Shaun Carnochan Comments
%user:name Comments
Not trying to be critical of the message but, in no way do I think this "proved" Christ was the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Given the very clear statements made by Peter and the other apostles in Acts 3:13 and Acts 5:30-31 amongst numerous others, I'm not sure why we would want to "prove" their statements to be incorrect.
shaun
- Log in or register to post comments
Really good message. Have waited for fifteen years for a message in UCG to draw the connection between John's comment of "Behold the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world" and the second goat. Added to that, John would have made that comment right at about the time of Atonement - I doubt any of those listening would have missed the connection. A lot more that could be said but probably wise not to do so.
Also very much liked the observation of how permanent the removal of those sins are from the camp. They don't come back - ever. The goat never comes back and the sins never come back. Ever! I think the progression of that concept is worthwhile.
One question I have is the continued reference to the name "Lucifer". It's a genuine question. Why do speakers insist on using a Latin word that was inserted into the Hebrew text to give a name to God's adversary. Particularly when scriptures such as Job 18:17 tell us that the names of the wicked will not be remembered. Why would God preserve the name of the most wicked one.... forever?
Just a question - hope it doesn't take away from an excellent sermon.
being cast down or destroyed. From that they believe this term refers to Noah's flood. However, the word "kosmos" did not take on the possibility of referring to the arrangements of man until approximately 600 years after the death of Christ. Prior to that it was used exclusively to refer to the perfect arrangement of God or the perfect arrangement of nature - again, indirectly, of God. This tells us that the disruption of this perfect arrangement of God occurred prior to the creation of man due to a casting down that must have happened prior to man's creation.
It's difficult to explain these points properly when the blog limit is a thousand characters so my apologies to the webmaster. I wouldn't like to rest my salvation on either a YEC or OEC perspective. It's a debate that has gone on for at least 3,000 years according to ancient Jewish writings and, no doubt, will continue until the return of Christ. But, when biblical instruction is studied rather than the heavily flawed sciences of today, I think the weight of evidence rests with an OEC perspective. That said, it would be folly to dismiss some of the valid points in the NEC viewpoints.
(continued)
* I'm not going to turn to all the scriptures but Satan is the ruler of this earth. Clearly this position had to have been awarded to him prior to his rebellion against God because God does not reward the wicked with promotions. Scripture is clear: He renders to each according to their works. If Satan disobeyed God did not then say "well done, let Me put you over the whole earth".
* katabole kosmos. Translated as "foundation of the world" on ten occasions in the New Testament and generally referring to the sacrifice of Christ being from "the foundation of the world". Those who have looked at it know that this is a completely incorrect translation. The Greek word Katabole refers to "casting down" or a "reaction". It is where we get our term "catabolic" from as in a catabolic reaction. The important term, however, is cosmos which I imagine we all know does not mean "world" but "arrangement". Here's the tricky part: some have mis-interpreted this as referring to the "arrangements of man". Greek literature is quite clear; the word implies "perfect arrangement", "an adornment". This only fits the arrangements of God. Some say this term refers to "the arrangements of man"
Hi all, I'd like to first agree that the blog is quite an effective tool to garner views and interpretations of people.
I'm not sure that anyone will actually read this but, currently, there is only one perspective put forward and, being all about balance, I'll just make a couple of points.
* The NEC movement continues to ignore the two different words that God plainly instructed Moses to use; " bara' " and " 'asah " There was no mystery or intrigue involved - God specifically wanted two different words used with different meanings.
* We get this common mistake that people think it is "the beginning". It's not. The Hebrew is quite clear - there is no "the" in the original text as it is not an absolute. When Wycliffe translated the bible it was fraught with danger; he understood neither Hebrew nor Greek which, when you consider that he was translating a Hebrew and Greek book is almost humorous. He understood Latin which uses an absolute term here and so he translated it as an absolute. Every translation followed the same approach - sort of like Wycliffe introducing a Latin name (Lucifer) into a Hebrew text and all translators followed. More accurately it's "a beginning".
I think its not familiar because its not quite accurate. Actually, you seem to have quoted scriptures earlier which show this. The scripture being referred to is John 5:37 where He specifically tells the pharisees that they have never heard the Father. Certainly there are numerous scriptures that tell us people heard the Father speak.
8
Comments