ Also for your reading pleasure, "davo" (whom many of you probably know from other forums) has an idea that he calls "Comprehensive Creation," which he says "acknowledges both corporeal and covenantal aspects of the creation story." Some of my ideas I posted above overlap with davo's more detailed description. It might be a worthwhile read. You can find davo's article here: preterismdebate.spruz.com/blog.htm?a=&nid=BFE766DE-7A32-42A6-9728-1F5A60D808EB |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 14:05:39 GMT -5
Moses didn't spen 40 days and 40 nights on the holy mountain playing monopoly with God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 14:11:58 GMT -5
Allyn, that last post of yours sure seems like it mirrors the views held by C.I. Scofield... I don't know. I was looking back through some notes I had from the early 1990's and came across one set I had on file that had my notes on Genesis. I don't remember at all where I got much of what I wrote at that time. Scofield, huh - I don't agree much with scofield anymore.  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 27, 2011 14:50:41 GMT -5
Moses didn't spen 40 days and 40 nights on the holy mountain playing monopoly with God. And that proves what? Oops did it again by clicking modify post instead quote post. Allyn |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 27, 2011 15:31:02 GMT -5
Moses didn't spen 40 days and 40 nights on the holy mountain playing monopoly with God. And that proves what? It proves that the Parker Brothers went back further than even I had imagined...lol |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 27, 2011 15:34:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 16:46:51 GMT -5
Bad news for me for not taking better care in "copying" those notes 20 years ago and footnoting. It wasn't a copy and paste since I didn't have that means back then but it sure was a copy. However, I do agree with what I posted. whether it was scofield or not it is exactly what I hold to and does absolutely no harm to my full preterist views. So far, Ted, you haven't refuted it nor have you explained Jeremiah which you imply is proof for Covenant Creation. You simply say it wasn't a comparrison - that won't do. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 16:51:49 GMT -5
Moses didn't spen 40 days and 40 nights on the holy mountain playing monopoly with God. And that proves what? It simply proves that God must have had a lot to talk to Moses about which in turn we have Genesis through Deutoronomy. |
|
