|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 13, 2011 13:22:48 GMT -5
Thinking about it, I think that the "if it is true" interpretation of Romans 5:12 you gave above is a distinct possibility. Romans 5:12-13 NASB Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned -- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Through one man sin entered into the "world" ... until the Law sin was in the "world." The Law was given to only one people. That seems to make sense. However, I will then point out that sin and death were applied only to one people. But maybe that's true. Romans 8:2 " For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." Galatians 3:13 " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)" 1 John 4:14, " And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world." Galatians 3:24 " Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Perhaps there is only one people in need of a Savior? Then if not, what hope do we have of one? After all, it's been demonstrated by others that "gentiles/nations" means "a Jew outside of Israel". With these definitions I can't find any evidence that scriptures are for us. Anybody else? The verses above (just a small snapshot) indicate that Christ frees those from under the law (we weren't given the law or under the law). We didn't have that tutor to bring us to Christ; are we supposed to be brought to Christ, the Savior of some other people? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 13, 2011 13:39:08 GMT -5
The best way to describe how I feel regarding CC is 'ethereal'. I just can't get a grasp of its 'body'. Its body? Do you understand Covenant Eschatology? The "end" refers to the end of the Old Covenant. The body refers to the corporate Old Covenant body. Covenant Creation is very simple. That Old Covenant body was "created" just as surely as it was ended. When? Sinai? No, earlier. Egypt? No, earlier. Abraham? No, earlier. Noah? No earlier. Adam? Finally we are getting there. Specifically when? The Fall and the Curse? No, earlier. When Adam was placed in the garden? No, earlier. The "creation" of Genesis 1? Bingo. What are you saying here? You are making no sense to me. Adam died a physical death (deep sleep) in Gen. 2. Just like the last Adam died a physical death on the cross. Both men had brides that were created from their sides while they were dead. Both men were then awakened from their deep sleep (in Greek, egeiro, to arouse from sleep, to awake). Then both men were presented with their brides years later. "The Man said, 'Finally! Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh!'" In Genesis 3, the Fall and the Curse, there is no discussion of physical death. The only sign of physical death is the intent of the cherubs. The Fall was Adam's failure to abide by the law given to him. The Curse was God's punishment for that failure. That punishment is called, "The death." Adam completely and utterly perished in "the Death." That perishing was not physical death. Jesus and the Apostles used the same words in the same way to describe the destruction of Jerusalem and the Creation and Fall. Were Jesus and the Apostles specking literally or allegorically and symbolically? The words have one meaning. As preterists, we know what that meaning is. It is not the same meaning the English words chosen to translate it. But it is still a literal and unique meaning. Yes all of those things you asked about come from Scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 13, 2011 13:56:16 GMT -5
... why is it that one man gave all the creatures their names? ... Genesis 2:19-20 NASB (19) Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. (20) The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. Why is it assumed that when Adam "named" the animals, it means that he identified their kinds or classifications (example, that's a horse, that's a wolf, that's a lion, that's a camel)? The usage of shem usually applies to individuals, not classes or groups of things. Examples from same scope: (Genesis 2:14 NASB) The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Genesis 3:20 NASB) Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. (Genesis 4:17 NASB) Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son. (Genesis 4:19 NASB) Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah. People have names. So do rivers and cities, so why not animals? Could it be just fanciful interpretation that Genesis 2:19-20 describes Adam as labeling all the different kinds of animals? Maybe he was just giving personal names to the animals that were to live within the confines of the Garden with him, as God presented them to him. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 13, 2011 14:19:40 GMT -5
I like that one. especially this part: Gen 2:21,22 "So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man." Jacob the Camel didn't work out well as a helper - but Eve the Woman fit the bill. I think we find a bit of Jewish culture re: the objectification of women threaded in here. But hey - it fits! --- Ok JL & Morris - you seemed to have glossed over my two posts. I will assume by your silence that you believe I make complete sense and my case is irrefutable  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 13, 2011 15:21:31 GMT -5
"Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." - Col 1:21-23 G3956 "pas" - the same Greek word you referred to in Romans 5:12. And this "all" is in the context of "everything under heaven" - far more explicit and descriptive than In Romans, and much broader. All men / every creature = local or global? Since we need to read scripture for scripture, as you are proposing...then Paul was saying the following was fulfilled: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." - Matt 24:14 And, you guessed it, Matt 24 uses "pas" This can be more evidence that none of this means anything for us. According to preterism, the end spoken of in Matthew 24:14 came at 70 AD, which means the gospel was preached to all Jews of the Roman world. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 13, 2011 15:42:11 GMT -5
"Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." - Col 1:21-23 G3956 "pas" - the same Greek word you referred to in Romans 5:12. And this "all" is in the context of "everything under heaven" - far more explicit and descriptive than In Romans, and much broader. All men / every creature = local or global? Since we need to read scripture for scripture, as you are proposing...then Paul was saying the following was fulfilled: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." - Matt 24:14 And, you guessed it, Matt 24 uses "pas" Comankind, Is this what you are referring to in your "irrefutable" comment? Yes I agree. Rom. 5:12 claims that Matt. 24:14 had been fulfilled. I use this sort of logic consistently in Beyond Creation Science. Most of my preterist critics would also agree that your proof here is irrefutable. They also consistently apply this same type of analysis back into the prophets, yet refuse to allow this type of analysis to inform their thinking on early Genesis. It leaves me banging my head against the wall. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 13, 2011 15:54:49 GMT -5
Why are you using a select definition of the modern English word "world" instead of one for the ancient Greek word "kosmon"? I used the definition you implied. I've told you. By direct meaning no. By application, I assume yes. It was not written to us. It was written 1st century Jewish Christians, pre-parousia, who were part of the 1st century Jewish "world." That "world" has passed away and no longer exists (vss 15-18). Since that "world" has passed away, the text can not be meant to include us. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 13, 2011 15:55:37 GMT -5
Thinking about it, I think that the "if it is true" interpretation of Romans 5:12 you gave above is a distinct possibility. Romans 5:12-13 NASB Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned -- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Through one man sin entered into the "world" ... until the Law sin was in the "world." The Law was given to only one people. That seems to make sense. However, I will then point out that sin and death were applied only to one people. But maybe that's true. Romans 8:2 " For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." Galatians 3:13 " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)" 1 John 4:14, " And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world." Galatians 3:24 " Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Perhaps there is only one people in need of a Savior? Then if not, what hope do we have of one? After all, it's been demonstrated by others that "gentiles/nations" means "a Jew outside of Israel". With these definitions I can't find any evidence that scriptures are for us. Anybody else? The verses above (just a small snapshot) indicate that Christ frees those from under the law (we weren't given the law or under the law). We didn't have that tutor to bring us to Christ; are we supposed to be brought to Christ, the Savior of some other people? When we become members of that group/people for whom the Scriptures were written, then the Scriptures become relevant to us. When we choose to become part of the people of God, then we become heirs to the promises that were made to those people. Gal 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. Eph 3:6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 13, 2011 16:02:46 GMT -5
That seems to make sense. However, I will then point out that sin and death were applied only to one people. But maybe that's true. A-ha!! Perhaps there was only one dead people who were given "life" in Adam? These people then lost that life due to Adam's sin. That is why there is no more sea. There is no longer Jew nor Gentile. We are now one in Christ. The Jews had life, but lost it in Adam. The Gentiles never had life. In Christ, life was restored to the Jews and given to the Gentiles. |
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 13, 2011 17:12:02 GMT -5
JL - actually was referring to post 52. But long gone now...
Morris - I simply don't understand your response. You say 'read as it stands' but then are incapable of following your own recipe consistently, it seems to change based on your personal preference.
If Paul preached to all creation, death had spread to all of that creation through one man, and a famine had spread to all those same men (acts 11:28), Satan was ruler of their world and cast down to them, then a new earth was delivered for all of these men, then what's the question?
The OT was written EXACTLY the same way, from Genesis on.
The consistency is astounding actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by comankind on Jun 13, 2011 17:27:03 GMT -5
This is a big dump here - but I've always liked comparing the Book of Enoch to Genesis. I look at the mountains as representing the many cultures/faiths of man. Israel is one of them.
