Eschatology

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't even see that the curse was necessarily propagated upon all mankind.

According to the writer of Hebrews, Levi was in the loins of his father, Abraham, when Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedek. So Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. In like manner, we were in the loins of our father, Adam, when he sinned – so we were sinful from birth. (Actually, from conception.)

Hebrews 7:9-10 NKJV Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, (10) for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

Hi PolyDoc,

God tells us that He does NOT count the parents' sins against their children...

18:1 The Word of Jehovah came to me again, saying,
18:2 What is it to you that you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the teeth of the sons are dull?
18:3 As I live, says the Lord Jehovah, to you there is no longer any occasion to use this proverb in Israel.
18:4 Behold, all souls are Mine. As the soul of the father, also the soul of the son, they are Mine. The soul that sins, it shall die.
18:5 But a man that is just and does what is just and right,
18:6 and has not eaten on the mountains, nor has lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor has defiled his neighbor's wife, nor has come near a menstruating woman,
18:7 and has not ill-treated any man, but has given the debtor's pledge back to him, has robbed none by violence, has given his bread to the hungry and has covered the naked with a garment;
18:8 he has not given out on usury, nor has taken any increase, he has withdrawn his hand from iniquity, has done judgment between man and man,
18:9 has walked in My statutes, and has kept My judgments to deal truly, he is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord Jehovah.
18:10 And if he fathers a son who is violent, who sheds blood, and who does to a brother any of these;
18:11 even if he does do not any of these himself, but his son has, but has even eaten on the mountains, and has defiled his neighbor's wife;
18:12 has ill-treated the poor and needy; thieving, he stole; has not given back the pledge; and has lifted up his eyes to the idols; has committed abomination;
18:13 has loaned on usury; and has taken increase; shall he then live? He shall not live! He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be on him.
18:14 And, lo, if he fathers a son who sees all his father's sins which he has done, and fears, and does not do like him;
18:15 who has not eaten on the mountains; nor has lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; has not defiled his neighbor's wife;
18:16 nor has ill-treated any man; has not withheld the pledge; nor has robbed by violence; but has given his bread to the hungry; and has covered the naked with clothes;
18:17 has withdrawn his hand from the poor; has not received usury nor increase; has done My judgments; has walked in My statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live.
18:18 His father, because he extorted, robbed his brother by robbery, and did what is not good among his people; lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.
18:19 Yet you say, Why? Does not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son has done justice and right, has kept all My statutes, and has done them, he shall surely live.
18:20 The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.
18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins which he has committed, and keep all My statutes, and do justice and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
18:22 All his transgressions that he has done, they shall not be mentioned to him; in his righteousness that he has done he shall live.
18:23 Do I actually delight in the death of the wicked? says the Lord Jehovah. Is it not that he should turn from his ways and live?
18:24 But when the righteous turns from his righteousness and does injustice, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked do, shall he live? All his righteousness that he has done shall not be remembered; in his trespass that he has trespassed, and in his sin that he has sinned, in them he shall die.
18:25 Yet you say, The way of Jehovah is not fair. Hear now, O house of Israel: Is not My way fair? Are your ways not unfair?
18:26 When a righteous one turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and dies in them; for his iniquity that he has done, he shall die.
18:27 Again, when the wicked turns away from his wickedness that he has committed and does that which is lawful and righteous, he shall save his soul alive.
18:28 Because he looks carefully, and turns away from all his sins that he has committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
18:29 Yet says the house of Israel: The way of Jehovah is not fair. O house of Israel, are not My ways fair? Are not your ways unfair?
18:30 So I will judge you, O house of Israel, each one of you according to his ways, says the Lord Jehovah. Turn and be made to turn from all your sins; and iniquity shall not be your stumbling-block.
18:31 Cast away from you all your sins by which you have sinned; and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will you die, O house of Israel?
18:32 For I have no delight in the death of him who dies, says the Lord Jehovah. Therefore turn and live. (Ezekiel 18:1-32)

"In those days they do not say any more: Fathers have eaten unripe fruit, And the sons' teeth are blunted. But--each for his own iniquity doth die, Every man who is eating the unripe fruit, Blunted are his teeth..." (Jeremiah 31:29-30)

God does not count parents' sins against their children or descendants. Each person is responsible for their own sins.

