We just can't agree on how, when, or why.
This thread is devoted to all of the various aspects of Eschatology.
Most discussions on the latter days involve many side journeys through the annals of time, and a close examination of the texts we have from those eras.
By studying this aspect of theology, we can learn much from our past, and apply the lessons toward understanding our future
Ecclesiastes 1:9
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
peterhuff said...
ReplyDeleteHi MrMeaner,
Here is a video presentation for you. I just found Don K. Preston on-line a few days ago, so I am getting familiar with his teachings on eschatology.
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrDonPreston#p/u/4/YdXc7Tc_VFA
March 28, 2011 11:59 AM
peterhuff said...
MrMeaner, you might want to start at the beginning of the Matthew 16 series. I'm sure that a lot of your questions will be answered, just as mine were.
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrDonPreston#g/u
Select the 'more' button and then start with the 'three months ago' video 'Introduction.'
March 28, 2011 12:15 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOn Preston's interpretation of Matt 16:27
ReplyDelete"Jesus was going to come in the glory of the Father. He was going to come as the Father had come before."
I agree with that statement.
But Mr Preston bases the rest of his theory on a flawed assumption
"But the Father had never come bodily, physically, visibly before"
I have to call a foul on that one.
He most surely has physically came in the past.
The time that comes to mind is the Jeremiah Ch.4 passage we've discussed in relation to Genesis 1:2.
And I completely agree with Preston when he says Christ's return will be in the same manner as the Father has in the past.
[23] I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
[24] I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
[25] I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
[26] I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
[27] For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
[28] For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
I don't understand how Mr Preston can correctly recite the passages referring to the shaking of the mountains, and the melting fire in Isaiah...and even understand the reference to II Peter Ch.3
[10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
...and not see that this is referring to an actual fiery destruction that precedes/accompanies Christ's return, and the new heavens and earth.
I'd also add that any geologist will tell you that this Earth has been shaken, and devasted in the past.
In some areas, what has been land is now ocean, and vice versa
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteHere is a video presentation for you. I just found Don K. Preston on-line a few days ago, so I am getting familiar with his teachings on eschatology.
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrDonPreston#p/u/4/YdXc7Tc_VFA
MrMeaner, you might want to start at the beginning of the Matthew 16 series. I'm sure that a lot of your questions will be answered, just as mine were.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/user/MrDonPreston#g/u
Select the 'more' button and then start with the 'three months ago' video entitled 'Introduction.'
March 28, 2011 12:15 PM
Disputan, I am assuming that your alias is MrMeaner?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you get a physical appearance of the Father from Jeremiah 4.
I also find it hard to see how you can justify reading a duel fulfillment of prophecy from the Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 Olivetti Discourse? You are reading 'all these things' as applying to 'this generation' as well as a future generation also. But the text does not say that. Surely Jesus would have been more specific if He meant a duel fulfillment of prophecy. He could have made it clear by stating 'this generation and the one at the end.'
Do you agree that every other time 'this generation' is used in the NT it refers to the current generation? If you agree this is the case then why do you want to make the exception only in the Olivetti Discourse?
If you disagree concerning the other passages we can test these passages to see if Jesus was talking to the current generation.
March 30, 2011 4:29 PM
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you get a physical appearance of the Father from Jeremiah 4.
There's obviously an enourmous, life-ending destruction being discussed there.
Not only one destruction...but "destruction upon destruction"
First of all, he says "I beheld" all these things, not "I prophesy" these things, so we know that from the perspective of one living at the time of Jeremiah, this was referring to the past
It clearly states that cities were broken down "at" his presence.
There was no man. There wasn't even a bird left to retrieve a plucked olive leaf, as was in the case of Noah's flood.
The heavens were blackened and the whole land desolate.
This is not referring to any event we have recorded in our knowable history.
This was utter destruction.
I also find it hard to see how you can justify reading a duel fulfillment of prophecy from the Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 Olivetti Discourse?
You were probably missing from the discussion that RC and I had, regarding the very few times that the word translated "fulfilled", actually just means "came to be", rather than the other word usually translated as fufilled, which does mean "filled up", which would have to be interpreted as "completed".
In the standard KJV, every time the word "fulfilled" is used, it is the Greek word that denotes "completed".
The only exceptions in the entire NT are Matt 24:34, Luke 21:32, and Matt 5:18.
Most of the times that word rendered "fulfilled" is used, it is translated as "be" or "became". It is used as "became" 17 times in the NT.
As far as "this generation", I'm of the opinion that his stipulation regarding the shooting forth of the fig tree serves as the benchmark for the fulfillment of the prophecies given in that same discussion.
paraphrasing;
When the cursed fig tree sprouts forth, this generation shall not pass away
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"I don't understand how Mr Preston can correctly recite the passages referring to the shaking of the mountains, and the melting fire in Isaiah...and even understand the reference to II Peter Ch.3....and not see that this is referring to an actual fiery destruction that precedes/accompanies Christ's return, and the new heavens and earth."
http://www.eschatology.org/index.php/articles-mainmenu-61/34-new-heaven-and-earth/88-the-passing-of-the-elements-2-peter-310.html
MrMeaner, have you considered looking at passages such as these as figurative language, as in other parts of Scripture, rather than as purely literal?
MrM: "I'd also add that any geologist will tell you that this Earth has been shaken, and devasted in the past.
In some areas, what has been land is now ocean, and vice versa"
I heard that with the 8.9 earthquake in Japan, it mover 8 feet. But what does this have to do with Bible prophecy? Are you interpreting todays headlines with prophecies that some contend concerned 1st century Israel?
http://www.eschatology.org/index.php/articles-mainmenu-61/43-the-israel-of-god/714-the-re-gathering-of-israel-prophecy-fulfilled.html
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI'm not following you on the Jer. 4 passage being a physical appearance of God. The context seems to bear out that he is referring to the coming destruction of Jerusalem/Judea by Nebuchadnezzer. Nor can I find any reliable commentator that sees this as anything other than a reference to the pending destruction. Additionally, the language used in the veres you cited is very similar to language Jeremiah uses to describe the events after the fact in Lametations.
How to you arrive at this being a physical appearance by God?
PH
ReplyDelete"MrMeaner, have you considered looking at passages such as these as figurative language, as in other parts of Scripture, rather than as purely literal?"
Well, we could. But we would have to do it over and over again, throughout the entire Bible.
I just can't accept that these allusions to destruction by fire, and the shaking of heaven and earth, are (ultimately) referring to anything other than the cleansing fire, and the accompanying judgment that the Messiah's return brings.
"I heard that with the 8.9 earthquake in Japan, it mover 8 feet. But what does this have to do with Bible prophecy? Are you interpreting todays headlines with prophecies that some contend concerned 1st century Israel?"
No.
I'm referring to major geographical changes resulting from past cataclysmic events, that would result in a partial extinction.
Question:
Do you acknowledge that there exists discovered remains of man, dated prior to the previous extinction event that occurred around 14,000 years ago?
"I'm not following you on the Jer. 4 passage being a physical appearance of God. The context seems to bear out that he is referring to the coming destruction of Jerusalem/Judea by Nebuchadnezzer."
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, I would note the part that states that those things happened "at the presence of the LORD"
I believe it was put in to context with the time of the Babylonian captivity to draw attention to it's significance.
Again, as with other examples we've discussed, there are conditions outlined in those verses that can't logically be deemed as having happened.
It seems to me that sticklers for a strict interpretation of "this", in context with a qualifier that wasn't time-specific, would also apply the same strict standard in "I beheld", "no man", and "whole land".
And I am not surprised in the least that commentators do not agree.
BTW
Lamentations is also an eschatologiocal work, as well as a historical account.
Typologies.
Almost every book in the Bible contains them.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, I would note the part that states that those things happened "at the presence of the LORD"
There are abundant references in scripture to “the presence of the LORD” that clearly are not referring to His physical presence. What exegetical reason would there be for this particular reference meaning His physical presence?
I believe it was put in to context with the time of the Babylonian captivity to draw attention to it's significance.
Yes, but exegetical proof/reason for such an interpretation is still necessary, isn't it?
Again, as with other examples we've discussed, there are conditions outlined in those verses that can't logically be deemed as having happened.
But again, the immediate context of the passage and the larger context of Lamentations seems to indicate that it was referring to the destruction of Judah. On what exegetical ground can we claim that it was referring to something else?
It seems to me that sticklers for a strict interpretation of "this", in context with a qualifier that wasn't time-specific, would also apply the same strict standard in "I beheld", "no man", and "whole land".
“I beheld” is common prophetic language that often refers to “foreseen” future events. Given the corresponding language of Lamentations, “no man” and “whole land” seem to be prophetic metaphor. Why, exegetically, should we interpret them literally in Jeremiah 4?
And I am not surprised in the least that commentators do not agree.
So...are you saying we have discovered something in this passage that has eluded every able expositor for the last 2,000 years? If so, the burden of sound exegetical proof of such an interpretation is quite heavy indeed, is it not?
BTW: Lamentations is also an eschatologiocal work, as well as a historical account. Typologies.
Almost every book in the Bible contains them.
I agree that there are many typologies in scripture. However, we don't have the liberty of claiming a particular passage is a type without giving ample canonical-contextual evidence of it being a type, do we? If we do have that “liberty,” then scripture interpretation descends into a hopeless morass of personal opinion, doesn't it? As with any other piece of literature, shouldn't scripture be its own best interpretor?
Peace.
I don't have much time this evening, but I did find this site.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what this guy believes, or anthing else.
But from what I saw on the first page, his interpretation of Jer. Ch.4, as well as Gen 1:2 match mine identically.
http://www.lifetv.org/Web_HTML/html/Commentary%20folder/Creation.htm
I actually googled "Jer. Ch 4 tohuw va bohuw" (without form and void), and found this guy.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what this guy believes, or anthing else. But from what I saw on the first page, his interpretation of Jer. Ch.4, as well as Gen 1:2 match mine identically.
This is standard “Gap Theory,” largely based on some pretty wild speculation and an aberrant translation of tohu/bohu. The “Gap Theory” suspiciously smacks of efforts to conform scripture to “scientific” speculation on the age of the earth. It has a number of holes in it, not the least of which is serious exegetical contortions and the problem of death and destruction entering into God’s creation before sin. The latter contradicts a whole host of other passages.
If you are a gap theorist this will necessitate a whole new detour in this discussion. If so, I have a couple of messages I preached on Ge. 1:1-2 a couple of years ago that I will look up and post links for you.
Peace.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteWe are both under time restraints this weekend. I'm working.
I agree with Randy concerning the presence of the Lord in your reference to the Father. I think you are really stretching that passage.
God's presence is spoken of in many ways in the passages of the Bible, and I am aware of the Holy Spirit making His presence visibly known in the form of the dove, or by a rushing wind, or Jesus making His presence visible known as the Angel of the Lord, or God's Shekinah glory where his presence fills the temple, or by a cloud at day and fire by night, but I'm not aware of a 'physical' appearance of God the Father in the form of a man. Can you list such passages that do not require stretching the use of the imagination?
It can also be said that God's presence is manifest in His creation, and man, for He is Spirit and His Spirit bears witness with our spirits in blessing and conviction. As God He is also omnipresent.
Running out of time.
Like Randy, I believe that God's word is sufficient and as such our final authority, so I hold to a view of a literal six day creation; the earth being very young. Some suggest it may be possible to stretch the genealogies back to 14,000 years, but I think it highly unlikely.
ReplyDeleteMany Christians tend to put science above God as the final authority, with more faith in science than in God. It is the same old question, 'Did God really say...?'
Sorry, you guys.
ReplyDeleteI've been battling moonbats on the WAPO news pages for a couple of days.
That Koran burning/ UN massacre debate has been intense.
I'm not too familiar with the Gap theory, past its application in Daniel
If the concept of a separation of time between Gen 1:1, and 1:2 is considered to be a facet of the Gap theory, I guess I'm guilty.
I'm an old earth guy, PH
I can't fit all of the archeological discoveries, and the discovered remains of very ancient (pre-Sumer) societies in to a 6000 year time-frame.
I just can't do it.
It would be nice if I could, because it would change many of my positions to ones much less controversial.
I have a question for you guys on the first thread
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI'm an old earth guy, PH. I can't fit all of the archeological discoveries, and the discovered remains of very ancient (pre-Sumer) societies in to a 6000 year time-frame. I just can't do it.
So...in your estimation “science” and “archeology” trump the authority of Scripture? You are aware that the dating methods being used by these guys are at best arbitrary and quite often even contradictory, aren't you?
Trying to contort the scripture into supporting an “old earth” to accord with modern science (which is constantly being proven wrong and shifting and changing) opens the door for the kind of dismissal of scripture that characterized the German enlightenment and produced liberal higher textual criticism--which in turn produced “bible scholars” who reject both the authenticity and authority of the bible.
That's dangerous business.
Peace.
I don't think it has to be contorted, just understood in a different way.
ReplyDeleteI assure you, my ideas aren't influenced by the higher critics, in the least. I am almost certain they had evil intentions in perverting the word. In a way, they began what can only be observed as a "falling away", that has turned much of the church in to apostates.
And yes, I'm aware that there are problems with some dating methods.
I'm not saying that the six day "creation" wasn't literal. I just don't believe that the whole chapter is describing the actual, material "creation" of the Earth.
The way I understand it, the creation of the heavens and earth is recorded in Gen 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth".
When you take in to account that Isaiah 45:18 states that "God himself formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (tohuw), he formed it to be inhabited", that casts doubt on those interpretations that consider the words tohuw va bohuw, to mean disorder and chaos.
You would almost have to go with the literal interpretation of "tohuw", meaning "empty, worthless, a desolation".
And why would God create something chaotic, and disorganized?
It only makes sense to me that would God create Earth in a perfect state.
For reasons unknown to us (although I would posit that these typologies, we normally discuss as relating to the future, could possibly be rooted in past events) God saw fit to render his creation without form, and void.
Here is some other guy I found.
Once again, I'm not familiar with his theology, but he appears to have done his work on "tohuw va bohuw"
http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html
Part 1
But lets look at this logically.
ReplyDeleteGod created the heaven and earth. The Earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Would God create planets with no stars to orbit?
If there were solar systems, one of which being where Earth was perfectly placed, would there not have to be a sun, thus light?
If so, then doesn't it stand to reason that the darkness spoken of, was the result of an event that would effectively hide the earth from the sun, for a period of time?
That's why Jer. Ch. 4 seems to tie in to this, in my understanding.
While it's true that it speaks of Judah's captivity to Babylon, it also reveals some deep emotions from the Father.
[18] Thy way and thy doings have procured these things unto thee; this is thy wickedness, because it is bitter, because it reacheth unto thine heart.
[19] My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war.
He's telling them that they are about to be punished, and that it hurts him more than it hurts us.
The way I read the next three verses, he seems to be asking them how many times we have to go through the process of falling away, ignoring his warnings, and facing destruction, before we wise up, and choose good rather than evil.
[20] Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled: suddenly are my tents spoiled, and my curtains in a moment.
[21] How long shall I see the standard, and hear the sound of the trumpet?
[22] For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
That's why I tend to believe the world is old.
It answers all of the hard questions.
If there was a prior destruction that left no man, destroyed all cities, rendered the whole land desolate, and turned the skies black...leading in to Gen.1:2, then a lot of really difficult questions are suddenly answered.
Assuming that happened, then it is no mystery why it is that some of us are chosen, even loved, before we were ever born, while others were hated and cursed before they were ever born.
Assuming it happened, provides a prior setting where Satan goes bad, and leads astray a third of the angels. That, in turn, sets the stage for an age that allows correction for God's children, followed ultimately, and justly by the destruction of the evil, used for that correction.
In assuming that happened, there is no question that any evolutionist can throw at you, that you can't volley right back to them.
In fact, their punctuated equilibrium theory is an outline for a model of creation, destruction, and regeneration.
Now if they could just put aside the silly notion of men coming from apes, and reptiles sprouting wings, there's possible room for some agreement.
end
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteWithout getting into a protracted discussion on these terms, tohu/bohu can be easily understood as referring to the empty, uninhabitable earth immediately prior to the 6 days work of creation. There exists absolutely nothing in the grammatical structure of the text that would indicate an ages-long gap between 1:1 & 1:2. To the contrary, the Hebrew is almost seamless in vss. 1-5, which all speak of the first day's creation work.
But to a couple of more difficult problems that the Gap Theory must deal with:
First, the Scripture says at the end of the six days of creation, "And God saw everything that He had made (including not only the entire earth and all its contents, but all the heavens as well--note Ge 1:16; 2:2, etc.) and, behold, it was very good" (Ge 1:31).
Secondly, death did not "enter the world" until man sinned (#Ro 5:12; 1Co 15:21). A pre-Adamic cataclysmic event would have death entering the creation prior to sin, thus rendering Paul's statements flatly wrong. Evidently even Satan's rebellion in heaven had not yet taken place in Ge. 1, because everything was pronounced "very good" in the created heavens as well.
The real answer to the meaning of the great terrestrial graveyard-- the fossil contents of the great beds of hardened sediments all over the world--will be found neither in the slow operation of uniform natural processes over vast ages of time nor in an imaginary cataclysm that took place before the six days of God's perfect creation. Rather, it will be found in a careful study of the very real worldwide cataclysm described in Genesis 6 through 9 and confirmed in many other parts of the Bible and in the early records of nations and tribes all over the world, namely, the great Flood of the days of Noah.
Peace.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteAssuming that happened, then it is no mystery why it is that some of us are chosen, even loved, before we were ever born, while others were hated and cursed before they were ever born.
How so?
I just lost an hour and a half's work on a response.
ReplyDeleteI don't have the will to do it all again right now.
I'll try to save my links, remember my points, and try again tomorrow, when I'm over my conniption.
It's hard to type in a blind rage
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteBy way of clarification:
I said: "Without getting into a protracted discussion on these terms, tohu/bohu can be easily understood as referring to the empty, uninhabitable earth immediately prior to the 6 days work of creation."
What I am contending is that on creation day #1 the earth was created without "form" and "void" (or empty) of life. It was awaiting the forming and filling that began later in day #1 and continued through day #6.
To put it another way, the earth in its immediate created state on day #1 was the "canvas" awaiting the finishing strokes of the Master Artisan. This seems to be the clearest meaning of the text of Genesis chapter 1. To add a "gap" to accommodate the "geological ages" does violence to the plain meaning of the grammar of the text.
Peace.
"Without getting into a protracted discussion on these terms, tohu/bohu can be easily understood as referring to the empty, uninhabitable earth immediately prior to the 6 days work of creation. There exists absolutely nothing in the grammatical structure of the text that would indicate an ages-long gap between 1:1 & 1:2."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that interpretation is that according to Hebrew grammar rules, hayah (or "was") isn't used as a present-tense copula. If a present tense reading was intended, hayah would have been omitted.
It would have read "And the earth void and without form"
http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/langdiff/hebrew.htm
"Hebrew verb grammar is similar to English in that it has past, present and future tenses, conditionals, imperatives and infinitives. It has the active and passive voice and differentiates between transitive and intransitive. There are some minor differences, however, than can lead to incorrect English verb use. For example, Hebrew does not use the copula to be in the present tense as in English, so beginners may say sentences such is I happy today!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(linguistics)#Zero_copula_.28Semitic_languages.2C_Quechuan_languages.2C_Hungarian.2C_Russian.2C_Ancient_Greek.29
"In some languages, copula omission occurs within a particular grammatical context. For example, speakers of Russian, Hungarian, Hebrew, Arabic and Quechuan languages consistently drop the copula in present tense: Russian: я — человек, ya — chelovek "I (am) a human"; Hungarian: ő ember, "he (is) a human"; Hebrew: אני בן-אדם "I (am a) human", Arabic: أنا إنسان ʔænæː insæːn "I am human"; Southern Quechua: payqa runam "s/he (is) a human". This usage is known generically as the zero copula"
"First, the Scripture says at the end of the six days of creation, "And God saw everything that He had made (including not only the entire earth and all its contents, but all the heavens as well--note Ge 1:16; 2:2, etc.) and, behold, it was very good" (Ge 1:31).
That doesn't mean that all of the occupants of the heavens were good. There had to be a time when the entity described as "the serpent" developed an enmity with God, that would cause him to thwart God's initial plans for Adam.
part 1
"Secondly, death did not "enter the world" until man sinned (#Ro 5:12; 1Co 15:21)."
ReplyDeleteA pre-Adamic cataclysmic event would have death entering the creation prior to sin, thus rendering Paul's statements flatly wrong. Evidently even Satan's rebellion in heaven had not yet taken place in Ge. 1, because everything was pronounced "very good" in the created heavens as well.
I don't think that everything "in the heavens" was called good. We're never told what or who occupies the heavens, other than God. We're told that the heavens (meaning expanse, or space) were good.
It seems to me that if Satan's rebellion occurred after Ch.1, and before Ch.3, we would read about it in Ch.2.
One translation of the word "world" may shed some light on when it was that Satan fell.
In many instances, the word "aion" is translated "world(s)", meaning age(s), as I'm sure you're aware.
Just the fact that there is, apparently, more than one "age"--past and present, adds validity to the old Earth interpretation.
1)"The god of this world has blinded the minds of them that believe not"--2 Cor 4:4
If Satan is the god of this "age", doesn't it make sense that his being designated as such would have occurred during (or at the conclusion of) a prior age?
Another example using the word age
1 Cor Ch 2
[5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
[6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
[8] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Every one of those "worlds" is the Greek "aion"
A couple more examples;
Gal 1:4
[4] Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
Last one
Eph Ch 3
[9] And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
why was the mystery hidden?
[10] To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
There seems to be a lot written about "ages", and heavenly powers.
Satan is called the prince of the power of the air in Eph 2:2.
"The real answer to the meaning of the great terrestrial graveyard-- the fossil contents of the great beds of hardened sediments all over the world--will be found neither in the slow operation of uniform natural processes over vast ages of time nor in an imaginary cataclysm that took place before the six days of God's perfect creation. Rather, it will be found in a careful study of the very real worldwide cataclysm described in Genesis 6 through 9 and confirmed in many other parts of the Bible and in the early records of nations and tribes all over the world, namely, the great Flood of the days of Noah.
Noah's flood wasn't global. That's backed up by the use of the word "adamah", rather than "erets", in Gen 7:4, and 7:8.
It's also backed up by the fact that the offspring of Cain were living among Israelites, much later.
part 2
me--Assuming that happened, then it is no mystery why it is that some of us are chosen, even loved, before we were ever born, while others were hated and cursed before they were ever born.
ReplyDelete"How so?"
Well, if there was an age before this one, that God saw fit to destroy, it seems likely to me that we toil through this flesh existence, because of prior acts that would cause such wrath.
If true, then it not only explains why some are hated by God, it would mean that those loved by God, are sent here to teach others how to become acceptable to God.
Romans Ch 8
"[28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
[29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
[30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
[31] What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
end
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that interpretation is that according to Hebrew grammar rules, hayah (or "was") isn't used as a present-tense copula. If a present tense reading was intended, hayah would have been omitted. It would have read "And the earth void and without form"
If memory serves me correctly, every verb in Genesis chapter 1 is in the past tense. The whole of it was written as a backward-looking narrative. In light of that I don’t understand what your argument here brings to the table.
That doesn't mean that all of the occupants of the heavens were good. There had to be a time when the entity described as "the serpent" developed an enmity with God, that would cause him to thwart God's initial plans for Adam.
I must beg to differ. Ge. 1:31 is unambiguous on this point: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. That is a comprehensive statement that encompasses everything mentioned from verse 1 to the end of the chapter—everything God had created.
It seems to me that if Satan's rebellion occurred after Ch.1, and before Ch.3, we would read about it in Ch.2.
That’s an argument from silence. Scripture nowhere tells us exactly when Satan rebelled. It does tell us that everything God created was “very good” at the end of chapter 1.
One translation of the word "world" may shed some light on when it was that Satan fell.
In many instances, the word "aion" is translated "world(s)", meaning age(s), as I'm sure you're aware. Just the fact that there is, apparently, more than one "age"--past and present, adds validity to the old Earth interpretation….etc.
Two points here. First, it seems apparent that time “began” when God created in the “beginning.” Doesn’t that preclude “ages” of time prior to the creation? Secondly, none of the “aion” passages you cite conclusively prove “ages” prior to the creation events. One has to assume such ages to find them in these passages at all. Notice:
If Satan is the god of this "age", doesn't it make sense that his being designated as such would have occurred during (or at the conclusion of) a prior age?
Sure. He became the “god of this age” at the end of the “age of innocence” and the beginning of the age of sin and rebellion in the Garden. One does not have to presuppose “ages” prior to creation for these passages to make sense.
Noah's flood wasn't global. That's backed up by the use of the word "adamah", rather than "erets", in Gen 7:4, and 7:8.
Again, I must beg to differ: Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.
Well, if there was an age before this one, that God saw fit to destroy, it seems likely to me that we toil through this flesh existence, because of prior acts that would cause such wrath.
If true, then it not only explains why some are hated by God, it would mean that those loved by God, are sent here to teach others how to become acceptable to God.
I must confess I’m not following you on that one.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI said: "I must confess I’m not following you on that one."
I also must confess that I am intrigued. I'd like to hear you out if you are willing to unfold that one a bit for me.
Would it need a separate thread?
Peace.
"If memory serves me correctly, every verb in Genesis chapter 1 is in the past tense. The whole of it was written as a backward-looking narrative"
ReplyDeleteI guess that's true as far as the literal intertpretation of the narrative is concerned. But, if what is being described is the effects of catastrophism, by the hand of God, then we would have accept the possibility that not only has this happened before, but Christ's coming will be in a similar manner.
In that respect, the whole scenario sort of reads like a shampoo bottle. Instead of lather, rinse, and repeat...there's creation, sin, apostasy, tribulation, then destruction...rinse, and repeat
But, regardless whether it's past, present, or future tense, 75% of the time that be, was, am, is, etc are used, it is added by the translators. (626 out of 832 times in Genesis)
Hebrews weren't big on copulas. When what we would identify as linking verbs are used in Hebrew, it usually signifies some sort of change, or action.
That first link went in to great detail in describing their typical usage.
"I must beg to differ. Ge. 1:31 is unambiguous on this point: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. That is a comprehensive statement that encompasses everything mentioned from verse 1 to the end of the chapter—everything God had created."
The whole thing is pretty subjective. I could easily say that what was deemed "good", was the over-all plan set forth for this age, which would encompass the use of evil and good for his purpose.
"That’s an argument from silence. Scripture nowhere tells us exactly when Satan rebelled. It does tell us that everything God created was “very good” at the end of chapter 1"
True.
But there are allusions made throughout the Bible, (using figures who would qualify as typologies for Satan) that (I believe) describe the setting during which time Satan first displeased God.
I'm thinking specifically of the king of Babylon, The Pharoah mentioned in Ezek. Ch.31, The King of Tyrus, The Assyrian, and even Absolam, a son of David...and other examples that don't come to mind at present.
