Carnivores and the Fall

[shernren]

Now, put your tongue back in your mouth. Its a sign of not being filled with the Spirit.

And calling others city slickers and country bumpkins is ... oh, just being insufferably right.

I get it.

 

[GenemZ]

And calling others city slickers and country bumpkins is ... oh, just being insufferably right.

I get it.

Ever find a city slicker mentality that believes in Creationism? Its not hip to think that way.

Besides, your purpose is to now create a diversion away from the good information I supplied.

Its important to the certaim men who wins the petty fights of men today. Yet, its those whom the Lord declares a winner who will be, when we each stand before Him for our evaluation.

I wish I could watch behind a one way mirror when evolutionists stand before Him. Young earth Creationists at least realized that one must stick with the Word of God. That much they get right. Just like Origen. That much he did get right.



Now back on track...


There will be no evolution taking place to get us to the following new creation.

Isaiah 65:25
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD."​

That will be the next new creation, not the results of evolution. Lions would require how many millions of years to become herbivores? What that passage speaks of will take place over night. Evolution???



That's how God will work in the future, and it how he did work in replacing previous creations. God simply replaces one creation with another. In the mean time, any given generation may experience micro evolution to reveal God's omniscience, his knowing the future before it happens, by having provided for his creation the means to continue living in some unforeseen event that he always knew would happen, for God has willed it to be so. For the creation reveals the nature of the Creator!



I will be quoting from "Without Form and Void" by Dr. Arthur C. Custance. Dr. Custance was a well respected scientist, as well as an accomplished linguist.

The following excerpts from this book reveal that long before the Theory of Evolution became manifest in the world, that men having no position to prove, or disprove concerning the theory of evolution, simply expounded on what was to be found in the Hebrew text on creation. Many saw that the world we now live in was not the first creation to grace this planet.

​

"Origen, for example, who lived from 186 to about 254 A.D., and to whom the original languages of the Bible were very familiar, has this to say in his great work, De Principiis, at Gen. 1.1:

"It is certain that the present firmament is not spoken of in this verse, nor the present dry land, but rather that heaven and earth from which this present heaven and earth that we now see afterwards borrowed their names."​

And that he saw verse 2 as a description of a "casting down" of the original is borne out quite clearly by his subsequent observation that the condition resulted from a "disruption" which is best described, he suggests, by the Latin verb dejicere, ‘to throw down’."​

​

Now, that is only a tip of the iceberg. There are many more examples to be found in this book. Another was that Jewish Bible scholars who had lived long before Origen had concluded that God had destroyed past creations and that what we now find ourselves living in is the most recent creation from the hand of God.

Why did these Jews conclude this? The Hebrew text was their native tongue! They understood the accurate meanings of Hebrew words that we find today only in generic renderings into English.

Here is another example...

​

In his great work, The Legends of the Jews, Louis Ginsberg has put into continuous narrative a precis of their legends, as far as possible in the original phrase sand terms. In Volume 1 which covers the period from the Creation to Jacob, he has this excerpt on Genesis 1:

"Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several other worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours."​

​

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html​

.

 

[shernren]

Ever find a city slicker mentality that believes in Creationism? Its not hip to think that way.

Oh yes - I used to be a creationist when I was 15, and I thought I was smarter than any other 15-year-old on the planet because I knew the true origins of the universe. I was the most scientific of all my friends for knowing that the chemicals in a bombardier beetle's belly spontaneously explode if mixed together (and therefore the whole system couldn't have evolved); my classmates didn't even know what hydrogen peroxide was. I was the science whiz and everybody knew it.

(Though I can't help but wonder if there is any 15-year-old on the planet who doesn't think it revolves around them; quite a fair few never outgrow this anti-Copernican lunacy.)

Pride cuts all ways. Some YECists are proud, some TEs are proud. As for gap theorists?

