|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 20, 2011 1:26:08 GMT -5
I have been asked what I believe the first heaven and the first earth are in Revelation 21.1. I decided to share my comments. Some of you are also members over at my forum site, Way of Truth Forums. You may have read my articles, "Christ Centered Religion," and "Christ Centered Prophecy." The premise for my belief is that Christ makes all things new. Now my answer to the question, "What do you believe the first heaven and the first earth of Revelation 21.1 are?" I think that would depend upon what the new heaven and the new earth are. It's been a while since I studied textual criticism. But, it would seem to me the first heaven and earth would have to be of the same character or nature as the new heaven and earth. Therefore we must answer the question, what is the character and nature of the new heaven and earth, and what makes them new? 2 Corinthians 5.17 states, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." - NKJV. Does the "all things have become new" include the heaven and earth? I believe it does. This Scripture tells us that those in Christ are a "NEW CREATION." Metaphorically, "new creation," includes the new heaven and the new earth. Therefore, it is Christ that causes the heaven and earth to become new. The first heaven and earth would be the heaven and earth without Christ. What else is new because of Christ? The covenant. Heaven and earth under the new covenant is the new heaven and earth. Therefore, the first heaven and earth were the heaven and earth under the old covenant. Notice, in Hebrews 9.1 the old covenant is called the "first covenant." 9.18 states that, "not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood." Hebrews is plain that the first covenant came through Moses - not Adam. So the first heaven and earth was under the first covenant which came through Moses. The new heaven and earth are under the new covenant which came through Christ. The first heaven and earth were under the first covenant which came through Moses. That indicates Israel. The new heaven and earth are under the new covenant which came through Christ. The heaven and earth that passed away is Israel according to the flesh culminating with the destruction of the temple in 70AD. The covenant that came through Moses was not the very first covenant God made with someone, yet Hebrews calls it the "first covenant." The covenant God made with Noah is the first one we have record of. So why doesn't the writer of Hebrews call it the "first covenant"? It seems to me, you have the same linguistic dynamic in Hebrews regarding the "first covenant," as you do in Revelation 21.1 regarding the first heaven and earth. The first covenant of Hebrews is not the first covenant God made, so it is linguistically plausible that the first heaven and earth of Revelation 21 is not the first heaven and earth God made. Perhaps we need to understand the word "first." It could mean "first in time," or it could mean, "first in importance." Since the Mosaic covenant was not the first covenant God made chronologically, then the Mosaic covenant must be first in importance to the writer of Hebrews. Likewise, the first heaven and earth that God made were not first in importance since He destroyed the first heaven and earth that He made chronologically. So, the heaven and earth that God made in Genesis 1 were already destroyed in the flood. So what would the point be to say that which had already perished will perish in Revelation 21.1. That is the end of my responses to the questioning to this point. It seems by the questioner's latest comment that I need to explain that last comment about the first heaven and earth that God made being destroyed in the flood. I don't believe there can be any doubt that according to Scripture, the entire face of the Earth was destroyed, including the vegetation and all life that had breath in their nostrils. All that were saved were in Noah's ark. But, how was the first heaven God made destroyed? That is a fair question. Over at Son of David Forums, I have a Weather category because Weather is a big interest of mine. Genesis 1.6-10, and 2.6 states: - NKJV. What is the firmament? To make it simple, the firmament is the sky. God made the sky to seperate the waters below the sky and above the sky. The sky God called "Heaven." Bring in 2.6, and the mist that went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. Together these Scriptures are describing the atmosphere surrounding the earth. From this, I believe there was a canopy of vapor in the atmosphere, blocking the harmful rays of the sun. It was truly Paradise. Imagine the whole Earth being like Hawaii with the canopy in the atmosphere. After the flood, the canopy that was in Heaven did not exist. It had been destroyed. Or, to be specific, the windows of Heaven were opened, and the waters of Heaven deluged the earth. Thus the "first heaven and the first earth" were destroyed. Therefore, the first heaven and the first earth of Revelation 21.1 was not the first heaven and the first earth of Genesis 1, since they were already passed away at the time Revelation was written. Want to learn more about the "Pre-Flood Atmosphere," go to: www.genesispark.org/genpark/flood/flood.htm  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 20, 2011 2:01:49 GMT -5
