|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 27, 2011 17:05:10 GMT -5
Allyn,
No doubt you realize that Scofield was a dispensationalist and operated on his view of several dispensations of God's working with people.
No doubt you also realize that his view of original creation's fall affected literal, physical animals and at his future return of Christ, this would all be reversed; hence, his idea of the literal, physical wolves once again lying down with the lambs - predator and prey in joyful harmony, as per his version of Isaiah 11...
And neither have you explained how Jeremiah used physical material creation in relation to Israel's wickedness, unless you also believe, like Scofield, that physical material creation was affected by the fall...
Have you figured out how the apostle Paul worked in physical material creation in his explanation of Psalm 19 in Romans 10 yet?
But I digress...I said I wasn't going to say anything else until after the debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 17:21:28 GMT -5
Allyn, No doubt you realize that Scofield was a dispensationalist and operated on his view of several dispensations of God's working with people. No doubt you also realize that his view of original creation's fall affected literal, physical animals and at his future return of Christ, this would all be reversed; hence, his idea of the literal, physical wolves once again lying down with the lambs - predator and prey in joyful harmony, as per his version of Isaiah 11... And neither have you explained how Jeremiah used physical material creation in relation to Israel's wickedness, unless you also believe, like Scofield, that physical material creation was affected by the fall... Have you figured out how the apostle Paul worked in physical material creation in his explanation of Psalm 19 in Romans 10 yet? But I digress...I said I wasn't going to say anything else until after the debate. Ted, what do you mean have I worked it out? You were the one who asked if I agreed with Paul and I said yes. You seemed to understand me when I said I knew you were asking if I understood an interpretation. So why do you now throw it back at me as if it is a gotcha moment? Please don't be so vague and start just say what you believe and let us hash it out. Don't try and make it look like I don't have an answer for my beliefs. I agree with the Apostle - now you tell me what it is you agree with him on since you brought it up. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 17:46:47 GMT -5
I've had a bad day today, guys, so if I am coming across sensitive or some other way I am blaming it on my mood.
Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 27, 2011 18:32:34 GMT -5
It simply proves that God must have had a lot to talk to Moses about which in turn we have Genesis through Deutoronomy. How does that prove anything about Genesis? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 18:57:04 GMT -5
It simply proves that God must have had a lot to talk to Moses about which in turn we have Genesis through Deutoronomy. How does that prove anything about Genesis? Huh?  ?? You are the one who asked.... What was Moses' source? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 27, 2011 22:06:20 GMT -5
How does that prove anything about Genesis? Huh? ?? You are the one who asked.... What was Moses' source? Allyn, You said Moses wrote Genesis. You have no reason to believe he did except tradition. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 22:20:44 GMT -5
Huh? ?? You are the one who asked.... What was Moses' source? Allyn, You said Moses wrote Genesis. You have no reason to believe he did except tradition. Then why would you require me to answer as to who Moses' source was if it was not for me to reply to that question? Obviously his source would be God just as in any other of the inspired testimonies |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 27, 2011 22:31:32 GMT -5
Allyn, You said Moses wrote Genesis. You have no reason to believe he did except tradition. Then why would you require me to answer as to who Moses' source was if it was not for me to reply to that question? Obviously his source would be God just as in any other of the inspired testimonies Allyn, You claimed Moses wrote Genesis. Moses was not a witness to any of the events in Genesis. What did Moses write about in Exodus? Things he witnessed. What did Moses write about in Leviticus? Things he witnessed. What did Moses write about in Numbers? Things he witnessed. What did all of the writers of all the rest of the books write about? In general, things they witnessed. God's standard is to use people who are legal witnesses to the events, or could talk to those who were legal witnesses to the events. Why is Genesis different, that you believe the entire book violates God's own standards and why do you believe it is reasonable to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 27, 2011 22:38:10 GMT -5
There is no proof that Moses did not put together the books he has been attributed as writing. Jesus said, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself
These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:27, 44).