According to the writer of Hebrews, Levi was in the loins of his father, Abraham, when Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedek. So Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek. In like manner, we were in the loins of our father, Adam, when he sinned – so we were sinful from birth. (Actually, from conception.)

Hebrews 7:9-10 NKJV Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, (10) for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

I think you are unintentionally misusing this passage. The point of the passage was that we show respect to our ancestors, so they are necessarily greater than we are (at least to us, respectwise). But Abraham, who was the ancestor of the priesthood of Israel, showed his respect for Melchizedek by paying tithes to him, rather than receiving tithes as his descendants the Levites would do. Therefore, the author's argument goes, Melchizedek has a greater priesthood.

But this doesn't indicate that the sins of a parent are counted against his descendants. It doesn't indicate that there is a transfer of anything to descendants at all.

Also, though this is a minor thing, when the author of Hebrews said that the descendants were in the "loins" of their ancestors, it doesn't actually mean literally, but rather that they came from those loins. We know that grandchildren ARE NOT actually in the loins of a parent, but the POTENTIAL DNA of that grandchild IS PRESENT in the amount of about 25% of their genetic code (depending upon how their genes are expressed). So the author of Hebrews was using a figure of speech here.

There was no death in the world before Adam sinned. Plants are not living creatures of flesh as are animals and humans.

Romans 5:12 NKJV Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--

The context of this passage isn't ALL death of ALL living creatures, but rather of humans alone. Death spread to all MEN (i.e., MANKIND). Other creatures aren't mentioned here.

It's more of an assumption that flesh was not eaten before the Fall than anything. Prior to Noah, we have Abel raising and killing sheep. It certainly seems that if God was accepting the "sweet savor" of the sacrifices, that Abel was probably eating meat too. In the Mosaic Law, they didn't just throw the meat away. They ate all the meat sacrifices that were not burned up.

Also, prior to the Flood there were "clean" and "unclean" animals. The only Scriptural context for the clean and unclean animals is in the context of food. That suggests that they were being eaten before the Flood.

The assumption seems to be that if God gave Adam and Eve the green herbs and the fruit of trees to eat, that He didn't allow them to eat meat, or that they were limited to those plant foods. That's not a logical conclusion. He told them what He had given them to eat, but He didn't tell them they were restricted from eating other things (except for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

A lot of people have this mystical view of life before the "Fall", where the Universe, animals, and humans were all different, then God just changed them instantly to a corrupt version.

I cannot recall where I heard it just recently, but a Bible scholar pointed out that what distinguishes Christianity from many other religions is that those type of things are not consistent with the way God actually performed miracles and changes. They were not magical fantasy miracles, but really "realistic" and rather mundane in most cases. What possible purpose would God have in changing everything because mankind sinned? Didn't He create everything good? So man turns out bad, and God makes EVERYTHING bad???

God spent six days creating all things good. Why would He change everything to corruption because of the sin of mankind?

None of that fits the character and nature of God in Scripture.

I believe that everything before the Fall was essentially like it was after the Fall. Animals ate animals, and maybe Adam and Eve snacked on some meat every once in awhile. Entropy existed just as it does now, and the Universe ticked away entropically.

Then Adam and Eve sinned. They brought death "into the world", which meant to mankind, because that was the context. That didn't even mean that every human after them would die physically, but that rather that Adam and Eve would die spiritually for their disobedience to God.

God told them that in the DAY that they ate of the fruit, they would SURELY die. They ate of the fruit and lived hundreds of years longer. So was God a liar? No! Absolutely not! God was speaking of their spiritual destination, not the death of their physical bodies. They chose to leave God through their sin.

Before I was born again, I was not a sinner because I sinned. I sinned because I was a sinner, and it is the nature of sinners to sin. Now, I am a new creature in Christ Jesus, and it is my nature to bring glory to God. (I don't always succeed at doing that...)

I disagree. You sinned because you have a will, and you exercised it against God's will. That's what sin is, missing God's will, doing what He doesn't want you to do. You became a sinner when you sinned, but it was inevitable, because we do what out own wills will, rather than obey God.