Tom, Higher pressure? How much higher pressure are you and Henry Morris talking about? The top of Everest is about 30,000 ft above sea level. 30,000 ft of water is about 1000 atmospheres. Under current physics, that would require a temperature of 705 F or 374 C or higher, all the way to the top of the atmosphere. A temperature high enough to support 1000 atmospheres of water vapor pressure, won't allow any liquid water. The increased oxygen in a nitrogen atmosphere above 3 atmospheres would be deadly to all mammals, especially humans. You can't justify this model with modern science. Why try? |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 20, 2011 2:59:02 GMT -5
Tom, Higher pressure? How much higher pressure are you and Henry Morris talking about? The top of Everest is about 30,000 ft above sea level. 30,000 ft of water is about 1000 atmospheres. Under current physics, that would require a temperature of 705 F or 374 C or higher, all the way to the top of the atmosphere. A temperature high enough to support 1000 atmospheres of water vapor pressure, won't allow any liquid water. The increased oxygen in a nitrogen atmosphere above 3 atmospheres would be deadly to all mammals, especially humans. You can't justify this model with modern science. Why try? Jeff, I did not mention higher pressure. Nor did I mention increased oxygen. If you want to ask questions about that you will have to ask those that postulate those theories, provided they are still alive. Keep in mind, they are only theories - and they are not mine. My emphasis is to show that God created an atmospheric canopy that protected the earth from spacial dangers including the harmful rays of the sun. We know from Scripture that people lived a lot longer before the flood than they do now. Why is that? Obviously, either people have changed, or the Earth's atmosphere has changed. I believe the latter is true. Good night/morning |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 20, 2011 18:37:52 GMT -5
Jeff,
Tom mentioned the "windows of Heaven" being opened. I know I read something about this in your book and I failed to make a note of what page it was on. (I create my own personal index on one of the blank pages in the book while I'm reading.) Can you direct me to the page where this was discussed? You explained the meaning of the phrase based on other scriptures, and I remember being impressed by that explanation. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 20, 2011 21:46:58 GMT -5
Jeff, I did not mention higher pressure. Nor did I mention increased oxygen. If you want to ask questions about that you will have to ask those that postulate those theories, provided they are still alive. Keep in mind, they are only theories - and they are not mine. My emphasis is to show that God created an atmospheric canopy that protected the earth from spacial dangers including the harmful rays of the sun. We know from Scripture that people lived a lot longer before the flood than they do now. Why is that? Obviously, either people have changed, or the Earth's atmosphere has changed. I believe the latter is true. Tom, You endorsed the article, "Want to learn more about the "Pre-Flood Atmosphere," go to:" Morris is dead. I can't question their fables because he's not alive to defend himself. Your "emphasis is to show that God created an atmospheric canopy that protected the earth from spacial dangers including the harmful rays of the sun?" Where did you show this? You didn't show anything. You linked to an article that you can't/won't defend. You think it is unchrisitian for me to comment, because Morris isn't here to defend himself. The higher pressure and higher oxygen levels are part of Morris' "theory." Without higher pressure, you have no "canopy." If the canopy gets too heavy, it rains. How heavy? You said you are into weather. Do you know what partial pressure is? Water, at a certain temperature tends to evaporate until the air is 100% humid. The hotter the weather, the more water that can evaporate. How much total water can be in the air? Morris' "theory" doesn't require just man to have changed or just the atmosphere to have changed. It requires the laws of physics to have changed. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 20, 2011 21:50:14 GMT -5
Bev,
Pages 139, Chapter 8 The Flood and Prophecy, and 303, Chapter 15 The Prophetic Creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 20, 2011 22:27:19 GMT -5
Hey Jeff,
I heard about this "canopy" theory a long time ago. I think it is more akin to a tribal flesh eater in southwest Borneo...wait for it....CANNIBAL (can of bull)
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 21, 2011 0:16:42 GMT -5
Hey Jeff, I heard about this "canopy" theory a long time ago. ... I first heard of the canopy theory from a Kent Hovind creation video. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 21, 2011 0:17:39 GMT -5
Bev, Pages 139, Chapter 8 The Flood and Prophecy, and 303, Chapter 15 The Prophetic Creation. Thanks, Jeff! It is now in my index.  |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 1:39:39 GMT -5