I wish I could watch behind a one way mirror when evolutionists stand before Him. Young earth Creationists at least realized that one must stick with the Word of God. That much they get right. Just like Origen. That much he did get right.

Oh, I'm sure Origen was a firm believer in the literal interpretation of Scripture.

Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold manner, the understanding of the divine letters,— that is, in order that all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak, by the very body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense: while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are able to see something more (than that), they may be edified by the very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble those of whom the apostle says, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who will be brought to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, which God has decreed before the ages unto our glory; — all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit.

... This point, indeed, is not to be passed by without notice, viz., that there are certain passages of Scripture where this body, as we termed it, i.e., this inferential historical sense, is not always found, as we shall prove to be the case in the following pages, but where that which we termed soul or spirit can only be understood.
​

[De Principiis 4.1.11,12; emphasis added]

What? Could Origen possibly believe that some portions of Scripture simply are not historical? Could he possibly believe that someone who interprets Scripture non-literally is more advanced than someone who interprets it literally? Oh dear, oh my, another conservative caricature is looking intolerably wobbly.

Well, he couldn't possibly have believed that of Genesis 1-3, could he?

Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to by reason.

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life?

And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil masticating what was taken from the tree?

And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him.

And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen— the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.​

[De Principiis 4.1.16; emphases and paragraphing added]

Oh my. By Origen's own estimation all modern creationists are somewhere between altogether blind and completely without understanding.

But then again, he thought much of the Gospels was non-literal too! He must be heretic of heretics to say such a thing. Why, we must doubt if he was even Christian.

Like I said, I'm done with Origen. He's a poster boy for gap theory just about as much as Richard Dawkins is a good representative for Christianity. Who wants to take on Caedmon?

 

[shernren]

(Having said that, it is said that the poor man castrated himself. It probably would have done him better if he had taken "Be fruitful and multiply" literally ... )

 

[Assyrian]

Okay, I've done Origen, who wants to do the rest?

Nice posts on Origen.

I have already addressed genez's use of

Isaiah 65:25
"The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD."
​

but he just picked up on the first paragraph in my post and ignored the rest.

(Having said that, it is said that the poor man castrated himself. It probably would have done him better if he had taken "Be fruitful and multiply" literally ... )

Maybe Origen should have got the first Darwin award, but them again the story is questionable.

I like Origen, and I like the way he felt free to explore scripture and wander off into wild speculations about the meaning of life. What I do not understand is believers latching on to one of his wilder statements and building a whole system of theology on it that you have to accept or you are a worldly second class Christians who can't hear the Holy Spirit. But maybe I misunderstand Origen and he was a grumpy and intolerant as the rest of us.

Another example is given here:

In his second Homily on Exodus Origen finds a problem with Exodus 1:21 which reads in his Bible: "Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves." This leads him to comment:

This statement makes no sense according to the letter. For what is the relationship that the text should say, "Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves."? It is as if a house is built because God is feared. If this be taken as it stands written, not only does it appear to lack logic, but also to be inane. But if you should see how the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, teaching the fear of God, make the houses of the Church and fill the whole earth with houses of prayer, then what is written will appear to have been written rationally."

Of course the solution becomes obvious when one translates the Greek word oikias correctly in this context as "families" instead of "houses". The verse then reads: "And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own." (NIV).​

I am not sure what you found is even a valid criticism. The "house of Abraham" is a way to speak of a family of men. Besides.. Every scholar has his critics. Let's not get diverted away as you desire to.
What Origen did discover was an example of what many others also saw long before Darwinism was born. That is the point.
Now, put your tongue back in your mouth. Its a sign of not being filled with the Spirit.
In Christ... GeneZ.

Looks like you have a better understanding of that Hebrew idiom than Origen did. Your post just supports shernren's point that Origen did not know Hebrew.

 

[GenemZ]

Oh yes - I used to be a creationist when I was 15, and I thought I was smarter than any other 15-year-old on the planet because I knew the true origins of the universe.

15? That's just being 15.

