RE from and before:
The only texts I have for these passages at hand are English translations, I’m afraid. But clearly these terms both refer to past time. (That does not mean, however, that they’re intended literally.)
First of all, “in front of the foundation of the world” makes very little sense. Especially when you consider that “foundation” here means “establishment” or “founding” or “beginning”, not “pediment”, “base”, or “cornerstone”.
In the English of the time (and register) of these translations, “from” definitely indicates precedence in time, as in the stock phrase “from time immemorial” (which means “since before anyone can remember”) or common colloquialisms such as “I’ve known him from his childhood.”
If you really want a solid answer to these questions, I suggest you look up some scholarship regarding the old texts. IIRC, that would be Greek, in this case, but I could very well be wrong.
Like the Gospel of John, the book of Revelation positions Jesus (and, perhaps metaphorically, the act of sacrifice and redemption) as already existing at the moment of creation.
As a general caution, please keep in mind that quibbling over the English, or attempting to reason from the English as is done above, is at best fruitless and at worst likely to lead to gross error.
Well unfortunately I loaned out my Genesis bible study tapes last sept and haven’t got them back yet but I will make a call to get them. It has been years since I went over that. The teacher gives a great explaination on just what you all are presenting. I will post it when I get it you will have a hard time refuteing it I am sure.
The Book of Job,
An interesting book one in which God has a lenghty conversation with Job. The longest one on one in the bible if I remember. So great verses like “curse God and die”
I’m sure you have some interesting ideas about it so tell me what it means or is about…
Given that you have been unable to persuade a single poster–Fundamentalist Christian, liberal Christian, Jew, skeptic, Atheist, or of any other persuasion with any of your odd posts on either science or religion, I really doubt that anyone will have the slightest difficulty in “refuting” whatever weird idea you intend to post (and then change the subject in the manner that you have ducked all the other discussions).
Tangent: I miss FriendofGod. Old FoGgy was tactful, polite, responsive, and willing to cooperate in letting the discussion go in such directions as suited all parties, including him. He made a sincere effort to share God’s love by his behavior, even though his theology was strange as snakes’ rollerskates.
The difference is that your opponents have brought education, intelligence, honesty, and open minds to the discussion. That fact that we have not persuaded you is of no moment.
Well, I do have to give Nolies credit for coming up with the most original excuse for bowing out of a Great Debate that I’ve ever heard. Sort of a cross between “The dog ate my homework” and “When my big brother gets here, he’s gonna give you such a pounding…”
I await the return of the Genesis Bible Study tapes with bated breath, looking forward to having some sort of Nolies-mediated debate with the mysterious “Teacher”.
And I also enjoyed this exchange:
Polycarp: Tell me what you think the Book of Job means.
Nolies: I dunno, why don’t you tell me what it means.
All I’ll say about the book of Job is that it’s brought me great comfort. Those who’ve read it may have an idea why.
Nolies, out of curiousity, what type of church do you go to? I’m assuming it’s not Anglican or Catholic, and you don’t sound like the Baptists or members of the Assembly of God that I’ve come across. The reason I’m asking is I’ve never encountered someone with your set of beliefs. Is there a website with the basic tenets of what your denomination believes? I’m not talking about a link to a particular book written by one particular person. That only tells me what that one particular person believes. I’m asking for a link to a website like this one, which lays out the basic beliefs of my denomination, the Episcopalians.
In fact, it will be impossible for us to refute, as you will merely ignore our refutations.
I’m still waiting for a response to my refutation of the NT cites you offered as evidence that a belief in a literal interpretation of Gen 1-2 was central to Jesus’ teaching, especially Peter’s caution that Christians should not take references to time literally.
If you’re willing to accept that Jesus wasn’t being literal when he promised to return before the people hearing him died (before this generation passes away), I really don’t understand why you’re so unwilling even to entertain the notion that those who wrote down the creation stories did not intend for them to be taken literally.
And I mean that, I don’t understand the underlying “why”. Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 so important? Why do you think it will all fall apart if that bit isn’t pure history?
PS: If you do start discussing Job, be sure to clarify whether you’re refering to the most ancient bits (the poetry) or the book as it stands today which includes prose sections added before and after.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I gotta go get the dog out from under the table.
I’d guess the teaching didn’t go so well, since you don’t seem able to read Genesis and post your own thoughts on this. I hope the bible tapes have something new - most of us have heard the “explanations” many times before. Why not give it a shot?