I believe Moses received it from God by revelation, however at the very least Moses compiled and edited the material in the Book of Genesis. For me to understand it one way or the other in no way minimizes the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Jan 27, 2011 23:41:54 GMT -5
Anyone here ever consider dispensational preterism?  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 28, 2011 8:24:05 GMT -5
Anyone here ever consider dispensational preterism? I don't know if anyone here holds to it but there may be. I know of a couple of people who are not members here who accept that view. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 28, 2011 9:33:27 GMT -5
Anyone here ever consider dispensational preterism? There are many who hold to a dispensational preterism in regard to the book of Genesis. |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Jan 28, 2011 9:50:20 GMT -5
Then why would you require me to answer as to who Moses' source was if it was not for me to reply to that question? Obviously his source would be God just as in any other of the inspired testimonies Allyn, You claimed Moses wrote Genesis. Moses was not a witness to any of the events in Genesis. What did Moses write about in Exodus? Things he witnessed. What did Moses write about in Leviticus? Things he witnessed. What did Moses write about in Numbers? Things he witnessed. What did all of the writers of all the rest of the books write about? In general, things they witnessed. God's standard is to use people who are legal witnesses to the events, or could talk to those who were legal witnesses to the events. Why is Genesis different, that you believe the entire book violates God's own standards and why do you believe it is reasonable to do so? Good morning. I hope I'm not intruding here, but I've always wondered if Adam, Noah, and others before the time of Moses wrote down an account of certain events during their lifetimes. That may be where JL is heading here. In Genesis 5:1 it starts with, "This is the book of the generations of Adam." So its possible that Moses had the accumulative writings and documents of those people that came before him. I've read that the word generations can mean origins, or family history. Genesis 5:1, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 13, 19, 36:1, 9, 37:2. So if that is correct, its very possible that Moses did have a compilation of previous documents from which to work with. Blessings. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 28, 2011 10:01:46 GMT -5
Allyn, You claimed Moses wrote Genesis. Moses was not a witness to any of the events in Genesis. What did Moses write about in Exodus? Things he witnessed. What did Moses write about in Leviticus? Things he witnessed. What did Moses write about in Numbers? Things he witnessed. What did all of the writers of all the rest of the books write about? In general, things they witnessed. God's standard is to use people who are legal witnesses to the events, or could talk to those who were legal witnesses to the events. Why is Genesis different, that you believe the entire book violates God's own standards and why do you believe it is reasonable to do so? Good morning. I hope I'm not intruding here, but I've always wondered if Adam, Noah, and others before the time of Moses wrote down an account of certain events during their lifetimes. That may be where JL is heading here. In Genesis 5:1 it starts with, "This is the book of the generations of Adam." So its possible that Moses had the accumulative writings and documents of those people that came before him. I've read that the word generations can mean origins, or family history. Genesis 5:1, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 13, 19, 36:1, 9, 37:2. So if that is correct, its very possible that Moses did have a compilation of previous documents from which to work with. Blessings. Steve You are never intruding, Steve. I can accept that. I believe that its either that or that God gave it to Moses in its entireity. There is evidence, however that there were many separate stories passed along in etched stone concerning the generations of man and that Moses may have compiled it all together, sorting out what was not wanted. I have no issue with that. The point for me, though, is that it is of God what we have and call the inspired Bible. If we can't say that then we have no assurance of anything written being of importance for our spiritual walk with God.. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 28, 2011 10:36:35 GMT -5
There is no proof that Moses did not put together the books he has been attributed as writing. Jesus said, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:27, 44). I believe Moses received it from God by revelation, however at the very least Moses compiled and edited the material in the Book of Genesis. For me to understand it one way or the other in no way minimizes the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Allyn, 1) Every time Jesus attributed a passage to someone, that person was the author? 2) Does Genesis claim to be a vision or revelation? 3) Then why does Genesis name it's authors? And why are those authors all legal witnesses, meeting God's own standard? 4) Doesn't late dating of the New Testament bother you? Why doesn't late dating of Genesis also bother you? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 28, 2011 11:02:50 GMT -5