The High Mountain is IMO New Jerusalem (where the trees are next to a river of water of life)
--------
9 - Fragrant Trees:
24.1 And from there I went to another place of the Earth and he showed me a mountain of fire that blazed day and night.
24.2 And I went towards it and saw seven magnificent mountains. And all were different from one another, and precious and beautiful stones, and all were precious, and their appearance glorious, and their form was beautiful. Three towards the east one fixed firmly on another and three towards the south one on another, and deep and rugged valleys, no one of which was near another.
24.3 And there was a seventh mountain, in the middle of these, and in their height they were all like the seat of a throne and fragrant trees surrounded it.
24.4 And there was among them a tree such as which I have never smelt, and none of them, or any others, were like it. It smells more fragrant than any fragrance, and its leaves, and its flowers, and its wood never wither. Its fruit is good, and its fruit is like bunches of dates on a palm.
24.5 And then I said: "Behold, this beautiful tree! Beautiful to look at, and pleasant are its leaves, and its fruit very delightful in appearance."
24.6 And then Michael, one of the Holy and Honoured Angels, who was with me, and was in charge of them,
25.1 answered me and said to me: "Enoch, why do you ask me about the fragrance of this tree, and why do you inquire to learn?"
25.2 Then I, Enoch, answered him saying: "I wish to learn about everything, but especially about this tree."
25.3 And he answered me, saying: "This high mountain, which you saw, whose summit is like the Throne of the Lord, is the throne where the Holy and Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when he comes down to visit the Earth for good.
25.4 And this beautiful and fragrant tree, and no creature of flesh has authority to touch it until the great judgment, when he will take vengeance on all and bring everything to a consummation forever, this will be given to the righteous and the humble.
25.5 From its fruit, life will be given to the chosen; towards the north it will be planted, in a Holy place, by the house of the Lord, the Eternal King.
25.6 Then they will rejoice with joy and be glad in the Holy place. They will each draw the fragrance of it into their bones, and they will live a long life on earth, as your fathers lived. And in their days sorrow and pain, and toil and punishment, will not touch them."
25.7 Then I blessed the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, because he has prepared such things for righteous men, and has created such things, and said that they are to be given to them.
26.1 And from there, I went to the middle of the earth, and saw a blessed, well watered place, which had branches which remained alive, and sprouted from a tree which had been cut down.
26.2 And there I saw a holy mountain, and under the mountain, to the east of it, there was water, and it flowed towards the south.
26.3 And I saw towards the east, another mountain, which was of the same height, and between them, there was a deep and narrow valley; and in it, a stream ran by the mountain.
26.4 And to the west of this one, was another mountain, which was lower than it was and not high; and under it, there was a valley between them. And there were other deep and dry valleys at the end of the three mountains.
26.5 And all the valleys were deep and narrow, of hard rock, and trees were planted on them.
26.6 And I was amazed at the rock, and I was amazed at the valley; I was very much amazed.
27.1 Then I said: "What is the purpose of this blessed land, which is completely full of trees, and of this accursed valley in the middle of them?"
27.2 Then Raphael, one of the Holy Angels who was with me, answered me, and said to me: "This accursed valley, is for those who are cursed for ever. Here will be gathered together all who speak with their mouths against the Lord - words that are not fitting, and say hard things about His Glory. Here they will gather them together, and here will be their place of judgment.
27.3 And in the last days there will be the spectacle of the righteous judgment upon them, in front of the righteous, forever. For here, the merciful will bless the Lord of Glory the Eternal King.
27.4 And in the days of the judgment on them they will bless Him, on account of his mercy, according as He has assigned to them their lot."
27.5 Then I myself blessed the Lord of Glory, I addressed Him, and I remembered His majesty, as was fitting.
28.1 And from there, I went towards the east, to the middle of the mountain of the wilderness, and I saw only desert.
28.2 But it was full of trees from this seed and water gushed out over it from above.
28.3 The torrent, which flowed towards the northwest, seemed copious, and from all sides, there went up spray and mist.
29.1 And I went to another place, away from the wilderness; I came near to the east of this mountain.
29.2 And there I saw Trees of Judgment, especially vessels of the fragrance of incense and myrrh, and the trees were not alike.