"Two points here. First, it seems apparent that time “began” when God created in the “beginning.” Doesn’t that preclude “ages” of time prior to the creation?"
Prior to creation?...yes. prior to destruction, followed by "regeneration", no.
"Secondly, none of the “aion” passages you cite conclusively prove “ages” prior to the creation events. One has to assume such ages to find them in these passages at all. Notice:
*If Satan is the god of this "age", doesn't it make sense that his being designated as such would have occurred during (or at the conclusion of) a prior age?*
That's fair...But things obviously happened that would cause a judgment to be rendered, While it's admittedly speculation, the interpretation I've been describing provides answers that are not only compatible with scripture, but adds clarity to some pretty obscure passages.
cont.
ReplyDelete"Sure. He became the “god of this age” at the end of the “age of innocence” and the beginning of the age of sin and rebellion in the Garden. One does not have to presuppose “ages” prior to creation for these passages to make sense."
But what happened to make Satan be considered "the serpent"? Surely it occurred before he approached Eve in the garden.
"Again, I must beg to differ: Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered."
For me to completely answert that, I would have to reveal more of my heretic beliefs. For now, I'll just say that Noah's flood served a specific purpose. Namely ridding the Earth of a particular apostasy that was being committed by the sons and daughters of Adam.
A global flood wouldn't be necessary to end what was happening.
"I must confess I’m not following you on that one."
If there was a prior destruction, followed by a separation of good and evil (or dark and light...Gen 1:4)
Then, it seems likely that the purpose of that deemed to be "good", or "light", would be to bring those in darkness to the realization of God's purpose.
PS I don't think we need another thread on this.
Aftyer all, if that interpretation is correct, we are talking about "the end days" of the last "aion"
end
"In that respect, the whole scenario sort of reads like a shampoo bottle. Instead of lather, rinse, and repeat...there's creation, sin, apostasy, tribulation, then destruction...rinse, and repeat"
ReplyDeleteAnother thought on that:
That scenario repeats itself even in our current end-time discussions.
We have
creation...as in the creation of the era of Christ, the savior
sin....the "falling away" of the church. A time when "they will not endure sound doctrine"
apostasy...the receiving of the antichrist as the Messiah, and the participation in his world economy/government
tribulation...persecution of those who won't receive him, or his beast.
destruction...Christ pours out his wrath on the harlot at his fiery return. It's described like this:
"the heavens departed, as a scroll when it is rolled together, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places"
You could consider Rev 20:1-3 as a "rinsing", which starts a new cycle that begins with separating good from evil, in vs 4-6.
You have the re-introduction of sin in 7 and 8.
Another apostasy in 8
Another minor tribulation for the saints in 9
Destruction in vs 10
which begins another (final) separation of good and evil, in 11-15
which begins a new creation. Ch. 21
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2
The whole thing is pretty subjective. I could easily say that what was deemed "good", was the over-all plan set forth for this age, which would encompass the use of evil and good for his purpose.
Deeming the inspired Word of God “subjective” lends itself to a “subjective” interpretation. If there is not an objective interpretation of Scripture we are hopelessly lost. I don’t see what could be considered “subjective” here. The language seems pretty straight-forward: God created all that exists in heaven and earth…and then declared it all “very good.” This language does not insinuate that he was referring to an “over-all plan,” but speaks directly to the things created/made. Hence, I see no room within the context to assert that there was sin and destruction prior to this account of creation.
True. But there are allusions made throughout the Bible, (using figures who would qualify as typologies for Satan) that (I believe) describe the setting during which time Satan first displeased God. I'm thinking specifically of the king of Babylon, The Pharoah mentioned in Ezek. Ch.31, The King of Tyrus, The Assyrian, and even Absolam, a son of David...and other examples that don't come to mind at present.
Yet none of these allusions are time-specific. You mentioned earlier that there was no account of Satan falling in Ge. 1 & 2. Yet 1:31 declares all in heaven and earth very good, while chapter 3 opens with the account of the Serpent/Satan tempting Adam and Eve. It seems to me this is much more solid Biblical evidence that Satan’s rebellion against God took place sometime after the events of Ge. 1 and prior to the narrative of Ge. 3 than anything mentioned in the passages to which you are referring. That being said, it still seems to me that speculating about destruction prior to Ge. 1 is just that—mere speculation--when there seems more than adequate evidence here that this was not the case.
That's fair...But things obviously happened that would cause a judgment to be rendered,
What things obviously happened? The fall of Satan? If so, you’re adding speculation to speculation, and that without Scriptural support.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 2
While it's admittedly speculation, the interpretation I've been describing provides answers that are not only compatible with scripture, but adds clarity to some pretty obscure passages.
Yet if said speculation contradicts clear passages of scripture (namely Ge. 1:31), then we are obscuring clear testimony of scripture for the sake of bringing a pseudo-clarity to other passages of Scripture. That hardly seems to be a sound hermeneutic.
But what happened to make Satan be considered "the serpent"? Surely it occurred before he approached Eve in the garden.
See above.
For me to completely answert that, I would have to reveal more of my heretic beliefs. For now, I'll just say that Noah's flood served a specific purpose. Namely ridding the Earth of a particular apostasy that was being committed by the sons and daughters of Adam. A global flood wouldn't be necessary to end what was happening.
Again, whatever we choose to believe about the flood, Scripture is unambiguous that it was global. If we contend otherwise, aren’t we, in essence, saying that Scripture is unreliable?
If there was a prior destruction, followed by a separation of good and evil (or dark and light...Gen 1:4)
Then, it seems likely that the purpose of that deemed to be "good", or "light", would be to bring those in darkness to the realization of God's purpose.
But this presupposes a “prior destruction.” Unless there is clear Biblical evidence of such, we are again building speculation upon speculation. I really don’t think the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God is that subjective.
Peace.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteRE: "That scenario repeats itself even in our current end-time discussions....etc"
How is this different from GOLDENEAGLES rather Hindu-like dogma of reincarnation? It seems like I recall you insinuating that you somewhat agreed with him...
It seems that you are putting your own subjective interpretation on the Scriptures, over and over again MrMeaner. The question should be what did God say, not 'did God really say.'
ReplyDeleteHi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteMrM: "A pre-Adamic cataclysmic event would have death entering the creation prior to sin, thus rendering Paul's statements flatly wrong. Evidently even Satan's rebellion in heaven had not yet taken place in Ge. 1, because everything was pronounced "very good" in the created heavens as well.
I don't think that everything "in the heavens" was called good. We're never told what or who occupies the heavens, other than God. We're told that the heavens (meaning expanse, or space) were good.
It seems to me that if Satan's rebellion occurred after Ch.1, and before Ch.3, we would read about it in Ch.2."
If death came before Adam, or if Adam is not the first human being, just a metaphor, then you eliminate the need for a Savior.
I agree with Randy. You quote Scripture:
"First, the Scripture says at the end of the six days of creation, "And God saw everything that He had made (including not only the entire earth and all its contents, but all the heavens as well--note Ge 1:16; 2:2, etc.) and, behold, it was very good" (Ge 1:31)."
Then you say:
MrMeaner: "That doesn't mean that all of the occupants of the heavens were good."
It does if the words mean what they say,
"And God saw EVERYTHING that He had made and, behold, it was VERY GOOD."
MrMeaner: "There had to be a time when the entity described as "the serpent" developed an enmity with God, that would cause him to thwart God's initial plans for Adam.
Yes, but after the six days of creation and day of rest. We are not told how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before the Fall. Either everything God made was very good or you would be attributing words to God that He does not say in Genesis 1.
I'll post a full response this evening.
ReplyDeleteBut, what's the difference in my taking some things literal, and some as allegorical, when you guys do the same thing.
It seems that the biggest complaint is that I interpret as literal what you interpret figuratively, and I interpret figuratively what you interpret as literal.
What makes you guys right, and me wrong?
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteBut, what's the difference in my taking some things literal, and some as allegorical, when you guys do the same thing.
It seems that the biggest complaint is that I interpret as literal what you interpret figuratively, and I interpret figuratively what you interpret as literal.
What makes you guys right, and me wrong?
Context...context...context. And context.
OK
ReplyDeleteLet's take it literally.
So God created light and dark, day and night on the first day....which is really strange, because he didn't create the sun or moon until the fourth day.
or
we can assume that one, or the other of these discriptions is referring to something else.
when you take into account that NT prophecies related to Christ are given in days or years (solar)...as opposed to NT prophecies dealing with evil, being given in months (lunar), it's no stretch at all to assume that one of these divisions of dark/light and sun/moon is metaphorical.
Either that, or god created the same things twice...three days apart.
"Again, whatever we choose to believe about the flood, Scripture is unambiguous that it was global. If we contend otherwise, aren’t we, in essence, saying that Scripture is unreliable?"
And yet, passages involving the descendents of Cain are recorded throughout the OT.
So, you have two choices.
1)The flood wasn't global
2)Noah took members of Cain's descendents on the ark with his family, which isn't written.
It has to be one or the other, otherwise you're saying that scripture is unreliable
"It seems to me this is much more solid Biblical evidence that Satan’s rebellion against God took place sometime after the events of Ge. 1 and prior to the narrative of Ge. 3 than anything mentioned in the passages to which you are referring."
In Ezek Ch 28, we're given a glimpse through the typology of the King of "Tyrus" (meaning rock.....not our rock, mind you, Duet 32:4,31)
read this passage carefully, and see how the narrative changes from discussing the "prince" of Tyrus, and his acts on Earth that parallel exactly that of the antichrist....
and the "king" of Tyrus, his creation as "the annointed cherub" upon "the holy mountain of God", perfect in his ways. He was in the garden of Eden, and stones were his covering.
(doesn't that ring any bells?)
cont.
[1] The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying,
ReplyDelete[2] Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
[3] Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee:
[4] With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:
[5] By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches:
[6] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God;
[7] Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.
[8] They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.
[9] Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.
[10] Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
[11] Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
[12] Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.
[13] Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
[14] Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
[15] Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
[16] By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
[17] Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
[18] Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
[19] All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
"How is this different from GOLDENEAGLES rather Hindu-like dogma of reincarnation? It seems like I recall you insinuating that you somewhat agreed with him..."
Nothing similar at all.
If I were to claim that people who have died, since Adam, are literally born again in to other humans, that would be reincarnation.
I'm not claiming that, at all.
But I was interested to find out if the passages that led GE to that conclusion, were the same ones that led me to mine.
And, I wondered if the interpretation I'm describing was true, would it change GE's opinion on the matter.
Of course GE would probably ask me the same thing
On Ezek 28:
ReplyDeleteThere's obviously a typology involved, here.
Who else was in the garden of Eden, an annointed cherub, perfect in beauty and wisdom?
If this is a typology, we have to assume that the sins mentioned here would be the reason for his fall.
These sins mention using his wisdom, and "traffick" (trade, merchandise) to acquire riches, which apparently led to his George Soros-like God complex, accept he wasn't as hideous looking of a fellow as Georgie, it sounds like.
The point is, where/when was all of this happening?
It doesn't sound like the garden.
It doesn't make sense that it would have happened later...
which only leaves one possibility.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2
OK. Let's take it literally. So God created light and dark, day and night on the first day....which is really strange, because he didn't create the sun or moon until the fourth day.
or
we can assume that one, or the other of these discriptions is referring to something else.
This is no difficulty at all. God Himself is light (I Jn. 1:5). He had no need for the sun and moon to light His creative activity. Paul makes clear reference to this in 2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, (a clear reference to Ge. 1:3) hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The command “let there be light” was God commanding that His illumining presence light His creation. No sun or moon needed.
Further, God challenges Job as follows: Job 38:19 Where [is] the way [where] light dwelleth? and [as for] darkness, where [is] the place thereof, 20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? Are we to presume Job was unaware of the light of the sun and moon? Or was God challenging him by pointing out that Job did not comprehend the Source of all light?
I could offer dozens of other passages referring to God as light, not the least of which would be this: Re 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
when you take into account that NT prophecies related to Christ are given in days or years (solar)...as opposed to NT prophecies dealing with evil, being given in months (lunar), it's no stretch at all to assume that one of these divisions of dark/light and sun/moon is metaphorical.
Light/righteousness and darkness/evil are used as metaphors in numerous passages of Scripture. The context always indicates when metaphor is being used. There exists no such contextual verification in Ge. 1:3.
And yet, passages involving the descendents of Cain are recorded throughout the OT.
I am unaware of such passages. Could you point me to a few of them?
So, you have two choices.
1)The flood wasn't global
2)Noah took members of Cain's descendents on the ark with his family, which isn't written.
It has to be one or the other, otherwise you're saying that scripture is unreliable
Yet that is precisely what you are doing, is it not? You are saying that Ge 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. is not reliable. You seem to be denying this clear passage with your above questionable deductive reasoning.
MREMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 2
In Ezek Ch 28, we're given a glimpse through the typology of the King of "Tyrus" (meaning rock.....not our rock, mind you, Duet 32:4,31)….etc.
I can make a fairly sound exegetical argument that Ezek. 28 is drawing parallels between Adam and Tyrus rather than Satan and Tyrus, but that won’t be necessary to counter what you are offering here. I need only point out that Ezek. 28 is not time-specific in relation to the fall of Satan—unless, of course, it is referring to Satan, in which case it places his “fall” in the Garden of Eden—after the Creation events of Ge. 1:1. What should be obvious here is that this passage does not place the fall of Satan prior to the creation events of Ge. 1, which seems to be what you are contending to support your theory of “ages” prior to Creation.
I'm not claiming that, at all.
Ok. I can accept that. It is certainly possible that my recollection of some of those exchanges is not completely accurate.
I hope that none of this sound contentious, as that is certainly not my intention.
Peace.
"This is no difficulty at all. God Himself is light (I Jn. 1:5). He had no need for the sun and moon to light His creative activity. Paul makes clear reference to this in 2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, (a clear reference to Ge. 1:3) hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The command “let there be light” was God commanding that His illumining presence light His creation. No sun or moon needed."
ReplyDeleteI would think that creation would be almost instantaneous. I can't picture God individually creating planets and suns, pieces at a time.
It seems diminishing to me. It seems more likely to me that if he wanted a semi-orderly universe (allowing for the occasional catasprophic event) he would have just willed it in to existence.
I can't picture God saying
OK...I want day and night, and tommorrow, I think I'll do something about all of this water everywhere.
See what I mean?
That doesn't seem very omnipotent
"I am unaware of such passages. Could you point me to a few of them?"
It's the word translated Kenite.
(Strongs's Heb. entry 7017)
They possessed the area around Mount Horeb, during the time of the exodus.
Moses' father-in-law was called a Kenite, because he lived in their land, although he was actually a Midianite.
They would later come to be the scribes for Judah.
Some references to Kenites
Numbers 24:21,21
I Samuel 15:6
I Chr. 2:55
I would also add that Jesus accused the fathers of scribes and Pharisees of being responsible "for the blood of righteous Abel"
You also quoted part of one of my favorite passages, when God spoke to Job out of the whirlwind.
One of the things that stands out to me about that passage is this part
[4] Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
[5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
[6] Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
[7] When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Who were these morning stars that sang together?
Interestingly, The name Lucifer means morning star.
Christ says in Rev. 22:16, that he is the morning star.
And who were "all the sons of God" who were shouting for joy, while the foundations of the earth were being set?
"I can make a fairly sound exegetical argument that Ezek. 28 is drawing parallels between Adam and Tyrus rather than Satan and Tyrus"
ReplyDeleteHow do the verses mentioning his using wisdom and "traffick" (trade, merchandise) to acquire riches pertain to Adam? Or his punishment of being devoured by fire, and turned to ash on earth in the sight of men?
And how was he a "terror"?
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI'll respond more in-depth later, but this particular paragraph concerns me:
I would think that creation would be almost instantaneous. I can't picture God individually creating planets and suns, pieces at a time.
It seems diminishing to me. It seems more likely to me that if he wanted a semi-orderly universe (allowing for the occasional catasprophic event) he would have just willed it in to existence.
I can't picture God saying
OK...I want day and night, and tommorrow, I think I'll do something about all of this water everywhere.
See what I mean?
That doesn't seem very omnipotent
So you reject the literal six day creation account of Genesis 1?
I reject the idea that the six days of Genesis 1 are referring to creation.
ReplyDeleteGen 1:1 covers creation
Gen 1:2-end is speaking of a regeneration after a destruction, in my opinion
I'm not even sure they're actual days.
ReplyDeleteThey could just as easily be periods of 1000 years, if we look at days in the same way that Peter reports God views them
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI reject the idea that the six days of Genesis 1 are referring to creation.
Gen 1:1 covers creation
Gen 1:2-end is speaking of a regeneration after a destruction, in my opinion
It should be noted that you have yet to establish exegetical support from Scripture for "destruction" between Ge. 1:1 & 1:2. So far, by your own admission, you have offered only "speculation."
Additionally, your contention that 1:1 is "creation" and the rest of the chapter is "regeneration" seems to be refuted by the use of the Hebrew term "created" in 1:21 and 1:27. Those verses use the exact same term as is used in 1:1. Further, 1:31 looks back at the entirety of chapter 1 and declares "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." The whole of this seems to clearly indicate that the entire chapter is giving an account of creation ex nihilo, not regeneration.
I'm not even sure they're actual days.
They could just as easily be periods of 1000 years, if we look at days in the same way that Peter reports God views them
This is where exegesis is so critical. A quick comparison of other usages of the Hebrew word for "day" throughout the Old Testament yields that every time it is used in conjunction with "morning" and/or "evening" it is referring to a 24 hour period of time. The terms "morning" and "evening" are present in every "day" passage in Ge. 1.
If "day" doesn't mean a 24 hour period in Genesis 1 you would have to demonstrate exegetically why it doesn't mean 24 hours. The weight of the above noted comparison strongly supports it being interpreted as literal 24 hour days.
Is is possible that you are trying to "fit" what Scripture says into the framework of you admittedly speculative hermeneutic of a pre-Adamic destruction?
Peace.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteIt's the word translated Kenite.
(Strongs's Heb. entry 7017)
They possessed the area around Mount Horeb, during the time of the exodus.
Moses' father-in-law was called a Kenite, because he lived in their land, although he was actually a Midianite.
They would later come to be the scribes for Judah.
Before I respond to that particular point, may I ask if you are positing the "Serpent Seed" doctrine in which it is claimed that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent which produced Cain?
"Before I respond to that particular point, may I ask if you are positing the "Serpent Seed" doctrine in which it is claimed that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent which produced Cain?"
ReplyDeleteNo
But if you've researched Cain at all, I'm sure you've found that that's a fairly popular position.
My only problem with Kenites was the fact that they were allowed to perform the duties of the priesthood, after God specifically commanded Levites.
I do believe the conflict between Cain and Abel carries over in to the line of Seth.
I also believe that the descendents of Cain have served as oppressors of the descendents of Seth throughout history.
I don't understand how certain anti-Jew doctrines have sprang forth from that.
It's the same thing with Canaan.
How people can identify Canaan they way they do, is baffling to me, especially given what actually occurred by Ham's sin.
I think where some go wrong, is by misinterpreting the interaction between Eve and Satan as something other than imparting forbidden knowledge, that she then shared, in practice, with Adam.
(If you know what I mean)
I've briefly discussed this already, a couple/few months ago
Before I head back to work:
ReplyDeleteII Pet Ch.3
[5] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
[6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
[7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
PH
ReplyDeleteSorry, I just noticed your comment from a couple of days ago in the spam folder.
"If death came before Adam, or if Adam is not the first human being, just a metaphor, then you eliminate the need for a Savior"
Well, this one should be good.
(I realize this is getting away from eschatology, but I don't really want to infuse scripture with the origins debate going on on that thread...unless someone else does)
Here we go
I'm about to draw the biggest cries of heresy yet.
I can make a decent case...just by using the first two chapters...that Adam was not the first human, and add evidence of a prior civilization, at the same time
What were the intructions given to man, in 1:28-30
1)Be fruitful, multiply, and replenish (to fill again) the Earth.
If they were to "replenish" the Earth, doesn't that mean that they were replacing others?
2)have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
3)He gave them every herb bearing seed, every fruit-bearing tree
4) He gave every green herb for the beasts, fowl, and creeping things.
What kind of people are being descibed here?
They were told to "have dominion" over fish, fowl, creatures, fruit-bearing trees, and herbs.
This is a description of a hunter/gatherer.
Then God rests on the seventh day
It begins again with a fairly cryptic sounding verse.
"These are the "generations" of the heavens and of the earth, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"
That word "generations" is always used in reference to descendents.
So what would generations of heavens and earth mean, if not referring to succeeding eons, or ages?
Now, we have the introduction of a new word, "field".
"and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD GOD had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground".
I don't recall those people created on the 6th day being told to do any tilling of the ground.
OK, fire away guys
(the good news is, with that, I think we've about reached the end of my most heretic observations)
Now, let's just pretend that I'm not crazy, and that there were people here before Adam.
ReplyDeleteAdam shows up on the scene, with agriculture.
Wouldn't that make Adam a type of Christ figure to the world at the time?
He did start out as immortal. What if it was intended for Adam to rule the people, on behalf of God?
That would add a new wrinkle to the meaning behind Christ being called "the last Adam", would it not?
Randy,
ReplyDeleteI just ran across an instance where "day" doesn't mean a 24 hr. period.
God told Adam that "in the day that thou eatest" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die.
He lived 930 years.
Either God did not keep his word, or that "day" was longer than 930 years.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeletePART 1
I'm still having trouble posting, thus I use 'anonymous.'
Before I get to your last post to me I have a comment on one of your previous posts.
You said: "I would think that creation would be almost instantaneous. I can't picture God individually creating planets and suns, pieces at a time.
It seems diminishing to me. It seems more likely to me that if he wanted a semi-orderly universe (allowing for the occasional catasprophic event) he would have just willed it in to existence.
I can't picture God saying
OK...I want day and night, and tommorrow, I think I'll do something about all of this water everywhere.
See what I mean?
That doesn't seem very omnipotent"
'More likely to [you],' but why are you the authority on what Scripture says. Scripture is its own authority. If you can't trust the Word of God then His word is not your highest authority, you are.
God could have created instantaneously, but that was not His point in a six day creation. I think Exodus 20:8-11 sums it up nicely,
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On IT you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, but He rested on the seven day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
So, some questions:
1) If a day is not a literal 24 hour period, then how are we to know what a day is? Is it a thousand years? We are not going to live that long on this earth.
2) Since God is eternal, transcending/outside of time, what need does He have for it? Do you not think that a more reasonable explanation for time is so that man (human beings)could mark seasons and days and years (Genesis 1:14)?
Time is for a purpose. Eternity is beyond time.
That is the contention of good biblical exegesis, that time was put in place for a purpose and that God created in six days for a purpose; an example for the man He created on how to live before God.
Furthermore, Genesis 1:1 can be translated literally as "In the beginning of God's creating."
Peter
PART 2
ReplyDeleteAs Robert Reymond has correctly noted in 'Systematic Theology,' p. 393-394,
"1) The word 'day' (yom), in the singular, dual and plural, occurs some 2,225 times in the OT with the overwhelming preponderances designating the ordinary daily cycle..The natural day is [yom's] literal and primary meaning.
2)The recurring phrase, 'and the evening and the morning [taken together] constituted day one, etc.' (1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), suggests as much. The qualifying words, 'evening and morning,' attached here to each of these recurring statements occur together outside of Genesis in 37 verses (e.g., Ex 18:13; 27:21). In each instance these words are employed to describe an ordinary day.
3) In the hundreds of other cases in the OT where yom stands in conjunction with an ordinary number (first, second, third, etc.), e.g. Ex. 12:15; 24:16; Lev. 12:3, it never means anything other than a normal, literal day....
6) In the 608noccurrences of the plural 'days' (yamin) in the OT (see Ex. 20:11), their referents are always ordinary days. Ages are never expressed by the word yamin.
7) Final, had Moses intended to express the idea of seven 'ages'
in Genesis 1 he could have employed the term 'olam,' which means 'ages' or 'period of indeterminate duration."
End of quote.
So, unless you can show how you derive these other interpretations from the Scriptures themselves, it is only fitting to surmise that you are reading something into the Scriptures that they do not confer.
Three other points:
1) Jesus refers to the time of Adam and Eve as the beginning of the creation. Would you not think that He would know when the beginning was MrMeaner? (see Matthew 19:4, 5 or Mark 10:6, 7)
2) The genealogies that trace Christ's lineage are traced back to Adam. Do you think that some of these people were actually fictitious? If so which ones are you going to cherry pick and butcher from the text?
3) As Randy correctly pointed out, death and the Fall came with sin. No sin, no death, no Fall, no Savior. Are you prepared to contend these points?
One other thing. You seem to be pulling all these speculations out of your mind rather from sound exegetical interpretation. You seem to come up with all these random thoughts about Scripture that have no scriptural weight to them.
Regards,
Peter
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 3
I think I have scripturally rebutted all of your offerings in support of a pre-Adamic destruction except the following:
I would think that creation would be almost instantaneous. I can't picture God individually creating planets and suns, pieces at a time.....That doesn't seem very omnipotent
This, if it were accurate, would render the entire first chapter of Genesis nonsensical. The mere fact that the Omnipotent God chose to create over a six day period in no way detracts from His omnipotence. If he chose to accomplish all He has purposed to do “instantaneously,” time, space, and redemptive history simply would not exist. Hence, your contention that creation “would be almost instantaneous” is without biblical ground and therefore offers no supportive evidence of a pre-Adamic destruction.
It's the word translated Kenite.
The term “Kenite” may be derived from the name of someone named Cain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were descendants of Cain the first-born son of Adam. For instance, there is another “Cain” noted in the rather long list of the descendants of Judah in Joshua 15:57.
Additionally, the name “Kenite” may be derived from the name of Kenan (Cainan), the son of Enos (and thus the grandson of Seth and the great-grandson of Adam)--Ge. 5:9-13.
That being said, I can find nothing definitive in scripture that ties the Kenites directly to Cain the first-born son of Adam.
I would also add that Jesus accused the fathers of scribes and Pharisees of being responsible "for the blood of righteous Abel"
He also told them they were “of their father the Devil,” not unlike Cain. Again, this is hardly definitive evidence that the Kenites were the descendants of Cain (son of Adam)--and therefore “the Flood was not global.” Again, scripture is clear that the Flood was global—it “covered all the high hills that were under the heavens.” That means that the descendants of Cain, the first-born son of Adam, were destroyed in the Flood
And who were "all the sons of God" who were shouting for joy, while the foundations of the earth were being set?
I take them to be the angelic hosts, one of which was Lucifer, son of the morning, prior to his rebellion and subsequent fall. Far from “proving” that there was a pre-Adamic destruction, this is rather strong evidence that Lucifer had not rebelled prior to the creation account of Genesis chapter 1.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 3
I can make a decent case...just by using the first two chapters...that Adam was not the first human, and add evidence of a prior civilization, at the same time
What were the intructions given to man, in 1:28-30
1)Be fruitful, multiply, and replenish (to fill again) the Earth.
