Sam is listed and he should have been aware of the aprx dates of truthvoice. It appears by looking at the topics that there may be a desire to offer a different perspective than what truthvoice provides.
This would possibly be especially true of Dr. Birks as I believe he is very uncomfortable with recent Genesis positions coming out of Preterism. It will be interesting to see how he and Sam Frost interact on the “corporate body” discussion concerning Adam in Genesis. They are on opposing sides of the argument. They are most likely together on a global flood though. I also see it possibly as an attempt to strengthen the Reformed side of Preterism around some of Birks and Sam’s commonly held positions.
That is what I’m reading between the lines at the moment until we get further clarification.
I'm very sorry to hear of your mother-in-law's passing away
Yah, I finish reading it (and like to read one more time). And I also shared a copy with Marnatha Bible College and Lotch Library with the intention to reach and educate many. Recently also I was contacted by Br. Stephen to teach these preterist concepts at his bible school. I’m very interested, but I was totally helpless to provide both of our conveyance.
Victor Suman is very young…I think he needs some time to dig into these advanced concepts.
Ha! yeah the other guy gotta a way clean. I eneded up with a two swollen black eyes, marks all aoround my foreheaed from my halo to hold make sure my head still, and two "hell-boy" like bumps in my head from some suction cups. Wasnt' very pretty, but better than the alternartive. I actually look halfway dececent excecpt I haven't shave yet and look like a hippey.
They say they got all of the cancer but wont' know unte the pathology report comes back. Praying hard on my end. This is my "be still& know- time" so to speak.
To JL Vaughn:
While its true that "on the surface" Dick Fischer's views and mine are similar, having not read his book, I looked at his reviews which were generally unfavorable, and I believe many of his hypotheses are dated and not valid. As a "Concordant" I admit to picking and choosing which issues to address, however I never fail to survey the entire landscape, and have been quick to reject ideas that prove to be in conflict with "any" part of the Bible. I believe my hypotheses are valid and supported by science, the evidence, AND the Bible. I don't attempt to "explain" individual events with pseudo-science as many do, but have tried to portray the entire Genesis narrative in a storyline that is seamless from the creation to the time of Moses. In my mind, at least, Genesis mysteries are finally understandable and logical.
To JL Vaughn:
I underdstand what you are saying and respect your views. I do strongly believe in the two creation events but also that the man in genesis 1:27 was not the man in Genesis 2:7. My rationale is that the man in Genesis 1:27 was only an announcement by God that He "intended" to create a man in his image, and that Australopithicus was only the first step in that process, where Adam and his descendants who merged with Australopithicus' descendants after the flood, was the final step. I would be happy to mail you a copy of my book if you would like to email me your address. I believe you may not agree with all I have to say, but that I have some good arguments that you might find informative and enlightening. I really have done my homework on this.
John, I am about halfway through your book, and I am in awe of your work. It is very detailed, logical and throrough. You wrote on a very scholarly footing, where I wrote my book for a populist view. I have to admit, for a premillenialist, I am giving serious thought to your premise, and it has been invalualble to me so far as a historical reference for the modern theological views that I was on shaky ground about. I'm not saying that I fully accept your preterist hypothesis, but I have always had some questions similar to your arguments about it. I have to live with an idea for a while before adopting it or discarding it. I've learned that time is the greatest teacher in these matters. One thing that I noticed is that we are not that different in our outlooks concerning the Old Testiment. I focused on the book of Genesis and the flood, and you look closely at the flood, its relation to future prophesy. We both are very close on both evolution and the flood. You look for relationships in the text, and I ask the question "why" in all events. In many ways the two views compliment each other, at least in my opinion. Thank you for the book, I look forward to finishing it.
JL, I see you have encountered the logic "cough" of the infamous PaulT. As you have seen he never lets one know what he truly believes but only finds as much fault as possible with the preterist. Try pinning him down on the coming. Or try debating him on Romans 8:11. He'll twist it to make you look like you backed out and declare himself the whinner, er I mean winner.
No comments yet!
You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!