I was the most scientific of all my friends for knowing that the chemicals in a bombardier beetle's belly spontaneously explode if mixed together (and therefore the whole system couldn't have evolved); my classmates didn't even know what hydrogen peroxide was. I was the science whiz and everybody knew it.

An adult would just see that as matter of fact. And evolutionists would add his pre programmed rationale.

(Though I can't help but wonder if there is any 15-year-old on the planet who doesn't think it revolves around them; quite a fair few never outgrow this anti-Copernican lunacy.)

Pride cuts all ways. Some YECists are proud, some TEs are proud. As for gap theorists?

They are not allowed to be proud. They get ignored by all sides who find the GAP understanding a threat to their camp's glory.

Oh, I'm sure Origen was a firm believer in the literal interpretation of Scripture.

There you go again. Origen

Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold manner, the understanding of the divine letters,— that is, in order that all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak, by the very body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense: while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are able to see something more (than that), they may be edified by the very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble those of whom the apostle says, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who will be brought to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, which God has decreed before the ages unto our glory; — all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit.

... This point, indeed, is not to be passed by without notice, viz., that there are certain passages of Scripture where this body, as we termed it, i.e., this inferential historical sense, is not always found, as we shall prove to be the case in the following pages, but where that which we termed soul or spirit can only be understood.
​

[De Principiis 4.1.11,12; emphasis added]


What? Could Origen possibly believe that some portions of Scripture simply are not historical?

That is not what he meant. He said the the historical sense may not be found. That is because the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible has tenses that infer starting at a point of time and then continue on forever. That something is stated as so as happening in the past, yet the Greek would also indicate its just as fresh for today. Also, some passages infer eternal qualities that have no beginning nor end, yet refer to a beginning so we could begin with a frame of reference with our undeveloped limited human reasoning. In the truest sense, John 1:1, would more accurately be read... In the beginning -which was not a beginning - was the Word. The Word was eternally existing! It can have no beginning. But? Historically? We refer to a beginning as to grasp the concept. Same holds true with Genesis 1:1. Day One was not even created when God created the Heavens and earth. Time did not yet exist. Yet? We refer to it as the beginning. Its language of accommodation so believers who are young in the Lord can readily grasp.

Could he possibly believe that someone who interprets Scripture non-literally is more advanced than someone who interprets it literally?

In some cases? YES!

Matthew 5:29
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
​

Enuf for now...


.

 

[shernren]

Nice posts on Origen.

I like Origen, and I like the way he felt free to explore scripture and wander off into wild speculations about the meaning of life. What I do not understand is believers latching on to one of his wilder statements and building a whole system of theology on it that you have to accept or you are a worldly second class Christians who can't hear the Holy Spirit. But maybe I misunderstand Origen and he was a grumpy and intolerant as the rest of us.

To Origen (as to Christians who know their beliefs) the entire Scriptures pointed to Christ and to the eschatological reality of His perfected, glorified Church and the individual relationship of each believer to God within that Church.

Now to many of us, especially those of a conservative bent, this means that the events of Scripture actually happened, being part of an actual history leading up to the historical appearance of Christ. In other words the purpose of Scripture is really to point to events leading up to the event of Christ; the words of Scripture are effectual and true only insofar as they point accurately and reliably to events behind it (so that without a corresponding event, such as a rapid recent creation or a global flood, the words of Scripture are unhinged and purposeless).

However, to Origen, Scripture pointing to Christ meant that the words of Scripture represent ideas that in some form or another point to the idea of Christ, the Logos. They were serious about philosophy in their day: the world was not explained in terms of events (Newton, what [essentially indistinguishable] particles are at what positions under what forces at what times) but in terms of ideas (Aristotle, primeval elements pervading all of nature with different permutations giving apparently different structures). Rocks fell because they wanted to get to the surface of the Earth which was their "natural" resting place.