If they were to "replenish" the Earth, doesn't that mean that they were replacing others?
The KJV translation of “replenish” is inconsistent with the definition of the Hebrew term being translated. There is not even a hint of “replacement” in the definition of the word. This was corrected in the NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV which translate 1:28 “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth...” This is also consistent with the Greek of the Septuagint.
2)have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
3)He gave them every herb bearing seed, every fruit-bearing tree
4) He gave every green herb for the beasts, fowl, and creeping things.
What kind of people are being descibed here?
They were told to "have dominion" over fish, fowl, creatures, fruit-bearing trees, and herbs.
This is a description of a hunter/gatherer.
This and your subsequent offering of “field” and “till the ground” are a little cryptic, and I am not sure exactly what you are saying, so if my response misses the mark please correct me.
First, if you are contending that the “man” God created in Ge. 1 was other than Adam/Eve (ch. 2), I would point out that, by your own interpretation of Ge. 1, these “hunter/gatherers” would have been created after the destruction that you are trying to insert between Ge. 1:1 and 1:2.
Secondly, “hunter/gatherers” would have been flesh-eaters, which would contradict the clear fact that man was not allowed to eat the flesh of animals until after the flood (see Ge. 9:1-4). So again, your speculation here hardly makes a solid case for a pre-Adamic destruction, and it contradicts clear passages of scripture.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 3 of 3
Then God rests on the seventh day
It begins again with a fairly cryptic sounding verse.
"These are the "generations" of the heavens and of the earth, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"
That word "generations" is always used in reference to descendents.
So what would generations of heavens and earth mean, if not referring to succeeding eons, or ages?
“These are the generations (toledoths)” in Ge. 2 is the first of 8 or 10 such phrases used in Genesis. Every one of these are followed by the real names of real individuals which compose the genealogies of their descendants. This usage in 2:4 introduces the genealogy of Adam, 6:9 introduces the genealogy of Noah, 10:1 the genealogies of the sons of Noah, 11:27 the genealogy of Terah, etc. This is hardly evidence of a pre-Adamic race of “hunter/gatherers.”
I just ran across an instance where "day" doesn't mean a 24 hr. period.
God told Adam that "in the day that thou eatest" of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die.
He lived 930 years.
Either God did not keep his word, or that "day" was longer than 930 years.
Two points here: First, this instance of the use of the word “day” is not accompanied with the qualifiers “morning” or “evening.” In every case in the OT where morning or evening is joined with the term “day” (yom), as it is consistently in Ge. 1, it is clear that “day” is referring to a 24 hour period of time.
Secondly, Adam did die spiritually on the very day he ate of the fruit in that he was cast out of God's presence (compare Re. 20:13-15).
I see Peter has offered a more detailed response to you on this that I think is very sound exegetically.
In conclusion, every point you have offered thus far in support of your pre-Adamic destruction theory are points that are arrived at through speculative deductive reasoning. As is usually the case when we begin with a presupposition and then try to “fit” scripture together to support that presupposition, we wind up contradicting other portions of scripture.
Why not just let the Word of God speak to us and derive our doctrine from what God has actually said?
Peace.
I'll post more this evening, but I want to get this out there
ReplyDelete'More likely to [you],' but why are you the authority on what Scripture says. Scripture is its own authority. If you can't trust the Word of God then His word is not your highest authority, you are."
I'm no more, or less of an authority than anyone else.
I'm not defending dogma, I'm doing what we started this site to do, enchange ideas.
Everything I post isn't necessarily an ironclad belief. There is much in the Bible that I'm still trying to understand.
I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers.
And I'm not going to pretend that anyone else here has all the answers.
I assumed that we all have ideas we want to offer for consideration.
They can be accepted, rejected, ridiculed, rebuffed, whatever. This would be a boring idea, if we already agreed on everything.
But, let's be clear.
I've pointed out problems with traditional interpretations that haven't yet been expained away. So lets not pretend that because what I've shared is different, it is isn't worthy exegesis.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeletePART 1
First an apology. I may have pushed your buttons to harshly. My hope was to drive home the point of how you can make the Scriptures say anything if you don't properly interpret them.
ME: 'More likely to [you],' but why are you the authority on what Scripture says. Scripture is its own authority. If you can't trust the Word of God then His word is not your highest authority, you are."
MR M: "I'm no more, or less of an authority than anyone else."
That is a postmodern answer if I ever heard one. If some people did not know more of the correct interpretation of Scripture than others what would be the point of the Holy Spirit's admonition through Paul to Timothy, and thus indirectly to us also, to study to show yourself approved, a workman who correctly handles the word of truth, because all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that each of us can be thoroughly equipped for every good work?
This is what you and Randy and I are hopefully doing?
If no one is any more or less an authority than any other then just flip a coin in who you want to believe, because in such a case it really doesn't matter, Scripture in your case can mean anything you want it to mean. Do you really believe that?
MrM: "I'm not defending dogma, I'm doing what we started this site to do, enchange ideas."
Remember
Remember how many times Paul contended for a sound doctrinal understanding of Scripture, because in doing so you present the truth, rather than error, and in the process of presenting the truth God's word saves the hearer (Romans 10:17). For examples see 1 Tim. 4:16 or Tit. 2:1 or even the occasions that Paul demonstrated this, such as Gal. 1:6-8.
MrM: "Everything I post isn't necessarily an ironclad belief. There is much in the Bible that I'm still trying to understand.
I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers."
That is great that you are trying to understand it and by presenting your arguments you hopefully learning what does and does not line up with the Scriptures. Remember what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5,
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish strongholds and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
So by presenting our arguments we turn them to the light of Scripture to see how they hold up, in the process God's Word demolishes strongholds and pretensions that oppose the truth.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteRemember Paul's admonition in Colossians 2:6 after stating verse 3,
"So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him, rooted and built up in Him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophies, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than on Christ."
So let's look at verses 2 and 3.
"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may HAVE the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may KNOW the mysteries of God, namely Christ, in whom are HIDDEN ALL THE TREASURES OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE."
And almost as an afterthought Paul says,
"I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine sounding arguments."
So if we have all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ, then should we not trust Him above all else, especially our own intellect when it puts forth arguments that insert ideas foreign to rather than draw out of Scripture?
MrM: "And I'm not going to pretend that anyone else here has all the answers."
Much of the time I skip a question for the very reason that I don't have the answers, and at other times I rely on the Holy Spirit to bring to light what God is saying as I go about answering someone else or giving a reason for the hope that lies within.
MrM: "I assumed that we all have ideas we want to offer for consideration.
They can be accepted, rejected, ridiculed, rebuffed, whatever. This would be a boring idea, if we already agreed on everything."
Yes, it seems that way.
MrM: "But, let's be clear.
I've pointed out problems with traditional interpretations that haven't yet been expained away. So lets not pretend that because what I've shared is different, it is isn't worthy exegesis."
I think Randy has done a fine job in pointing out to you that your points are shaky and not scriptural in your conjecture, and the reason that this is so, by sound biblical exegetics.
I think the battle that becomes obvious to us as we pursue God, by His grace, is are we willing to submit to Him, or are we going to look for every way around that submission so that we can do our own thing, be our own authority. I feel it is a battle that God brings to every true believer.
"and anyone who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:38. 39; also Luke 9:23)
The primary audience were the 12 disciples, but the principle is the same for you and I, and it is something that I have wrestled with, these words of Jesus. The old nature was crucified with Christ on the cross in His death in our place, but I see the process of sanctification in part as a putting to death what has already been done positionally. The victory is Jesus!
The blessings are in Him!
Peter
"If no one is any more or less an authority than any other then just flip a coin in who you want to believe, because in such a case it really doesn't matter, Scripture in your case can mean anything you want it to mean. Do you really believe that?"
ReplyDeleteI simply meant that I'm not trying to post as though I possess the unvarnished truth. I don't.
Neither do you, neither does Randy.
I've mentioned before that I'm not the type to acknowledge a particular authority, other than that of the word.
The fact that certain interpretations are more widely held than others means nothing to me.
"Remember how many times Paul contended for a sound doctrinal understanding of Scripture, because in doing so you present the truth, rather than error, and in the process of presenting the truth God's word saves the hearer"
But, when you present something as "the truth", in error, you stand a chance of driving the hearer away. We weren't struck down on the road to Damascus. Paul was pretty good at getting the message across, but not perfect.
Peter himself said that many of Paul's writings were difficult to understand.
I don't think that it was meant for every detail of our existence to be plainly understood.
I think that we're expected to "put two and two together" in many cases.
Much of it is hit or miss.
You go with some ideas, research them, and find yourself at a dead end.
Sometimes, you go with an idea, that leads to another connection, and you follow it out, and it leads to another level of understanding.
Regardless of how unfamiliar, or even heretic some things sound, if they fit, and don't contradict what I know to be true, and it adds clarity to other parts of scripture for me, I have to classify those things as possibilities.
part 1
Now you can say that these things I've been pointing out aren't "scriptural", but that wouldn't be accurate.
ReplyDeleteEvery idea I've discussed here is rooted completely in my understanding of scripture.
Just because my understanding of scripture doesn't match someone else's understanding...or even the understanding of the majority (whatever that is) doesn't invalidate it.
"So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him, rooted and built up in Him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophies, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than on Christ."
Oh come on now
Whose "philosophy" falls more in line with human tradition? As far as I know, I'm the only person on the planet who holds the entirety of my philosophy.
When Paul wrote this to Timothy:
"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
[3] For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
[4] And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables"
Do you think he was referring to one crack-pot who calls himself MrMeaner, or a large group of people who derive their doctrines from a consensus among "teachers"?
.
I'll try to post some more later tonight, and respond to Randy's points, as well
It looks like I'm going to have to whip these posts out a bit at a time. It seems to be pretty busy around the old Ponderosa this evening
ReplyDelete"It should be noted that you have yet to establish exegetical support from Scripture for "destruction" between Ge. 1:1 & 1:2. So far, by your own admission, you have offered only "speculation."
No, I've offered plenty of scriptural evidence. You just reject my interpretation of the scriptures, which is OK
We have the term "ages" translated from the Greek word meaning eon.
We have the use of the verb hayah, in a context where it implies action.
We have the unresolved issue of when it was determined that Satan would be depicted as a lowly "serpent"
We have a statement from Peter regarding the fact that "the heavens were of old" the earth standing "out of the water, and in the water"...which sounds remarkably similar to the state of the earth, prior to the separation of the waters on the first day of creation. He goes on to say that "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished".
We have a passage in Jeremiah, that provies a second witness to the fact that there was a complete destruction that left no man, and rendered the earth "without form, and void. That destruction was also said to be the result of a flood
We have mention of the morning stars singing together and the sons of God shouting for joy.
I realize you think this is proof that Satan fell after Ch.1, but the passage is referring to the creation, which according to my estimation, was billions of years before the current regeneration of the earth
I haven't even mentioned the Greek word for "foundations" as in "foundations of the world". That word is a compound word (katabole) that means "to cast down"
me---I would think that creation would be almost instantaneous. I can't picture God individually creating planets and suns, pieces at a time.....That doesn't seem very omnipotent
randy---This, if it were accurate, would render the entire first chapter of Genesis nonsensical.
Not really.
It makes perfect sense, if describing the process of recovery from destruction, which would include the creation of new animal species, to replace the destroyed ones.
We could even go a step farther, and say that God created "the beasts of the field" (which I take to mean beasts of burden used for agriculture) specifically for Adam. They were not mentioned until the second chapter, and the creation of Adam
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeletePART 1
You said: "But, when you present something as "the truth", in error, you stand a chance of driving the hearer away. We weren't struck down on the road to Damascus. Paul was pretty good at getting the message across, but not perfect.
Peter himself said that many of Paul's writings were difficult to understand."
Are you saying that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, in expressing the truth of God, could not get across what God meant, or that the true believer cannot understand what God is saying, or that the Scriptures cannot be interpreted correctly, or that the Holy Spirit does not act in the life of the believer today, as He did in the past to bring a correct understanding of Scripture, or you just go by your feelings in getting a correct interpretation of Scripture, each to his own?
Jesus said: "Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth." (John 17:17)
Is God's word not a light unto our feet? Are not all His words true?
"I want you to know brothers, that the gospel I preached is NOT something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:11, 12)
"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it NOT as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who believe." (1Thess. 2:13)
MrM: "I don't think that it was meant for every detail of our existence to be plainly understood."
True enough, only God knows that, but what does that have to do with understanding the Word?
PART 2
ReplyDeleteMrM: "I think that we're expected to "put two and two together" in many cases."
What about the guidance of the Holy Spirit in searching out the deep things of God? Have you ever struggled to find the correct meaning of Scripture through years and years of study, and then God's confirmation comes through in revealing the correct meaning, so that everything fits together and Scripture verifies Scripture?
Your interpretation of Genesis 1 does not confirm the true understanding of the Author, since Jesus Himself places the beginning of creation with the creation of Adam and Eve. If you are going to contend that the word yom, when used with a number, or in combination with evening and morning means something other than a normal day then you need to bring in the Scriptural references that refute the interpretation I gave. You need to determine what God means in Exodus 20 when He says that He made everything in six days, and what a day means if not literal, for Moses revealed a pattern of worship that means nothing if a day to God does not mean the same thing to us, or if the genealogies are not historical but metaphorical then show why and how.
You have done none of that. You have brought your pet theory forward by taking bits and pieces of Scripture and telling us what you believe they say. In my opinion they don't even tie together well, because they ignore the context and theme quite often.
MrM: "Regardless of how unfamiliar, or even heretic some things sound, if they fit, and don't contradict what I know to be true, and it adds clarity to other parts of scripture for me, I have to classify those things as possibilities."
How do you know what you 'believe to be true' is actually true?
Do you make that decision that this is 'my truth' or 'a possibility for me' or does the Holy Spirit confirm the true meaning of Scripture, by making the meaning alive to you in a way that does not contradict other Scripture? Do you hear what God is saying or are you hearing what you want to hear? Does Jesus not say repeatedly, 'let him who has an ear, hear the word of God,' or does He say, 'let him who has an ear hear what he wants to hear'?
Does the Author hold the true meaning of what He is revealing, or do we make the meaning suit our life situation so that we make truth for ourselves?
Peter
"The term “Kenite” may be derived from the name of someone named Cain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were descendants of Cain the first-born son of Adam. For instance, there is another “Cain” noted in the rather long list of the descendants of Judah in Joshua 15:57."
ReplyDeleteThose aren't descendents, they're names of cities. The fact that there would be a city called Cain in Judah, is evidence that Kenites had a significant connection with Judah.
"He also told them they were “of their father the Devil,” not unlike Cain."
Well, now I'm confused. Are you saying that"your father the devil", and "blood of righteous Abel" are both meant figuratively?
I can understand taking that position with "your father the devil". We can point to the fact that all who believe become the children of God, as a comparison on that.
But why would the specific example of the blood of Abel, and Zacharias be used?
Zacharias' murder was due to his witness against an evil priesthood. That murder can be traced directly back to events involving the house of Rechab the Kenite.
Aside from all of that, why would the Father see fit to include an extended list of Cain's geneology in the Book of Genesis, if they were just going to be wiped out, and removed from any future relevant history?
"Are you saying that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, in expressing the truth of God, could not get across what God meant, or that the true believer cannot understand what God is saying, or that the Scriptures cannot be interpreted correctly,"
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that Paul's writings are difficult to understand, and were even during the time they were written. I think that the "true believer", with effort, can indeed understand what God reveals to us, at a given time, if we set aside the traditions of men, pray, and study in earnest. But we will never understand the fullness of God's plan in our flesh existence. Most of these deeper things we're discussing here have little relevance to our salvation, so I'm inclined to believe that much of these things are left for us to ponder, until Christ's return.
But I don't think there's any harm in pondering
"...or that the Holy Spirit does not act in the life of the believer today, as He did in the past to bring a correct understanding of Scripture, or you just go by your feelings in getting a correct interpretation of Scripture, each to his own?"
"Is God's word not a light unto our feet? Are not all His words true?"
Yes, but none of us are qualified to definitively interpret his entire word, without question. Salvation is what's important for this age. I believe that everything we need to understand for that purpose is revealed to all who seek it.
But some of these passages relating to many of these non-essential topics are, as evidenced, pretty subjective.
I'll try to catch up tomorrow, guys.
ReplyDeleteIt's getting late
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 3
Just a few points to consider while you are finishing your response:
No, I've offered plenty of scriptural evidence. You just reject my interpretation of the scriptures, which is OK
I've not so much “rejected” your interpretation, I've just pointed out that your interpretation (which you admit to be somewhat speculative) contradicts other passages of scripture where the meaning is quite clear.
We have the term "ages" translated from the Greek word meaning eon.
To which I offered clear evidence that the use of this term points to the “ages” post creation (or post “regeneration,” as you are contending).
We have the use of the verb hayah, in a context where it implies action.
Not sure what you are referring to there.
We have the unresolved issue of when it was determined that Satan would be depicted as a lowly "serpent"
I've offered pretty clear evidence from scripture that it was probably sometime between Ge. Chapter 1 and Ge. Chapter 3. You have yet to offer any scriptural evidence (only speculation) that Satan's fall was prior to Ge. 1:2.
We have a statement from Peter regarding the fact that "the heavens were of old" the earth standing "out of the water, and in the water"...which sounds remarkably similar to the state of the earth, prior to the separation of the waters on the first day of creation. He goes on to say that "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished".
You offered that passage without any explanation as to how you see it supporting your pre-Adamic destruction theory. A plain reading of those verses indicates that “out of the water and in the water” refers to Ge. 1:6-10. Further, the context of these verses clearly indicate that “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” is a reference to the judgment of the Flood of Ge. 6-9 (which makes this passage yet another refutation of your contention that the Flood was not global--Peter said the "world" was flooded).
We have a passage in Jeremiah, that provies a second witness to the fact that there was a complete destruction that left no man, and rendered the earth "without form, and void. That destruction was also said to be the result of a flood
The prophet is using hyperbole, as is quite common in apocalyptic literature. You seem to be interpreting this “complete destruction” literally when God plainly says in vs. 27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. Further, I find no reference in this passage to this destruction being the “result of a flood.” Clearly this passage is speaking of the coming Babylonian overthrow of Judah.
So, again, you seem to be forcing your pre-Adamic destruction theory into the text seemingly without warrant.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 3
We have mention of the morning stars singing together and the sons of God shouting for joy.
I realize you think this is proof that Satan fell after Ch.1, but the passage is referring to the creation, which according to my estimation, was billions of years before the current regeneration of the earth
Yet you are overlooking something that I have pointed out at least twice: The exact word (“created”) that is used in Ge. 1:1 is used in Ge. 1:21 and 1:27. Further, in Ge. 2:3 the same term (create) that is used in 1:1 is used again in reference to all of God's work in chapter 1. Notice: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
You still have offered no exegetical warrant for distinguishing Ge. 1:1 as “creation” and the remainder of the chapter as “regeneration.”
I haven't even mentioned the Greek word for "foundations" as in "foundations of the world". That word is a compound word (katabole) that means "to cast down"
Or “lay down.” You seem to be parsing the word to fit your theory.
Not really. It makes perfect sense, if describing the process of recovery from destruction, which would include the creation of new animal species, to replace the destroyed ones.
But you may have missed my point. If the creation (or “recovery”, as you are contending) was “instantaneous,” the six day's work described in chapter 1 become nonsensical. Why does scripture describe what is instantaneous (in your estimation) as taking place of a specific period of time? Peter and I have offered clear scriptural evidence that these were six literal days. “Instantaneous” and six literal days (or any length of "time") are not compatible.
We could even go a step farther, and say that God created "the beasts of the field" (which I take to mean beasts of burden used for agriculture) specifically for Adam. They were not mentioned until the second chapter, and the creation of Adam
It appears that I was correct in my “guess” that you were separating the creation of “man” in ch. 1 from the creation of Adam/Eve in ch. 2. I'll let you respond to the remainder of my post from yesterday before addressing this further. But I would point out, in reference to your above statement, that 1:24, 25, & 30 clearly state that God created every beast of the earth in chapter 1. It is quite a stretch to claim that “beasts of the field” weren't created until chapter 2. I think this is a case of you “fitting” the scripture to your pre-Adamic destruction theory.
BTW: Didn't I mention earlier that your “hunter/gatherers” idea for Ge. 1 didn't fit your contention that there was a destruction between 1:1 and 1:2? Weren't your “hunter/gatherers” part of the “regeneration” you claim took place after the “destruction”?
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 3 of 3
Those aren't descendents, they're names of cities. The fact that there would be a city called Cain in Judah, is evidence that Kenites had a significant connection with Judah.
Well, yes. But the context seems to clearly indicate that the cities were named after the descendants of Judah.
And I noticed you didn't respond to my offering that the term “Kenite” may also be derived from the name of Kenan (Cainan), the son of Enos (and thus the grandson of Seth and the great-grandson of Adam)--Ge. 5:9-13. Doesn't that indicate an explanation of "Kenites" without having to insist that the descendants of Cain lived on after the flood--and thus the Flood was not global, despite clear scripture that says it was?
Well, now I'm confused. Are you saying that"your father the devil", and "blood of righteous Abel" are both meant figuratively?
I can understand taking that position with "your father the devil". We can point to the fact that all who believe become the children of God, as a comparison on that.
But why would the specific example of the blood of Abel, and Zacharias be used?
Well, yes, both would seem to be figurative statements. You don't honestly believe that those to whom Christ was speaking were literally the murderers of Cain (4,000 years before their time) and Zacharias (400+ years before their time) do you?
Aside from all of that, why would the Father see fit to include an extended list of Cain's geneology in the Book of Genesis, if they were just going to be wiped out, and removed from any future relevant history?
That is hardly evidence that they were not wiped out in the Flood. And remember, your are having to contend that the Flood was not global (contrary to Ge. 7:19, Mt. 24:36-39 [the very testimony of Christ Himself], I Pe. 3:20, and II Pe. 3:4-6) for no other reason than to support your contention that the descendants of Cain lived on after the Flood—a point you have yet to establish from scripture.
I've pointed out problems with traditional interpretations that haven't yet been expained away.
I'm not sure what you mean by the rather broad term “traditional interpretations,” but I have answered every point you have raised on this issue of a pre-Adamic destruction by demonstrating that it doesn't square with a plain reading of the text of scripture.
Shouldn't we simply allow the Word of God to speak for itself, rather than forcing our own speculations into the text?
Peace.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteI think we can attract some additional posters from over at WAPO with the following. If you will, please give this its own thread as soon as possible. They are already closing comments on some of the earlier blogs on this subject.
As soon as you give it its own thread I will post it on all of the open threads on WAPO.
Thanks.
---------------------
FEMINISM AND SCRIPTURE:
“The discrimination against women on a global basis is very often attributable to the declaration by religious leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions that women are inferior in the eyes of God,” former President Jimmy Carter said last week.
While former President Carter's statement is technically correct, he managed to completely miss the point. The real question is not whether “religious leaders” promote discrimination against women. There exists any number of atrocities which have been committed in the name of “religion.” The real question (from the perspective of genuine biblical Christianity) is “does the bible teach discriminatory principles in relation to women's place in society.”
Feminism has long used this point as a bully-pulpit in the push for equal rights for women. But what does the bible actually teach on this matter? Does it actually teach that women are inferior in the eyes of God? Does the bible teach that women are to be suppressed, relegated to an inferior social status, and denied basic human “rights”? Does it actually teach that women are to mindlessly submit themselves to their fathers and husbands and become silently subservient?
Are the principles taught in the bible so primitive that they deserve the moniker “Iron Age,” or are there time-tested principles of wisdom in the bible that are desperately needed in our rapidly unraveling modern society? Does the bible give “license” to men and allow them to ruthlessly exploit their positions of power over women, or does it teach us to honor and exalt womanhood?
Modern feminism has derailed and has consequently become a mere shadow of the worthy cause it was in its infancy. Today feminism has shrunk to nothing more than the adaptation of masculine traits by women due to the fact that men have become effeminate and have abdicated their God-appointed responsibilities. What an utterly perverted and unattractive duality.
If you would like to join myself and others in a frank and open discussion of this matter, please join us at:
http://postrefugee.blogspot.com/
Where did you get that quote, so I can link to it?
ReplyDeleteI've not so much “rejected” your interpretation, I've just pointed out that your interpretation (which you admit to be somewhat speculative) contradicts other passages of scripture where the meaning is quite clear.
ReplyDeleteCould you do me a favor, and make a short bullet points type of list with these contradictions? Something similar to my comment from 8:10 last night would help.
Just a brief summary of how wrong I am will do fine.
We've already covered a lot of ground, and I don't really have time to read through everything and figure out where you think I've been contradicted
"To which I offered clear evidence that the use of this term points to the “ages” post creation (or post “regeneration,” as you are contending)"
ReplyDeleteYou've shown instances where "ages" refers to future and present. You assume that all of these references exclude past ages.
How about this example:
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
[69] And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
[70] As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:"
According to this writing, any references to past ages, would have to be pointing to a time before the destruction and regeneration, since it's clear that the "age" during which time the prophets lived, is identified here as the same "age" as the writing of Luke.
me--We have the use of the verb hayah, in a context where it implies action.
Randy--"Not sure what you are referring to there."
You know, the whole "Hebrews don't do copulas" conversation. The fact that the verb "hayah" was actually in the text, rather than being added in by translators as a copular, implies that some sort of action or change is involved.
It isn't simply "And the earth was".
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteThanks for giving my teaser-blog its own thread.
I got the Jimmy Carter quote off of the header on the WAPO page "Faith and Feminism."
That quote has got the liberal feminazi atheists worked into a lather over there. Maybe we can draw some of them and make it interesting.
Could you do me a favor, and make a short bullet points type of list with these contradictions? Something similar to my comment from 8:10 last night would help.
Just a brief summary of how wrong I am will do fine.
We've already covered a lot of ground, and I don't really have time to read through everything and figure out where you think I've been contradicted
Yeah, I'm kinda pressed for time right now too. My posts of the last 2 or 3 days don't appear to have left much of an impression on you, so maybe we should move on.
Peace.
I've offered pretty clear evidence from scripture that it was probably sometime between Ge. Chapter 1 and Ge. Chapter 3. You have yet to offer any scriptural evidence (only speculation) that Satan's fall was prior to Ge. 1:2.
ReplyDeleteWithout use of typologies, it's impossible to know when Satan fell.
I thought the King of Tyrus passage in Ezk 28 was a clear typology of Satan.
"You offered that passage without any explanation as to how you see it supporting your pre-Adamic destruction theory. A plain reading of those verses indicates that “out of the water and in the water” refers to Ge. 1:6-10"
"The heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in of the water"
If Peter is describing the earth standing out of the water and in the water, which was the condition of the earth before "regeneration" (which I maintain began in Gen 1:2) and he says that the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished...what else am I supposed to think?
