What was the first heaven and earth passed away in Rev. 21?

[Donald]

Everyone,

 

Please share your view what does this mean ("heaven" and "earth")? Also what about "no more sea"?

 

From Gen. 1-3?

 

The Mosaic covenant?

 

Something else?

 

This is only for the full preterist view and it should be interesting.

 

 

[JL Vaughn]

Taffy,

It is admittedly the weakest of the 5 issues I listed for Biblical evidence that Adam lived in an already populated world.  Your point of God mocking Adam by parading animals before him is an equally weak, but valid argument for other men in Adam's world.

If Don agrees with any 1 of these reasons, then he must agree that Adam was one of many men on planet earth at that time.  If he disagrees with all of them, then he likely refuses to even consider that Adam lived among other men.  If that were the case, then it becomes rather moot asking if the animals were men.

Blessings.

Taffy said:

Hi Jeff, I'm afraid I don't accept your 'literal' serpent/genealogy theory.  (Please see my last post.)

 

But I'm interested to hear Don fill his own views out on these things.

[Taffy]

Hi Jeff.  Agreed.  And if Don won't accept things like my 'mocking' argument (other than say he's "not convinced" by it, he won't even engage with me by telling me why he's "not convinced" by it??? obviously he believes God "brought" literal animals to Adam for him to find a "wife" amongst them because that's the only alternative; poor old Adam..lol), what's he going to do with other things?

 

E.g. all the archaeological evidence left behind by the people living in the Fertile Crescent and its surrounding areas long before Adam's day?  And what about genealogical evidence in DNA that supports an ancient human race? 

 

And does he consider other facts?  Like the common practice in ancient times of using cosmological features (stars, vegetation, waters, animals, etc) to 'symbolise' people?  Does he consider Sumerian 'Cylinder Seals' and poems for example or the etchings engraved on the monolithic pillars at Gobekli Tepe (a 12,000 year old Temple site in Eastern Turkey)?  Or even the inspired authors of scripture who continued this practice?

 

It would be good to hear what others have to say about these things to.  Come on guys....

 

Take care, Taffy.

[JL Vaughn]

Cousin Taffy,

I personally avoid bringing up the archeological evidence unless the other person starts it.  Rivers and Frost like to hollar that such evidence is not from Scripture and therefore not to be believed.  Don has said that Genesis 1-3 takes place in Palestine, not Mesopotamia.

It certainly would be nice to get some feedback though.

Blessings,

Cousin Jeff

[Donald]

Guys,

 

More about the Genesis creation, go to http://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/forum/topics/genesis-creation-alt....

Thanks.

[Taffy]

Agreed.  (Cuz, I've sent you a personal message.)

 

Don, can you at least answer the following question.  As there can only be TWO options it shouldn't be too hard.

 

Either God "brought" literal animals to Adam to see if he could find a "helper"/"wife" from amongst them, or He "brought" people.

 

Which one was it?

 

[ BTW, I've read that other thread and the only thing I sort of agree with is this, "The Genesis creation is about the beginning of the Promised Land and God's people. ]

[Donald]

Taffy,

 

As of now, God "brought" literal animals to Adam. That is the reason why he couldn't find someone who is suitable for him and God created Eve from his rib (Gen. 2:20-24). It seems pretty simple to me.

 

What is the point He "brought" people to him?

[Taffy]

Don, you asked, "What is the point He "brought" people to him?"  This is what I've been trying to get you to chew on.  

 

Do you really believe God mocked Adam by bringing him a load of giraffes to see if he could find a "helper"/"wife" from amongst them????  When he "couldn't find one" do you think he said, "Cheers God for at least trying to help me not be 'alone'.."  Come on.....

 

Or did God gather people to Adam so he could determine for himself if there was anyone else in his community who bore the same holy character ("image")?  Not finding one he would have realised how 'unique' he was before YHWH and that it needed an act of God, NOT flesh, to provide a "helper comparable" to him.

[Donald]

Taffy,

 

Well, I'll have this to chew on.

 

I'm curious what do you think when God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness..." (Gen 1:26)?

[Taffy]

Hi Don, I've spoken of "image" in my thread, "The Image of God".

 

With regards to the "OUR" bit you've highlighted.  I've studied the arguments for/against the "deity" of Christ and at this time I believe scripture teaches it.  You are free to believe otherwise.  

 

However, whether true or not it doesn't affect my 'general' hermeneutic framework.

[JL Vaughn]

"Let us commit Adam in our image, according to our likeness..."

Counting Hebrew words on studylight.com, it appears there are only 4 words in that sentence.  The others are added by the translators to try to make readable English.

asah, traditionally translated "make" in this passage is most frequently translated "commit" or "deal [with?]" elsewhere.

adam, not ish = "men," but a specific man called Adam or group of men called Adam or Adamites.

tselem, image

damuwth, likeness or resemblance.

There is so little in that sentence, that you must use other passages of Scripture to interpret it.  The mistranslation of Adam is egregious.  Seth was in the image of Adam, not God.  In the NT we find that only Christ is in the image of God and that "we" are being conformed into Christ's image.

[Ken Singleton]

Taffy,

I'm with Don on the animals.

Your scenario makes no sense to me if the animals are in fact people of some sort. Imagine God bringing a 1000 different men and women to Adam and saying are any of these suitable as a helper for you Adam? Adam would say, yes, I will have him and him to do the gardening because they are strong, and him and him to do the cooking and cleaning, and I will have her, and her and her and her ... and her ... and her .. and her... for other duties :))

But if, as the text suggests, that Adam was in fact the first human created, then bringing the Animals to Adam would be a learning experience for Adam, moving him out of innocence and ignorance into wisdom as He cooperated with God. This is God and man working together, and man growing in Wisdom as he learns from God. Slowly Adam would understand how he was different from the rest of God's creation, the animals, and that none would be suitable for him as a helper or companion. Once that dawned on Adam then, God creates Adam's special helper, another unique creation from Adam's own flesh, also created in the image of God, hence the name Woman.

Regards, Ken

[Taffy]

Hi Ken, but in your Adam = first homo sapien scenario, you are assuming two things:

 

1/ That ALL the vast amounts of hard evidence we have in our museums today from all around the world (including the Fertile Crescent) that speak of an ancient human race, is somehow erroneous (see here and here for example), and,

 

2/ That if God had gathered people, NOT literal animals to Adam, he would only have considered their physical attributes, NOT their 'character'.

 

But is this what we've learned of God and His PEOPLE (1 Sam 16:7, James 2:3)?  Did He really wish the one He'd "fashioned" in His "own" righteous "image" and covenanted Himself to, to have a physically strong "helper" but who was "unequally yoked" to him spiritually?  Do you read that any of those animals bore God's "image"?

 

No.  Adam was the first "man" to bear the LORD's "image" and for his "helper" (the one who'd become his "wife"; Gen 2:5) to be "comparable to him", she also needed to bear it (Gen 1:27, 2:18).  In that way they would be "equally yoked".