30.1 And above it, above these, above the mountains of the east, and not far away, I saw another place, valleys of water, like that which does not fail.
30.2 And I saw a beautiful tree, and its fragrance was like that of the mastic.
30.3 And by the banks of these valleys I saw fragrant cinnamon. And beyond those valleys I came towards the east.
31.1 And I saw another mountain on which there were trees, and there flowed out water, and there flowed out from it, as it were, a nectar whose name is styrax and galbanum.
31.2 And beyond this mountain I saw another mountain, and on it there were aloe trees, and those trees were full of a fruit, which is like an almond, and is hard.
31.3 And when they take this fruit it is better than any fragrance.
32.1 And after these fragrances, to the north, as I looked over the mountains, I saw seven mountains full of fine nard, and fragrant trees of cinnamon and pepper.
32.2 And from there, I went over the summits of those mountains, far away to the east, and I went over the Red Sea, and I was far from it, and I went over the Angel Zotiel.
32.3 And I came to the Garden of Righteousness, and I saw beyond those trees many large trees growing there, sweet smelling, large, very beautiful and glorious, the Trees of Wisdom, from which they eat and know great wisdom.
32.4 And it is like the carob tree, and its fruit is like bunches of grapes on a vine, very beautiful, and the smell of this tree spreads and penetrates afar.
32.5 And I said: "This tree is beautiful! How beautiful and pleasing is its appearance!"
32.6 And the Holy Angel Raphael, who was with me, answered me and said to me: "This is the Tree of Wisdom, from which your ancient father and ancient mother, who were before you, ate and learnt wisdom; and their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they were driven from the garden."
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 13, 2011 18:24:47 GMT -5
JL - actually was referring to post 52. But long gone now... I believe I understood your point, disagree, and felt further discussion along that line would be unprofitable at this time. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 13, 2011 20:31:40 GMT -5
When we become members of that group/people for whom the Scriptures were written, then the Scriptures become relevant to us. When we choose to become part of the people of God, then we become heirs to the promises that were made to those people. Gal 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. Eph 3:6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, OK, but why would I need to become a member? I don't see any need to as I look at these Jewish scriptures from a covenantal viewpoint? Perhaps if someone wanted to enter the covenant for the sake of the promises. Everything is limited to the Jews in Israel or those Jews who are 'strangers' in other nations and reconciled back. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 13, 2011 21:56:35 GMT -5
Perhaps there was only one dead people who were given "life" in Adam? These people then lost that life due to Adam's sin. Alright, that I see, but what was that 'life'? You may very well be right. But now I am faced with the possibility that Gentile is simply a 'lost' Jew, which makes perfect sense in a limited and covenant world. Mark 11:17, " Then He taught, saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’” That word is the same one translated "Gentile" in most instances, such as in Ephesians 3:6. However, the quote in Mark 11:17 is from Isaiah 56:7 and continues in the next verse, "The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, 'Yet I will gather to him Others besides those who are gathered to him' ". Reading the passage suggests that God was gathering the Israel who kept the commandments, and the outcast Israel who didn't at one time, but who now " keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant". As Isaiah 56:3 says, " Do not let the son of the foreigner Who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, 'The LORD has utterly separated me from His people' ". That passage then can lead me to believe that "Gentile" is merely an outcast Jew to be reconciled with the other Jews. As John 10:16 says, " And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd". Didn't Jesus say " I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” in Matthew 15:24? Isn't this consistent with Hebrews 8:8,10, " Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Knowing that the gospel was preached to all the Jews by 70 AD can help us see how it is that " the gospel... has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven" (Colossians 1:23 and Matthew 24:14). So now with understanding that covenant with Adam is the underpinning of scripture, and that the world being spoken of is that of the Jewish world, we can see that Christ is their Savior who reconciled all those under the covenant back to Him, be it a Jew who was near or one afar off. Again you may be right regarding covenant and world. Who is to face judgment? Those under the law. Romans 3:19-20, " Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The world must be those under the law. Also Romans 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 6:2. This is what Jesus said in John 5:45, " Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust". It is "the twelve tribes of Israel" that are to be judged according to Matthew 19:28. Thankfully, we are outside of this and past this. However, I still haven't found any indication that we are involved in anything of scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 13, 2011 23:43:10 GMT -5