As such, to Origen, the surface meaning was secondary. Whether or not there was a Moses wouldn't matter, since everything that was said about Moses secretly referred to Christ anyway. Goat-stags and griffins don't exist? No problem! The Law wasn't actually talking about goat-stags and griffins anyway; it was actually talking about my righteousness right here right now, even though I don't recognize it. The more mature a Christian is, according to Origen, the more he sees Christ, and the more he will see the idea of Christ behind the words of Scripture.

Quibble all you want with his methods, but he had lofty and honorable goals.

That is not what he meant. He said the the historical sense may not be found. That is because the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible has tenses that infer starting at a point of time and then continue on forever. That something is stated as so as happening in the past, yet the Greek would also indicate its just as fresh for today. Also, some passages infer eternal qualities that have no beginning nor end, yet refer to a beginning so we could begin with a frame of reference with our undeveloped limited human reasoning. In the truest sense, John 1:1, would more accurately be read... In the beginning -which was not a beginning - was the Word. The Word was eternally existing! It can have no beginning. But? Historically? We refer to a beginning as to grasp the concept. Same holds true with Genesis 1:1. Day One was not even created when God created the Heavens and earth. Time did not yet exist. Yet? We refer to it as the beginning. Its language of accommodation so believers who are young in the Lord can readily grasp.

Seriously, genez. Did Origen's examples pertain to the use of the aorist tense? (I know Greek too. )

The temptation of Jesus - was that conveyed in the aorist? Or in the typical, everyday tenses that you would use in narration?

Your attempts at defending Custance's misquoting of Origen are getting more and more strange with every iteration.

 

[GenemZ]

The point was?

Origen rightly discerned what many other Bible scholars discerned over the years concerning Genesis 1:2.

But what do we get? Instead of acknowledging what he saw in Genesis 1:2? We have someone wanting to throw a pebble against the wall as to divert our attention away. The link I provided shows that Origen was not alone in what he interpreted.

It seems no one dare goes there to see what all the others had to say. Its become a game of.. let's just minimize Origen and run far from finding out what was understood by many Bible scholars long before Darwin's mother even broke water.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html
​

Is the spirit is willing?




.

 

[GenemZ]

Looks like you have a better understanding of that Hebrew idiom than Origen did. Your post just supports shernren's point that Origen did not know Hebrew.

You think I ignore you? I do read what you say. But you are so many times far off base (and confident of what you speak) that I am wondering if I really should begin ignoring you.

What I said did not support what you claim. You continuously find a distorted way of seeing what I say, and then expect me to defend my words. That's the problem. The real problem. Might as well just ignore you.

I think from henceforth, that is a good idea.


Love that option being there. Perhaps, you should try putting me on ignore as well? But I have a feeling you take pleasure in distorting my words as a ploy.

So be it.


In Christ, GeneZ


.

 

[GenemZ]

Seriously, genez. Did Origen's examples pertain to the use of the aorist tense? (I know Greek too. )

There are various ways in which the Greek can express events. In ways we do not find in our language today. There is a form of aorist that can take an event which occurred in time, preserving it out of time, and view it existing as it was in that point of time forever. (That covers how we were saved, by the way) But, that is not what I am referring to. Having sat under studied men, and read others, there are various means for both the Hebrew and Greek to express timelessness, or, a beginning but no end. That was something Origen had to face, as all Bible scholars must.

I did answer the question concerning Origen. Now its into a mudslinging maneuver as to discredit my word.

Very petty type of rebuttal. But, that's all you guys got to offer. For if you were as informed as you wish to appear? And, you do. You would not run away from the GAP found in Genesis 1, as you have. You can't deal with it. So, its school yard fight tactics I must face in order for you to be the king on the hill. But? What's that hill made of? I do not want it.




In Christ, GeneZ


.

 

[shernren]

What's that hill made of? I do not want it.

For someone who does not want the hill you've fought a lot over it, my feisty little friend. Come now. Is it wrong to acknowledge a little pettiness in your own self?