We aren't born sinners. We are born pure and innocent, then we gain the knowledge of good and evil at some point when we grow up. After that, our will chooses to disobey what we KNOW to be wrong. Then God counts that against us. The soul that sins shall die.

God makes it clear that He didn't hold Adam's sin against us. We didn't do the sin, we are not charged with Adam's sin.

I know of a little girl who is going blind because of the sins of her mother. Her mother, who was living the life of a harlot, tried to abort the child but was unsuccessful, and the child is suffering the consequences of her mother's sins. Doesn't that sound like it is contrary to God's nature as described in Scripture? That little girl did not choose to be conceived as the result of her mother's harlotry, nor did she choose for her mother to attempt an abortion. Yet she is the one who is suffering from the effects of those sins.

Ah! You have a misunderstanding of the consequences of sin, versus the accounting of sin. God counts the sins against those that do them. The harlot mother will bear the guilt of her sins before God, unless she repents. Her daughter, however, bears the consequences of those sinful actions (as she probably does as well). That's completely different than what God was saying concerning Adam.

Unlike the harlot though, Adam's sin had no direct physical consequences, unless we count the "knowledge of good and evil" which passed on to other generations. (Even if it does pass on to us, it doesn't become active until we reach that age of accountability, which God notes in several places in Scripture.)

God is just. He doesn't charge people with sin that innocently perform an action that would be sin if they knew it was wrong. It isn't until you know that you have sinned that you have sinned.

The curse extended beyond just Adam, Eve, and the serpent:

Genesis 3:17-18 NKJV Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. (18) Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.

Cain, Abel, and Seth were forbidden entry to the Garden of Eden because Adam sinned.

Where is this stated in Scripture?

I'd say that they probably were prevented from entering the Garden of Eden because they somehow inherited the knowledge of good and evil, not directly because of Adam's sin. God stated in Genesis 3:22 something to the effect that it was not His desire that people live forever AND have the knowledge of good and evil. However, that may have just been for Adam and Eve. We don't know.

About entropy – I qualified my statement with "as we know it," not claiming that it did not exist in some form. The description of the curse in Genesis chapter 3 (part of which is quoted above) sounds like entropy as it existed when God said of His creation, "It is very good," was changed to entropy as we know it now.

IMHO, the universe was governed by one set of "natural laws" before the curse of Genesis chapter 3, and by a different set after. In other words, the curse was brought about by God causing a change in what we think of as the fundamental "laws of nature." (Or at least, some of those fundamental laws, not necessarily all of them.) All that science can examine are those now in effect.

I don't believe such a scenario fits in with the nature of God. He would not curse all of creation for Adam's sin. It's takes a huge and complex doctrinal framework to come up with that. I believe those are doctrines of man, not God.

I see no reason in Scripture to believe that the laws of nature changed after Adam sinned. So, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, unless you know of something that makes a better case which would convince me.

That change in the "laws of nature" will be reversed someday. I think Paul is hinting at that in 1 Corinthians 15:39-58.

I don't see it. All that passage discusses is human resurrection and humans passing from corruption to incorruption. Where does it include the laws of nature or any other part of creation?

About the authorship of Hebrews – it probably was not Luke, because the letter was written to Hebrew believers by one who was intimately familiar with Hebrew thought. Luke was a Gentile. And it is written in a different style than the Pauline epistles, the authorship of which are pretty well certain. I had not thought of Apollos, and would like to see the reasoning for that possible authorship. The best we can do is to agree that the authorship is unknown and make guesses, some educated, but others.... :roll:

Apollos is a popular suggestion by scholars for the authorship of Hebrews. I cannot remember the reasoning, but I found it to be weak.

The book of Hebrews was most likely written primarily to GENTILE believers. Scholars have noted that the author's polished Greek style would be a strange way to present a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood. Also the writer's Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, indicating that the author was probably not Jewish.

If you look at Hebrews 8:8, you can see that it was NOT written to the Jews, because it says, "For finding fault with THEM, He said to THEM..." The "them" in this verse refers to the corporate Israel and Judah. If the writer were writing to Jews, then He would have said "For finding fault with YOU...". Instead, the author uses "them" to indicate that the people to whom he is writing are NOT Jews.