(the waters were there already...there's no mention of his creating the waters, to the contrary, it says that "God moved upon the face of the waters")
"Further, the context of these verses clearly indicate that “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” is a reference to the judgment of the Flood of Ge. 6-9"
I don't think they indicate that. And certainly not clearly. In fact, there is some evidence that his having "moved upon the face of the waters" represents the moment he decided to allow water from a previous flood to begin to recede.
That's actually backed up in one of the creation Psalms.
Ps. 104
"[1] Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
[2] Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
[3] Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
[4] Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
[5] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
[6] Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
[7] At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
[8] They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
[9] Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."
I think we can agree that this psalm is generally regarded as a creation Psalm.
If you google "creation psalms", there are works done by teachers of many various doctrines who all acknowledge that this is a creation psalm
This creation psalm not only suggests that there was a true global flood involved, but that there would never be another one.
"Yeah, I'm kinda pressed for time right now too. My posts of the last 2 or 3 days don't appear to have left much of an impression on you, so maybe we should move on."
ReplyDeleteYou've just got me going, bro.
I am trying to work my way back to an end time theme, but I haven't found the jumping off point just yet
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 3
It appears that we are beginning to “fly in circles” here, so I'll attempt to post the list you requested. The following is a list of issues that you have raised to which I feel I have given sufficient rebuttal. This list dates back to my post at April 10, 2011 9:27 PM and moves consecutively through our dialog since that point.
1)SCRIPTURE SUBJECTIVE: You have on several occasions stated that scripture which I have offered is “subjective.” I contend that the bible is the living, infallible, inerrant objective revelation that God has given us of Himself. If scripture is “subjective,” we can determine it to mean whatever we want it to mean, which seems to be what you are doing at times.
2)VERY GOOD: You contend that there were prior ages that take place between Ge. 1:1 and 1:2 in which death and destruction took place. I have pointed out several times that Ge. 1:31 says that God declared everything He had created/made (in chapter 1) “very good.” This clearly contradicts your pre-Adamic destruction theory, yet you have not (if I recall correctly) answered the scriptural rebuttal.
3)THE FALL OF SATAN: You seem to be contending that the fall of Satan was prior to Ge. 1:2. I have pointed out that you have no scriptural support for that contention. You keep pointing to “typologies” of Satan in scripture, yet none of these supposed typologies tell us when Satan fell. You seem to be presuming he fell prior to Ge. 1:2 without scriptural warrant for no other reason than it fits your “pre-Adamic destruction theory.”
4)ADDMITTED SPECULATION: You readily admit that your pre-Adamic destruction theory is speculative. You are, however, presuming it to be accurate and are trying to “fit” the scripture to the theory, often doing violence to the plain meaning of various texts (Ge. 1:31, for only one example). The problem with this should be self-evident.
5)THE FLOOD: You contend that the flood was not global, yet this obviously contradicts Ge. 7:19, Mt. 24:36-39 [the very testimony of Christ Himself], I Pe. 3:20, and II Pe. 3:4-6. I have pointed to these passages several times with no response from you yet.
6)CREATION/REGENERATION IN GE. CHAPTER 1: You contend that Ge. 1:1 speaks of creation, while 1:2-31 speak of “regeneration after a destruction.” You have given no exegetical support for that contention. Additionally, I have pointed out (twice) that 1:21 and 1:27 use the exact same term (created) as is used in 1:1. Further, I pointed out that Ge. 2:3 states that on the seventh day God “rested from all his work which he had created.” (April 12, 2011 8:42 AM) You've yet to respond to this.
7)SIX DAY CREATION: You contend that the six days of Ge. 1 could mean any period of time. I (and Peter) have given you loads of exegetical evidence that they were literal 24-hour days (April 12, 2011 8:42 AM for example).
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 3
8) INSTANTANEOUS CREATION: Your contention that God created everything “instantaneously” renders Ge. 1 nonsensical, as I spelled out on (April 13, 2011 8:07 AM ). You then reverted to a distinction between “creation” and “regeneration,” which distinction contradicts Ge. 1:21, 24, and 2:3 (see #7 above). You further tried to buttress your argument by saying that the six days of Ge. 1 were not literal 24-hour days. Though I rebutted this twice, I don't see how it helps your case in any way—if the days represent any period of time they contradict your contention that the creation was “instantaneous.”
9)CAIN/KENITES: You contend that the Kenites were descendants of Cain, firstborn son of Adam, and thus the flood could not have been global in your estimation. I gave you evidence that they were more likely descendants of Cainan, the son of Enos (and thus the grandson of Seth and the great-grandson of Adam)--Ge. 5:9-13 (April 13, 2011 8:07 AM ). You never responded to that.
10) ADAM NOT THE FIRST HUMAN: I rebutted this at April 12, 2011 8:10 AM. No response from you yet.
11) GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH—GE. 2: You contend that this is referring to ages prior to Ge. 1:2. I rebutted this at April 13, 2011 8:13 AM . No answer yet.
12) DAY NOT A 24-HOUR PERIOD: You claim to have found an instance where day didn't mean a 24-hour period, presumably to support your contention of a non-literal 6 day creation. I rebutted at April 13, 2011 8:13 AM . No response from you yet.
13) PRE-ADAMIC AGES: You have made several attempts to prove this point by referring to passages that contain the word “ages/aion.” I responded by pointing out that there were most certainly past “ages” to which those passages were pointing that were post-Adamic. Scripture as a whole clearly divides time into at least the following categories: The Age of Innocence (pre-fall), the Antedeluvian Age (pre-flood), the Post-deluvian Age (after the flood), the Patriarchal Age (Ge. 12 thru the book of Ruth, the Kingdom Age (Samuel thru most of the remainder OT), and the Gospel Age (NT times until present). Every passage you are offering can be easily understood as referring to one or more of these prior ages.
14) II PETER 3:5: You said: If Peter is describing the earth standing out of the water and in the water, which was the condition of the earth before "regeneration" (which I maintain began in Gen 1:2)
Well, no, the earth was not standing both out of the water and in the water until 1:9-10. This is well into your supposed “regeneration,” not priorto it.
and he says that the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished...what else am I supposed to think?
Umm...that the antedeluvian world (the one created in Ge. 1:1-31) experienced the Flood recorded in Ge. 6-9?
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeletePart 3 of 3
I don't think they indicate that (Flood). And certainly not clearly. In fact, there is some evidence that his having "moved upon the face of the waters" represents the moment he decided to allow water from a previous flood to begin to recede.
Well, the motif of the passage is clearly judgment. When Peter mentions the world being “overflowed with water” and “perished,” what do you think his readers would have connected that with? Some obscure, scripturally unspecified pre-Adamic destruction, or the world-wide flood plainly recorded in Ge. 6-9? I think the answer is rather obvious.
2)Ps. 104: [9] Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth."
This creation psalm not only suggests that there was a true global flood involved, but that there would never be another one.
Good grief, man. Look at Ge. 1. The earth was completely covered with water in its initial created state on creation day 1 (vss 1-2). God creates light (day 1), then a separation of the waters that are on the face of the earth, elevating a portion of the waters into the atmosphere on day 2 (vss. 3-8). In vss. 9-10 He causes the land to elevate and the waters to recede into the “seas”, thus creating dry ground which He terms “earth.” Now go back and re-read Ps. 104:9.
To speak frankly, you are presupposing your pre-Adamic flood/destruction theory, bringing it to the Scripture, and trying to force the Scripture to say what you have presupposed. In no passage that you have offered can one arrive at your theory by a plain reading of the text. You are resorting to a “patchwork” of passages that only prove your theory if one presupposes your theory. This is commonly known as “proof-texting”--determining before-hand what one wants to believe and then going into scripture to “prove” what one has already determined. The problem with that approach should be self-evident.
I have found this to be a common practice among those who look for “typologies” in every text of scripture. Where there are clear allusions which can be hammered out with consistent exegetical principles, by all means we should do so. But it is quite easy to begin to look for “types” where there are none, which quickly leads to wild speculations—which in turn lead to unsound doctrines.
Again, shouldn't we allow scripture to speak for itself? If God's Word is so cryptic that we are forced to speculate wildly and make assumptions that are not supported by the text itself, then the Word of God is of little use to us, is it not?
Peace.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteWell, the spam filter strikes again. I had posted two additional posts before the above and they both showed up, now they are gone.
They delineated the list (some 14 points) that you requested of me. As I have deleted them from my word processor I guess they are lost for good. Don't have it in me to do it all again.
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteThat's nuts. The other two posts just suddenly reappeared.
1)SCRIPTURE SUBJECTIVE: You have on several occasions stated that scripture which I have offered is “subjective.” I contend that the bible is the living, infallible, inerrant objective revelation that God has given us of Himself. If scripture is “subjective,” we can determine it to mean whatever we want it to mean, which seems to be what you are doing at times.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's any doubt that the meanings of some passages are open to interpretation. If every detail was written with absolute clarity, we wouldn't have scores, if not hundreds of denominations, and divisions within those denominations.
2)VERY GOOD: You contend that there were prior ages that take place between Ge. 1:1 and 1:2 in which death and destruction took place. I have pointed out several times that Ge. 1:31 says that God declared everything He had created/made (in chapter 1) “very good.” This clearly contradicts your pre-Adamic destruction theory, yet you have not (if I recall correctly) answered the scriptural rebuttal.
If the complete creation of the heavens and earth is recorded in the first verse, and the entire rest of the chapter, from day one to day six is not describing creation, but the preparing of the earth to be habitable, then wouldn't that be what he called "good"?. If that was the case, (humor me) do you think he would have lumped those works, with the actual creation that would have billions of years prior, into that one evaluation? Besides, it clearly states that "darkness"-(which is used to represent misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness) was upon the face of the deep. Which, by the way, you never really explained how the waters came to be. "
3)THE FALL OF SATAN: You seem to be contending that the fall of Satan was prior to Ge. 1:2. I have pointed out that you have no scriptural support for that contention. You keep pointing to “typologies” of Satan in scripture, yet none of these supposed typologies tell us when Satan fell. You seem to be presuming he fell prior to Ge. 1:2 without scriptural warrant for no other reason than it fits your “pre-Adamic destruction theory.”
That's based on the fact that we're not told of Satan's fall at any point before his appearance as the serpent. My assuming that it must have happened before is rooted in simple logic. To assume his fall was post-Gen 1:2, would be adding to scripture.
cont.
cont.
ReplyDeleteThe typologies are only useful for determining circumstances surrounding the represented subject. For example, the multiple typologies for Satan, throughout the Bible, all have the same sin in common. They considered themselves above the rest of God's children, and equal to God.
Putting those circumstances in to context with Satan's fall, requires that there be others present. It doesn't necessarily have to have happened before Gen 1:2. But, if it didn't, it means that somewhere, there were people for him to consider himself better than, before Gen 3
"4)ADDMITTED SPECULATION: You readily admit that your pre-Adamic destruction theory is speculative. You are, however, presuming it to be accurate and are trying to “fit” the scripture to the theory, often doing violence to the plain meaning of various texts (Ge. 1:31, for only one example). The problem with this should be self-evident.
That's because I'm the only one able to admit it, apparently.
5)THE FLOOD: You contend that the flood was not global, yet this obviously contradicts Ge. 7:19, Mt. 24:36-39 [the very testimony of Christ Himself], I Pe. 3:20, and II Pe. 3:4-6. I have pointed to these passages several times with no response from you yet.
You were just shown in no uncertain terms, that Noah's flood was not global.
That creation Psalm made it very clear. You readily admit that the earth standing in the water was in fact, an earth completely under water. Did you not read the part where it was stated that God has set "a bound" for the waters, that they may not pass over, "that they turn not again to cover the earth"?.
Now, I may not be a 4th level warlock rocket surgeon, but "that they turn not again to cover the earth", seems pretty straightforward
more later
6)CREATION/REGENERATION IN GE. CHAPTER 1: You contend that Ge. 1:1 speaks of creation, while 1:2-31 speak of “regeneration after a destruction.” You have given no exegetical support for that contention"
ReplyDeleteWhat? Why have I been posting all of these Bible passages, then
" Additionally, I have pointed out (twice) that 1:21 and 1:27 use the exact same term (created) as is used in 1:1. Further, I pointed out that Ge. 2:3 states that on the seventh day God “rested from all his work which he had created.” (April 12, 2011 8:42 AM) You've yet to respond to this."
And I pointed out to you that just because the heavens and earth was created in 1:1, doesn't mean that there wouldn't be things created on the earth during the 6 days, as seems to be the case with the "great whales" (bad translation) and the "beasts of the field"...Again, if the actual creation was billions of years before Gen 1:2, what "work" was being evaluated in 1:31?
"7)SIX DAY CREATION: You contend that the six days of Ge. 1 could mean any period of time. I (and Peter) have given you loads of exegetical evidence that they were literal 24-hour days (April 12, 2011 8:42 AM for example)"
I said that I wasn't sure that they were literal days. They could very well have been. You offer some pretty compelling evidence in that regard.
8) INSTANTANEOUS CREATION: Your contention that God created everything “instantaneously” renders Ge. 1 nonsensical,
No, it would render your version of Gen Ch 1 nonsensical.
"as I spelled out on (April 13, 2011 8:07 AM )."
That's a strawman argument . You said "If he chose to accomplish all He has purposed to do “instantaneously,” time, space, and redemptive history simply would not exist."
How would the instananeous creation of the material universe interfere with any future plans? We only assume that the universe has always been in a state of expansion. We can't be certain that the dilation of time has always been in the same direction. It wouldn't matter to a God who created it all, anyway.
"You then reverted to a distinction between “creation” and “regeneration,” which distinction contradicts Ge. 1:21, 24, and 2:3 (see #7 above). You further tried to buttress your argument by saying that the six days of Ge. 1 were not literal 24-hour days. Though I rebutted this twice, I don't see how it helps your case in any way—if the days represent any period of time they contradict your contention that the creation was “instantaneous.”
The length of the days makes no difference. I was just using it as an example of how subjective the interpretations of some of these terms can be, and that in some cases, "day" means something other than a 24 hr. period. It wasn't even relevant to the discussion, really.
But you keep missing the point. I'm saying that the heavens an earth were created in Gen 1:1.
The six days begin no sooner than vs. 2. Some would even say vs.3.
cont.
"That's nuts. The other two posts just suddenly reappeared"
ReplyDeleteI checked the spam filter when I came home for lunch, and unblocked them.
PH, Randy, etc;
ReplyDeleteI'd like to get your opinions on an idea I posted in the bottom thread.
9)CAIN/KENITES: You contend that the Kenites were descendants of Cain, firstborn son of Adam, and thus the flood could not have been global in your estimation. I gave you evidence that they were more likely descendants of Cainan, the son of Enos (and thus the grandson of Seth and the great-grandson of Adam)--Ge. 5:9-13 (April 13, 2011 8:07 AM ). You never responded to that.
ReplyDeleteThat's impossible.
The two words aren't even derived from the same root. Cainan comes from the root word qanan, meaning to build or erect.
Cain and Kenite come from the root word quwn, meaning to strike (as a musical note)
"10) ADAM NOT THE FIRST HUMAN: I rebutted this at April 12, 2011 8:10 AM. No response from you yet."
You said "First, if you are contending that the “man” God created in Ge. 1 was other than Adam/Eve (ch. 2), I would point out that, by your own interpretation of Ge. 1, these “hunter/gatherers” would have been created after the destruction that you are trying to insert between Ge. 1:1 and 1:2."
Yes. Exactly. They were created on the sixth day. Adam was created after God rested on the seventh.
"Secondly, “hunter/gatherers” would have been flesh-eaters, which would contradict the clear fact that man was not allowed to eat the flesh of animals until after the flood (see Ge. 9:1-4). So again, your speculation here hardly makes a solid case for a pre-Adamic destruction, and it contradicts clear passages of scripture.
First of all, man was given dominion over fish and fowl, and every thing that moves on the earth, on the sixth day. Secondly, this wasn't about eating the fleash of animals, it was about eating flesh with blood. That would carry forward and be included in the law given to Moses.(Lev 17:10-14, Deut 12:23)
"11) GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH—GE. 2: You contend that this is referring to ages prior to Ge. 1:2. I rebutted this at April 13, 2011 8:13 AM . No answer yet.
I don't really "contend" it. I just think it's as good of a possibility as I've heard. You seem to believe that it is an introduction to Adam's geneology. I've had others argue that it was a summary of part of the previous six days. That's why I say that some of these interpretations are pretty subjective.
"12) DAY NOT A 24-HOUR PERIOD: You claim to have found an instance where day didn't mean a 24-hour period, presumably to support your contention of a non-literal 6 day creation. I rebutted at April 13, 2011 8:13 AM . No response from you yet."
As I mentioned, it's not really relevant to the discussion. I would just point out that there are many instances where day does not mean a 24 hour period.
cont.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that God, in giving us Scripture, intended that we draw out any subjective meaning we so like from it? Or do you think that His (objective) meaning was His intended plan for us to draw out? (2 Timothy 2:15)
Many doctrines in the Bible rest on a correct interpretation of Genesis, including the doctrine of salvation. Start on the wrong foundation or destroy the right foundation and you have the situation described in Psalm 11:3 where truth is called error.
Psalm 11:3: "When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
That is what evolutionary science does. It undermines and tries to destroy the foundation of God's word and its righteousness; those in Christ.
It is God's word that His creature seeks to undermine when any meaning will do except the true and plain meaning that the Author intended. You have not shown in one example of yours why the meaning is what God intended rather than what you are putting into the Scripture.
Here is a sample of what you continue to seep into your replies,
"I don't really "contend" it. I just think it's as good of a possibility as I've heard."
"That's why I say that some of these interpretations are pretty subjective."
"I would just point out that there are many instances where day does not mean a 24 hour period."
That is just from the one post that I want to draw on more.
Peter
PART 2
ReplyDeleteRANDY: "10) ADAM NOT THE FIRST HUMAN: I rebutted this at April 12, 2011 8:10 AM. No response from you yet."
RANDY: "First, if you are contending that the “man” God created in Ge. 1 was other than Adam/Eve (ch. 2), I would point out that, by your own interpretation of Ge. 1, these “hunter/gatherers” would have been created after the destruction that you are trying to insert between Ge. 1:1 and 1:2."
MrMEANER: "Yes. Exactly. They were created on the sixth day. Adam was created after God rested on the seventh."
Pure subjective speculation/interpretation not based on anything that is revealed in Scripture and even goes against it. It seems to be another of your pet theories. Where in Scripture are we ever told of man before Adam. It is all read in between the lines. In other words, you are putting words in God's mouth.
Genesis 2:4, 5, 7: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth WHEN they were created.
WHEN the LORD God made the earth and the heavens - and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was NO MAN to work the ground....the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground..."
Are you 'contending' that this is not the original heavens and earth that God made?
Are you contending that the man spoken of here is not Adam? If so then you are reading another gap into Scripture that Scripture does not reveal as being here. It is something that you infer by not taking the words plainly. In such a situation you read into and ADD to Scripture a subjective meaning that is open to all kinds of interpretation. But if you took the verse plainly, it confirms that this man is Adam, as revealed from the meaning of other verses of Scripture.
Genesis 5:1: "This is the written account of Adam's line: When God CREATED MAN, He made him
in the likeness of God..."
Considering the genealogy of Luke (Luke 3:38), Christ's genealogy is traced back to Adam, who the Lord Jesus Christ identifies as being created at the beginning of creation (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6, esp.).
1 Corinthians 15:45, 47: "So it is written: 'The FIRST MAN ADAM became a living being, the last Adam, a life-giving spirit....The FIRST MAN was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven."
So give me Scripture the plainly says that Adam was not the first man, not just Scripture that you are inferring says this.
PETER,
ReplyDeleteSolid posts.
When Scripture is allowed to "speak for itself" subjective interpretations are revealed for what they are, aren't they?
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteYes, otherwise you can make God say anything you want Him to. I still have the same problem everyone else does with difficult texts. I think that is why we are commended to study to show ourselves approved, workmen who correctly handle the word of truth.
PART 3 (I've tried to post this for the umpteenth time)
ReplyDeleteRANDY: "Secondly, “hunter/gatherers” would have been flesh-eaters, which would contradict the clear fact that man was not allowed to eat the flesh of animals until after the flood (see Ge. 9:1-4). So again, your speculation here hardly makes a solid case for a pre-Adamic destruction, and it contradicts clear passages of scripture."
MrMEANER: "First of all, man was given dominion over fish and fowl, and every thing that moves on the earth, on the sixth day. Secondly, this wasn't about eating the flesh of animals, it was about eating flesh with blood. That would carry forward and be included in the law given to Moses.(Lev 17:10-14, Deut 12:23)"
Again you are reading into Scripture something that it does not reveal - hunter/gatherers, then to compound this you are speculating that they ate flesh when God clearly only gave permission to eat flesh after the Flood. Then to top it off you speculate on Adam being created on another day, other than the sixth. You go out of your way to make God create Adam on a day past the seventh day. Show me just one, JUST ONE verse that actually revels this, and I don't mean a verse in which you read your interpretation into.
Genesis 1:29: "Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing PLANT on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has FRUIT on it. THEY WILL BE YOURS FOR FOOD.'"
Genesis 9:3 the distinction changes on what is permissible to eat: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the GREEN PLANTS, I NOW give you everything [with stipulations provided].
Notice the distinction?
RANDY: "11) GENERATIONS OF THE HEAVENS AND EARTH—GE. 2: You contend that this is referring to ages prior to Ge. 1:2. I rebutted this at April 13, 2011 8:13 AM . No answer yet."
MrMEANER: "I don't really "contend" it. I just think it's as good of a possibility as I've heard. You seem to believe that it is an introduction to Adam's geneology. I've had others argue that it was a summary of part of the previous six days. That's why I say that some of these interpretations are pretty subjective."
How is this subjective: "Remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy. Six days you are to labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God,...FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, the sea, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, but He rested on the seventh day."
So which is it? Did God make everything in six days, as described in Genesis 1, or did He leave Adam for a day after the seventh?
If the days described are not 24 hour periods, the course of a normal day (evening and morning), then what are they? Immediately you bring in the speculation. In the normal reading of the context of the passage it should be able to determine what type of meaning the passage holds. Is the language literal/plain or is it figurative? This is normally how you interpret the correct meaning of what someone says to you. For instance, if I said, 'The grass on my lawn is green,' you would most probably interpret what I'm saying as plain, literal language, that I'm talking of actual grass, but if I said, "I am green with envy,' am I now speaking plainly/literally or am I using a figure of speech? Now give me justification for interpreting Genesis 1 as figurative language, from the context and from the context of other verses of Scripture that make reference to Genesis 1.
I'm having trouble posting again MrMeaner. Can you fish my last post out of cyberspace? I'm talking of PART 3.
ReplyDeletePeter
I unblocked it, Peter
ReplyDeleteI've been distracted for the past few days.
I'll re-join the discussion as soon as possible.
13) PRE-ADAMIC AGES: You have made several attempts to prove this point by referring to passages that contain the word “ages/aion.” I responded by pointing out that there were most certainly past “ages” to which those passages were pointing that were post-Adamic. Scripture as a whole clearly divides time into at least the following categories: The Age of Innocence (pre-fall), the Antedeluvian Age (pre-flood), the Post-deluvian Age (after the flood), the Patriarchal Age (Ge. 12 thru the book of Ruth, the Kingdom Age (Samuel thru most of the remainder OT), and the Gospel Age (NT times until present). Every passage you are offering can be easily understood as referring to one or more of these prior ages.
ReplyDeleteI'll give you an A for effort.
Can you point to a single instance, where the word "age" is used to signify any of those "ages" to which you refer?
Which one of those particular ages are being referenced here;
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"
"14) II PETER 3:5: You said: If Peter is describing the earth standing out of the water and in the water, which was the condition of the earth before "regeneration" (which I maintain began in Gen 1:2)
Well, no, the earth was not standing both out of the water and in the water until 1:9-10. This is well into your supposed “regeneration,” not priorto it.
and he says that the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished...what else am I supposed to think?
Umm...that the antedeluvian world (the one created in Ge. 1:1-31) experienced the Flood recorded in Ge. 6-9?"
umm...don't think so. Why would he bring up Noah's flood, as being relative to "his coming"?
On the other hand, if he is referring to the earth standing in the water, as a result of destruction administered by his very presence (Jer. 4:26), that passage makes perfect sense.
"Well, the motif of the passage is clearly judgment. When Peter mentions the world being “overflowed with water” and “perished,” what do you think his readers would have connected that with? Some obscure, scripturally unspecified pre-Adamic destruction, or the world-wide flood plainly recorded in Ge. 6-9? I think the answer is rather obvious.
The motif of the passage is clearly his return, both before the waters reference, and after. Now, it's true that judgment accompanies his return. But, again we're talking about total destruction.
"Good grief, man. Look at Ge. 1. The earth was completely covered with water in its initial created state on creation day 1 (vss 1-2). God creates light (day 1), then a separation of the waters that are on the face of the earth, elevating a portion of the waters into the atmosphere on day 2 (vss. 3-8). In vss. 9-10 He causes the land to elevate and the waters to recede into the “seas”, thus creating dry ground which He terms “earth.” Now go back and re-read Ps. 104:9.
That makes no sense. Why aren't we told of the processes involving the creation of the waters?
I'll tell you why.
Because the waters werre already there, having been created billions of years before, as was the earth.
The initial state of creation was an earth completely under water?
Really?
I don't even think you believe that
MRMEANER,
ReplyDeleteOnly have but a minute here.
Which one of those particular ages are being referenced here; "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"
All of them.
umm...don't think so. Why would he bring up Noah's flood, as being relative to "his coming"?
I offer you the words of Christ Himself:
Mt. 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Maybe those words left a more indelible impression on Peter’s mind than they did on yours.
That makes no sense. Why aren't we told of the processes involving the creation of the waters?
“Process”? I dunno. Where are we told of the “process” of him creating the heavens? This is another argument from silence on your part. We are told this:
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep.
That seems pretty clear to me that this passage is describing an earth completely covered with water on day one of Creation. Of course, I’m not presuming “billions of years” between verses 1 and 2.
I'll tell you why. Because the waters werre already there, having been created billions of years before, as was the earth.
Speculation upon speculation. In every instance you are offering, one has to presume before looking at the text that these “billions of years” existed, and then interpret the text accordingly. That is exegetically bassackwards.
The initial state of creation was an earth completely under water? Really? I don't even think you believe that
“Believe it?” I’m afraid I do, “for the bible tells me so.” Your hubris seems a little forced here. I have difficulty believing you’ve never encountered that quite-common position, especially given the plain language of Ge. 1:2, 6, 7--
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters......6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
We’re not getting anywhere with this exchange. I think Peter offered some pretty strong rebuttals to you in his last 3 part post. I’d love to see your response to him.
Peace.
I'll respond to Peter's posts when I've had time to read them. I've been quite busy lately.
ReplyDeleteBut I must say, you're not in much of a position to lecture me on hubris.
The entirety of your defense is based on the belief that, in spite of the mountain of evidence you've been shown, your interpretation of God's word is the "correct" one.
You make assumptions that aren't written, while criticizing my assumptions, based on things that are written.
