Posts Tagged ‘genesis’
In Genesis, the author has not only repeatedly used specific terms (favor, blessing, cursing, etc.) but he uses them all in such a way that they interconnect across the entire book. I want to show that in this post but I know that this will be difficult without charts—but I’m going to have to make do without them because sometimes folk fall into reading the chart instead of following the argument.
Now, the argument I’m making isn’t a deductive argument (e.g. If p then q. p. Therefore q.) An inductive argument is where one concludes with the most probable answer as reasonable to hold (like you can’t deductively prove that there is someone posting this, but you can inductively support it to make belief in that reasonable).
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: abraham, genesis, hermeneutics
Tags: abraham, genesis, hermeneutics
Posted in dispensationalism, eschatology, genesis, hermeneutics, israel | Comments (1)
24 November
Posted by rey
How would you write a history of the world?
Most of us would spend hours researching Liby , Herodotus, some Ibn al-Tiqtaqā’s, the Mayans and the Aztecs, plus some Jedi Holocron over in the rediscovered Jedi Temple and then compile something in chronological order (starting a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away). Some of us would delve into Josephus and Eusebius to spice it all up with some Church History. We’d make a timeline, group it by geographical area and then tick off major events within those areas. We would try as much as possible to remove ourselves from the recounting and Stick To The Facts And Nothing But The Facts. We most definitely would avoid interpreting historical events but only rarely wondering what would’ve transpired if events went another way.
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: dispensationalism, genesis, themes
Tags: dispensationalism, genesis, themes
Posted in dispensationalism, genesis | Comments (1)
I keep hearing about this Covenant of Works that Adam failed in. It was part of the reason why I started writing about our relationship to Adam (here, here and here). But I want to examine this: Is there a Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Creation in the Biblical record?
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: adam, covenant of works, federal headship, federal theology, genesis
Tags: adam, covenant of works, federal headship, federal theology, genesis
Posted in apologetics, dispensationalism, genesis, history, human | Comments (1)
I had posted a version of this a while back as part of my Genesis series, but I wanted to re-post it here (since it comes up often enough) just from the view to examining Satan’s lies. I personally don’t think the Devil can read our thoughts, but I think he’s subtle enough that he doesn’t have to. The Serpent in Genesis 3 is introduced as being craftier than any beast of the field which the Ruling Lord Creator God had made. This is an important textual point notifying the reader to attention; ensuring that the reader examines the subtleties of the text.
Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: adam, deception, Eve, genesis, lie, serpent
Tags: adam, deception, Eve, genesis, lie, serpent
Posted in genesis | Comments (1)
The Point of the book: Horton went into this critical examination to prove that there was a connection between the Qumran Community and the Book of Hebrews in regards to the Melchizedek Tradition. Wanting to show the point of overlap and perhaps their dependence on source material, he traces the development of Melchizedekian thought from the Genesis account, through Psalms, over to Qumran, through the early Church and Rabbinical sources and finally the Gnostics before heading back to the book of Hebrews. What’s great about the book is that when he gets to the end, his point was negatively proven. Not only did he not establish a connection between Qumran and Hebrews but he reversed his position to show that the author of Hebrews cares very little for Melchizedek at all.
The Good: The book deals with the material fairly and whenever there is a question as to the author’s reconstruction, he sagely points out the fact that his conclusion is possible but maybe not probable. The Author deals with each of the sources as they stand (for example examining the Genesis account on its own and seeing how a possible interpretation is that Abraham received tithes from Melchizedek). There are a ton of footnotes and the bibliography section is extensive to allow further personal research.
The Bad: It’s difficult to place any of the book in a Bad category on account that its bad for a person who doesn’t have the technical know-how of a more scholarly professional. For example, there are many sections of the book that delve into untranslated Greek, Hebrew, German, Latin and Coptic. Dealing with those sections requires lots of contextual reading but sometimes he really doesn’t aim to enforce the meaning of those words with the context. But that, like I said, is not necessarily bad since you don’t want to spend a lot of time establishing the contextual meaning of relatively easy Greek concepts like kurios and kosmos. The Hebrew is a bit more difficult on account that, well its Hebrews.
The Ugly: The footnotes in the 1976 edition are a mess, condensing several footnotes onto one line to save page space and I guess page count.
Conclusion: The book is a good read for folks who want to see how the Melchizedekian thought progresses through the first five centuries; it’s helpful for the Biblical scholar and finally its extremely helpful for a person who wants a solid backing for Christ’s own Priesthood: but more info on that on my detailed overview of the book below.
Overview (or the part you don’t have to read): Read the rest of this entry »
Technorati Tags: genesis, melchizedek
Tags: genesis, melchizedek
Posted in christ, genesis, reviews | Comments (3)