Apparently the reason for selecting Apollos as the author of the book of Hebrews is that he was someone famous that fit the mold that scholars expect of the author. Wikipedia says (under Apollos), "Martin Luther and some modern scholars have proposed Apollos as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, rather than Barnabas, another contender. Both were Hebrew Christians with sufficient intellectual authority." This seems unlikely, given that Hebrews was written by someone with a superb grasp of Greek to someone other than Jews.

Just my thoughts...


John for Christ

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Romans 5:19 NKJV For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

That sounds like one man's sin made many men into sinners, not that many were made sinners by their own sinful choices. And, of course, that one man who disobeyed was Adam, and the one man who obeyed was Jesus Christ.

If we are made sinners because we sin, then it would follow that we can be made righteous by doing good and not sinning. But that is not the case:

Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (9) not of works, lest anyone should boast.

We are helpless to do anything about our sinful condition. That is why we need a Redeemer. And the sin nature was passed from Adam to his offspring, and from each father to his offspring thereafter. That is why the Redeemer had to be the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), one whose father was none other than God Himself. We inherit the spiritual nature of our father, not of our mother, because Eve was deceived, but Adam knew that eating the "apple" was wrong and did it anyway.

Some denominations take this too far and say that we no longer have the "sin nature" after we are "saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Spirit." (Not just Pentecostal/Charismatics, but also most denominations of the Weslyan-Arminian tradition.) If that were true, then all children conceived after the father is "saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Spirit" would have no sin nature.

The "sin nature" is often defined as "a bent to sinning." Kind-of like what you said, John for Christ, about following our own will rather than God's. If our will was not tainted by sin from conception, we would be able to not sin and thus, not everyone would require a Redeemer.

But the only man in all of history since Adam sinned to have a will perfectly aligned with God was the man, Christ Jesus. All of the rest of us have a will that was tainted by sin as soon as we were conceived, before we knew right from wrong.

I agree that we are not responsible for our sins before we know right from wrong, but if our wills were not sinful by nature, we would always choose right until we reach whatever age that might be. It is different for different individuals, and some may never reach that age because of birth defects such as mental retardation.

 

[Anonymous]

Now a prophecy that has only one possible fulfillment glorifies God...

I believe this is where we see things fundamentally differently:

“Could a man make a single rose, we should give him an empire; but these beautiful gifts of God come freely to us, and we think nothing of them. We admire what is worthless, if it be only rare. The most precious of things is nothing if it be common.”

“The smallest flowers show God’s wisdom and might. Painters cannot rival their color, nor perfumers their sweetness; green and yellow, crimson, blue, and purple, all growing out of the earth. And yet we trample on lilies as if we were so many cows.”

Luther

It would only devalue said glory to the reprobate mind. But as Screwtape said, God is vulgur he gives his very best gift to anyone who would receive them. To me multiple fulfillment would degrade the glory of prophecy much less than giving Salvation itself to every common man who would receive it. Being common does not devalue a thing.

Hi Tlaloc,

Well, that's a roundabout insult...do you honestly think I have a reprobate mind? Anyway, I disagree, for the simple reason that "multiple fulfillment" is nothing more than a predictable pattern that doesn't require God at all. Mathematically and logically, such a thing would be neither useful nor unique. How then does it glorify God, given that the POINT of a predictive prophecy is to show God's power? If a prophecy has double- or triple- or who-knows-how-many-multiple-fulfillments, then how is it any better than what a stock broker or any other statistician can do?

Honestly, I don't think it's worth arguing about. We have different opinions on this issue, but my biggest concern is that your view will color how you look at eschatology, in a way that will leave you in confusion. Over a decade ago, I was praying about the same issue of double-fulfillment, and the Spirit showed me that the prophecies of God had a single fulfillment for the reasons given above and others. I have to go with what He's told me and what I believe to be the most rational view.

But here's the thing: If we look at eschatology, the prophecies point to some very specific times and events. The only way that there could be double-fulfillment is if EVERY SINGLE SIGN AND SYMBOL COMES TO PASS.