Perhaps there was only one dead people who were given "life" in Adam? These people then lost that life due to Adam's sin. Alright, that I see, but what was that 'life'? The same life Jesus gave to his disciples in John 20:22. Yes, I know. You think I'm avoiding the question, that I'm giving a smart-alec answer. When such a question is posed, I have 2 options: 1) Give a SWAG or tout someone else's "learned opinion," which is typically someone else's SWAG with a more developed excuse. 2) Find the other verses that apply and use them to help me determine what Scripture is saying. The life lost in the Fall/Curse was not physical life. What life was it? What life was last discussed? The tree of life in 2:9 and the breath of life in 2:7. "The death" in Genesis 3 was, most reasonably, the loss of one of those entities. In Genesis 3, God took an extra step to ensure loss of the tree of life, the breath of life seems more reasonable to me. Therefore John 20:22 applies. However, I can see how someone might see the removal from the ToL as the death. Someone needs to work out this angle. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 14, 2011 8:04:47 GMT -5
Alright, that I see, but what was that 'life'? The same life Jesus gave to his disciples in John 20:22. Yes, I know. You think I'm avoiding the question, that I'm giving a smart-alec answer. When such a question is posed, I have 2 options: 1) Give a SWAG or tout someone else's "learned opinion," which is typically someone else's SWAG with a more developed excuse. 2) Find the other verses that apply and use them to help me determine what Scripture is saying. The life lost in the Fall/Curse was not physical life. What life was it? What life was last discussed? The tree of life in 2:9 and the breath of life in 2:7. "The death" in Genesis 3 was, most reasonably, the loss of one of those entities. In Genesis 3, God took an extra step to ensure loss of the tree of life, the breath of life seems more reasonable to me. Therefore John 20:22 applies. However, I can see how someone might see the removal from the ToL as the death. Someone needs to work out this angle. Although that certainly makes sense in light of John 20:22, and my inclination is to agree, it doesn't seem to fit within Genesis and your other statements. Genesis 2:7, " And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." So God breathed in the " breath of life" ("life" being Strong's #H2416), and Adam became a " living being", which is 'soul living' (5315 / 2416). But here is the problem; Genesis 1:30 " Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so." That "life" is actually 'soul living' (5315 / 2416). Doesn't this mean that the so-called 'Gentiles' had the exact same 'life' as Adam, and in fact, had it before Adam had it? We now have no scriptural support that Gentiles refer to us. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jun 14, 2011 10:05:12 GMT -5
Hi Morris,
You show a lot of patience to work thru this with Jeff. There are just too many premises for me to accept first to get a hold of this understanding. First of which is that to hold to a full preterist paradigm, we must hold to Max King's ideas of Covenant Eschatology. And now that it is defined as such, if any say no we don't, then we are accused of denying that eschatology is about a covenantal end - which does not necessarily follow at all.
The main premise of CC is then that if the end is covenantal, so must the beginning be for consistency's sake. That also doesn't follow - for a physical beginning to have a spiritual end is thus refused because it doesn't fit the new model, not because it is not true. And once you have seas defined as Gentiles and beasts as some sub-human (evolving?) species, then any other way of looking at these things as symbols becomes severely limited in this new box for reading scripture.
So when we get to Revelation and although we find sea(s) used in various ways, we end up with no more sea = no more Gentiles regardless of the context that phrase is used. A context which is about where men are held in death which is emptied of the souls it held. Thus that sea that is no more is just like the place of death as well as Hades that inclusively held all men as prisoners at one time. Which now is what the lake of fire does instead for those who reject the only way of salvation and life, from which there is no escape or resurrection promised.