The reason I've made such a big deal over Origen is that he simply did not interpret the Scriptures literally. That is miles away from what Custance is suggesting, namely that he interpreted the Scriptures literally and found a gap in Genesis 1:1-2. Origen found a gap, sure. It was the same reasoning that led him to conclude that all of Genesis 1-3 could not have literally occurred, that the temptation of Jesus was an allegory, and that the Law of Moses couldn't possibly be fulfilled because it referred to goat-stags and griffins.

Mind you, this isn't esoteric, deep knowledge of Origen. This comes straight out of De Principiis, a work widely known in Christendom and something I could find within two minutes of googling it. By Custance's time, people had been meditating for one and a half millenia on Origen's thoughts - and still he completely screwed it up (including calling him someone literate in the original languages of the Bible, something which was clearly not the case).

And I think a statement of Jesus sums it up best: if Custance wasn't faithful with little, why should I think he was faithful with much?

Besides that, the whole gap theory dissension only serves to elaborate on what I believe to be a key idea to TEs: namely that the Bible simply wasn't designed to give us information on the age of the earth, one way or another. So much of gap theory is just filling in biblical gaps with human imagination. For example, the Bible never says that Satan is a fallen angel. The Bible never even says that demons are fallen angels at all!

(Indeed, Jude 6 should suggest to the responsible exegete that angels who "left their proper dwelling" were immediately punished - therefore fallen angels can't be the evil spirits running around today, for they are all already in eternal chains under gloomy darkness awaiting final judgment.)

Hence, inferring some kind of war between angels is speculation twice removed from the Bible. Inferring that this war between angels devastated the Earth is speculation thrice removed, and to arrive at the current gap theory (many previous worlds? God didn't get it right the first time? All fossils were the result of a [geologically invisible] single catastrophe that happened before Genesis 1:2?) one needs to take so many steps away from the Bible that one might as well stop calling it a theory about what the Bible says any more.

No, it is a theory about the world and what to make of it, which happens to include a few words from the Bible. Creationism is similarly speculation about the world that only happens to incorporate a few words of the Bible; similarly TEism. You call TEs city slickers and creationists country bumpkins; do you know what I think of you gappers? You're like the corrupt Pharisees of Jesus' day, imagining that you're being biblical when in fact your convoluted speculative exegesis has rendered the Bible itself all but irrelevant within your worldview. And you don't even know it.

 

[GenemZ]

For someone who does not want the hill you've fought a lot over it, my feisty little friend. Come now. Is it wrong to acknowledge a little pettiness in your own self?

"It is hard to believe that a man is telling the
truth when you know that you would lie if you
were in his place."
- H. L. Mencken

​

This entire escapade to the winding hills with Origen is because you will not deal face on with the true issue here. That being, that Origen was just one of many in seeing this very issue you wish to avoid.

The reason I've made such a big deal over Origen is that he simply did not interpret the Scriptures literally. That is miles away from what Custance is suggesting, namely that he interpreted the Scriptures literally and found a gap in Genesis 1:1-2.

Origen was one of MANY scholars who saw what it says in the Hebrew in THIS PASSAGE. Whatever Origen may have had to say on different matters is not the reason he was quoted.

He was quoted to show how far back it was seen. That, what is written in the Hebrew about the GAP? Even "dim witted" Origen could see it!

But? You can not? Where does that put you?

Origen found a gap, sure. It was the same reasoning that led him to conclude that all of Genesis 1-3 could not have literally occurred, that the temptation of Jesus was an allegory, and that the Law of Moses couldn't possibly be fulfilled because it referred to goat-stags and griffins.

In spite of that, he found the GAP. Being such a moron as you wish to portray him to be? Then, what excuse do you have for not getting even as much as he was able to?


Now... let's forget about Origen. Wasted enough time on your diversion.