Firstly, I don't say there must be double fulfillment, only that there may be, and secondly, I'm not anti-preterist unless you cross the Kingdom of God line (I think its 20:8 like you said). I don't have a problem with the Neroian rendering.

Well, if you allow for double-fulfillment in one prophecy, there's no legitimate reason to deny it for another. That causes a whole load of problems...

Can you explain what you mean by the "Kingdom of God line"? I don't want to make any assumption about what you mean. I think I may know, but...

If three out of four symbols in the prophecy come to pass, but not the fourth--then it isn't what the prophecy was talking about.

I agree with this, and its why I give no heed to around 70% of the 'prophets' (in the forthtelling sense) I hear.

Neither do I. I completely agree that most so-called "prophets" of today are either fakes or are false, but honestly believe what they are saying.

However, I do believe in prophecy, because I and my father have prophesied several times during my life so far, and they've all come to pass exactly as it was prophesied. I DON'T do that very often, and I'm EXTREMELY careful not to speak anything that God hasn't told me to speak.

THE NEXT TIME THAT JERUSALEM WAS SURROUNDED BY ARMIES.

But then, wouldn't Daniels Abomination that causes desolation have come to pass THE NEXT TIME abominations where set up on the alter?

Note that the passage in Daniel says nothing about the abomination having to do with the altar. The assumption goes that the altar is the "holy place". Jerusalem was called the "holy city" as well, and then the Temple itself is the "holy place" too.

The "abomination" was something that would make something desolate. The Roman Army surrounding Jerusalem fits that description well, given that they completely desolated Jerusalem.

Daniel's prophecy doesn't actually say anything about the "holy place" or the altar. Jesus is the one that prophesied that the abomination of desolation would be standing in the holy place (Matthew 24:15).

Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away,

and the abomination that maketh desolate set up,

there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

I.E. Under Antiochus Epiphinous? It couldn't be liked to what Christ foretold unless there was multiple fulfillment.

Given that Christ prophesied this would occur in the future, it could not have been what happened under Antiochus Ephiphanes. Sure, that was an abomination on the altar, but it wasn't the "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place".

To be honest a lot of this section seems to be targeted at saying the prophecy Luke must have been fulfilled then, and I already agree with that, much of it seems inapplicable.

and even two Jesuses popping up twice in history!

This always rings hollow to me, in most cases I believe the prophecy was fulfilled before Jesus applying to a good but non-God human. Most of the Christ related prophecies call for someone who will save his people in one way or another. Jesus did that, but many non Jesus people also did that. Multiple fulfillment don't mean multiple Christs, just multiple people destined to do something for someone (depending on the exact prophecy)

Well, yeah. I'm not even suggesting that would be possible. That's one of the reasons I don't believe in double-fulfillment, because we'd have no defensible reason to deny the possibility that any prophecy could be fulfilled two or more times. We'd have to assume that Jesus' first coming might come two or more times according to the Old Testament prophecies. (That doesn't mean multiple Christs, necessarily. It could also mean Jesus Himself coming two or more times. Nevertheless, I still don't believe it would ever happen.)

More to the point, it is the ability to agree with the data from multiple camps. I wouldn't hedge my bets normally, but it appears to me that when God said days he fulfilled his prophecies in the literal day time spans, and yet still applied those fulfillment spiritually to Christ. Multiple fulfillment to me is a necessary part of my Chrisiology, that it can apply to eschatology is just a bonus.

Can you explain what you mean with some examples? I don't see where you are seeing some difference between "literal day time spans" and "a fulfillment spiritually to Christ". Honestly, I don't even know what you are talking about.

Change has to occur for entropy to make any sense at all.

Granted, but that does not mean

Entropy has to occur for change to make any sense at all

Doesn't it? There are three possibilities with respect to change: (1) Change forward in time, (2) Change backward in time, and (3) No change and no time "movement".

What other rational choice is there? Can you even conceive of something else?

Entropy is simply the recognition of change.

Every change involves a loss of disorder in our Universe today.

Right, but that does not mean it was always so or is necessarily so.