The only difference I find in the type of life that Adam had vs that of Christ is in 1 Cor 15 where we are told the first Adam was made a living soul and the last Adam a quickening or life-giving spirit. And that we can take back to Genesis to see what exactly it was about the life that Adam lost which death would secure and for which he was prevented from access to the tree of life until he was redeemed from sin and death at which point he could be resurrected. And that was the life of his soul, because he did not have a life-giving spirit that was able to survive the death of his body.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 14, 2011 10:27:17 GMT -5
Although that certainly makes sense in light of John 20:22, and my inclination is to agree, it doesn't seem to fit within Genesis and your other statements. Genesis 2:7, " And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." So God breathed in the " breath of life" ("life" being Strong's #H2416), and Adam became a " living being", which is 'soul living' (5315 / 2416). But here is the problem; Genesis 1:30 " Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so." That "life" is actually 'soul living' (5315 / 2416). Doesn't this mean that the so-called 'Gentiles' had the exact same 'life' as Adam, and in fact, had it before Adam had it? We now have no scriptural support that Gentiles refer to us. Morris, Why assume that all people had the breath of life? If God had to give it to the disciples in John 20:22, then reasonably, the disciples did not have it. Then reasonably, no other Jews had it. Then reasonably, no Gentiles had it either. Then reasonably, the breath of life had previously been unique to Adam. By the way, "breath of life" in Gen. 2:7 could also be translated "spirit of life." "Breath of life" in Gen. 6:17 can not, but can be translated "wind of life." Different words. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 14, 2011 11:09:44 GMT -5
The main premise of CC is then that if the end is covenantal, so must the beginning be for consistency's sake. Robin, That's not the premise of CC. Nor was it a premise of our book. That was the conclusion of the book and is essentially the definition of CC. The book demonstrates that the Bible teaches a first century covenantal judgment of Jerusalem. It then demonstrates that the Bible teaches a physically local Flood, that Babel was a covenantal judgment, that the curse/death was a covenantal judgment, and that physical death was already in the garden. From there it develops Covenant Eschatology and demonstrates that the old covenant began in Genesis 1 with Adam. The name Covenant Creation was coined to describe this conclusion. If you are going to comment and make claims like this, please do it from knowledge and not from ignorance. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 14, 2011 12:29:22 GMT -5
Hi Jeff, Do you contend that John 20:22 is symbolic act or the act itself caused the Holy Spirit to come upon them. Same question for the first event recorded in history.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 14, 2011 12:57:22 GMT -5
Hi Jeff, Do you contend that John 20:22 is symbolic act or the act itself caused the Holy Spirit to come upon them. Same question for the first event recorded in history. Allyn, I don't know and I don't know if it matters. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 14, 2011 12:59:29 GMT -5
Morris, Why assume that all people had the breath of life? That's what Genesis 1:30 says, assuming that " every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth" refer to people. It says they were "soul living". Genesis 2:7 says that Adam became "soul living" when God breathed life into him. There is no other option but to assume those 'beasts', 'birds', and 'creeping things' had life breathed into them from God for them to be a "soul living". That is precisely how Adam became a "soul living" Or the original premise was incorrect. I'm not looking at reason here. I'm looking at the words that appear in Genesis. The translation is irrelevant in this case. The beasts, birds, and creeping things possessed the same words that Adam was given. Again, I'm not even interested in those words meanings at this point, but their use. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jun 14, 2011 13:09:25 GMT -5
Jeff said to Morris:
Why assume that all people had the breath of life? If God had to give it to the disciples in John 20:22, then reasonably, the disciples did not have it. Then reasonably, no other Jews had it. Then reasonably, no Gentiles had it either. Then reasonably, the breath of life had previously been unique to Adam.
By the way, "breath of life" in Gen. 2:7 [5397] could also be translated "spirit of life." "Breath of life" in Gen. 6:17 [7307] can not, but can be translated "wind of life." Different words.
It can also be translated as a blast which is what a forceful breath does when it moves the air:
2 Sam 22:16 - And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast [5397 neshamah] of the breath [7307 ruwach] of his nostrils.