"Mt. 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
"Maybe those words left a more indelible impression on Peter’s mind than they did on yours."
Well, I'm definitely going to have to start on Peter's posts, now.
So, (regardless of your flawed interpretation of II Peter 3, in my opinion)are we saying that we've made a breakthrough in the argument that Christ's coming does indeed come with a destruction?
That's progress, I suppose.
"Do you really think that God, in giving us Scripture, intended that we draw out any subjective meaning we so like from it? Or do you think that His (objective) meaning was His intended plan for us to draw out? (2 Timothy 2:15)"
ReplyDeleteI think the word was given, in part, so those who could "rightly divide" it, would be prepared for the things that would befall those who live to see the last generation come to it's completion.
"Many doctrines in the Bible rest on a correct interpretation of Genesis, including the doctrine of salvation. Start on the wrong foundation or destroy the right foundation and you have the situation described in Psalm 11:3 where truth is called error."
How is the doctrine of salvation rendered anything but enhanced by an old-earth interpretation? It actually gives a concrete meaning to just what it was that Christ is saving us from.
According to your version, we're just born here as innocent victims, mere objects of creation, who had no real reason to be subject to the trials of this world. An old-earth interpretation actually gives substance to the meaning of our existence.
If we actually existed before this age, whether in spirit, or flesh, then it's likely that a future plan that would involve a savior, an anti-savior, and an ultimate choice between good and evil, would be the result of a past failure that would require this "probationary" age. Doesn't that seem logical?
After all, that's what this is, is it not?
We're given whatever settings we are born into, and events in our lives shape us in to people who either accept, or reject God's plan of salvation.
Is it fair that some people are born in situations where they will likely never discover the truth?
Not if we're just born here as innopcent pawns. But, if we're placed in settings, according to what we deserve from before, it makes perfect sense.
"That is what evolutionary science does. It undermines and tries to destroy the foundation of God's word and its righteousness; those in Christ."
I'm not advocating evolutionary science. Some evolutionary scientists are beginning to discover that they have no leg to stand on, so they're settling for explanations that can only be descibed by rational observers as creation events.
"Pure subjective speculation/interpretation not based on anything that is revealed in Scripture and even goes against it. It seems to be another of your pet theories. Where in Scripture are we ever told of man before Adam. It is all read in between the lines. In other words, you are putting words in God's mouth."
You're detracting from the fullness of the meaning. Explain to me how the literal reading of the Bible yields an understanding different from this:
MrMEANER: "Yes. Exactly. They were created on the sixth day. Adam was created after God rested on the seventh."
Go back, and show me where a single word of that statement is wrong. And please use the actual text, and not an assumption based on your understanding of it.
cont.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteIt was hard to follow your line of thinking because I found it hard to separate your response from Randy's response. It all ran together.
But again, I find you are not giving much, if any, Scriptural evidence for your response. Consider this; if there is not Scriptural evidence for what you believe, you are reading into God's word something that is not there. Where does Scripture infer billions of years?
Show me your references for days (yom) meaning long ages of time in Genesis 1 (i.e. a day meaning an age). Show me how Exodus 20 refers to long ages or how you can make sense of it if God's period/days are different from ours.
Show me which people in the genealogies of Christ do not correspond to actual real people and which do. Show me why you, as a Christian, take Jesus' words in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 in referring to the beginning of creation as something other than the beginning of creation. Why is Jesus, your Saviour, your Lord and your God Someone whom you chose to doubt if you cannot show that His words do not mean what they are saying, from Scripture, our authority in matters of dispute? As soon as you start to cherry pick Scripture and tear it apart to make it say whatever you want it to say, or to line up with worldly wisdom, instead of finding the Author's intended meaning, you run the risk of coming up with an aberrant theology and totally missing out on what God is saying. Jesus continually said, 'Let him who has an ear hear the word of God.'
How can you hear it if you deny what it says?
How can you hear it if you speculate some meaning that it does not convey?
MrMEANER: "umm...don't think so. Why would he bring up Noah's flood, as being relative to "his coming"?"
Because it meant judgment for some and salvation for others.
More to the point was who He was talking to as His primary audience in Matthew 24 and also 2 Peter 3? What was He referring to in talking about His coming in these passages? Again I remind you to look at the context.
RANDY: "Well, the motif of the passage is clearly judgment. When Peter mentions the world being “overflowed with water” and “perished,” what do you think his readers would have connected that with? Some obscure, scripturally unspecified pre-Adamic destruction, or the world-wide flood plainly recorded in Ge. 6-9? I think the answer is rather obvious."
MrMEANER: "The motif of the passage is clearly his return, both before the waters reference, and after. Now, it's true that judgment accompanies his return. But, again we're talking about total destruction."
'Total destruction' in 2 Peter? Was the world of that time totally destroyed? It depends what you mean, because those on the Ark were not destroyed, so something had to remain, and that would have been those in the Ark, the Ark and the waters on which the Ark rested and those same waters as from the 'beginning of creation' that the earth was formed out of. (2 Peter 2:4, 5)
Plus some suggest that the judgment and destruction reserved for the day of judgment are a judgment on the Jewish people and the reference to the heavens and earth reserved for fire following the motif in the OT with its many figurative uses of fire as to the passing away of the Old Covenant. It was a fiery judgment.
http://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/29-judgment-day/41-more-on-heaven-and-earth
http://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/29-judgment-day/43-the-time-has-come
Genesis 2:4, 5, 7: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth WHEN they were created.
ReplyDeleteWHEN the LORD God made the earth and the heavens - and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was NO MAN to work the ground....the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground..."
There is a distinct difference between "of the field", and "upon the earth". Every instance that the word "field" is used, denotes land parcelled by man.
"Beasts of the field" can only be referring to beasts of parcelled land...thus agriculture.
The created men/women of day 6 were hunters, fishers, and gatherers of herbs, and fruit-yielding trees.
Not the same creation
"Are you 'contending' that this is not the original heavens and earth that God made?"
yes
"Are you contending that the man spoken of here is not Adam?"
yes
"If so then you are reading another gap into Scripture that Scripture does not reveal as being here."
there is a recorded gap of at least one day (or two, taking the sabbath in to account)
"It is something that you infer by not taking the words plainly."
No, I'm taking the words very literally.
"In such a situation you read into and ADD to Scripture a subjective meaning that is open to all kinds of interpretation. But if you took the verse plainly, it confirms that this man is Adam, as revealed from the meaning of other verses of Scripture."
No, it confirms major differences between "man" created on the sixth day...and "the man" created after God rested on the seventh.
"Genesis 5:1: "This is the written account of Adam's line: When God CREATED MAN, He made him
in the likeness of God..."
Yes, and Jesus is called "the last Adam"
"Considering the genealogy of Luke (Luke 3:38), Christ's genealogy is traced back to Adam, who the Lord Jesus Christ identifies as being created at the beginning of creation (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6, esp.)."
Neither of those verses mention Adam. They do mention Gen 1:27, and that "male and female created he them", which leaves out the fact that Eve came from Adam. This is an entirely different account that that of Adam, then Eve's creation.
"1 Corinthians 15:45, 47: "So it is written: 'The FIRST MAN ADAM became a living being, the last Adam, a life-giving spirit....The FIRST MAN was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven."
So give me Scripture the plainly says that Adam was not the first man, not just Scripture that you are inferring says this.
He was the "first man" in relation to Christ's blood line.
Let me ask you a question that doesn't require much research.
In the (as you claim) 6000 years of history, how did we get from one man, and one woman...to a planet full of people with such diverse physical characteristics?
Is this possible with only two ancestors? (one of which was created from the same DNA as the other)
cont.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteIn response to the first of your two latest posts.
ME: "Do you really think that God, in giving us Scripture, intended that we draw out any subjective meaning we so like from it? Or do you think that His (objective) meaning was His intended plan for us to draw out? (2 Timothy 2:15)"
MrM: “I think the word was given, in part, so those who could "rightly divide" it, would be prepared for the things that would befall those who live to see the last generation come to its completion.”
Yes, in part, but the question remains as to when that generation is/was. Another part was so that we could live godly lives and bring others to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, through the power of His word and the workings of the Holy Spirit. The question is when did/will His kingdom come?
ME: "Many doctrines in the Bible rest on a correct interpretation of Genesis, including the doctrine of salvation. Start on the wrong foundation or destroy the right foundation and you have the situation described in Psalm 11:3 where truth is called error."
MrM: “How is the doctrine of salvation rendered anything but enhanced by an old-earth interpretation? It actually gives a concrete meaning to just what it was that Christ is saving us from.”
If Adam was not an historical person the genealogies that trace Christ’s descent back to him mean nothing. If Adam was not an historical human being who broke a covenant relationship with God, then what need do we have for a Saviour, the Second Adam as an historical, physical human being? If death was punishment for sin then who sinned to instigate this punishment? If fellowship with God was not broken at the Fall, then when was it broken?
In regards to suffering and death, we are told that ‘sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came TO ALL MEN, because all sinned’ and also that God subjected the world ‘to frustration’ and ‘bondage to decay’ when did He do this if not in Genesis 3:16-19 as a result of Adam and Eves sin? Find me the verses.
Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, had this to say,
“Scripture in its entirety regards the Genesis account of man’s early beginnings and doings as reliable history. The genesis account of creation is referred to many times elsewhere in the Old and New Testaments (including Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Deut. 4:32…..)…The genealogy in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 regard Adam as the first human being….our Lord’s own teaching is at stake, for in Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-8 He refers to the creation of man in such a way that it is beyond question 1) that He had Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in mind, and, 2) that He viewed these so-called two diverse accounts of creation as trustworthy records of what took place at the beginning of human history. He also referred to the ‘blood of Abel’ (Matthew 23:35) and to the Genesis flood (Matt. 24:37-39). To question the basic historical authenticity and integrity of Genesis 1-11 is to assault the integrity of Christ’s own teaching.” P.118
Much more could be said on this and the many Scriptural references Reymond gives for an historical interpretation of Genesis 1-3.
MrMeaner, can you rescue my last two posts?
ReplyDelete"It was hard to follow your line of thinking because I found it hard to separate your response from Randy's response. It all ran together."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I noticed that.I've been having problems with Word, so I've been using the notepad, and I'm not used to it just yet
I should have previewed before I posted.
I've been a bit rushed, lately.
I'll try to reply to your posts this evening
"But again, I find you are not giving much, if any, Scriptural evidence for your response. Consider this; if there is not Scriptural evidence for what you believe, you are reading into God's word something that is not there. Where does Scripture infer billions of years?"
ReplyDeleteWe're going in circles, here.
I've offered more scriptural evidence for my claims than you and Randy combined.
"If Adam was not an historical person the genealogies that trace Christ’s descent back to him mean nothing. If Adam was not an historical human being who broke a covenant relationship with God, then what need do we have for a Saviour, the Second Adam as an historical, physical human being? If death was punishment for sin then who sinned to instigate this punishment? If fellowship with God was not broken at the Fall, then when was it broken?"
I guess i'm just not explaining this very well.
Adam WAS a historical figure. Adam WAS the human being who broke a covenant with God.
Adam WAS NOT among those (male and female) created on the sixth day.
Those were given dominion over fish, fowl, and living things on the earth. They were given herbs and fruit from trees
Adam WAS created after God rested on the seventh day, because he had no man to till the ground.
"Show me how Exodus 20 refers to long ages"
It doesn't.
It says that in six days the LORD "made" (to do, accomplish, appoint, advance, etc, etc) heaven and earth..."
"or how you can make sense of it if God's period/days are different from ours."
Well, let's look at it from a post-creation/regeneration perspective.
If a day with the LORD is as a thousand years to man, how many "days" have passed since Adam?
That would be around six days, right?
So, if we're actually living in "End of days", then Christ's return would align with the seventh "day", which would be a thousand year "sabbath" known as the millennial reign of Christ.
Actually, the number eight symbolizes regeneration, or new beginnings.
This would correspond to "the new heavens and earth" that comes in to existence after the 1000 year reign.
If we apply the same numerical meanings to the days of "creation", you have "man" created on the sixth day, followed by a sabbath. Then you have Adam introduced afterward. (if you read it literally) It doesn't say "eighth day", but since 8 = new beginnings, and Adam was a tiller of the land, unlike the previous sixth day creation, you can surmise that Adam's creation served as "a new beginning"
cont.
"Show me which people in the genealogies of Christ do not correspond to actual real people and which do."
ReplyDelete?
They all do.
"Show me why you, as a Christian, take Jesus' words in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 in referring to the beginning of creation as something other than the beginning of creation."
Again, I don't understand what you mean.
Yes, it's referring to Gen 1:27. How does this rebut my argument?
"Why is Jesus, your Saviour, your Lord and your God Someone whom you chose to doubt if you cannot show that His words do not mean what they are saying, from Scripture, our authority in matters of dispute?"
What does his quoting two verses, as basis for proving God's opposition to divorce, have anything to do with any of this?
Why is it that when I understand something differently than one or both of you guys, I'm doubting the words of Jesus.
You both seem to be using your supposed authority on what qualifies as proper interpretation as one of your main defenses.
"As soon as you start to cherry pick Scripture and tear it apart to make it say whatever you want it to say, or to line up with worldly wisdom, instead of finding the Author's intended meaning, you run the risk of coming up with an aberrant theology and totally missing out on what God is saying. Jesus continually said, 'Let him who has an ear hear the word of God.'
How can you hear it if you deny what it says?
How can you hear it if you speculate some meaning that it does not convey?"
Again, can't you see that you are placing yourself as arbiter of truth?
I'm advocating ideas, backing them up scripturally, and you're dismissing them, based on the natural desire to reject what doesn't conform to your preconceptions.
That's fine.
But to pretend that my disagreeing with you guys' interpretations (on matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Christ or salvation) makes me some sort of apostate...is a bit off-putting, to be honest.
"More to the point was who He was talking to as His primary audience in Matthew 24 and also 2 Peter 3? What was He referring to in talking about His coming in these passages? Again I remind you to look at the context."
Better question;
Have all of those things spoken to those audience, come to pass?
Have the heavens "passed away"?
Has the "earth, and all the works that are therein" been consumed with fire?
So whether or not the people in those crowds, hearing those words in person believed they faced the end of the world, or not, the fact is, they didn't.
Those things haven't happened.
cont.
"Plus some suggest that the judgment and destruction reserved for the day of judgment are a judgment on the Jewish people and the reference to the heavens and earth reserved for fire following the motif in the OT with its many figurative uses of fire as to the passing away of the Old Covenant. It was a fiery judgment."
ReplyDeleteBut isn't that "not letting the word speak for itself"?
Lol
Seriously, how can we have just had this exchange, where I'm accused of altering the meanings of interpretation, only to transition in to one where I'm defending against altered interpretations?
around-and-around we go
:-)
"many of these things are pretty subjective"
...I recall someone saying.
'Total destruction' in 2 Peter? Was the world of that time totally destroyed? It depends what you mean, because those on the Ark were not destroyed, so something had to remain, and that would have been those in the Ark, the Ark and the waters on which the Ark rested and those same waters as from the 'beginning of creation' that the earth was formed out of. (2 Peter 2:4, 5)
ReplyDeleteBut the water in CH.3 is totally unrelated to Noah's flood.
The subject in Chapter 3 changes to the last days, and the fact that there would be scoffers saying "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things contintue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant that by the word of God, the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water, and in the water"
These people he's descibing are familiar with creation, and the traditions of the fathers.
Do you think these people, or anyone else, for that matter, would be ignorant of Noah's flood?
It seems likely to me that this is referring to the period of time recorded in Gen Ch 1, where the earth was covered by water, before the separation of the waters began in Gen 1:6.
The next verses seems to indicate that this was the result of a flood that ended the world that was, and began the heavens and earth that exist now, and are being "kept in store", until the day of judgment.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteYou may have to rescue these next three posts for me once I post them.
PART 1
ME: “"Show me which people in the genealogies of Christ do not correspond to actual real people and which do."
MrM: “They all do.”
Okay, then, show me where we are told that Adam was not the first man. Where is there ever a genealogy traced before Adam? Genealogy after genealogy we see man traced back to Adam.
“This is the written account [or generations] of ADAM’S line. When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created He called them ‘man.’ When Adam lived 130 years, he had a son….” (Genesis 5:1-3)
First, the account is of Adam’s line, or those who came from Adam, as the genealogy that unfolds reveals. Second, nowhere are we told of a line before Adam. That is something that you have to read into Scripture. Nowhere does God say that Adam was not the first human being, in fact Scripture says otherwise. It says that in various ways, such as before Adam there was not death, for “just as sin entered the world through ONE MAN, and DEATH THROUGH SIN….Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of ADAM…many died from the trespass of ONE MAN…death reigned through that ONE MAN.” (Romans 5:12)
You are telling me that human beings were dying before Adam? Where do you find that in Scripture? Death reigned FROM Adam, not before Adam. Where do you find death before Adam described in Scripture, without spinning one gigantic interpretation into Scripture? Do you not think that you add to and subtract from God’s word when you supply a meaning that the text does not give you, or infer? You read your meaning in. YOUR MEANING.
Third, the context of Genesis 5:1-3 speaks of Adam and man in the same context without any explanation of man before Adam. The context of Genesis 2 also speaks of Adam as the first man.
PART 2
ReplyDelete“…for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was NO MAN to work the ground….the LORD God formed THE MAN from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and THE MAN became a living being…Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east of Eden; and there He put THE MAN He had formed….The LORD God took THE MAN and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded THE MAN, YOU are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but YOU must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when YOU eat of it YOU will surely die….He brought them to THE MAN to see what he would name them; and whatever THE MAN called each…So THE MAN gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. But before ADAM no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused THE MAN to fall into a deep sleep…The LORD God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of THE MAN…For this reason a man will leave his father and mother…” (See Genesis 2)
So from this text we see that there was no man to look after the land before THE MAN, who in the context is identified as Adam, THE MAN, who in Romans 5:12 brings death and destruction into the world. We also see that God makes a covenant with this (THE) man (Adam) in which He says “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife’, and in which Jesus identifies as happening AT THE BEGINNING OF CREATION (Mark 10:6-8). So are you saying that Jesus does not know when the beginning of creation is, because this same instruction was given to Adam and Eve in the garden (Genesis 2:24 with Mark 10:7 and Matthew 19:5)?
ME: “"Show me why you, as a Christian, take Jesus' words in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 in referring to the beginning of creation as something other than the beginning of creation."
MrM: “Again, I don't understand what you mean.”
Very simply, Jesus attributes the command concerning marriage as having been given at the beginning of creation, and we see from Genesis 2 that it was Adam who God first gave it to, so therefore Adam was at the beginning of God’s creation – created on the sixth day. The woman was taken out of the man, and then she was the one who gave birth to offspring through the seed of the man after this.
MrM: “Yes, it's referring to Gen 1:27. How does this rebut my argument?”
See my last comment.
PART 3
ReplyDeleteMrM: “What does his quoting two verses, as basis for proving God's opposition to divorce, have anything to do with any of this?”
See my comment on PART 2 above concerning these verses.
MrM: “Why is it that when I understand something differently than one or both of you guys, I'm doubting the words of Jesus.”
Jesus tells us when the beginning was. Adam was the one who received the instruction on a man leaving his father and mother and this was at the beginning of creation. Death and decay came into existence with the sin of Adam. Before that everything that God made was very good. Very good in God’s eyes must be close to perfection – yes? Death and decay are not good. Jesus came to put an end to death and decay and restore fellowship with God. Death is the final enemy and the victory IS Jesus!
MrM: “You both seem to be using your supposed authority on what qualifies as proper interpretation as one of your main defenses.”
I thought I was pointing to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, not myself. I am not reading something into the Scripture that it does not say. Jesus said very plainly “at the beginning of creation.” You are reading in a race of human beings before Adam that Scripture does not point to.
ME: “"As soon as you start to cherry pick Scripture and tear it apart to make it say whatever you want it to say, or to line up with worldly wisdom, instead of finding the Author's intended meaning, you run the risk of coming up with an aberrant theology and totally missing out on what God is saying. Jesus continually said, 'Let him who has an ear hear the word of God.'
How can you hear it if you deny what it says?
How can you hear it if you speculate some meaning that it does not convey?"
MrM: “Again, can't you see that you are placing yourself as arbiter of truth?”
I place Jesus and the Spirit as the Arbiter of truth. God is the truth.
MrM: “I'm advocating ideas, backing them up scripturally, and you're dismissing them, based on the natural desire to reject what doesn't conform to your preconceptions.
That's fine.
But to pretend that my disagreeing with you guys' interpretations (on matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Christ or salvation) makes me some sort of apostate...is a bit off-putting, to be honest.”
But how have you backed them up with Scripture? You have read your own private interpretation into the Scripture. You take Genesis 1:27 as a breed of hunter/gathers and separate them from Adam as being created at the beginning. Where are we told of these hunter/gathers? You READ them into the Scriptures my friend. They aren’t there. Instead we are told that at the beginning He created them male and female and then He speaks to them concerning a man leaving his father and mother and being united to his wife, all in the context of the beginning and all in the context of God speaking with Adam.
Hello PH,
ReplyDeleteI'll dig in to your posts in a bit.
I did a little research today, to see if there are any others out there espousing the same theory I've been describing.
There are many.
And all the ones I've found, are nuts, in various ways.(IMO)
But, I was pleased to see that there are many who interpret those same passages in the same way I do, even though some of their interpretations wander off in to left field, a bit
"Okay, then, show me where we are told that Adam was not the first man. Where is there ever a genealogy traced before Adam? Genealogy after genealogy we see man traced back to Adam.
ReplyDelete“This is the written account [or generations] of ADAM’S line. When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created He called them ‘man.’ When Adam lived 130 years, he had a son….” (Genesis 5:1-3)
There aren't any geneologies traced before Adam.
If Adam, and his descendents are the subject, from which the rest of Biblical history would be derived, no other geneologies would be required.
"First, the account is of Adam’s line, or those who came from Adam, as the genealogy that unfolds reveals. Second, nowhere are we told of a line before Adam. That is something that you have to read into Scripture. Nowhere does God say that Adam was not the first human being, in fact Scripture says otherwise. It says that in various ways, such as before Adam there was not death, for “just as sin entered the world through ONE MAN, and DEATH THROUGH SIN….Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of ADAM…many died from the trespass of ONE MAN…death reigned through that ONE MAN.” (Romans 5:12)"
When Cain was driven away, after murdering Abel, he said this to God;
" Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me."
God replied:
"[15] And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
Why was Cain worried that someone would kill him, if no one else existed?
And where was "the land of Nod", where Cain took a wife?
Does it seem possible that Adam and Eve's other children would have already founded another "land", and called it Nod...and populated it with enough people for Cain to have chosen a wife from among them, after having slayed the only other living male descendent, from the only living human couple?
Or
Were there already people who lived in a land called Nod, where Cain took his wife?
You are telling me that human beings were dying before Adam?"
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. Maybe they were mortals, maybe they were immortal, as Adam was.
" Do you not think that you add to and subtract from God’s word when you supply a meaning that the text does not give you, or infer? You read your meaning in. YOUR MEANING."
Or
Maybe it's the right meaning, and you just aren't able to receive it
"Third, the context of Genesis 5:1-3 speaks of Adam and man in the same context without any explanation of man before Adam."
Why would it? It's a record of the geneology of Adam.
"The context of Genesis 2 also speaks of Adam as the first man."
It would be as equally accurate to say, inasmuch as "Adam" means man, that he was the "first man", in the same way that Christ is called "the last man", or Adam.
Both are true when referring to the covenants made through this family
“…for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was NO MAN to work the ground….the LORD God formed THE MAN from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and THE MAN became a living being…
ReplyDeleteThere was no man to till the ground.
Those created on the 6th day were fishers, hunters, and gatherers of fruit and herbs.
Adam was needed to till the ground.
(and likely assume the authority that innovation would bring)
The use of "the man", "eth ha adam" (this very man) implies that a distinction is drawn between "eth ha adam", (this very man) and "adam" (man)
"Very simply, Jesus attributes the command concerning marriage as having been given at the beginning of creation, and we see from Genesis 2 that it was Adam who God first gave it to, so therefore Adam was at the beginning of God’s creation – created on the sixth day. The woman was taken out of the man, and then she was the one who gave birth to offspring through the seed of the man after this."
Why would the bond of union between male/female be any different, whether Adam and Eve, or the spear-toting Grog and Gerta?
:)
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeletePART 1
ME: “"More to the point was who He was talking to as His primary audience in Matthew 24 and also 2 Peter 3? What was He referring to in talking about His coming in these passages? Again I remind you to look at the context."
MrM: “Better question;
Have all of those things spoken to those audience, come to pass?”
I don’t know about the all, but I’m certainly drawn to the opinion based on Scripture that most have.
MrM: “Have the heavens "passed away"?
Has the "earth, and all the works that are therein" been consumed with fire?”
http://www.eschatology.org/all-articles-articles-211/34-new-heaven-and-earth/347-looking-for-new-heavens-and-a-new-earth
Did you browse the last two links I supplied? This link is worth looking at since you question whether the heavens and the earth have passed away. The second half of the article where John Owens talks about time passages is very interesting, plus there are references to Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 65, two passages you have brought up.
Here is an excerpt:
“As we saw [above], Puritan theologian John Owen argued that the teaching of 2 Peter 3 about the coming "Day of the Lord" was not about the end of the physical universe, but of the Old Covenant and the nation of Israel. He points out that the term "heavens and earth" are often used in the Old Testament as a symbolic expression for God's covenantal creation, Israel (see Isa. 51:15-20; Jer. 4:23-31). Owen writes: "the heavens and earth that God himself planted - the sun, moon, and stars of the judaical polity and church - the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinacy against the Lord Christ shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed." [1]
Owen offers two further reasons ("of many that might be insisted on from the text," he says) for adopting the A.D. 70 interpretation of 2 Peter 3. First, he observes,"whatever is here mentioned was to have its particular influence on the men of that generation." [2] That is a crucial point, which must be clearly recognized in any honest assessment of the apostle's meaning. St. Peter is especially concerned that his first-century readers remember the apostolic warnings about "the last days" (vv. 2-3; cf. I Tim.4:1-6; 2 Tim. 3:1-9). During these times, the Jewish scoffers of his day, clearly familiar with the Biblical prophecies of judgment, were refusing to heed those warnings (vv. 3-5). He exhorts his readers to live holy lives in the light of this imminent judgment (vv. 11, 14); and it is these early Christians who are repeatedly mentioned as actively "looking for and hastening" the judgment (vv. 12, 13, 14). It is precisely the nearness of the approaching conflagration that St. Peter cites as a motive to diligence in godly living!”
PART 2
ReplyDeleteMrM: “So whether or not the people in those crowds, hearing those words in person believed they faced the end of the world, or not, the fact is, they didn't.
Those things haven't happened.”