I cannot see a half-eaten fruit as something in a state of entropy or disorder; it is doing exactly what it was intended to do and fulfilling its purpose perfectly, and no energy is necessarily lost from the system. You are looking at something which is on the micro level apparently chaotic which is on the macro level perfectly orderly. Its like watching ants. If you where to watch a postman walking his streets and see that he puts different amounts and sizes and shapes of packages in different sized boxes in different places, he would appear to be a randomly wandering lunatic. Understanding the postal system at large explains what he is doing and why.

But a half-eaten fruit IS in a state of greater entropy than an uneaten fruit. I'm racking my brains trying to think of a way to explain this to you.

How about this? Let's suppose you build a Jenga tower to play the game. Once it is built, it is in the greatest state of order during the game. As you take the blocks out, there is greater and greater disorder. When it falls, it reaches its greatest state of disorder in the game. Now, energy is expended setting up the Jenga game into a state of order. That energy is lost into the environment by mechanical transfer and by friction. As you pull the blocks out of the tower, you expend energy and lose it to the environment as well.

Okay, so all that energy is lost. Then you play another round. You set it all up again into a state of order--USING MORE ENERGY TO ESTABLISH THE SAME INITIAL STATE OF ORDER. You cannot get that energy back. QED, entropy!

Now let's suppose you did NOT lose energy or increase entropy. If so, then you wouldn't have any movement at all. Energy is lost during movement. If it were retained, then either it would be increased as you did things, causing a build-up of all the new energy, and eventually you'd radiate heat like the Sun. If it were transferred without causing greater disorder, then the Jenga blocks would resist your movement and the tower would never fall.

This same thing applies to eating apples (that is, if you could put them back together exactly as they were originally).

You've given a long list of cases that should be labeled 'transfer of energy' not 'entropy'. Transfer of energy on the micro level does not mean entropy exists on the macro level. Both thermodynamic entropy (what we're talking about) and Cosmological entropy (what polydoc and I mean) function on the macroscopic scale. Macroscopic is in the very definition of Thermodynamic Entropy. Micro energy transfer is not entropy, (and by micro, I mean anything comparatively small scale, not microscopic. All of earth is micro when talking about universal entropy)

Actually, transfer of energy IS entropic. Entropy was first observed on the macro level. We've only since then discovered it applies on the micro level as well.

There is no difference between thermodynamic entropy and cosmological entropy. Entropy exists on a large scale throughout the Universe, based upon observation, such as the cosmic background radiation, the red-shift of stars, etc. The Universe IS the cosmos, under normal definitions.

How is "micro energy transfer" not entropy?

Science, especially physics, is one of my three main fields of study. I was even employed as a chemist and an engineering assistant. Based on everything I've ever learned about entropy, it is intimately related to the nature of the Universe and time and energy and order. You obviously have a VERY different view of entropy and what it is. Can you provide any explanations of what it is you believe? It just doesn't make sense to me.

You're physics professor is using the word wrong, if you have any doubts go ask any good philology professor

Nevertheless, that is the meaning that "entropy" has in physics, regardless of the origin of the word.

The origin of the word "entropy" is:

"1868, from Ger. Entropie "measure of the disorder of a system," coined 1865 (on analogy of Ger. Energie ) by physicist Rudolph Clausius (1822-1888) from Gk. entropia "a turning toward," from en- "in" + trope "a turning" (see trope)."

In other words, it was an INVENTED word created specifically for physics.

There was no death in the world before Adam sinned. Plants are not living creatures of flesh as are animals and humans.

I've pointed out at other times in other places that none of the plants that Adam and Eve where given to eat actually died in any sense of the word when eaten. Herbs all regenerate, and fruit is made to be eaten. Root vegetables and grains where not given to them at that time.[/quote]

Hmmm...then how did Adam and Eve get sustenance from them? What then was the point of eating?

Eating dissolves and KILLS the plants. They are certainly alive in the same sense as any animal--just ask a biologist. (In fact, an animal and plant cell can be combined in a lab--and live.) The body dissolves the plants to extract nutritive substances from them. That's the entire purpose of eating, so why do it if the plant remained alive--which suggests that you couldn't extract its nutrition without killing it, therefore no nutritive substances would enter your body, and the plant would have to come out undigested, but horribly mangled.