Allyn, You claimed Moses wrote Genesis. Moses was not a witness to any of the events in Genesis. What did Moses write about in Exodus? Things he witnessed. What did Moses write about in Leviticus? Things he witnessed. What did Moses write about in Numbers? Things he witnessed. What did all of the writers of all the rest of the books write about? In general, things they witnessed. God's standard is to use people who are legal witnesses to the events, or could talk to those who were legal witnesses to the events. Why is Genesis different, that you believe the entire book violates God's own standards and why do you believe it is reasonable to do so? Good morning. I hope I'm not intruding here, but I've always wondered if Adam, Noah, and others before the time of Moses wrote down an account of certain events during their lifetimes. That may be where JL is heading here. In Genesis 5:1 it starts with, "This is the book of the generations of Adam." So its possible that Moses had the accumulative writings and documents of those people that came before him. I've read that the word generations can mean origins, or family history. Genesis 5:1, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 13, 19, 36:1, 9, 37:2. So if that is correct, its very possible that Moses did have a compilation of previous documents from which to work with. Blessings. Steve Steve, Excellent observation on Adam's "book." Adam was from ancient Summer. In Summer, they signed off all their clay tablets with, "This is the account of name, date." Before the Shuruppak Flood, the dates given are mostly useless, "On the day a certain event happened" is the most common form. After the Shuruppak Flood, they were often dated, in the ___ year of the flood." These are called colophons. When Terah moved to from Summer to Akkad, the language and writing style changed. In Akkad, they used the same style colophons, but used the same word that the Hebrews used for account or generations. When the family left Akkadian speaking/writing Canaan and moved to Egypt, the style of writing changed again. These style changes have been noted for centuries. But it was only when Woolley and Wiseman started digging up these ancient civilizations and reading their documents was it realized that the style changes in Genesis matched changes in both the writing style and the language of the place the patriarchal family lived. The text of Genesis has numerous other details that show us that at the time of Moses, Genesis was fully "compiled." Someone at the time of Moses or Joshua copied Genesis into the then "modern Hebrew" and added a comment in Genesis 6. Just as someone at the time of Ezra copied Genesis into the later Hebrew and added a comment in Genesis 11. Genesis endured this "modernizing" at least two other times. In Genesis 2:5ff, we have the very words of Adam, written down by Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 28, 2011 12:24:44 GMT -5
Good morning. I hope I'm not intruding here, but I've always wondered if Adam, Noah, and others before the time of Moses wrote down an account of certain events during their lifetimes. That may be where JL is heading here. In Genesis 5:1 it starts with, "This is the book of the generations of Adam." So its possible that Moses had the accumulative writings and documents of those people that came before him. I've read that the word generations can mean origins, or family history. Genesis 5:1, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 13, 19, 36:1, 9, 37:2. So if that is correct, its very possible that Moses did have a compilation of previous documents from which to work with. Blessings. Steve Steve, Excellent observation on Adam's "book." Adam was from ancient Summer. In Summer, they signed off all their clay tablets with, "This is the account of name, date." Before the Shuruppak Flood, the dates given are mostly useless, "On the day a certain event happened" is the most common form. After the Shuruppak Flood, they were often dated, in the ___ year of the flood." These are called colophons. When Terah moved to from Summer to Akkad, the language and writing style changed. In Akkad, they used the same style colophons, but used the same word that the Hebrews used for account or generations. When the family left Akkadian speaking/writing Canaan and moved to Egypt, the style of writing changed again. These style changes have been noted for centuries. But it was only when Woolley and Wiseman started digging up these ancient civilizations and reading their documents was it realized that the style changes in Genesis matched changes in both the writing style and the language of the place the patriarchal family lived. The text of Genesis has numerous other details that show us that at the time of Moses, Genesis was fully "compiled." Someone at the time of Moses or Joshua copied Genesis into the then "modern Hebrew" and added a comment in Genesis 6. Just as someone at the time of Ezra copied Genesis into the later Hebrew and added a comment in Genesis 11. Genesis endured this "modernizing" at least two other times. In Genesis 2:5ff, we have the very words of Adam, written down by Adam. This isn't agreed upon by all experts. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 28, 2011 12:37:01 GMT -5
Allyn, 1) Every time Jesus attributed a passage to someone, that person was the author? Is my argument stating that or does support to what I am saying come from my examples? Its the latter. 2 Does Genesis claim to be a vision or revelation? It is an account. Am I wrong? Then why does Genesis name it's authors? And why are those authors all legal witnesses, meeting God's own standard? Does it or are those the accounts given and then written by Moses? I think so. Lets look at Revelation: 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. Greeting the Seven Churches 4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia: Jesus gave the revelation but did not write the revelation. You seem to insist that an account given by others is the same as authorship. Are you? It is not. Examples are splashed all over the Bible. 4) Doesn't late dating of the New Testament bother you? Why doesn't late dating of Genesis also bother you? Late dating meaning what? Do you mean dating a book of the Bible past the time when an account is given or something else? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 28, 2011 12:44:53 GMT -5
Jeff Vaughn said:
What a weak argument man! God Himself is a "legal" witness.
There it is folks! Jesus invoked God as a "legal" witness in the same way a Jew would invoke another man as a "legal" witness.
So by Jeff's own standard Moses could have written the book of Genesis for he talked to God whom Jesus invoked as a "legal" witness.
Try again Jeff!
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 28, 2011 14:43:39 GMT -5
Jeff wrote:
I have shown in my post immediately above that by Jeff's own "legal witness" rule Moses could have written Genesis because he "talked to" God whom Jesus invoked as a "legal witness" (John 8:17-18). Jeff said that the requisite for authorship was either a legal witness or one who "talked to" a legal witness.