Jeff, I did not mention higher pressure. Nor did I mention increased oxygen. If you want to ask questions about that you will have to ask those that postulate those theories, provided they are still alive. Keep in mind, they are only theories - and they are not mine. My emphasis is to show that God created an atmospheric canopy that protected the earth from spacial dangers including the harmful rays of the sun. We know from Scripture that people lived a lot longer before the flood than they do now. Why is that? Obviously, either people have changed, or the Earth's atmosphere has changed. I believe the latter is true. Tom, You endorsed the article, "Want to learn more about the "Pre-Flood Atmosphere," go to:" Morris is dead. I can't question their fables because he's not alive to defend himself. Your "emphasis is to show that God created an atmospheric canopy that protected the earth from spacial dangers including the harmful rays of the sun?" Where did you show this? You didn't show anything. You linked to an article that you can't/won't defend. You think it is unchrisitian for me to comment, because Morris isn't here to defend himself. The higher pressure and higher oxygen levels are part of Morris' "theory." Without higher pressure, you have no "canopy." If the canopy gets too heavy, it rains. How heavy? You said you are into weather. Do you know what partial pressure is? Water, at a certain temperature tends to evaporate until the air is 100% humid. The hotter the weather, the more water that can evaporate. How much total water can be in the air? Morris' "theory" doesn't require just man to have changed or just the atmosphere to have changed. It requires the laws of physics to have changed. I did not endorse the article, I simply gave it as a reference, in case someone wanted to learn more. Even if I did, I certainly did not endorse every theory. "Your "emphasis is to show that God created an atmospheric canopy that protected the earth from spacial dangers including the harmful rays of the sun?" Where did you show this?" If you disagree, how do you explain Genesis 1.6-10, and 2.6? "You said you are into weather." I did, and I am. I did not say I know everything about meteorology though. "Do you know what partial pressure is?" No, what is it? "Water, at a certain temperature tends to evaporate until the air is 100% humid. The hotter the weather, the more water that can evaporate. How much total water can be in the air?" It does not have to be extremely hot for water to evaporate. Fog is nothing but evaporated water, and that happens as low as the mid 30s. Whenever the temperature [the measure of heat in the air] and the dew point [the measure of moisture in the air] is the same, we call that the saturation point, and the relative humidity is at 100%. Under those conditions, if clouds are present and a weather system, such as a front or a low pressure system to provide the lift in the atmosphere, it is precipitating. If conditions are not right for precipitation, the air is still saturated with moisture. That is how we get fog. And where did that fog/vapor come from? It comes from the evaporation of water. I am sure most have seen this evaporation of water after a summer thunderstorm. Around here folks use to use a very technical term to refer to this. They called it "drying off." There is a situation where evaporation happens at very low temperatures. I am sure you have heard of "lake effect snow." People in Erie, Pa. and Buffallo, NY. certainly know what lake effect snow is. Lake effect snow occurs when cold winds blow over warmer lakes. The water of the lake evaporates and forms clouds in the atmosphere, and when those clouds move over the land, the snow falls. As long as the lakes are not frozen, this can happen. If the waters of the lake is 35 degrees F, and the air that moves over the lakes is 25 degrees F, the water of the lakes will evaporate, and the vapor forms clouds, and snow is deposited pver the land. So, you see, it does not take extreme heat to cause water to evaporate. How much total water can be in the air? That depends on the air temperature. Moisture content of the air can never go beyond the saturation point. "The hotter the weather, the more water that can evaporate."I'm not sure, but I think what you mean to say that the hotter the weather the more moisture can be in the air. The higher the air temperature the higher the dew point has to be to reach saturation point. "It requires the laws of physics to have changed." I'm not sure what you mean by that. But, God created the laws of physics, I guess if he wanted to, He could change them. Hey Jeff, Enjoy the weather, it's the only weather you got. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 11:16:57 GMT -5
Hey Jeff, I heard about this "canopy" theory a long time ago. ... I first heard of the canopy theory from a Kent Hovind creation video. I first hear of the canopy theory back in the early 1970's. While working on Weather Merit Badge, I learned of Relative Humidity. In a Chemistry class in High School, I learn about partial vapor pressure. That, and a little curiosity, gave me everything I needed to know to falsify the canopy "theory." A water vapor canopy, capable of raining more than a foot of water worldwide, is physically impossible, given physics as it is today. I find it ironic that the YEC authors try to argue that modern physics has held since the fall, but modern biology only holds since the flood. Their models defy the most simple physics. Their models also defy Scripture. But what would you expect? The models didn't come from Scripture. They came from the visions of a teenage mystic. Had Morris been honest about the source, do you think his book would have sold? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 11:25:25 GMT -5