By the way, root vegetables and grains are included within the category of "herbs" in Scripture. "Herbs" in Hebrew is just the term we would use for "plants". In the creation, God is recorded creating plants and trees. (Who knows why those were separate categories given that they are all plants.)


John for Christ

 

[Tlaloc]

But a prophecy that has multiple fulfillments loses value, because a repetitive event doesn't appear to the human mind to be unique or special-

Individual Salvation is much less unique than any prophecy, to the Christian mind something common should not lose value just for happening a lot.

Beyond that, being a pattern does not make something predictable before the first instance of said pattern, and prophecies where always given before said instance.

Well, if you allow for double-fulfillment in one prophecy, there's no legitimate reason to deny it for another.

But I never did deny it to another, I said there may be, but it is also not necessary. The problems with any given multiple fulfillment are of you're own concussion though.

The 'Kingdom of God line' is the point at which the Kingdom of God comes and he reins supreme and gives the final rewards.

Note that the passage in Daniel says nothing about the abomination having to do with the altar.

Dan 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Well, no, it doesn't say anything about either the alter or a holy place. The immediate context infers the alter, though I didn't need to use the term anyway. It would have been just as well to say THE NEXT TIME SACRIFICES WHERE TAKEN AWAY. Per you're rules, Antiochus would have had to fulfill Daniels prophecy. Either that or

It would have had to have been fulfilled THE NEXT TIME THAT JERUSALEM WAS SURROUNDED BY ARMIES.

:

Is invalid.

Given that Christ prophesied this would occur in the future,

Actually, it's given that there are no valid double fulfillments. That is not given for this conversation.

Can you explain what you mean with some examples? I don't see where you are seeing some difference between "literal day time spans" and "a fulfillment spiritually to Christ". Honestly, I don't even know what you are talking about.

Daniel's prophecies very often contain literal day or week time spans set from certain historical events such as rulers coming to power. Even the 'the abomination that causes desolation' one had a literal day timespan attached to it. Even Daniels own calculations as to when things would happen where based on taking literally the timespans set out in Jeremiah. Prophecies such as Daniel 9:21-27 need to take place in a span of years, not centuries, and they did. Still, such verses are generally used spiritually as references to Christ.

As to entropy, I don't know you you can even look it up and not understand the distinctions I'm talking about. It seems like you've been exposed to the term 'entropy' as a buzzword so much you can't identify what it properly means even when reading it plainly.

Entropy is the measure of energy in a system which is not available or no longer available to the system as a whole. Energy theoretically may move within a system and yet allow the system to have the same amount of gross potential energy.

In this case one could eat the fruit, defecate, allow that to decompose, and allow that product to be absorbed back into the parent plant which may produce a fruit of the same energy value as the first. This would be a zero entropy world. Similarly, you could have a true perpetual motion device in such a world. In an entropy world the fruit would always be slightly smaller each regeneration or else draw more energy from an outside source, similarly you could never have a perpetual motion device. There is less potential energy because the transfer of potential energy is not 100%, some is lost.

Changes withing a system does not equate to a system as a whole being in disorder. What part of that have I failed to make clear? What is difficult to understand about that?

There is no difference between thermodynamic entropy and cosmological entropy.

There is a difference between the field of cosmology and the field of thermodynamics. If you where so avid as to look one thing up I'm surprised you missed this. Entropy as a cosmological theory is essentially the idea that eventually there will be no potential energy left in the universe, 'heat death' and all that. Potential energy moving from one place to another has no bearing on this whatsoever, only the potential energy that does not get where it is intended to go adds to this. In thermodynamics it is measure of energy that is not available to work on a macroscopic scale in a closed system. If you define 'a fruit' as a closed system then that fruit being half eaten is entropy, but that does a serious injustice to the idea of entropy. If you define 'the world' as a closed system then a half eaten fruit is not entropic at all, its energy has gone somewhere else within the world, but any heat lost from the earths atmosphere is entropic. If you define 'the universe' as a closed system not even that heat loss is in and of itself entropic.

As to the last section, please apply yourself before replying. A plant as a whole does not die when a fruit or leaf is taken off of it. Honestly...