I’m would not be so sure. Are you not a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17)? Has not the old gone? Are we not under a new eternal covenant? If you are a new creation, then it’s possible that the old heaven and the old earth have passed away. If the old covenant is no longer with us, likewise. Is the dwelling of God with man through the Spirit of Christ in us (Eph. 3:17; Col. 3:16)? Do we not have every spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:3)? Are our values the same as the worlds (Gal. 5:22-26)? Has the old order already past (Heb. 8:13)?
“So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the NEW HAS COME.” (2 Corinthians 5:16-17)
“May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is A NEW CREATION.” (Galatians 6:14-15)
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteME: "“…for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth, and there was NO MAN to work the ground….the LORD God formed THE MAN from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and THE MAN became a living being…"
MrM:"There was no man to till the ground.
Those created on the 6th day were fishers, hunters, and gatherers of fruit and herbs."
Oh yeah, right! (^8
You continue to morph along here MrMeaner. Now we have fishers, as well as hunters and gatherers. And what were they hunting? 'What do you feel like hunting today? Let's hunt some apples!' 'Quite, you'll scare the fruit.'
So in Genesis 1 we have, "So God created fishers, hunters and gatherers in His own image." (vs 27a)
Then you have God blessing them and saying, "I give you every seed-bearing PLANT on the face of the earth and every TREE that has FRUIT with seed in it. Oh yeah, you can eat fish too!"
So what were these fishers doing? Leisure fishing?
No, you are reading your own interpretation into Scripture, rather than taking out of Scripture what it says.
MrM: "Adam was needed to till the ground."
Yes, God gave Him the task of tending the garden. But He first created him, then He put him in the Garden.
MrM: "The use of "the man", "eth ha adam" (this very man) implies that a distinction is drawn between "eth ha adam", (this very man) and "adam" (man)"
Are you sure that you are not getting the proper name Adam mixed with the common noun 'man?' God named Him Adam, not 'the' Adam or 'this' Adam.
Plus you make the distinction between chapter 1 and 2, but there was no chapter division in antiquity and I feel there is a flow between chapter 1 and 2. Chapter 2 just goes into more detail concerning God's most mindful creation, man. Also, 'the' man signifies one man, the same man He created in His image and likeness in chapter 1. Then in chapter 5 we are also told of Adams genealogy, in which we are told in the context of Adam that he is created in the image of God.
Your argument is also weak because of the fact that chapter two continues the theme of chapter 1, only in greater detail concerning the man.
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth WHEN they were created." (Gen. 2:4)
And what follows is THE MAN, THE MAN, THE MAN, who is identified as Adam in verse 20.
So what we have in chapter 2 is a reaffirmation that when God created the heavens and the earth, and before He placed 'the man' (i.e., the one created in chapter 1) in the Garden there was no man to work the ground because he had not been created yet.
Chapter 2 reinforces chapter 1 in many ways, including the command of eating fruit and plants as food, as mentioned in verse 9.
It also sets up the one prohibition that God would punish with death. There is no mention of death in Chapter 1, were everything is pronounced very good. So you continue to see the interconnectedness between chapters 1-3. In chapter 3 we see the results of the disobedience, broken intimate fellowship and God true to His word - which results in the eventual death of Adam and man, as well as decay.
What does "dominion over fish, fowl, and every thing that moveth" mean to you?
ReplyDeleteDo you think they were using them as power tools like Fred Flinstone, or were they eating them?
"I don’t know about the all, but I’m certainly drawn to the opinion based on Scripture that most have."
ReplyDeleteWell, don't you think that all of it has to happen before it can be said to have been fulfilled?
"since you question whether the heavens and the earth have passed away."
I just walked outside.
They're still here.
"I’m would not be so sure. Are you not a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17)? Has not the old gone? Are we not under a new eternal covenant? If you are a new creation, then it’s possible that the old heaven and the old earth have passed away. "
I have new meaning, purpose, direction, a new future, and standing with God, through my relationship with Christ.
In that respect, I'm a new creature.
I'm still in the same flesh body, housing the same spirit, as I was when I entered this world.
I look forward to again being re-created upon my departure from this world, or at Christ's return, whichever comes first.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteME: "Very simply, Jesus attributes the command concerning marriage as having been given at the beginning of creation, and we see from Genesis 2 that it was Adam who God first gave it to, so therefore Adam was at the beginning of God’s creation – created on the sixth day. The woman was taken out of the man, and then she was the one who gave birth to offspring through the seed of the man after this."
MrM: "Why would the bond of union between male/female be any different, whether Adam and Eve, or the spear-toting Grog and Gerta?"
First, where do you get Grog and Greta from? Where does the Bible ever mention them? Again, you are reading into Scripture things it gives no evidence of.
MrM: "It would be as equally accurate to say, inasmuch as "Adam" means man, that he was the "first man", in the same way that Christ is called "the last man", or Adam.
Both are true when referring to the covenants made through this family."
That is true, there is the distinction between the first Adam and the Second Adam, but nowhere are we told of human beings before Adam either.
ME: "You are telling me that human beings were dying before Adam?"
MrM: "Not necessarily. Maybe they were mortals, maybe they were immortal, as Adam was."
Pure speculation, not from anything revealed in Scripture. You are reading it in.
Plainly it says that death came through Adam. It doesn't say anywhere that there were immortals on earth before Adam. It says WHEN God created in relation to Adam. (Gen. 2:4)
You are reading the rest in. Pure speculation.
God replied:
"[15] And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."
MrM: "Why was Cain worried that someone would kill him, if no one else existed?"
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had OTHER SONS AND DAUGHTERS."
We don't know how many, or how long they were of child-bearing years back then, but judging for Sarah it may well have been over 100 years of age. Even with twenty brothers and sisters reproducing there would have been many people on earth in a couple of hundred years. Look at the genealogies back them, a lot of people, big families in a short time.
MrM: "And where was "the land of Nod", where Cain took a wife?"
East of Eden.
MrM: "Does it seem possible that Adam and Eve's other children would have already founded another "land", and called it Nod...and populated it with enough people for Cain to have chosen a wife from among them, after having slayed the only other living male descendent, from the only living human couple?"
Can you give me the time line from Adam and Eve having other children until the time that Cain slaying his brother, or the time line of Cain slaying his brother until when Cain took his wife?
We are also told that Adam lay with Eve and she gave birth to Seth in place of Abel, but we don't know if or how many other children she had before this first murder.
We can only work with what Scripture gives us. If Cain had a wife then she would have had to come from his brothers and sisters or their children or grandchildren, or possibly great grandchildren.
Please can you rescue my first post of the day if this one cancels it?
"If the old covenant is no longer with us, likewise."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't call it "the old covenant".
Christ fulfilled the covenant.
The only thing in the law that was ended by christ, was the sacrificial ordinances.
The laws still stand.
To sin, is to transgress the law. (1st Jn. 3:4)
"First, where do you get Grog and Greta from? Where does the Bible ever mention them? Again, you are reading into Scripture things it gives no evidence of."
ReplyDeleteGreta was Eve's cousin from Atlantis.
LOL
It was just an example of a possible 6th day couple.
Maybe it was Bob and Linda
8)
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteMrM: "What does "dominion over fish, fowl, and every thing that moveth" mean to you?"
(^8
Control over. He said that man was to "rule over" them.
Psalm 8:8:6-8
"You made him ruler over the WORKS of Your hands; You put EVERYTHING under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the sea."
But for food we see God giving Adam plants and fruit. Nowhere are we told of him being allowed to eat fish or meat. Can you give me a verse before Genesis 9:3? "Just as I GAVE you the green plants, I NOW give you everything." (with stipulations of course)
MrM: "Do you think they were using them as power tools like Fred Flinstone, or were they eating them?"
No, neither. The animals did not have control over man; rather man had control of the animals, even though man could not eat them, he could still control them.
ME: "I’m would not be so sure. Are you not a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17)? Has not the old gone? Are we not under a new eternal covenant? If you are a new creation, then it’s possible that the old heaven and the old earth have passed away. "
MrM: "I have new meaning, purpose, direction, a new future, and standing with God, through my relationship with Christ..."
But you as a Christian are called a new creation in Christ. Do you see the possibility of that distinction being made between the Old and New Covenant too in relation to the heavens and the earth? To the Jews of that time it would have seemed like their whole world was coming to an end. I have a book that a friend picked up at a flea market, 'The Christians, Their First Two Thousand Years. The Veil is Torn. A.D. 30 to A.D. 70. Pentecost to the Destruction of Jerusalem.' Anyway, the history of that period is described from the view point of Josephus and others and I am constantly amazed at the similarities between that period and what the New Testament describes will happen, yet in the NT no mention is actually made of the actual destruction of the temple and city.
From A.D. 67 to A.D. 70 we have three Jewish faction within the city walls fighting amongst themselves, with the Roman legions outside surrounding the city and hurling stones as heavy as 160 lbs from distances of half a mile against the city.
I have a vivid description in the book of the fire that resulted in the destruction of the Temple and city plus the desecration of the Temple by the Romans when they bought the imperial standards into the court and made sacrifices to them, 'a seal of defilement on the holiest place of the Jews. Lost in the fire and the devastation was the veil of the curtain. It was gone; the Temple was gone. The old order was gone. In final flame and fury, its function had been fulfilled.' p.268.
The old order had passed away. Some would see this as the old heavens and earth had passed away. The Jewish system of worship was destroyed. They could no longer atone for their sins in the Temple. Most of the Jews in the city had been killed and the rest taken prisoner.
Hi again MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteI must make this the last post of the night. This is # 4 if any go missing.
ME: "First, where do you get Grog and Greta from?"
MrM: "Greta was Eve's cousin from Atlantis.
MrM: "It was just an example of a possible 6th day couple. Maybe it was Bob and Linda 8)
Very good MrMeaner. Excellent biblical exegetics!
ME: "If you are a new creation, then it’s possible that the old heaven and the old earth have passed away. If the old covenant is no longer with us, likewise."
MrM: "I wouldn't call it "the old covenant".
Christ fulfilled the covenant.
The only thing in the law that was ended by christ, was the sacrificial ordinances.
The laws still stand.
To sin, is to transgress the law. (1st Jn. 3:4)"
Are we under law or under grace (Rom. 3:24; 6:14; 10:4)? Is Christ not the end of the law for us (Rom. 10:4)? Was the law not put in place to lead us to Christ (Gal. 3:24-25)? Is the law not a shadow of what was to come (Heb. 10:1)? Has God not put His law in our hearts (Heb. 10:16)? For those in Christ what sacrifice do we still need for the forgiveness of sin and to fulfill the law?
"Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary...When Christ came as High Priest of the good things THAT ARE ALREADY HERE, He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, NOT PART OF THIS CREATION. [May I suggest a new heavens?] For this reason Christ is the Mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance - now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.... For Christ did not enter a man made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; He entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence...Nor did He enter heaven to offer Himself again and again...But now He has appeared once for all, AT THE END OF THE AGES to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself...and He will appear a second time...to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him." (see Hebrews 9)
May I also suggest that the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 brought an end to the old covenant spoken of in Hebrews 8:13)
There are lots of things to point out and consider here. Consider this however, that 'now He has appeared AT THE END OF THE AGES.'
End of the ages of what? The Jewish economy? Time for a new age - a new heaven and earth, perhaps?
It looks like I have run out of word space to argue my case from these verses about a new heavens and earth.
PETER,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: I have a vivid description in the book of the fire that resulted in the destruction of the Temple and city plus the desecration of the Temple by the Romans when they bought the imperial standards into the court and made sacrifices to them, 'a seal of defilement on the holiest place of the Jews. Lost in the fire and the devastation was the veil of the curtain. It was gone; the Temple was gone. The old order was gone. In final flame and fury, its function had been fulfilled.' p.268.
Are you familiar with Dr. G. K. Beale? He is considered to be one of the foremost biblical scholars of our day. He wrote a book titled "The Temple and the Mission of the Church," as well as one of the finest commentaries on the book of Revelation I have ever read.
In his book on the Temple and the Mission of the Church, he points out that the veil/curtain of the Most Holy Place was decorated with heavenly bodies and constellations--a "typology" of the created heavens of Genesis 1. He goes on to make an extraordinarily sound exegetical argument that the references to the "heavens" passing away is typologically demonstrated with the destruction of the Temple curtain--initiated at the death of Christ when the curtain was torn, and then totally destroyed in 70 A.D.
This both accords with your above quotation...AND offers a typology. MRMEANER may well wet himself over this one. :-)
Peace
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteNo, I have not read any of Dr. G. K. Beale, but the name seems vaguely familiar. I will be on the lookout for him. It sounds intriguing.
What is his position on the Book of Revelation? Does he believe it was written to the Jews before the fall of Jerusalem?
I am juggling about five books right now so it maybe a while before I get there. (Silly, I know)
What happened to Walter? He is taking an awfully long holiday.
My Christian friend at work just gave me a book titled 'Arminian Theology', by Roger Olson because he did not think Calvanistic doctrine is correct. The plan is to read through it and see if I can make a case against the argument used in the book. The author uses Clark Pinnock as one of his mentors, so I know I'm on shaky ground already. James White gave some lectures on Alpha and Omega a while back containing criticism of Pinnock.
Blessings in Christ Jesus!
Peter
Hello MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteI have a link here. Please read the whole article. It is short. It concerns not only your comment on the law, but also the passing of the old covenant and also ties in with A.D. 70.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/2009_jackson_law-of-moses.html
John Brown (1853)
" 'Heaven and earth passing,' understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe, and the period when that is to take place, is called the 'end of the world.' But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens" (vol. 1, p. 170)
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/n/new-heavens-earth.html
I'll try and complete my previous post soon.
PETER,
ReplyDeleteWhat is his (G. K. Beale) position on the Book of Revelation? Does he believe it was written to the Jews before the fall of Jerusalem?
Yes. To the Church prior to the fall of Jerusalem.
I am juggling about five books right now so it maybe a while before I get there. (Silly, I know)
I thought I was the only one who did that. :-)
What happened to Walter? He is taking an awfully long holiday.
I'm afraid he is tiring of our discussion.
Peace.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteMy reply is coming. I'm working this weekend and finding also that you have opened a can of worms in the number of avenues I can go down. I'll try to work out my response sometime next week.
Peter
Hi GoldenEagles,
ReplyDeleteI think your suggestion worked. Let me try and see.
Peterhuff Says, "I think your suggestion worked. Let me try and see."
ReplyDeleteI see your profile photo, and your name is there, and not "anonymous" so it appears that the problem is solved.
Now, understanding that you can have more faith in my problem solving ability, I pray you will take more seriously what I have posted in John 14:12 - The Teaching of Jesus Christ Regarding the Miracle Potential Within Every Man and Woman.
This will give you a more accurate perspective on the subject of the end times.
"Control over. He said that man was to "rule over" them. "
ReplyDeleteWhy would he specify an obvious fact?
Do you think that without his having made that declaration, man would be in subjection to fish, fowl, and creeping things?
"But for food we see God giving Adam plants and fruit. Nowhere are we told of him being allowed to eat fish or meat. Can you give me a verse before Genesis 9:3?"
Yes.
What was the first sacrifice offered by Abel?
Was it not from "the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof."
"But you as a Christian are called a new creation in Christ. Do you see the possibility of that distinction being made between the Old and New Covenant too in relation to the heavens and the earth?"
It would be one thing if there were just a few references that could be written off as symbolism.
But there are countless examples of very vivid physical descriptions of the literal passing away of the heavens and earth, that can in no way be considered as referring to Judah, or the temple, or Jews in general.
Two quick examples, using the same phraseology
Rev. Ch.6
[12] And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
[13] And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
[14] And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."
The objects of his wrath in that passage are the kings of the earth, great men, mighty men, every servant, and every free man.
Isaiah Ch.34
[1] Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.
[2] For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.
[3] Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
[4] And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
[5] For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.
[6] The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.
Here the object of his wrath is Esau, or more specifically, Idumea (meaning red), also called here "the people of my curse".
The "sacrifice" is said to happen in Boz'rah, which is physically in Jordan.
Or, if using the meaning, rather than the transliterated word, the "sacrifice" is said to happen in the sheepfold, or flock.
You have a sacrifice in Boz'rah (meaning sheepfold)
You have a slaughter in Idumea, (meaning red) which was the land of Esau.
You have the heavens departing, being rolled together as a scroll, and the "host of heaven", dissolved.
Here is how this day is described in vs.8
"For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion."
This clearly indicates that it is not going to be Israel that receives God's wrath, it will be Israel's enemies, described here as Idumea, (red) and Boz'rah. (sheepfold)
As for Jerusalem, and the temple's destruction, the cursed fig tree that withered, could be considered as a prophesy related to that event...Just as the appearance of leaves on it's "tender branch", signifies that "summer (harvest) is nigh".
ReplyDelete"Are we under law or under grace"
We're under grace, but we still sin.
When we break one of the Mosaic laws (not sacrificial ordinances, but laws), we have sinned.
"Was the law not put in place to lead us to Christ (Gal. 3:24-25)?"
Yes.
It also outlines the basic rules of civilization, that we should all follow to be pleasing to God.
"Is the law not a shadow of what was to come (Heb. 10:1)?
That verse is only referring to the sacrificial ordinances, which were a fore-runner to Christ's sacrifice.
They were to familiarize the Israelites with the concept of atonement for sin, which should have been recognized, along with Abraham's willingness to offer Issac, as the guarantee that the Father would provide his own sacrifice, to atone for the sins of those who will believe, and do his will.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteHope your family is well!
RANDY: "In his book on the Temple and the Mission of the Church, he points out that the veil/curtain of the Most Holy Place was decorated with heavenly bodies and constellations--a "typology" of the created heavens of Genesis 1. He goes on to make an extraordinarily sound exegetical argument that the references to the "heavens" passing away is typologically demonstrated with the destruction of the Temple curtain--initiated at the death of Christ when the curtain was torn, and then totally destroyed in 70 A.D.”
Randy, his point is well taken.
Yes, I see that in part in Exodus 26:31:
"Make a curtain of blue, purple and scarlet yarn and finely twisted linen, with CHERUBIM worked into it by a skilled craftsman.”
C.W. Slemming, Made According to Pattern, had this to say about the color scheme of the curtain:
“Blue. This is the heavenly color, and is always associated with the blue sky. It is the emblematic color of divinity and grace….
Scarlet….If we were in Palestine, ‘the land of the book,’ we should appreciate the significance of this color more because it is the color of the Palestinian earth. Turning then from blue to red, we drop our eyes from heaven to earth. Adam, the name given to man in Genesis, comes from the root word meaning ‘red earth.’ Adam, the first man, was of the earth earthy. Jesus was the second man, the Lord from heaven….Blue…Divinity…Jesus, Son of God. Scarlet…Humanity…Jesus, the Son of Man.
And now, between the two, comes a new color, blending them into each other with wonderful harmony. It is: Purple. We all know how to secure this color in paint. It is by mixing blue and red. If we take the divine and the human in Christ and blend them, what have we? A Mediator….
Cherubim [which is another story on top of this one] speak to us of protection. We see them at the gate of the Garden of Eden keeping the way of the Tree of Life, and on the mercy seat guarding, as it were, the sprinkled blood (see Hebrews 10:19-22). In the curtain they become part of the ornamentation of the ceiling of the tabernacle. The priest looking up would be reminded that God was looking down.” P.61-63
End of quote.
So MrMeaner, if you will accept this analogy from Slemming, it would very easily describe the curtain torn in two from TOP TO BOTTOM (Matt. 27:51-53, more on these verses later) as not only God opening the way for man, but also notice the symbolism if you will, opening the way to the new heavens and new earth, from the top, the heavens, to the bottom, the earth. This new heavens and new earth would be opened by the new covenant in Christ’s blood!
MrMeaner, do you see any truth in this?
PART 2
ReplyDeleteHebrews presents the great historical picture of Christ entering the Holy of Holies in heaven through His own blood, a heavenly scene that we are given a glimpse of not only in Hebrews, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Revelation, but also in Daniel 7.
“When Christ came as High Priest of the good things that ARE ALREADY HERE, He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, NOT PART OF THIS CREATION…For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised ETERNAL INHERITANCE – now that He has died to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.” (Hebrews 9:11, 15)
Did you catch that? Not part of this creation. MrMeaner, does that not seem like a new heavens and new earth to you? He is in the new heavens and has appeared before the Father for us as our Mediator, and we are on the new earth, new in His eternal covenant, for we are born again. The old has passed away, the new kept in heaven for us.
“And He made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times HAVE REACHED THEIR FULFILLMENT – to bring all things IN HEAVEN AND EARTH together under one head, even Christ. ..Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of His glory…and His incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of His mighty strength, which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and SEATED Him at His right hand in the HEAVENLY REALMS, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, NOT ONLY IN THE PRESENT AGE but also IN THE ONE TO COME.” (Eph. 1:9-10, 13b-14, 19-21)
When did times reach there fulfillment? Is Christ currently the head of all things? Is He above all rule and authority and power and dominion and title that can be given?
“But when the time had FULLY come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we may receive the FULL rights as sons.” (Gal. 4:4)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to FULFILL them.” (Matthew 5:17)
Has Christ fulfilled all righteousness for those who believe and are called according to His purpose?
“All this took place to FULFILL what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child…” Matt. 1:22)
He said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and THEN ENTER HIS GLORY?...He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was with you: EVERYTHING MUST BE FULFILLED that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:25-26, 44)
“For the Son of Man is going to come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will award each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some OF YOU WHO ARE STANDING HERE will not taste death before they SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM.’” (Matthew 16:27-28)
If some standing there that He is talking to would not taste death before seeing the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, what does that tell you about His kingdom and His glory? Hint: It came within their lifetime.
“For THIS IS THE TIME OF PUNISHMENT IN FULFILLMENT OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN.” (Luke 21:22)
From the context, the time of punishment for whom?
“I tell you the truth, THIS GENERATION will certainly not pass away UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAPPEN [see the previous verses of Matt. 24]. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:34-35)
Do you see any connection between these two verses? Let me spell it out. The words ‘pass away’ is common and I feel it connects them.
PART 3
ReplyDelete“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees….FILL UP, THEN, THE MEASURE OF THE SIN OF YOUR FOREFATHERS....and so UPON YOU WILL COME ALL the righteous blood that has been shed on earth…I tell you the truth, ALL THIS WILL COME UPON THIS GENERATION. Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem…Look, your house is left TO YOU DESOLATE.” (Matt. 23:13, 32-38)
“But if you OR YOUR SONS turn away from Me and do not observe the commands and the decrees I have given you and go off and serve other gods and worship them, the I will CUT OFF ISRAEL FROM THE LAND I have given them and WILL REJECT THIS TEMPLE I HAVE CONSECRATED FOR MY NAME. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple….that is why the LORD brought all this disaster on them.” (1 Kings 9:6-8, 9b)
“He went on to tell this parable: ‘A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time…But when the tenants saw Him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let us kill Him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they threw Him out of the vineyard and killed Him. ‘What will the the Owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. When the people heard this, they said, ‘May this never be!’ Jesus looked directly at them and asked, ‘then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone?’ Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.’ The TEACHERS of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest Him immediately, because they knew HE HAD SPOKEN THIS PARABLE AGAINST THEM.” (Luke 20:9, 14-19)
“Jesus spoke to them again in parables saying: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a King who prepared a wedding banquet for His Son. He sent his servants [the prophets] to those [the Jews] who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come (John 1:11-12)…The rest seized His servants, mistreated them and killed them. The King was enraged. He sent His army [the Romans] and destroyed those murderers and BURNED THEIR CITY [Yes, it actually happened as described in the parable].” (Matthew 22:1-2, 5-7)
Jesus left the temple…’Do you see all these things?’ He asked. ‘I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.’ As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. ‘Tell US,’ they said, ‘When will this happen, and what will be the SIGN of YOUR COMING and of THE END OF THE AGE?’….Such things will happen, but THE END is still to come…but he who stands firm TO THE END will be saved. 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. (Rom. 10:18)….the abomination that CAUSES DESOLATION,’…” (Matt. 24:1-3, 6b, 13-14, 15)
“After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler [the Romans] who will come will destroy the CITY AND THE SANCTUARY. THE END WILL COME like a flood: War will continue UNTIL THE END, AND DESOLATIONS HAVE BEEN DECREED…” (Dan. 9:26)
Notice, ‘The end will come like a flood.’ Notice that the end is identified with the destruction of the city and sanctuary. There is no more temple. What does that tell you MrMeaner?
PART 4
ReplyDelete“As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man [In judgment]. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark: and they knew nothing of the flood until it came and took them away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:37-39)
This is a time of Jacob’s or Israel’s judgment. (Luke 21:22)
“All men will hate YOU because of Me, but he who stands firm TO THE END will be saved. When YOU are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell YOU the truth, YOU will not finish going through the cities of Israel BEFORE THE SON OF MAN COMES.” (Matthew 10:22-23)
“He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Matthew 12:39-40)
First the curtain is torn in two at the death of Jesus, opening the way to God, in a sense opening up the new heavens and earth for the new creations in Christ Jesus with the New Covenant. Then at the destruction of the Temple the curtain is gone forever. The new heavens and earth are opened in the New Covenant and the Old has disappeared. It no longer remains. Please hold that thought for Hebrews 3, MrMeaner.
The Book of Hebrews is waylaid with images and typology of heavenly scenes and OT Scripture. It starts out with "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but IN THESE LAST DAYS He has spoken to us by His Son..."
‘In these last days’? What last days? How long do the last days last?
The author of this book is addressing the Hebrew Christians of that time who are thinking about turning back to their OT/Judaist ways, and in chapter 2 he says:
"WE must pay more careful attention, therefore to what WE have heard, so that WE do not drift away...how will WE escape if WE ignore such a great salvation?" (Heb. 2:1, 3)
“In putting everything under Him, God left nothing that is not subject to Him. Yet AT PRESENT we do not see everything subject to Him. But we SEE Jesus, who was made lower than the angels, NOW crowned with GLORY and HONOR because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone [rich, poor, male, female, young, old]. ” (Heb. 2:8-9)
We see Jesus receiving power and GLORY and HONOR, not just in Revelation 6:12, 13, but also in Daniel 7:13-14, almost as if the words were mirrored to fit Revelation, and also here in Hebrews, before Revelation was even written according to most, and it is all a heavenly scene. (^8
But Daniel and Revelation go further than this. He is given authority, “EVERLASTING dominion (Dan. 7:14) THAT WILL NOT PASS AWAY, and His KINGDOM is one that will never be destroyed. Jesus had made them a kingdom in Revelation 5:10. This is something that we are told of (in Jesus receiving glory and honor) as already taking place in Hebrews 2:8.
PART 5
ReplyDeleteWe are also told in King Neb’s vision of the statue (Dan. 2), that it represents four kingdoms, and at the time of the last kingdom, “In the time of those kings (the Caesars), the God of heaven will SET UP A KINGDOM that will NEVER BE DESTROYED, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.” (Dan. 2:44)
So we are given the time in which the kingdom will be set up, never to be destroyed.
Also Daniel 9, in which Jesus refers to in Matthew 24:15, we see that the seventy ‘seven’ that are decreed for His people and His holy city to FINISH transgressions, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness…”
That everlasting righteousness is in Jesus, His life, atoning death and resurrection.