Why don't you read about what great scholars saw? The same things concerning the GAP? If even Origen could get it? What excuse does that leave you? Thst's not a pleasant corner you have painted yourself into. Instead of paint, you've used tar!


http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html



You will see many early scholars mentioned. All born before the Darwinian controversy. Not all saw the same exact emphasis. Some simply saw a time interval between Genesis 1:1 and 2. They did not know what to make of it. Knowing what to do with it all came later after Darwin made his appeal to humanism in the name of God. Its from the early fathers that the GAP theory was compiled. It was not created the last minute as a stop gap measure as young earth creationists blindly claim.


Please, go read some more of where that link takes you. You will see that on this particular issue Origen was amongst some very good company. What Origen was quoted on was agreed upon with by others. Others who would not have agreed with him on the matters of contention of which you try to discredit all he says with.



Correction which exposes our own stupidity is what transforms man into maturity. Some remain kids all their lives because they wish to perpetuate and cling to past glories that their superior position in youth granted them.


Can you take it?

Or, will you just leave it?


http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html






.

 

[GenemZ]

(Indeed, Jude 6 should suggest to the responsible exegete that angels who "left their proper dwelling" were immediately punished - therefore fallen angels can't be the evil spirits running around today, for they are all already in eternal chains under gloomy darkness awaiting final judgment.)

You are getting into waters too deep for you to simply wade in. Those angels that left "their positions of authority" were to be found in Genesis 6. These were not to be included in with the angels that fell prior to our creation. These angels were a unique bunch. Jesus even went to preach to them when he descended.

But..

You are getting into waters way too deep for you to simply wade in. No sense trying to explain if you can accept what you have. I hate to see a drowning man. And, you would only drag me down with you if I tried to save you.

Walking away from this flooded sink hole...


BYE!



.

 

[Assyrian]

You think I ignore you? I do read what you say. But you are so many times far off base (and confident of what you speak) that I am wondering if I really should begin ignoring you. What I said did not support what you claim. You continuously find a distorted way of seeing what I say, and then expect me to defend my words. That's the problem. The real problem. Might as well just ignore you.

I think from henceforth, that is a good idea.

Well if you can't answer my points, ignoring me is certainly one option. There is not much point though in simply claiming I am 'far off base', or that I distort what you say, without actually backing your claims up with evidence or some sort of coherent argument.

Love that option being there. Perhaps, you should try putting me on ignore as well? But I have a feeling you take pleasure in distorting my words as a ploy. So be it. In Christ, GeneZ

I am happy to answer bad exegesis and bad arguments when I see them. What I find strange is that you think people live in dread of the Gap Theory when you are the one who has to ignore their replies, or that answering your claims means people are 'running away from the Gap found in Genesis'. This is a discussion forum, you shouldn't be too upset if other people don't accept all your claims simply because you say so and actually answer you arguments.

There are various ways in which the Greek can express events. In ways we do not find in our language today. There is a form of aorist that can take an event which occurred in time, preserving it out of time, and view it existing as it was in that point of time forever. (That covers how we were saved, by the way) But, that is not what I am referring to. Having sat under studied men, and read others, there are various means for both the Hebrew and Greek to express timelessness, or, a beginning but no end. That was something Origen had to face, as all Bible scholars must.

I did answer the question concerning Origen. Now its into a mudslinging maneuver as to discredit my word.

I think shernren was surprised that you think Origen was discussing verb tenses in the passage. I certainly was. Origen was talking about the historic sense of scripture, not the historic tense. Shernren simply questioned you on you reading of the Origen passage, that is hardly mudslinging.

 

[Assyrian]

edit

 

[GenemZ]

.



Just left a party where lot's of weird things just happened. Strange things. I was so glad to be outside and back to freedom. Just as I am stepping onto the sidewalk a voice appears from behind a door barely open. "Hey! You forgot some of your things here!"

I keep walking. Freedom is such a refreshing scent in the air.

Sure I left some things behind that I did not want to. Let them have them, I said to myself. They will not know what they are for anyway...





.