Gen 7:22-23 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life [5397], of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Deu 20:16 - But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth [5397]:
Josh 10:40 - So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed [5397], as the LORD God of Israel commanded.
I may be ignorant of the arguments you made in your book because I have not read it, but you have been making those same arguments elsewhere for a while now. And you have spoken of the need for 'consistency' in having a covenantal beginning to go with a covenantal end - which is one of the reasons given as to why the dispy/futurist view is off because it begins and ends with physical things and ignores the covenantal ending.
What I don't want to be ignorant about is that arbitrary translations of words apart from the context in which they appear is how prooftexting is done. First you have to prove that in Gen 2:7 the word means something different than where it is found elsewhere and that from the context found there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 14, 2011 14:46:40 GMT -5
By the way, "breath of life" in Gen. 2:7 could also be translated "spirit of life." "Breath of life" in Gen. 6:17 can not, but can be translated "wind of life." Different words. This has nothing to do with what I was showing in Genesis 1 and 2 regarding "soul living", however... What you said above is not true. "Breath" in Genesis 6:17 is Strong's #7307 and defined as following; "wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions)." In the KJV it has been translated; air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y). In one of the interlinear Scripture Analyzers I use on my PC it appears literally as "spirit-of". On StudyLight.org (that I really thank you for showing me) gives the definition as " wind, breath, mind, spirit". For further study, both these words (#5397 & #7307) appear together in the following verses; Genesis 7:22 2 Samuel 22:16 Job 4:9, 27:3, 32:8, 33:4, 34:14 Psalm 18:15 Isaiah 42:5, 57:16 |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 14, 2011 16:53:39 GMT -5
The translation is irrelevant in this case. The beasts, birds, and creeping things possessed the same words that Adam was given. Again, I'm not even interested in those words meanings at this point, but their use. Sorry, I misunderstood your concern. You are concerned with nephesh chay. Something that the animals had. Rather than neshamah chay which only Adam and the disciples were explicitly given. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jun 14, 2011 17:01:10 GMT -5
By the way, "breath of life" in Gen. 2:7 could also be translated "spirit of life." "Breath of life" in Gen. 6:17 can not, but can be translated "wind of life." Different words. This has nothing to do with what I was showing in Genesis 1 and 2 regarding "soul living", however... What you said above is not true. "Breath" in Genesis 6:17 is Strong's #7307 and defined as following; "wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions)." In the KJV it has been translated; air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y). In one of the interlinear Scripture Analyzers I use on my PC it appears literally as "spirit-of". On StudyLight.org (that I really thank you for showing me) gives the definition as " wind, breath, mind, spirit". For further study, both these words (#5397 & #7307) appear together in the following verses; Genesis 7:22 2 Samuel 22:16 Job 4:9, 27:3, 32:8, 33:4, 34:14 Psalm 18:15 Isaiah 42:5, 57:16 Morris, Ah shoot, I didn't read the entire list. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 14, 2011 18:02:20 GMT -5
Sorry, I misunderstood your concern. You are concerned with nephesh chay. Something that the animals had. Rather than neshamah chay which only Adam and the disciples were explicitly given. I have a pretty good idea what I think, but what exactly do you think the difference between these are? Also, how did you determine that the disciples were given "neshamah chay" as opposed to "nephesh chay"? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 14, 2011 19:47:31 GMT -5
It's good to see life breathed back into this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 16, 2011 19:52:58 GMT -5
I have a pretty good idea what I think, but what exactly do you think the difference between these are? Also, how did you determine that the disciples were given "neshamah chay" as opposed to "nephesh chay"? I guess I'm not going to find out. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 16, 2011 20:12:59 GMT -5
I have a pretty good idea what I think, but what exactly do you think the difference between these are? Also, how did you determine that the disciples were given "neshamah chay" as opposed to "nephesh chay"? I guess I'm not going to find out. I am really dumb on this subject but here is one website that Ifound having an interesting explanation. www.notonesparrow.com/blog/2010/1/11/do-animals-have-souls.html |
|
