Posted on 02/13/2014 6:00:58 AM PST by 4Runner
It’s amazing how many people believe the “game of telephone” analogy of biblical translation.
The truth is, all translations were done directly from original language writings, which are confirmed unchanged (not one jot or tittle) in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The truth is, all translations were done directly from original language writings, which are confirmed unchanged (not one jot or tittle) in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.You mean Old Testament translations, since the Dead Sea Scrolls contain no New Testament letters, no?
Then one is left with the riddle of the capricious nature of YHWH in the conquering of Canaan - If the 'Nephilim' premise is entertained, one can better understand why every one of the cities that YHWH marked for utter annihilation were treated as such - Everything destroyed - The old, the children, even the crops and animals... If one researches the matter, one will find that they all were essentially Sons of Anak, participants in angelic hybridism, annotated primarily by the presence of giants.
Go an listen to White Horse Inn from Jan. 5 of this year, on. They discuss Joshua and the conquest.
Pinging Alex, though he's probably already listened to them.
Yes, the old testament.
The new testament works were confirmable by multiple witnesses,
and the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses, many of whom were hostile and would have denied their authenticity if they could have.
The ties between the Old and New are the prophetical fulfillments in Christ Himself.
A compelling interpretation of the allegorical and thus oversimplified description of the story of Noah found in the Bible is that of Paul McGuire (an ardent Christian as well as scientist) who posits the theory that the command to Noah by God to build the Ark and select pairs of all living creatures for rescue was in response to the fouling of all DNA on earth by the numerous "fallen angels" who had visited earth and had sexual relations with all beings here.
Which makes the flood about race and genetics, instead of human sin.
Paul McGuire
Thanks for the wide-ranging audio-file. It would be a fun topical discussion for the back porch - I do not agree with it wholly - As an instance, the land has never been delivered completely and exactly as promised... But the scope was good, and there are distinctions within that I was frankly surprised to hear coming from an obviously Reformed source - One seldom sees OT covenants properly delivered or discussed with exclusivity in Reformed Eschatology.
But even if one accepts the scope and premise as the tape recommends (for this discussion), It bears no weight upon what I had said earlier:
Then one is left with the riddle of the capricious nature of YHWH in the conquering of Canaan - If the 'Nephilim' premise is entertained, one can better understand why every one of the cities that YHWH marked for utter annihilation were treated as such - Everything destroyed - The old, the children, even the crops and animals... If one researches the matter, one will find that they all were essentially Sons of Anak, participants in angelic hybridism, annotated primarily by the presence of giants.
IOW, Even accepting the premise and motive you present, it does not have bearing upon another aspect, even if considered an aspect of that scope - That aspect being the Archon invasion and it's corrupting influence upon hearts and minds, and the physical ramifications thereof - Ramifications which are so powerful and dangerous that YHWH demanded an utter destruction.
Why is it that some cities were conquered and spared while others are completely damned? And likewise, why destroy 'everything that holds breath' in the great flood unless the corruption was, as the Bible declares, wide enough to encompass all that held breath (to include animals and etc)?
I don't see the two being mutually exclusive. The establishment of a corrupting influence does not exempt human sin.
One thing confuses me - didn't you used to be OPC?
yep - But Reformed Eschatology has always been remarkably weak IMHO... A result of historical alignment with Replacement Theology, which is why I was very surprised to find Replacement Theology denied in the tape Lee N. Field provided - A direct reference to 'Expansion Theology', and a direct admission to Christians being grafted onto Israel (without understanding the ramifications of that statement) was very refreshing.
But that aside, The flood scenario and the conquering of Canaan, as I was taught in my yoot, were always indicators to me that there must be something more. Why the utter destruction of the flood when a simple plague would do? Why kill the women, children, and the elderly in the conquering of some cities... Why the prohibition of taking spoil, even to the point of practical food-stocks? Just because God says so? Don't you suppose there is purpose?
yep - But Reformed Eschatology has always been remarkably weak IMHO... A result of historical alignment with Replacement Theology, which is why I was very surprised to find Replacement Theology denied in the tape Lee N. Field provided - A direct reference to 'Expansion Theology', and a direct admission to Christians being grafted onto Israel (without understanding the ramifications of that statement) was very refreshing.
and this
One seldom sees OT covenants properly delivered or discussed with exclusivity in Reformed Eschatology.
Makes me wonder what it is you had previously encountered.
I find Reformed covenant theology and eschatology far richer, more comprehensive and more Christ centered that the typical dispensational presentation.
The scope of Reformed eschatology is somewhat different, I think, from what a dispensationalist is expecting, and so they may not recognize what's being discussed as eschatological.
(Reformed eschatology, these days, tends to be in two camps. So called postmillenialists, and so called amillenialists. I say "so called", because there're problems with at least the "amillenial" name that make it misleading, and these distinctions are fairly modern. My POV is "amil", as I don't expect a future golden age prior to the eschaton.)
which is why I was very surprised to find Replacement Theology denied in the tape Lee N. Field provided
Someone actually listened to something I recommended?! And possibly profited from it?! Wow.
(Just as an FYI, for where Michael Horton is coming from, see the works of Meredith Kline. Specifically, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview or God, heaven and Har magedon.)
I was raised up hard core Christian Reformed / Dutch Reformed, and went to Christian Reformed schooling. When my family moved out here to Montana we had a brief stint at a Presbyterian USA, followed by Presbyterian PCA which eventually realigned to OPC... So I kinda know the ropes. My life has pretty well centered around the Prophecy, having digested most of what is available out there from Christian to the profane, with a bend toward proof of God and penchant for extremely early texts (The Venerable Bede is too contemporary for me).
The scope of Reformed eschatology is somewhat different, I think, from what a dispensationalist is expecting, and so they may not recognize what's being discussed as eschatological.
I am well aware of the Postmil/amil bend of Reformed Eschatology - In fact I recommended it to a pseudo-quasi-preterist fellow here just the other day. I am most definitely *not* postmil or amil, one of the things I find questionable (to be kind) in Reformed Eschatology.
I am most definitely a premil historicist, not a dispensationalist. I think this [church age] is the betrothal period as described in the Hebrew wedding ceremony which, while like marriage legally, is not marriage - We await the promise of the consummation with the guarantee of the Husband and the promissory gift of the Holy Spirit.
Likewise I believe that most have echewed the main point - That being the redemption of the whole of creation as well as the Sons of Adam - And in that, have become exclusionary in scope. The wider view simply does not allow postmil/amil assumptions, nor can it entertain the 'spiritualizing' of the prophets which, to my point of view, have been explicit, precise, and extremely literal with an incremental exactitude that is unparalleled. I will take my place among the fundamentalists in that, as I expect a literal precision in the future that will absolutely meet the same quality of fulfillment as we can plainly see in the past.
Oh?
These are ANGELS??
Above him were seraphim, each with six wings:
#32
OK...
Now I won’t have to post the Scriptures that contain the ONLY places in the Bible that these heavenly creatures(?) are mentioned.
Whew!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.