Jump to content

Origen

Staff
  • Content Count

    3,556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by Origen

  1. They take it as a place name. "As at Adam, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there." As does the NIV. "At Adam they broke the covenant; Oh how they were unfaithful to me!" Calvin, on the other hand, takes the noun "adam" as a reference to "man, mankind" (i.e. "they like men have transgressed the covenant). He rejects the idea that it is the person Adam. Hosea 6 Commentary - John Calvin's Commentaries on the Bible WWW.STUDYLIGHT.ORG Hosea 6 Commentary, One of over 110 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary, by John Calvin, helps you experience his lasting impact on Christian theology and thought We have had a discussion like this before and it led nowhere. That is a theological argument. Exegesis precedes theology. Again I find no reason if it was a covenant the author would not said it was and used normal covenant vocabulary.
  2. If there was a covenant, one would expect to see covenant vocabulary. It is just not there. Also there is no reason if it was a covenant for the author not to use normal covenant vocabulary. I knew you would bring this up. See your NET Bible note.
  3. William I am going to chime in here if you don't mind. The case for the so called Adamic\Edenic covenant is questionable. The fact is normal covenant vocabulary isn't found before chapter 6. And without that vocabulary the case, in my opinion, cannot be supported.
  4. There are no scientific tests\experiments which can determine if a behavior is moral or not. It is not possible. It is outside the scope of science. Thus your point is moot.
  5. @Benji seems to believe that the term "first one" refers to "any of the covenants... ...made prior to the last one." @Ben Asher's point is that grammatically the term "first one" refers to only one covenant since it is singular not plural. The Greek verb (i.e. πεπαλαίωκεν) is also singular. Thus the term "first one" could not "means any of the covenants... ...made prior to the last one" as Benji claimed. One would expect plural forms if the author was referring to more than one covenant. Does that help Becky?
  6. I am very happy to hear that very good news. May God bless your mother and you.
  7. Your comment has been edited. We have similar rules here in regard to language. What seems insignificant to you might not be to someone else.
  8. Hello and welcome Amorette
  9. @Ben Asher I believe you ought to explain the "Messiah ben Joseph" (Messiah ben Ephraim) and "Messiah ben David" theological terminology and what it means. I don't think many here know anything about dual Messianism.
  10. Can I play? I know. Divine time!!!
  11. That is not what this topic is about. Both you and @Matthew Duvall need to move on.
  12. None of the above are the subject of this thread.
  13. @Ben Asher has done an excellent job addressing your post. Nevertheless I think I will jump in here too. There is nothing new concerning your explanation. There are at least two problems with that comment. First, it is unclear what you mean by original manuscripts. The fact is we have no original manuscripts of Genesis or any other biblical book. Second, the Hebrew texts all read the same (i.e. וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֨הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ). It is not a question of one reading verses another but the proper translation of the text. While it is not impossible for the verb היה to be rendered "become" in some instances there no grammatical reason why such would be necessary or even likely in this verse. Victor P. Hamilton states: The NET Bible note states: Your so-called "new explanation" just won't work. The text never makes this claim. There is zero evidence to support it.
  14. It is what I do after a reading some posts.
  15. What is wrong with you William? Only a literal hermeneutic will work in all cases. For example: Num 24:17 I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Only a literal a star and scepter makes senses in this text. And we all know that Jesus "crush the forehead of Moab and broke down all the sons of Sheth" in the N.T.
×
×
  • Create New...