So, you see, it does not take extreme heat to cause water to evaporate. How much total water can be in the air? That depends on the air temperature. Moisture content of the air can never go beyond the saturation point. Tom, Look at the first sentence above. Then look at the second. I know the first, because I know the second. You are a patronizing sort. If I gave you a ground temperature, could you determine the total water content of the atmosphere above that point, assuming saturation? I suspect you can, but that you have never thought to do so. Had you done so, you would see that your water vapor canopy won't work. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 13:14:53 GMT -5
"Your "emphasis is to show that God created an atmospheric canopy that protected the earth from spacial dangers including the harmful rays of the sun?" Where did you show this?" If you disagree, how do you explain Genesis 1.6-10, and 2.6? I have explained Gen. 1:6-10 and Gen. 2:6. You are acting totally incredulous. Most people who make the demands you are making, if I tell them, they won't listen and they won't read. They will then change to another topic, and make more incredulous demands. Are you going to do that? If I explain it again will you read it carefully, apologize, and actually try to understand? Or will you continue to berate and change the subject? Partial pressure is that portion of the atmospheric pressure due to one of the constituent elements. For example, standard atmospheric pressure is 14.7 lbs/square inch. Oxygen is 21% of that. The partial pressure of oxygen is 14.7*0.21 = 3.09 lbs/square inch. That is, take a square inch of land at sea level, and imagine a column of air going all the way to the top of the atmosphere. The entire atmosphere over that point weighs 14.7 lbs/square inch. The oxygen weighs 3.09 lbs/square inch. Water makes up, on average 1% of the atmosphere. That is 14.7*0.01 = 0.147 lbs/square inch. That is water vapor. This means that the total water in the air, if converted to liquid would be about 4 1/4 inches deep average, worldwide. Here's a water vapor pressure table. Find your current temperature. Take the pressure listed divide by 760 times 14.7 * Relative humidity/100 = the water vapor pressure in lbs/square inch. Times 28 gives the depth of water in inches. For example, it is currently 52F in Anaheim with 64% humidity. Look up 11C on the table and find 9.8 mmHg. 9.8/760*14.7*64/100 = 0.1213 lbs/square inch of water vapor 0.1213 lbs/square inch * 28 cubic inches / lb = 3.4 inches of water. If the humidity were 100%, there would be 5.3 inches of water in the air. 5.3 inches is all the water the air can hold. That is the maximum thickness of a water vapor canopy over Anaheim at this hour. If it were warmer, the canopy could be thicker. If it were colder, the canopy would be thinner. Pick a temperature, and we can compute the maximum canopy thickness. Or pick a canopy thickness and we can find a minimum temperature. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 13:41:10 GMT -5
So, you see, it does not take extreme heat to cause water to evaporate. How much total water can be in the air? That depends on the air temperature. Moisture content of the air can never go beyond the saturation point. Tom, Look at the first sentence above. Then look at the second. I know the first, because I know the second. You are a patronizing sort. If I gave you a ground temperature, could you determine the total water content of the atmosphere above that point, assuming saturation? I suspect you can, but that you have never thought to do so. Had you done so, you would see that your water vapor canopy won't work. Actually, no I can't. It's a mathematical progression that I never learned. I do know that at 80 degrees, there is more than twice the amount of moisture in the air at 40 degrees. How much moisture per degree, I do not know. I know I heard it. That's something that I just haven't retained in memory. Math is far from being a strong subject of mine.  |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 14:01:43 GMT -5
"Your "emphasis is to show that God created an atmospheric canopy that protected the earth from spacial dangers including the harmful rays of the sun?" Where did you show this?" If you disagree, how do you explain Genesis 1.6-10, and 2.6? I have explained Gen. 1:6-10 and Gen. 2:6. You are acting totally incredulous. Most people who make the demands you are making, if I tell them, they won't listen and they won't read. They will then change to another topic, and make more incredulous demands. Are you going to do that? If I explain it again will you read it carefully, apologize, and actually try to understand? Or will you continue to berate and change the subject? Where? I do not recall seeing it. "You are acting totally incredulous." Is that what you call people being honest? "Most people who make the demands you are making, if I tell them, they won't listen and they won't read. They will then change to another topic, and make more incredulous demands. Are you going to do that? If I explain it again will you read it carefully, apologize, and actually try to understand? Or will you continue to berate and change the subject?"1. What demands am I making? Please show me one demand I've made in this thread. 2. Whether I listen, or read would depend on if I have ability to understand what is being said or written. If you continue to use words that are not close to my vocabulary level, then I would not listen or read it. What would be the point if I wouldn't understand it? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 17:31:11 GMT -5