Hebrews 3:1: “Therefore, holy brothers, who share in THE HEAVENLY CALLING…”
Hebrews 3:7-4:11: “So the Holy Spirit says: ‘Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion., during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried Me and for FORTY YEARS saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known My ways (the opposite could be said of Jesus where He was tested for forty days in the wilderness and was tempted by the devil, but in reply He knew God’s ways, that life is more than food for the body, that God will provide but He must obey God over His bodies in obtaining salvation for His people, that obedience to God was at the heart of everything He did, that the greatest in the kingdom is the most selfless). So I declare an oath in My anger, ‘They shall never enter My rest.’ See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. [As many were considering doing, so the author is warning them]…. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly to the END the confidence we had at the first….”
That generation, for the most part were unbelieving, for they crucified the Lord of glory and would not repent. For FORTY YEARS the warning to repent to ‘this generation shall not pass’ before all these judgments shall come upon them, and still many did not heed the words of Jesus.
During the time of Moses, the whole generation did not enter His rest in the Promised Land. One generation or forty years later they entered. Now, as then, most of another generation would not enter into the new land, the new heavens and the new earth in the New Covenant.
MrMeaner, please can you rescue part 3?
ReplyDeletePART 6
ReplyDelete“For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that One died for all, and therefore all died. [You are dead in Christ and what can a dead man do?] And He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died for them and was raised again. So from NOW ON we regard NO ONE FROM A WORLDLY POINT OF VIEW. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we DO SO NO LONGER. THEREFORE, if anyone is in Christ, HE IS A NEW CREATION; the OLD has GONE, the NEW HAS COME.” (2 Corinthians 5:14-17)
“All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were looking for a better country – A HEAVENLY ONE. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.” (Hebrews 11:12-14; also John 14:2)
“But you HAVE COME to Mount Zion, to a HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, the city of the living God. You HAVE COME to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See to it that you do not refuse Him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refuse Him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from Him who warns us from heaven? At that time His voice shook the earth, but now He has promised, ‘ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH BUT ALSO THE HEAVENS.’ [referring to Haggai 2:5-7, a must to read] The words ‘once more’ indicates the removal of what can be shaken – that is created things – so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we ARE RECEIVING A KINGDOM that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 22-29)
Notice the wording, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but the heavens also.’ Now read Matthew 27:51-53.
“At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth SHOOK and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”
So if you will, we have the earth shaking. But I think Hebrews 12:27 is figurative language. It can symbolize the shaking off of the old authority and the bring in of the new. Notice in Hebrews 12:28 we ARE receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, which means that the old heavens and earth can, but not those under the authority of the eternal King! The kingdom of heaven, the heavenly Jerusalem cannot be shaken. And, if you will, Jesus has already received His kingdom, as per Daniel 7 and Revelation 5.
So MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteI think you should take some of these verses I have laid out and refute them as to the meaning given in the context of the passage itself.
For instance, in the context of Matthew 24 who is Jesus addressing and in reference to what?
More on the end of the age later (1 Corinthians 2:6-8).
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteME: "Control over. He said that man was to "rule over" them. "
MrMEANER: “Why would he specify an obvious fact?
Do you think that without his having made that declaration, man would be in subjection to fish, fowl, and creeping things?”
Why? Because God as Creator has the right and authority to determine and assign the functions and roles of His creatures.
ME: "But for food we see God giving Adam plants and fruit. Nowhere are we told of him being allowed to eat fish or meat. Can you give me a verse before Genesis 9:3?"
MrMEANER: “Yes.
What was the first sacrifice offered by Abel?
Was it not from "the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof."
Where are we told of Abel eating meat from this sacrifice? You are reading into the text something that it does not say, AGAIN.
ME: "But you as a Christian are called a new creation in Christ. Do you see the possibility of that distinction being made between the Old and New Covenant too in relation to the heavens and the earth?"
MrMEANER: “It would be one thing if there were just a few references that could be written off as symbolism.
But there are countless examples of very vivid physical descriptions of the literal passing away of the heavens and earth, that can in no way be considered as referring to Judah, or the temple, or Jews in general.”
Do you really think the whole passage and context is literal in speaking of the new heavens and earth? Have you considered that Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 6:13 could be speaking of the end of the old covenant world of Israel that could never bring eternal life and righteousness and in its place the new heavens and earth, the beginning of the New Covenant Israel – the Church – the new covenant world.
Hebrews, of which I’m waiting for your reply to my six posts, is a contrast between the old covenant and the new, between the old way and the better way. And in better, we are shown how Christ is better in every way. Throughout the New Testament gospels and epistles we see the time passages signify that what is old and obsolete will soon come to pass. We are constantly told of the ‘end of the age,’ ‘the last days,’ of what will shortly take place, of His coming, and coming soon and coming quickly, like a thief in the night, so be ready, for that generation. We are told in various passages, such as Matthew 24:29 and Hebrews 12:27 of the removal of things that can be shaken, so that things that cannot will remain – the eternal kingdom. And Hebrews is a constant warning for the Jews of that time to ‘pay more careful attention…to what they have heard’ so that they to do not miss entering His rest, just like the Israelite generation missed entering their rest in the Promise Land when they disobeyed the Lord and that generation – 40 years (Hebrews 3:17) - never entered, just like the current generation was in danger of doing (Matthew 24:34), in wanting to turn back to Judaism (Hebrews 6:1-6). That generation, that covenant, that age, that old heavens and earth were about to pass away. Old physical Jerusalem with its temple and insufficient sacrificial system was about to be shaken and removed in that generation. The New Jerusalem, Christianity, the spiritual kingdom that could not be shaken or removed would remain, just as promised in Daniel 2:44-45. The fourth kingdom is, logically, the Holy Roman Empire. You know that MrMeaner, right? In the meantime, the period between the Lord’s crucifixion (His being ‘cut off’), His resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 the two covenants existed together, but the one was soon to disappear forever. There would be no more sacrificial system to atone for sins because the Lord’s sacrifice was sufficient for those He came to save, His people, forever (Hebrews 7:24-27; 10:14).
"Where are we told of Abel eating meat from this sacrifice? You are reading into the text something that it does not say, AGAIN."
ReplyDeleteYou've got to be kidding me.
So you think that Abel raised and kept flocks just for kicks, giggles, and the occasional sacrifice? (that no one would be allowed to eat)
Come on.
Can you find just one instance in the Bible where an animal sacrifice wasn't eaten?
I'll begin replying to your six posts tonight.
ME: "Where are we told of Abel eating meat from this sacrifice? You are reading into the text something that it does not say, AGAIN."
ReplyDeleteMrMEANER: "You've got to be kidding me.
So you think that Abel raised and kept flocks just for kicks, giggles, and the occasional sacrifice? (that no one would be allowed to eat)
Come on."
Considering that the sacrifice is a shadow of what was to come in what Christ accomplished on the cross the offering that Abel offered is a sweet savory,voluntary offering, a free-will offering, just as Christ's was in offering Himself without spot to God.
Since God is a God of order, He started out by giving a direct commandment on what was permissible to eat - plants, fruit. Only after the Flood do we see this distinction changing.
If the sacrifice Abel offerer was similar to the Levitical burnt offering then the whole meat portion would have been burnt up anyhow, and that seems quite likely.
Since Adam and Eve were also given dominion over the animals and plants they were design to be caretakers. So with death and decay and no command to eat yet I would think that Abel was just care-taking the animals. The animals coats and wool could be to use for clothing and other uses.
MrMEANER: "Can you find just one instance in the Bible where an animal sacrifice wasn't eaten?"
Sure, the burnt offering was offered in its entirety to God, signifying offering our all to God. No part was kept for eating for the Levitical priesthood, which incidentally came much later, so you are getting ahead of yourself already MrManer.
A sacrifice was costly for the person presenting it to the priest, and from it he received no meat. The meat portion was reserved for the priests and their families, but in the Burnt Offering in which the whole portion was burnt up.
So again you can produce no commands by God, up until this point in Scripture that says that man was permitted to eat meat. In fact, up to this point the only command is for eating plants and fruit. Therefore it is utter speculation on your point.
"If the sacrifice Abel offerer was similar to the Levitical burnt offering then the whole meat portion would have been burnt up anyhow, and that seems quite likely."
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't a burnt offering. If it had been a burnt offering, the word "minchah", would not have been used.
In every instance where this word is used for "offering", it refers to the minchah, or the daily meat offering. In every instance, without exceptiuon, a portion of it was to be eaten.
"Since Adam and Eve were also given dominion over the animals and plants they were design to be caretakers. So with death and decay and no command to eat yet I would think that Abel was just care-taking the animals. The animals coats and wool could be to use for clothing and other uses"
Aside from the fact that the firstling of Abel's flock (and the fat thereof) was a meat offering, that is partially consumed in every instance the word is used, there's another problem with your interpretation.
When Noah had completed the task of loading the animals two by two on the ark, he was told to take seven males and females of every "clean beast", which included clean fowl.
How would Noah know which beasts were "clean", (suitable for consumption) if he had never eaten any of them. Why would there be "clean beasts" if no one was allowed to eat them?
This is my second attempt at a post.
ReplyDeleteHelpful advice;
Be absolutely certain that you are connected to the internet before you post....or you will lose your work forever.
It's happened to me three times, and yet I seem to still be unwilling to at least copy what I've done before posting, so I can just re-paste it, after logging back on.
Maybe I'll learn this time.
"MrMeaner, do you see any truth in this?"
The tearing of the veil symbolized the fact that Christ's blood gives us access to the throne.
We don't need a priest to intercede on our behalf. With Christ's atoning blood, believers have direct access to the Father, as clean vessels.
It has absolutely nothing to do with a new heaven and earth.
Anyone can claim that, at some point, "the heavens passed away".
It can't be provern either way.
But what can be proven, is none of these things have happened.
2nd Peter ch 3
"the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works therein shall be burned up".
Isaiah Ch.66
For behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind..."
(Those chariots are described in 2nd Kings 6:16-17)
"For by fire and by his sword will the LORD pronounce judgment on all flesh"
"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, so shall your seed and your name remain"
(kind of puts a damper on the whole replacement theory, doesn't it?)
"And it shall come to pass, that from one moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD"
That isn't happening, nor has it happened at any time in the past
"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched"
That definitely hasn't happened.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteWe are bringing more baggage/trimmings into this discussion.
ME: "Since Adam and Eve were also given dominion over the animals and plants they were designed to be caretakers. So with death and decay and no command to eat [meat] yet I would think that Abel was just care-taking the animals. The animal coats and wool could be used for clothing and other uses"
MrMEANER: "Aside from the fact that the firstling of Abel's flock (and the fat thereof) was a meat offering, that is partially consumed in every instance the word is used, there's another problem with your interpretation."
Certainly in the Levitical priesthood, but we are way before this. God was very specific in laying down the Levitical laws for they were a pattern of what was to come. But I see a specific instruction in Genesis 1:29 concerning food. I don't see another concerning food until Genesis 9:3, in which meat is now permissible. Why would God specify this command in Genesis 9 if they had been eating meat all along?
"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I GAVE YOU [signifying no new command up until this point at least] THE GREEN PLANTS, I NOW [repeat 'I NOW'] GIVE YOU EVERYTHING. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. (Gen. 9:3-4)
Considering that the Levitical sacrificial system had not been put into place yet I would wonder how we would know what kind of a offering it was, since there were five, but the burnt offering would, in my mind, come closest in what each represented. According to C.W. Slemming, Thou Shalt Thou Serve, the burnt offering was symbolic of a consecration of oneself, representative of Christ our Passover Lamb.
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to OFFER YOUR BODIES AS LIVING SACRIFICES, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship." (Romans 12:1)
The burnt offering was symbolic of Christ offering Himself completely to God, just as we as Christians are reminded to do, because offering our bodies to God is holy and PLEASING in His sight.
Therefore the burnt offering would come closest in my mind - a complete sacrifice to God. The fat portion of any sacrifice was considered the choice portion and reserved for God. But a burnt offering would offer every part of the inner animal to God, including the fat portion which was His anyway.
The peace offering was the only offering in which the offerer got a portion of the share. But these offerings had not been established yet. They came with the Levitical priesthood. The peace offering shadowed Christ our peace before God. It was secured through His death; peace through His blood.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteThis will be my last post of the night, but I must say I like where the next post is going concerning the new heavens and the new earth, and I still don't see you as having a leg to stand on, but that will have to wait a few days.
You said "When Noah had completed the task of loading the animals two by two on the ark, he was told to take seven males and females of every "clean beast", which included clean fowl."
MrM: "How would Noah know which beasts were "clean", (suitable for consumption) if he had never eaten any of them. Why would there be "clean beasts" if no one was allowed to eat them?"
God told him. Genesis 7:2-3. I'm sure He would have explained what constituted clean and what was constituted unclean.
Notice that Noah's sacrifice too was a burnt offering, which is fitting in a number of ways, least of which is that man, up until this point, had not been given permission to eat meat - therefore the whole inner animal sacrifice was consumed by fire. (Gen. 8:20)
"But I see a specific instruction in Genesis 1:29 concerning food. I don't see another concerning food until Genesis 9:3, in which meat is now permissible. Why would God specify this command in Genesis 9 if they had been eating meat all along?"
ReplyDeleteYou refuse to recognize that "dominion over", which consists of keeping "flocks", from which Cain and Abel offered a minchah offering, which is always partially eaten, without exception anywhere in the Bible...includes eating of the minchah.
If it were any other kind of offering, other than a minchah offering, a Hebrew word exists to either specify it as a particular offering, or as a voluntary offering.
1) terumah--meaning a present or gift (whether in sacrifice, or tribute to an authority)
2) tenuwphah--a wave offering, or peace offering...you could almost start a new topic off that one.
neither of those words are used in Gen 4. It is specifically "minchah"
I've already explained that the Gen. 9 reference wasn't permission to eat flesh, it was a continuing affirmation of the previous provision of fowl, fish, living things, herbs, fruit, (and with the creation of Adam, the produce from the tilling of the land)... with the more important commandment to not eat flesh that hasn't been prepared as to remove the blood...which is called there, for the first time, "the life thereof"
(THAT was the new commandment)
I gave as examples references to 1) Lev 17:10-14:
[10] And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
[11] For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
[12] Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
[13] And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
[14] For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
and 2) Deut 12:23
[20] When the LORD thy God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.
[21] If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.
[22] Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.
[23] Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.
[24] Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water.
[25] Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.
"Did you catch that? Not part of this creation. MrMeaner, does that not seem like a new heavens and new earth to you?"
ReplyDeleteNo. It's referring to a tabernacle that isn't part of this creation.
I think that's fairly obvious.
The self-same tabernacle is described here:
Rev 21:1-4
[1] And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
[2] And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
[3] And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
[4] And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
New Jerusalem hasn't descended from heaven. The tabernacle of God isn't currently with men. We know this because there aren't any "saved nations walking in the light" of Jerusalem. There are no kings of the earth currently bringing glory and honor to the new city.
There aren't any gates left open, as there aren't any gates to open. Night still falls on Jerusalem, as the glory of the Father and Christ aren't present to provide light.
There is still death, sorrow, crying, and pain, therefore "the former things" have not passed away.
“And He made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times HAVE REACHED THEIR FULFILLMENT – to bring all things IN HEAVEN AND EARTH together under one head, even Christ."
ReplyDeleteWhich is proof that time has not reached it's fulfillment. Are all things in heaven and earth under Christ's rule?
Before you answer that, let me remind you that in 2nd Cor.4:4, we're told that "the god of this world (age) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not"
How can Satan be the "god of this world", if Christ is currently excercising the fulness of his authority, as ruler of all in heaven and earth?
"When did times reach there fulfillment?"
Inasmuch as "all things in Christ", "which are in heaven, and which are on earth", have yet to be "gathered together in one"....times have obviously not reached their fulfillment. Have you received your inheritance, yet?
"Is Christ currently the head of all things?"
yes
"Is He above all rule and authority and power and dominion and title that can be given?"
yes. But having authority, and using it, are two different things.
Currently, "the god of this world", "the prince of the power of the air", "the prince of this world" is allowed to create havoc.
In fact, it is the actions of "the god of this world", that bring about the great apostasy, which will be overturned by Christ's literal presence, which begins HIS rule...by written authority (de jure) and in actual practice on earth (de facto)
"Has Christ fulfilled all righteousness for those who believe and are called according to His purpose?"
ReplyDeleteHe has done his part. He secured the victory. But some are still "called, according to his purpose", which implies that there's more to do.
I would also state that Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets in the same sense that Matthew 24 was fulfilled.
That goes back to the discussion on the word "fulfilled", and the fact that in Matt 24:34, Matt 5:18, and Luke 21:32, the word fulfilled simply means "came to be", as opposed to every other time "fulfilled" is used in the Bible, where it means filled, or completed....as is the case with your next example
“All this took place to FULFILL what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child…” Matt. 1:22"
"He said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and THEN ENTER HIS GLORY?"
1) All that was written concerning Christ's sacrifice, and the victory it secured, and his entering his glory, (meaning honor and dignity) has been fulfilled
...He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was with you: EVERYTHING MUST BE FULFILLED that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” (Luke 24:25-26, 44)
Once again, everything related to his first advent was fulfilled.
Christ himself taught that lesson when he read from the scroll of Isaiah (Ch 61)
He read 61:1, and the first verse of 61:2, then closed the book, and said; "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."
He didn't read the rest of the verse, because it addressed "the day of vengeance of our God", to reward those who have suffered for Zion.
Christ's first advent was to bring salvation. His return will be for punishing enemies, and rewarding the faithful.
Isaiah Ch.11
[10] "And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious."
(1st advent)
[11] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
[12] And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
(second advent)
Almost all OT prophecies dealing with Christ have unfulfilled portions related to his second advent, and the day of judgment
There are more examples in Is.11
“For the Son of Man is going to come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will award each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some OF YOU WHO ARE STANDING HERE will not taste death before they SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM.’” (Matthew 16:27-28)
ReplyDeleteIf some standing there that He is talking to would not taste death before seeing the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, what does that tell you about His kingdom and His glory? Hint: It came within their lifetime.
We've discussed this, already.
Either "taste of death" means something other than what you believe...or, that those people , and by extension, everyone else, would have to be literally "born again", when those things he described come to pass. Again, I'll leave that decision to you.
As we've discussed, there is no way to interpret most of those things as having happened, without taking extreme liberties in defining a figurative interpretation, that stands in complete opposition to every prophecy relating to Israel, Jerusalem, and the global extent of his future wrath, as it's written.
“For THIS IS THE TIME OF PUNISHMENT IN FULFILLMENT OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN.” (Luke 21:22)
"From the context, the time of punishment for whom?"
The punishment of ALL NATIONS.
I hate to tell you, but those armies encompassing Jerusalem are not Roman armies.
They are the armies of all nations, gathered to battle against Israel.
(i honestly find it hard to believe that anyone doesn't notice that this very thing is beginning to happen before our eyes today)
Zech 14
[2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Don't you find it interesting that currently, the "global effort" is to divide Jerusalem, and make half of it the Capitol of an Islamic Palestine?
[3] Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
If this is referring to Rome, what nations was the LORD fighting against, through the Romans?
[4] And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
[5] And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
[6] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
[7] But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
And now we're back to the tabernacle not built with hands, that consist of the Father and the Lamb, who are the light of the new Jerusalem to come, mentioned in Rev. Ch. 21
“I tell you the truth, THIS GENERATION will certainly not pass away UNTIL ALL THESE THINGS HAPPEN [see the previous verses of Matt. 24]. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.” (Matthew 24:34-35)
ReplyDelete"Do you see any connection between these two verses? Let me spell it out. The words ‘pass away’ is common and I feel it connects them."
That's true. It does connect them, as they speak of the same destruction that accompanies his return.
I've already mentioned that the word translated "fulfilled" in Matt 24:34 simply means "came to be", not "completed"
Let's approach this from another angle, using Matt 24.
If the signs Jesus spoke of were referring to the destruction of the temple, to what on earth could the following verses pertain?
40] Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[41] Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
[42] Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Did the scenario surrounding the destruction of the temple, provide any circumsatnces that would make those verses have any meaning whatsoever?
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees….FILL UP, THEN, THE MEASURE OF THE SIN OF YOUR FOREFATHERS....and so UPON YOU WILL COME ALL the righteous blood that has been shed on earth…I tell you the truth, ALL THIS WILL COME UPON THIS GENERATION. Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem…Look, your house is left TO YOU DESOLATE.” (Matt. 23:13, 32-38)
And in the midst of that charge, he cites two examples of murders done as the direct result of the actions by Cain, and a the house of Rechab the Kenite, respectively.
When you add in the fact that I've already documented that Kenites were the scribes for Judah, going back to 1st Chronicles 2:55, how sure are you that he's referring to "Jews"?
How sure are you that those who were called Jews, living in the land of Judea some 600 years after Judah was taken captive by Babylon, were actual desendents of Judah?
A reading of the book of Ezra will verify that many of those who returned to Judea after the captivity were not descendents of Israel.
Many were simply called "Nethinim", meaning "those given" (to service)...most likely former conquered peoples (my guess would be Kenites)who were absorbed by Judah.
In fact, when Ezra gathered together the people and the priests to travel, he found that there wasn't ONE SINGLE Levite among them.
How can you know who the leaders of the scribes and Pharisees were, 500 years after it was documented that at one point, there wasn't a single legitimate priest among Israel?
“But if you OR YOUR SONS turn away from Me and do not observe the commands and the decrees I have given you and go off and serve other gods and worship them, the I will CUT OFF ISRAEL FROM THE LAND I have given them and WILL REJECT THIS TEMPLE I HAVE CONSECRATED FOR MY NAME. Israel will then become a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple….that is why the LORD brought all this disaster on them.” (1 Kings 9:6-8, 9b)
ReplyDeleteAnd it happened, as promised.
A more in-depth reading of the same promises is found in Deut Chapters 28-30
Chapter 28:1-13 outlines the blessings he would (and will again) bestow on Israel for doing his will.
28:14-68 outlines the curses that would (and will again) befall Israel, for turning their back on him. It's basically an undoing of their blessings, and allowing them to sell themselves into bondage...even to the stranger who live among them.
Deut 28:37 "And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word among all the nations where the LORD shall lead thee. (compare to your 1st Kngs reference.
But then, in Ch.30 Israel is told:
[1] And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
[2] And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
[3] That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
[4] If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
[5] And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
[6] And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
[7] And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.
[8] And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.
[9] And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:
[10] If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
[11] For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
[12] It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
[13] Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
[14] But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
[15] See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
cont.
It's the exact same story as is recorded in Hosea
ReplyDeleteHosea is told to marry a Harlot (symbolizing Israel)
The first son she bore was called Jez're-el (God will scatter)
The first daughter was called Lo-ru-ha'mah (No mercy)
THe last son was called Lo-Am'mi (Not my people) which was followed by God telling Israel "for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God"
But, then were told that despite that curse:
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel."...Hosea Ch.1
"After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler [the Romans] who will come will destroy the CITY AND THE SANCTUARY. THE END WILL COME like a flood: War will continue UNTIL THE END, AND DESOLATIONS HAVE BEEN DECREED…” (Dan. 9:26)"
ReplyDeleteBut what does the verse before that say?
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
If Messiah was cut off after 62 weeks...that still leaves seven more weeks unto Messiah the "Prince". (meaning commander)
I think we've just proven the validity of the gap theory.
Messiah was indeed "cut off" after 62 weeks.
We still have to make it to week 69 before Messiah returns to rule.
That leaves a pretty big gap between 62, and a re-commencement leading up to 69, doesn't it?
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteLots of trials this week.
My wife lite the barbecue with her oxygen on and created an explosion in which she burnt the inside of her nose. That is just the tip of the ice-berg.
I'll mull your posts over for a few days and get back to you.
What's going on?
ReplyDeleteBlogger was down yestreday, and now Peter Huff's last post is gone.
It wasn't removed. It's as if it never happened.
Strange
Anyway, I hope things are going well for you and your family, PH.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteHere are a few questions for you, MrMeaner, relating to 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation and Matthew 24.
1) Who are the prophets spoken of in 2 Peter? Are the OT or NT prophets?
2) Is the Old Covenant still in place today?
3) Who is Peter addressing in 2 Peter?
4) When did Christ bring salvation, or are we still waiting for it?
"Who are the prophets spoken of in 2 Peter? Are the OT or NT prophets?"
ReplyDeleteIt depends on which ones you mean.
He speaks of false prophets among the Israelites, during the OT times. He compares them to future "false teachers" who would bring in "heresies". There are no NT prophets. John the Baptist was the last.
"Is the Old Covenant still in place today?"
The covenant has been changed on our end, not God's.
Our part of the contract has been altered through Christ's sacrifice.
We can atone for our sins through repentance, rather than observing sacrificial ordinances.
The promises haven't changed.
Jacob will still receive his inheritance, as promised.
"Who is Peter addressing in 2 Peter?"
Those who are "called" (1:3)
"When did Christ bring salvation, or are we still waiting for it?"
He hasn't "brought salvation", nor will he ever.
It's his victory. He overcame this world, and doing so, he was given power over all flesh, so he could give eternal life to "as many as (God) hast given him"(John 17:1-3, 7-12)
His victory made him "worthy to loosen the seven seals thereof" (Rev.5:5)
The salvation of those alive to witness the effects of the opening of the seals, (and vials, trumpets) depends on whether or not they have "the seal of God in their foreheads"
seal- a signet. From a Greek root meaning to fence in. Figuratively, it can be use to denote understanding, or cognitive faculties
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteYou have some dandy comments in your last post. I look forward to exploring some of them during the week before continuing with your other replies.
I would make one clarification;
ReplyDeleteI thought it demeaning to refer to Jesus as a prophet, though he certainly prophesied.
and
I guess technically, you would have to call John the revelator a prophet, though he was never allowed to personally spread the message.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteME: "Who are the prophets spoken of in 2 Peter? Are they OT or NT prophets?"
MrMEANER: "It depends on which ones you mean.
Well, can you show me any verses in 2 Peter that refers to anything other than OT prophets, because Peter is reminding the reader of what the prophets had earlier written and of his previous letter? (Ch. 1:13, 15, 19; 3:1-2 with 1 Peter 1:10-12)
MrMEANER: "He speaks of false prophets among the Israelites, during the OT times. He compares them to future "false teachers" who would bring in "heresies". There are no NT prophets. John the Baptist was the last."
No NT prophets.
Don K. Preston, The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat, A Study Of 2 Peter 3, identifies of the 88 times the word prophet is used in the NT, 17 times it applies to NT prophets.
That is why the context is important in 2 Peter in determining whether it is OT or NT prophet. I'll come back to this discussion later since time is short this week.
In the mean time, here are some examples in the NT that point to NT/New Covenant prophets. If you would like to debate these then please feel free.
"For false Christ's and false PROPHETS WILL appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible. See, I have told you AHEAD of time."