Now I show that Jeff's "legal witness" standard is fallacious because the author of Genesis used a literary source:
The author of Genesis acquired some of his information from a literary source he called "the BOOK of the geneaology of Adam...."
Therefore, Jeff's argument fails on two counts:
1. Moses "talked to" God whom Jesus invoked as a "legal witness." By Jeff's own rule this means that Moses could have written the book of Genesis.
2. The author of Genesis used a literary source which proves that he did not need to be a witness himself or "talk to" a legal witness.
Give it up Jeff!
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Jan 28, 2011 16:23:38 GMT -5
Anyone here ever consider dispensational preterism? I don't know if anyone here holds to it but there may be. I know of a couple of people who are not members here who accept that view. Mellontes wrote: It seems to me that dispensationalists have the beginning right, but not the last days. Preterists have the last days right. Putting the two together, you have dispensational preterism. I find myself leaning in that direction. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 28, 2011 16:40:24 GMT -5
son of david wrote:
son of david,
Jeff and Ted do not represent all preterists. Most preterists believe the creation of Genesis 1 is the physical universe.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Jan 29, 2011 3:35:42 GMT -5
son of david wrote: son of david, Jeff and Ted do not represent all preterists. Most preterists believe the creation of Genesis 1 is the physical universe. Roo Then you would agree with the dispensational view of creation, which amounts to a young earth? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 29, 2011 10:41:49 GMT -5
son of david wrote: son of david, Jeff and Ted do not represent all preterists. Most preterists believe the creation of Genesis 1 is the physical universe. Roo Then you would agree with the dispensational view of creation, which amounts to a young earth? As for me, I believe in an old earth and a young human population beginning from the Fall. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 29, 2011 11:18:04 GMT -5
sonofdavid asked:
I said that I believe that the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 are the physical universe. Scofield was a dispensationalist and he said that the "first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages."
He says that Genesis 1:2 with Jeremiah 4:23-26. Isaiah 24:1; 45:18 "clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment" (Scofield's Notes, p. 3).
In other words, one of the most prominent proponents of dispenstaionalism held that the earth is old.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Jan 30, 2011 6:14:29 GMT -5
sonofdavid asked: I said that I believe that the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 are the physical universe. Scofield was a dispensationalist and he said that the "first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages." He says that Genesis 1:2 with Jeremiah 4:23-26. Isaiah 24:1; 45:18 "clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment" (Scofield's Notes, p. 3). In other words, one of the most prominent proponents of dispenstaionalism held that the earth is old. Roo However, Scripture doesn't support an old earth belief. Genesis 1 speaks of a creation, not a re-creation. The Jeremiah and I saiah passages you mentioned, in my opinion, is a metaphor for God's judgment of His people. So, you have 6 days of creation. Add to that the amount of years derived from the geneological records in Scripture, can only lead to a young earth position. It's been a while since I compiled those records, and added the years together. But Scriptures shows that there were 42 generations from Abraham to Christ. If a generation was as long as 100 years, that equals 4200 years from Abraham to Christ. From Adam to Noah there were 1056 years. From Noah to Abraham there were 890 years That equals 1946 years. Add that to the 4200 years from Abraham to Christ, that equals 6146 years. Add that to 2011, that equals 8157 years. So, from creation to today is 8157 years. And that's with some inflated numbers. So the earth can not be older than 8157 years old. Now let's inflate some more numbers. For the sake of argument, let's say it did take 6000 years for God to create the universe, as some would have us believe. That will still only be 14,157 years. There is no way the earth is millions of years old. Good night. :soD: |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 30, 2011 18:27:49 GMT -5
sonofdavid wrote:
I was only showing you that a prominent dispensationalist believed in the old earth doctrine.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Jan 30, 2011 22:32:24 GMT -5
sonofdavid wrote: I was only showing you that a prominent dispensationalist believed in the old earth doctrine. Roo However, you didn't say if you agreed or not. By the way, feel free to check out the math. Math is not my best subject. soD |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 31, 2011 8:50:56 GMT -5
Sonofdavid,
You are developing your young Earth theory on a few very basic presuppositions:
1. earth = planet Earth (although not known by that name until several thousands of years later)
2. planet Earth created at or near the time of Adam
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Jan 31, 2011 13:36:07 GMT -5
Sonofdavid, You are developing your young Earth theory on a few very basic presuppositions: 1. earth = planet Earth (although not known by that name until several thousands of years later) 2. planet Earth created at or near the time of Adam Don't forget the math. Otherwise, your point being......... soD |
|