Tom,
I explained vapor pressure. I showed you how to compute the total amount of water in the atmosphere. Would you please comment? Did you read it? Was anything unclear? Did you get out your slide rule or calculator, look at the table and try a problem or two?
The water vapor canopy, developed by Ellen G. White's disciples, does not hold water. At least no more than 4 or 5 inches. If you work at it a bit, you might get a foot or two. This would require night-time winter lows in the polar regions to be over 100 F. (Allyn might think that would feel good for a little while.)
Tell me how much water, and I can tell you the minimum temperature. Tell me how hot it was in the garden and I can tell you the maximum amount of water in the canopy. It will never be enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 18:53:20 GMT -5
Tom, I explained vapor pressure. I showed you how to compute the total amount of water in the atmosphere. Would you please comment? Did you read it? Was anything unclear? Did you get out your slide rule or calculator, look at the table and try a problem or two? The water vapor canopy, developed by Ellen G. White's disciples, does not hold water. At least no more than 4 or 5 inches. If you work at it a bit, you might get a foot or two. This would require night-time winter lows in the polar regions to be over 100 F. (Allyn might think that would feel good for a little while.) Tell me how much water, and I can tell you the minimum temperature. Tell me how hot it was in the garden and I can tell you the maximum amount of water in the canopy. It will never be enough. I am still digesting what you said about pressure. But, what about what Scripture says. Do you contend that it was false. Are you suggesting there was not waters under or above the firmament? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 19:51:31 GMT -5
I am still digesting what you said about pressure. But, what about what Scripture says. Do you contend that it was false. Are you suggesting there was not waters under or above the firmament? I am contending that Scripture does not describe the creation of the physical universe. Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of what the Hebrew Scriptures calls "the created thing." It describes the creation of the first heaven and the first earth of which Revelation 21:1 says had passed away. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 21:03:26 GMT -5
I am still digesting what you said about pressure. But, what about what Scripture says. Do you contend that it was false. Are you suggesting there was not waters under or above the firmament? I am contending that Scripture does not describe the creation of the physical universe. Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of what the Hebrew Scriptures calls "the created thing." It describes the creation of the first heaven and the first earth of which Revelation 21:1 says had passed away. And you are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 21:07:15 GMT -5
For someone who doesn't know what I believe, can't do simple arithmetic related to his interests, and is a follower of the Seventh Day Adventist apologist Henry Morris, you sure are sure of yourself. Take care. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 22, 2011 9:48:55 GMT -5
For someone who doesn't know what I believe, can't do simple arithmetic related to his interests, and is a follower of the Seventh Day Adventist apologist Henry Morris, you sure are sure of yourself. Take care. I know one of your beliefs because you said, "I am contending that Scripture does not describe the creation of the physical universe." And you are wrong about that. Genesis 6.7 states, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'"God says, " I will destroy man whom I have CREATED..." When did God create man that He intended to destroy? If we can't trust Genesis 1 to mean what it says then how can we trust what God says in Genesis 6.7? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 22, 2011 11:44:34 GMT -5
Genesis 6.7 states, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'"God says, " I will destroy man whom I have CREATED..." When did God create man that He intended to destroy? If we can't trust Genesis 1 to mean what it says then how can we trust what God says in Genesis 6.7? Tom, why do you think God was sorry that he had made the beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air? What was it that THEY did to seemingly provoke God? |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 22, 2011 13:23:34 GMT -5
Genesis 6.7 states, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'"God says, " I will destroy man whom I have CREATED..." When did God create man that He intended to destroy? If we can't trust Genesis 1 to mean what it says then how can we trust what God says in Genesis 6.7? Tom, why do you think God was sorry that he had made the beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air? What was it that THEY did to seemingly provoke God? Wrong answer. Or, on your case, wrong question. The question is, when did God make them? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 22, 2011 16:59:05 GMT -5
Never mind, Tom...sheeesh!