(Matthew 24:24-25)
"In the church at Antioch there were PROPHETS and teachers: Barnabas, Simeom called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen...and Saul." (Acts 13:1)
"Judas and Silas, who themselves were PROPHETS, said much to encourage and strengthen the brothers." (Acts 15:32)
"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second PROPHETS, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healings,..." (1 Corinthians 12:27-28)
"Two or three PROPHETS should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said." (1 Corinthians 14:29)
"In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in OTHER GENERATIONS as it Now has been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and PROPHETS." (Ephesians 3:4-5)
Believe me, there are many more passages I could appeal to. So I wait to see how you read 'no NT prophets' into these verses.
I guess you could call anyone who makes true predictions a prophet.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm unaware of any recorded NT prophetic scripture, outside of Christ's teachings, the Book of Revelation, and the predictions made by those taught by Christ.
As for false prophets, they will always be in abundance.
We just had some guy predict the end of the world this week, or was it last week?
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteOkay, I just wanted to establish that you recognized that Peter was talking about the OT prophets.
"Now friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the commandment given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. (2 Peter 3:1-2)
Another two questions.
Who is Peter addressing and what is the first letter he is referring to?
MRMEANER,
ReplyDelete"I thought it demeaning to refer to Jesus as a prophet, though he certainly prophesied."
De 18:15 ¶ The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
Ac 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Ac 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Ac 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
Ac 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
Lu 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
"Who is Peter addressing and what is the first letter he is referring to?"
ReplyDeleteMy guess would be the same folks who received the first epistle.
They're identified as
1) Elect
2) strangers (better translated as resident foreigners) of nations where dispersed Israelites were living among the Gentiles.
We can know for certain that he was writing to Israelites for two reasons.
1) He says as much when he instructs them to "have their conversation honest among the Gentiles; that whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation". (I Pet 2:12)
If he's instructing them how to behave among "Gentiles", obviously they themselves aren't gentiles.
2) If Peter is writing this letter to anyone other than Israelites, he is disobeying a direct order from Christ, given in Matt Ch. 10
[1] And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
[2] Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteI'm off this weekend so I will catch up then. Just a few thoughts.
2 Peter 3:1 talks of Peter's 'second letter' to them ['you']. He says he has written BOTH of them as a reminder to stimulate them to wholesome thinking. He wants them ['you'] to recall the words spoken 'in the past' by the holy PROPHETS and also the command given by the Savior. Then Peter goes into the statement about scoffers in the last days. Here is what he says,
"First of all, YOU must understand that in THE LAST DAYS scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "where is this 'coming' He promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 2 Peter 3:3-4
So the people, who you, I think, quite correctly identify as Israel or the Jews are the 'you' Peter is addressing directly, and of course us indirectly in instruction and teachings as a secondary audience.
Don K. Preston, in his study of 2 Peter 3 says that the term 'the prophets' is important in a proper exegesis of 2 Peter 3 because they allude to the prophets of Israel. More on this later.
And a strong case can be made that the first letter is 1 Peter, since the second, 2 Peter is the one he is currently addressing to them concerning the last times and the Lord's coming, and he is asking them to recall from it. Would you agree? If so then our next task is to determine the time frame that will eventually lead us into a discussion of the disappearing of the heavens and earth being laid bare and what it means.
I also see your point about Matthew 10. They were to go first to the house of Israel. And what did Jesus say to them?
"When YOU are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell YOU the truth, YOU will not finish going through the cities of Israel BEFORE THE SON OF MAN COMES." (Matthew 10:23)
Plainly the text is speaking about the disciples, specifically the twelve (Matthew 10:1; 11:1), who are the front and back covers and sandwiched in between are His instructions and warnings to them and those they come in contact with.
It is hard to avoid without extreme mental gymnastics that Jesus' second coming is in that generation.
So many of the epistles, so many letters are addressed to a specific church/group/people, such as 'the elect', the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Collosse, to Timothy, or to the church of the Thessalonians. Why do we keep reading a generic 'you' into the text instead of paying more attention to the specific 'you' the author is addressing? Here's a hint; because if we do then the time passages speak to events that are going to happen within the lifetime of the readers the authors are addressing. Since we have been weened on Scofield and Darby and the Dispensational view any other view is totally ignored. Nobody can hear the trees for the forest.
I actually cringe when I hear Christ referred to as merely a prophet.
ReplyDeleteI think that fact is a given.
Even the nut-jobs in the ME who are trying to kill us believe he was a prophet.
I would just prefer to show a bit more reverence when designating a title to Christ, that's all
"It is hard to avoid without extreme mental gymnastics that Jesus' second coming is in that generation."
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus has already returned, and his wrath has been poured out upon all nations, it was such a weak effort, that no one even noticed his failed attempt.
None of the things that were promised have been delivered, most notably, Christ's actual presence.
None of the nations that are prophesied to come against Israel had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with Rome.
"So many of the epistles, so many letters are addressed to a specific church/group/people, such as 'the elect', the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Collosse, to Timothy, or to the church of the Thessalonians. Why do we keep reading a generic 'you' into the text instead of paying more attention to the specific 'you' the author is addressing?"
The elect are the specific "you" being addressed by Peter, in this case.
Being elect isn't the same thing as being a memeber of a church somewhere.
It means that you were foreknown, predestined, prejudged, and glorified by God, and given charge to act according to his purpose.
I noticed something strange, while researching the preterist position on Daniel 9:27.
How on earth can the "he" in "he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" be interpreted as referring to Messiah, rather than the (small p) prince?
How could he "confirm the covenant", after having just been "cut off", in the verse prior?
Interpreting it that way makes Christ the desolator.
Why would Christ refer to his own acts as being "the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet?"
"When YOU are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell YOU the truth, YOU will not finish going through the cities of Israel BEFORE THE SON OF MAN COMES." (Matthew 10:23)
ReplyDelete"Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him....
"For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."
If we use the same standard that you insist must be applied to "you", as meaning those self-same people receiving the message, then don't we have to assume that Christ only came to offer eternal life to those who specifically, received his words in person, during that time?
Hi Randy Cofield,
ReplyDeleteHow did your daughter's wedding go?
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteMrMEANER: "If we use the same standard that you insist must be applied to "you", as meaning those self-same people receiving the message, then don't we have to assume that Christ only came to offer eternal life to those who specifically, received his words in person, during that time?"
No.
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also FOR THOSE WHO WILL BELIEVE IN ME THROUGH THEIR MESSAGE, that ALL OF THEM may be one, Father, just as you are in Me and I am in You. May they also be in Us so that the world may believe that you have sent Me." (John 17:20-21)
"He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. He came to His OWN, but His own did not receive Him. Yet TO ALL WHO RECEIVE HIM, to those who believe in His name, He gave the right to become CHILDREN OF GOD - children born not of natural decision or a husband's will, but born of God." (John 1:10-12)
"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God FOR THE SALVATION OF EVERYONE [repeat - EVERYONE] who believes: FIRST FOR THE JEW, then for the Gentile." (Romans 1:16)
"Sovereign Lord, as You have promised, You now dismiss Your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation TO THE GENTILES and for the glory of Your people Israel." (Luke 2:29-32)
Shall I go on? Jesus came first to His own, the house of Israel, and for the most part they rejected Him. Paul became the apostle to the Gentiles and the gospel spread through the known world of that time, as it has today. I'm pulling strongly towards believing that we are living in the kingdom age (Daniel 2:44). Do you know of more than two ages in which the Bible speaks?
The Jewish age, or world if you like, of temple worship and their nationhood came to an end in A.D. 70 by the very kingdom, the fourth, that Scripture said it would. The spiritual Jerusalem is referred to many, many times in the NT.
Notice what Ephesians 1:21 says, just after it discloses that our Hight Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, is seated at the right hand of the Father in the HEAVENLY REALMS,
"far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title, not only in THE PRESENT AGE but also in the ONE to come."
What is more,
"God placed all things under His feet and appointed Him to be head OVER EVERYTHING for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way." (vs. 22)
In Matthew 24:30 we see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with great power and great glory. We also see this same theme in Daniel 7:14 in Daniel's vision.
"In my vision at night I looked, and before me was one like the Son of Man, COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN. He approached the Ancient of Days and was lead into His presence. You can read about it in Revelation 5, with the same language and terminology, and we see the scrolls that Daniel was told to seal up until the time of the end being opened by Christ who is worthy to open them. But the point I am making is that Paul is speaking of Christ's power and glory as a present reality in Ephesians, as well as many other parts of the NT.
And in Paul speaking to the Corinthian church says,
"What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short....those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For THIS WORLD IN ITS PRESENT FORM IS [get that - IS] passing away." (1 Corinthians 7:29, 31)
Talking about the OT prophets Paul says,
"These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, whom THE FULFILLMENT OF THE AGES HAS [Did you get that - HAS] come."
He says in Romans 13:11,
"And do this, understand the PRESENT TIME. The HOUR HAS come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is NEARER NOW than when we first believed."
MrMeaner, can you rescue my post from yesterday to you? It has two parts to it.
ReplyDeleteThat was the only new comment in the spam folder, brother.
ReplyDeleteI double-checked.
Could be Google. I've seen some strange things happen on this blog, already.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteThat post should do for now.
"Shall I go on?"
ReplyDeleteIt's not necessaary.
So...I wonder why Christ was such a stickler for proper pronoun usage, in chapters where it fits your interpretation, but not so much elsewhere?
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by 'where it fits [my] interpretation'?
I still see all Scripture as useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. But I'm concerned about who the prime audience is because I no longer see how the time passages can be used to project a 'you' 2000 years in the future with phrases like 'it IS the last hour' (1 John 2:18) or 'in THESE last times' (1 Peter 1:20) or 'you SEE the Day APPROACHING' (Heb. 10:25) or 'in THESE LAST DAYS' (Heb. 1:2) or 'looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God' (2 Peter 3:12) or 'the great day of His wrath HAS come' (Rev. 6:17) or 'But now, once at the end of the ages, He HAS appeared' (Heb. 9:26) or 'The end of all things IS at hand' (1 Peter 4:7) or 'this world IS passing away' (1 Cor. 7:31) or 'the end of the ages HAVE come' (1 Cor. 10:11) or 'the coming of the Lord IS at hand' (James 5:8-9) or 'the things that must SHORTLY take place' (Rev. 1:1) or 'the time IS NEAR' (Rev. 1:3) or 'I am coming QUICKLY' (Rev. 3:11) or 'the things that must SHORTLY take place' (Rev. 22:6) or 'Behold, I am coming SOON' (Rev. 22:7) or 'for the time IS NEAR' (Rev. 22:10) or 'Yes, I am coming QUICKLY' (Rev. 22:20) or 'You [the twelve] will not have gone throughout the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes' (Matt. 10:23) or 'You [the high priest] will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' (Matt. 26:64 or 'the day IS AT HAND' (Romans 13:12) or 'The Lord is at hand' (Phil. 4:5) or 'There are some standing here....see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom' (Matt. 16:28) or 'This generation shall not pass' (Matt. 24:34) or 'all these things shall come upon THIS generation' (Matt. 23:36) or 'Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation (Matt. 12:39, 41, 42, 45) or 'The Son of Man must be rejected of THIS generation` (Luke 17:25).
We are just scratching the surface.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteSo let’s assume for now that 2 Peter 3:1 is referring to the letter of 1 Peter.
“Dear friends, this is now my second letter to YOU. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate YOU to wholesome thinking. I want YOU to recall the words spoken by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord through YOUR apostles.”
So, from this passage it seems very likely that these people that Peter is addressing as ‘you’ are Jewish, since Peter was an apostle to the Jews, and they are Christians, because in his first letter he addresses them as God’s elect, strangers in the world, SCATTERED throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Those are specific geographic locations common to his times. Peter asks them to recall what the prophets spoke and also what the Lord spoke through their apostles.
Then Peter adds,
“First of all, YOU must understand that in THE last days scoffers will come...They will say, ‘Where is this coming’ He promised. Ever since OUR FATHERS died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning.”
These scoffers can be seen as present in a number of other passages in the NT. For instance Jude 18-19 says,
“They said to YOU, ‘In the last times there will be SCOFFERS who will follow their own ungodly desires. These ARE the men who divide YOU...’”
“The Spirit clearly says that in latter times some will abandon the faith [see the warnings issued throughout the book of Hebrews]...If YOU point these things out to the brothers, YOU will be a good minister of Jesus Christ...” (1 Tim. 4:1, 6)
Now back to 1 Peter.
“…who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the COMING OF SALVATION that IS READY to be revealed in the LAST TIME. In this YOU greatly rejoice, though NOW FOR A LITTLE WHILE you may have to suffer grief in all kinds of trials....for YOU ARE RECEIVING the goal of YOUR faith, the SALVATION OF YOUR SOULS. Concerning this salvation, the prophets [i.e. OT prophets] , who spoke of the grace that was to COME TO YOU, searched intently and with great care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when He predicted the suffering of Christ and the glories that WOULD FOLLOW. It was revealed that they were not serving themselves but YOU, when they spoke of the things that HAVE NOW been told to YOU by those who have preached the gospel to YOU....For YOU know that it was not with perishable things such as silver and gold that YOU were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to YOU from YOUR FOREFATHERS, but with the precious blood of Christ, the Lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world but was revealed IN THE LAST TIMES FOR YOUR SAKE... The END OF ALL THINGS IS NEAR...For it IS TIME for JUDGMENT to begin with the family of God, and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, YOU will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away....And the God of all grace, who called YOU to His eternal glory in Christ, after YOU have suffered A LITTLE WHILE, will Himself restore YOU and make YOU strong, firm and steadfast. To Him be the power for ever and ever. Amen. With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to YOU briefly, encouraging YOU to testify that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. She who is in BABYLON, chosen together WITH YOU, sends YOU her greetings, and so does my son Mark.``
(1 Peter 1:5-12, 18-20; 4:7, 17; 5:4, 10-13)
So follow who the YOU refers to from the start of the epistle to the end. It is speaking to people who are the specific you, as well, as to us indirectly through their history, and what is about to happen to them in their suffering and trials and how their salvation is near and ready to be revealed, in these last times that they are living in.
I don't have much internet time tonight, again.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little busy playing "dodge the tornado", for the second night in a row.
I will say this, though;
Your faith must be strong.
If I thought that Christ had already returned, and all of the promises related to the future were just metaphors, and that the fullness of God's kingdom, and Christ's reign was present, in practice, on Earth today, I would be on WAPO with EEZ, and some of those other Christophobes calling religious people idiots.
For some reason, this blog will not recognize my signing in, tonight.
ReplyDeleteGoogle needs to hire a new group of eighth-grade C students to run Blogger.
I think the ones there now, are all on drugs.
MrMeaner
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteHope all goes well with you and your family during the storms.
MrMEANER: "I will say this, though;
Your faith must be strong."
The same living and true God who revealed Himself to a people, the Jews, has also revealed Himself to the Gentiles through His word and by His Spirit.
To my mind, the most important thing about faith is placing it in the correct object/Person of affection. Ultimately faith means nothing unless it is placed in the real Jesus Christ, and teaching means nothing unless it is built on a correct understanding of Him and His work.
MrMEANER: "If I thought that Christ had already returned, and all of the promises related to the future were just metaphors, and that the fullness of God's kingdom, and Christ's reign was present, in practice, on Earth today, I would be on WAPO with EEZ, and some of those other Christophobes calling religious people idiots."
Do you think all this hype about Jesus' Second Coming such as the prediction brought to light by the media concerning the end of the world last Saturday by Harold Camping is a good thing? Then there are the predictions of the end of the world in 2012 and 2022 and all kinds of speculations that we are living in the last times. These kind of predictions have been rampant in almost every century of church history. They put a lot of doubt in peoples minds about the trustfulness of God's word. R.C Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, recorded these words from atheist Bertrand Russell,
"I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time."
Russell cites various texts of the New Testament to prove his point. "There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, 'Ye shall not have gone over all the cities of Israel till the Son of Man Comes.' [Matt. 10:23]. The he says, 'There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes in His kingdom' [Matt. 16:28]; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His early followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching....In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.
One of Russell's chief criticisms of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is that Jesus was wrong with respect to the timing of His future return." p. 12-13.
The problem is that many atheists and disbelievers recognize that these predictions were events that first century Jews thought imminent as plain by the text. They understand that false predictions put a negative light on the divinely inspired word of God. It is the old question arising again of 'Did God really say.'
It is mainly the 17th to 21st century church that have added this dispensational view to the smörgåsbord, with its gap of now 2000 plus years of 'near', quick', soon to be, this generation, the time is at hand - that is almost.
I see the beauty and exactness of God's word and how intricately connected it all is as I come to understand it more fully in the Preterist/partial Preterist view. It gives me confidence in trusting Him in that He does not lie. His word is sure, just as sure and secure as His salvation. In the Dispensational view the unity of Scripture falls on its face. How many times have we heard Harold Camping, Jack Van Impe, Grant Jefferies, Hal Lindsey and a host of others be wrong about His coming? What a great witness from these people!
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteStill on the subject of scoffers, 2 Peter 3:3-4 says,
"First of all, you must understand that IN THE LAST DAYS SCOFFERS will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, `Where is this “coming” He promised. Ever since OUR FATHERS died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’”
In reading Acts 13:36-42 who is Paul speaking to since he uses the term ‘scoffers’? (Hint: see verses 42-44) The original verse 41 is taken from Habakkuk 1:5 and speaks of “raising up the Babylonians.” Just as God brought the Babylonians against His disobedient people, now He brings the Romans. Notice also the reference to ‘his fathers’ in Acts 13, since the phrase ‘our fathers’ are contained in 2 Peter.
What is the something God is ‘going to do’?
Acts 28:23-28 also speaks in terms of scoffers and also uses the term ‘your forefathers.’
Don Preston gives more insight into the term “fathers.”
“The term ‘the fathers’ is used some 58 times in the New Covenant. Only ten times does it NOT have reference to the Old Covenant….When one considers that the fathers is a reference to the Jewish fathers of the Old Covenant it places a great emphasis on the identity of the Day of the Lord. In other words, it makes the scoffers out to be Jewish scoffers, and it makes it more plausible that the object of their scorn was the message of the coming destruction of Jerusalem (see Matt. 24:14). P. 71, 72.
This coming judgment was not believed by these scoffers. During the writing of the letters and epistles much time had elapsed since Jesus`death. Almost forty years in the case of some epistles.
Notice in 1 Peter 4:5 `But they will have to give account to Him WHO IS READY TO JUDGE the living and the dead.`
He is ready! Who is the passage addressing.
.
ReplyDelete.
.
Peterhuff, thank you for cooperating in the removal of the unmentionable post on the other thread. I appreciate it.
I see that you finally found the trashcan icon. But I am wondering why you used it on ALL of your posts?
.
.
.
"Do you think all this hype about Jesus' Second Coming such as the prediction brought to light by the media concerning the end of the world last Saturday by Harold Camping is a good thing?
ReplyDeleteIt's never a good thing when a false prophet misleads people.
"Then there are the predictions of the end of the world in 2012 and 2022 and all kinds of speculations that we are living in the last times. These kind of predictions have been rampant in almost every century of church history. They put a lot of doubt in peoples minds about the trustfulness of God's word."
I'll let your own citation of Peter rebut that argument.
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
[4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
[5] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
[6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
[7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
You are the one who seems to be saying "since the fathers sleep, all things remain the same", and use it as evidence that Christ is not returning.
That passage was directed toward you.
"I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time."
If you insanely try to date his message by the type of Greek pronouns, and verbs used, (which vary wildly, according to application) Then there is no question that Christ only came to offer salvation to those particular people hearing his message in the days they were delivered...in person, on Earth....If you use pronouns as the determining factor.
Those pronouns, and verbs...like "hast given them" in John 17 were as specific as any you've cited.
more later
MrMeaner
Hi GoldenEagles,
ReplyDeleteGE: "I see that you finally found the trashcan icon. But I am wondering why you used it on ALL of your posts?"
Sorry GoldenEagles, I lost interest in the debate.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteQUOTE FROM BERTRAND RUSSELL: "I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time."
MrMEANER: "If you insanely try to date his message by the type of Greek pronouns, and verbs used, (which vary wildly, according to application) Then there is no question that Christ only came to offer salvation to those particular people hearing his message in the days they were delivered...in person, on Earth....If you use pronouns as the determining factor."
Yes, Russell did recognize that words in context have meaning, as much as you find this amazing. (^8
I've listed a few of many passages that show that salvation is not only for the Jews but for the Gentiles also and that the message was not only for that time but for that time onwards. It is the New Covenant, the Everlasting Covenant, the eternal covenant.
The question for you is when did it start, or has it? Are we living in the New Covenant? Try reading Ephesians 3 for starters, or Hebrews, a contrast in covenants.
I would suggest from Daniel 2:44 that those who are in Christ are part of the eternal kingdom, that it is already present spiritually. We are a spiritual body with Christ as the head. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. I'm still waiting for your insights into many questions I've posed. I'm working on a response to your Daniel 9:24-27 question among others.
Anyway, I'm out of time MrMeaner.
Hi MrMeaner,
ReplyDeleteME: "Do you think all this hype about Jesus' Second Coming such as the prediction brought to light by the media concerning the end of the world last Saturday by Harold Camping is a good thing?
MrMEANER: "It's never a good thing when a false prophet misleads people."
How do you know you are not the one mislead? When God's word says something is 'at hand' your group of prophecy scholars stretch it to last 2000 years. Your group of prophecy experts take pronouns and verbs in context out of context by making them apply directly to situations and peoples that the context is totally foreign to. "Behold, I come quickly" is stretched to mean anything but quickly. Do you think God does not know how to tell time? Do you think He is incapable of keeping His promises? How can God communicate with mankind if He doesn't say what He means? Do you not think He is able to make His thoughts known in a way that we can understand? That would be by using the languages that we speak to communicate with us. Does 'near, at hand' sound like 2000 plus years in the future?
This is just one of the many your group has when it tries to make these things fit in a time frame that they were not designed to. You have to juggle and elasticize everything to make it fit.
"Yes, Russell did recognize that words in context have meaning, as much as you find this amazing."
ReplyDeleteWhat does Russell think about the fact that, when applying that limiting, poorly perceived interpretation of the range of Christ's message...
(namely, hinging the meanings of the most significant prophecies of the BIble, to activities surrounding a small, localized group of Jews, and apostate priests, based soley on the fact that he chose to use the word "you", rather than "those who witness the things I'm saying" ).. he would also have to conclude that Christ didn't come to this Earth to offer salvation to anyone, other than those he specifically referred to in John Ch.17?
"I've listed a few of many passages that show that salvation is not only for the Jews but for the Gentiles also and that the message was not only for that time but for that time onwards. It is the New Covenant, the Everlasting Covenant, the eternal covenant."
No argument here.
(other than to remind you that the original position you defended, was that Israel was cursed, and had been replaced with the modern church.
BTW, Is the "salvation for Jews AND Gentiles" position, a facet of preterest theology?)
I'm just saying that the method you use to arrive at the conclusions you do, regarding the fulfillment of scripture, renders salvation messages as meaningless as the messages detailing his return.
MrMeaner
.
ReplyDelete.
.
Peterhuff says, "Sorry GoldenEagles, I lost interest in the debate."
Yes, I can understand why, within your doctrinal framework, why the fate of FIVE BILLION souls would be of no interest to you. As I understand it, the only thing that really matters to you is whether you personally will be saved from that horrible fate. Am I right?
Well then, perhaps you will be interested in this new debate -
A Prison of Fear - A Commentary upon PeterHuff’s Egregiously Presumptuous Grasp Upon the Golden Ring of Salvation
The gauntlet is thrown down before you and your erstwhile friends.
.
.
.
"How do you know you are not the one mislead? "
ReplyDeleteIf I am, I doubt I would be held accountable for not believing that God is so whimsical, he would change his promises, and his entire plan for humanity...and for not believing that God is so geographically (or linguistically) challenged, he would confuse "all nations", with 1st century Jerusalem.
MrMeaner
"I would suggest from Daniel 2:44 that those who are in Christ are part of the eternal kingdom, that it is already present spiritually"
ReplyDeleteYes, but what's the time reference?
What things happen(ed)prior to vs.44?
44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
\
In the days of which kings?
Is it not the kings represented by the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream?
And what does Christ do to this image, representing a global empire...before God sets up the eternal kingdom?
vs.34..."a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces."
Now, how does the act of Christ's destroying a global empire, as a precursor to the establishment of the eternal kingdom... jibe with Titus' destruction of the temple in 70 AD?
MrMeaner
.
ReplyDelete.
.
Peterhuff says, "So God, in His goodness chose to save some of us. That is what makes grace so amazing - we are receiving something we could never earn by our own merit, something we do NOT deserve. It is beyond our own filthy merit or ability."
GoldenEagles Responded - "Don’t you believe that you are a Child of God, and thus belong to God’s family, and that God loves you personally, and that this love allows you to feel that you have some worth in God’s sight, and that you are therefore at least somewhat deserving in God’s sight, and that this is the reason that he extends the salvation opportunity to you?"
Peterhuff responds ...... Silence.
My new exposition (A Commentary upon YOUR Egregiously Presumptuous Grasp Upon the Golden Ring of Salvation) explains in a coherent manner, Peterhuff, how and why such a sentiment as you expressed, "our own filthy merit" can reside within your temple. For a Child of God, that is an unnatural sentiment. It is not a sentiment that is native to your soul. It is forced upon you by a demonic force, along with the strong sense of fear, which has you shaking in your boots before the prospect of eternal damnation. God our Father, who loves you, as much as anyone on this earth, wants you to know the truth. But to know the truth, you must first sweep the LIE out of your household.
The LIE in your temple is a condensation of fear, which has you terrified of the prospect of eternal damnation. To throw the lie out, you must throw the fear out. To throw the fear out, you must work to anchor the Truth of God’s Love for You personally. When you begin to come into a realization of the truth of that love, then you will KNOW that there is nothing to fear regarding this delusion of eternal damnation.
How do you get this knowledge of God’s Love for you Personally? I can tell you about it, so you have the basic outlines of the truth in your head on that point. But that is not enough. An intellectual construct is not enough to cast out fear. You need to experience the Power of that Truth, and only the Master Jesus Christ can give that to you. He has that knowledge in the form of THE Spiritual Truth that Carries the Power of that Reality, which can sweep the fear out of your temple. But you must seek it. When he said, those that seek, will find, he was talking to you.
Now, as you face this challenge, pay attention to the opposition that you face in pursuing this truth. Yes, the RESISTANCE you feel to even placing your attention on this truth. That is the opposition of the demonic force which actively steers the attention of the disciple away from the truth, by the application of fear energy. You must become strong enough, and determined enough, in your seeking of this truth, that you will no longer allow that opposition to control you.
Remember, no one can be saved until they have become fully re-integrated into this truth of God’s Love for Your Personally. Only the identity based on this truth can live in the heaven world. And that is why the demonic force opposes all efforts by the Children of God to move in this direction.
.
.
.