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

I (PolyDoc) said:

Obviously, much prophecy is being fulfilled before our eyes – the miraculous return of ethnic Israel to the land promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for instance. The fact that they were preserved as a distinct ethnic group, scattered among the nations, without a homeland, and usually under severe persecution, for nearly 2,000 years, is, in itself, miraculous.

to which Tlaloc replied:

Commenting upon the last thing you said there, if you recall towards the top of this message I discussed genetics and genealogies, I'd have to strenuously disagree with your statement that the Jews remained a distinct ethnic group. Genetics shows that very few of modern Jews have any particular ties to the ancient Jews (far less than 10%, by Y-chromosome studies of the Kohanim), and no direct connection other than their claims indicate that they are related to the Jews.

[half-sarcasm]
So, to put it in other words, genetics shows that God's two wives are dead. Which means that He did not keep His unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
[/half-sarcasm]

God knows who the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are, and therefore, just who it is to whom He will keep His unconditional promises. And He doesn't need the modern science of genetics or the ancient records that were destroyed along with the Temple in AD 70 to know who they are.

Genesis 17:8 NKJV Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

God is obviously talking about physical descendants in this passage (Isaac, Jacob, Jacob's 12 sons, and the millions of their descendants who left Egypt under Moses' leadership were real, physical people), and He is also talking about a specific piece of real estate. "Everlasting" means (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew definitions):

H5769
עלם / עולם
‛ôlâm
BDB Definition:
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

• 1a) ancient time, long time (of past)
  1b) (of future)
  • 1b1) for ever, always
    1b2) continuous existence, perpetual
    1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity
  Part of Speech: noun masculine

The term is also applied to God Himself. For example, in Exodus 3:15, God said, "this is my name for ever." The Hebrew word translated "for ever" is the same word translated as "everlasting" in Genesis 17:8.

There is no way to allegorize that promise and say that the Church has taken the place of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To do so would also require that the land of promise also be allegorized. Otherwise, can you imagine a billion Christians living in the Land of Canaan? (Or maybe there are far fewer real born-again Christians than we think...)

There are a lot of parallels between the Children of Israel and the Church. But we are distinct, separate groups (overlapping only in that a very few Jews also believe in their Messiah), and there are still unfulfilled promises to the Children of Israel. (And the Church.) They have never held the entire land promised to them. Because of their blindness, they have rejected their Messiah, but will someday recognize Him.

Romans 11:25 NKJV For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

God has different plans for His chosen people and the Church. But He has one plan of salvation. The Jewish people who are saved (and thus become part of the Church) are saved in the same way that we Gentile believers are saved - by grace through faith in the Jewish Messiah.

God has not discarded His people, but has preserved a remnant who still serve Him, just as He has done since Israel first became a nation:

Romans 11:1-5 NKJV I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. (2) God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, (3) "LORD, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS AND TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY SEEK MY LIFE"? (4) But what does the divine response say to him? "I HAVE RESERVED FOR MYSELF SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." (5) Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

And there are some of Abraham's physical descendants today who worship their Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, just as there was in the first century when Paul wrote those words, and just as there has been all through the intervening 1,900+/- years.

Romans 11:26-27 NKJV And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "THE DELIVERER WILL COME OUT OF ZION, AND HE WILL TURN AWAY UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB; (27) FOR THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

This promise, like the promise of possessing the land forever, can be fulfilled only if there is a distinct people-group who are the physical descendants of Jacob.

IMHO, there are problems with futurism as is now taught. An example already mentioned is that the gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks has little or no Scriptural support, but seems to me to have been "added on" in order to make the prophecy fit with the modern theory. Kind of reminds me of another "gap theory" that people add in Genesis in an attempt to make Scripture fit with the theory of evolution. But "replacement theology," which seems to be an integral part of Preterism, also has little or no Scriptural support, and negates many of God's unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Of course, as spiritual descendants of Abraham, we can appropriate the spiritual aspects of all of God's promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but not all of the physical aspects - specifically, the everlasting physical possession of the land of Canaan.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

And with that we will close out this thread. Thanks to all for their thoughts and contributions to this important topic in the overall field of theology.