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 22, 2011 18:22:23 GMT -5
Never mind, Tom...sheeesh! So are you going to run away because you can't answer the question. God said hea was going to destroy the land life, and the birds that He Created - did he not? When did He create that life? It's a logical question, Ted, if Genesis 1 is not that creation. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 22, 2011 21:34:19 GMT -5
Genesis 6.7 states, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'"
I think I can appreciate both Tom's and Ted's views of this verse.
From Ted's viewpoint, the beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air do not represent those literal things, but are symbols. Is that right, Ted?
Yet, if that is the case, then "man" in the same sentence must also represent something other than what it seems. You can't have it both ways by claiming that "man" means man, but beasts and birds and creeping things are symbolic.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 22, 2011 23:05:20 GMT -5
Genesis 6.7 states, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'" Bev, Sadly, the translators bias shows most strongly in Genesis 1-11 and the eschatology passages. The Hebrew says, "I will wipe Adam whom I have covenanted from the face of the land...." Literally, the same "face of the land" that Cain was driven from in vs. 4:14. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 22, 2011 23:46:49 GMT -5
Genesis 6.7 states, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'" I think I can appreciate both Tom's and Ted's views of this verse. From Ted's viewpoint, the beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air do not represent those literal things, but are symbols. Is that right, Ted? Yet, if that is the case, then "man" in the same sentence must also represent something other than what it seems. You can't have it both ways by claiming that "man" means man, but beasts and birds and creeping things are symbolic. Bev, maybe you can get Tom to answer my question... "Tom, why do you think God was sorry that he had made the beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air? What was it that THEY did to seemingly provoke God?" |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 23, 2011 0:02:56 GMT -5
Genesis 6.7 states, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'" I think I can appreciate both Tom's and Ted's views of this verse. From Ted's viewpoint, the beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air do not represent those literal things, but are symbols. Is that right, Ted? Yet, if that is the case, then "man" in the same sentence must also represent something other than what it seems. You can't have it both ways by claiming that "man" means man, but beasts and birds and creeping things are symbolic. Bev, maybe you can get Tom to answer my question... "Tom, why do you think God was sorry that he had made the beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air? What was it that THEY did to seemingly provoke God?" What makes you think I could get Tom to answer? I am not even in contact with him. But here's an answer from John Wesley that's as good as any: Referring to the beasts and birds, etc., of that verse, Wesley writes: "they were made that man might serve and honour God with them and therefore were destroyed, because he had served his lusts with them, and made them subject to vanity." |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 23, 2011 0:08:56 GMT -5
Genesis 6.7 states, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'" Bev, Sadly, the translators bias shows most strongly in Genesis 1-11 and the eschatology passages. The Hebrew says, "I will wipe Adam whom I have covenanted from the face of the land...." Literally, the same "face of the land" that Cain was driven from in vs. 4:14. Thanks, Jeff. Though I don't see how covenanted comes from the Hebrew word translated as created. |
|
