katabole vs. themelios: Will the real foundation please be laid...

[Doc]

So, what do I think? I have no idea at this point, as I really am not clearly following the gist of where you're going with this.

Are you saying that if we view Genesis only through a literal lens, we will be led into error concerning our origins as well as many points of doctrine throughout the scripture?

If so, then I agree with you.

[Eleutheros]

So, what do I think? I have no idea at this point, as I really am not clearly following the gist of where you're going with this.

OK. I don't know what to say to this, Doc. I'm being as succinct as I know how to be for trying to draw others into a discussion that, apparently, none are interested in.

I say that because no one here has attempted, yet, to actually answer any question I've put out there, even you Doc. Or even replied back with their thoughts on my replies to theirs, except for you, Doc.

So, I guess either I'm unable to arouse curiosity or else no one's curiosity is peaked enough to repond. Or it could be, also, that there are those who do know what I'm getting at and wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Are you saying that if we view Genesis only through a literal lens, we will be led into error concerning our origins as well as many points of doctrine throughout the scripture?

No. In fact, Doc, I'm saying exactly the opposite. 

So, either you didn't read my post but just skimmed it, or I am unable to communicate. 

If so, then I agree with you.

I can guarantee, then, that if you go back and read my post through, that you won't. Unless, of course, I am unable to communicate with the written word.

And thus I think that there is nothing more for me to say here because I'm sure that your understanding, as you just stated it, is reflective of the majority opinion. And if there is an independent minority opinion here on Tentmaker, one that has not been shaped by the logical conclusions of Preterism and Calvinism, then those who hold that opinion are either timid or uninterested or else have not read this post. Or, it is even as I said it before, that I am unable to communicate.

So, once again, I encourage you all to be good, even as you were created to be!

[Doc]

I frankly find your posts hard to follow, because as I pointed out, I can't really quite work out from them what you're getting at. As you have perhaps guessed, your communication is not getting through effectively.

However, after that last post, it seems that you are championing a literal interpretation of Genesis. Perhaps if you would care to outline in some clear detail why you think this is the best interpretation, we may have something to discuss. Also, I fail to see how preterism impacts our interpretation of Genesis at all, as it's more typically applied to the interpretation of Revelation; and as far as I'm aware, the logical conclusions of Calvinism are the farthest thing from my understanding of Genesis. I would venture to guess that most of us here at Tent are not preterists, although we may have some leanings in that direction.

I guess in an attempt to answer an earlier question, I don't necessarily agree that the seeming "simplest" solution is the best one. Although this may usually be the case, it all depends on your perspective of simplicity. Sometimes the simplest solutions actually require more explanation, not less, because of the way people have been indoctrinated to think about certain things. This can make the simpler answers seem more complicated than they really are. I run into this all the time in patient education...

[Cardinal]

  I, for one, did not get the gist of what you were getting at, Eleutheros. Blessings....

[Beloved Servant]

Nor I Card.
I for one, hate my flesh.
There is nothing good in it alone.
It is, however, going to be filled with the glory/nature of God, the whole purpose of Christ!

[Seth]

HI Eleutheros,

I have been following the discussion, and so I for one am interested in the discussion. The Bible says that we should be quick to listen and slow to speak. Right now, I am being slow to speak because I have listened and still do not understand where you are going. I got the impression that you favored a figurative interpretation of Genesis as well. So that is a pattern, meaning that if many different people are saying they don't understand your words, the conclusion is most likely that your are not communicating clearly enough, or that your style of writing is hard to grasp. I hope you don't take that as a discouragement. I am the kind of person that likes clarity, give it to me clear. But I don't want to put that demand on you. It is just that because the way my mind works, I will probably have to patiently wait until I can see what you are getting at.

[Eleutheros]

This post in this spot is a computer glitch so, ignore this post; it doesn't really exist.

[Seth]

Hi again,
I would challenge the notion that because something takes pages and pages and many words, that it is not simple. For example, the gospel is incredibly simple. Yet look at how many pages and pages written about it in Romans. How about Hebrews? Those books describe a very simple truth, however they do it through pages of explanation. Simplicity is the quality of being easy to understand. A long explanation does not in itself define something as being difficult to understand, and it does not necessitate complexity. In fact, if something is too concisely stated, leaving out important points, that can actually lead to LESS simplicity and more confusion. Just wanted to throw that out there.

[Eleutheros]

I frankly find your posts hard to follow, because as I pointed out, I can't really quite work out from them what you're getting at. As you have perhaps guessed, your communication is not getting through effectively.

This is good. Thank you for helping me to grasp what I need to know. I will review and see what I can do better.

However, after that last post, it seems that you are championing a literal interpretation of Genesis. Perhaps if you would care to outline in some clear detail why you think this is the best interpretation, we may have something to discuss.

But I did offer just such details, in several places, over several posts in this thread

Also, I fail to see how preterism impacts our interpretation of Genesis at all,...

I know. And I'm not sure, right now, how to convey why it does.

Except to say that, of truth, our understanding of Genesis, of which a part is how we choose to interpret it, should be influencing our understanding of prophesy more than how we interpret prophesy should determine the stand we take on how we choose to interpret Genesis.

For when the primary focus of an over all understanding of The Words hinges on Prophesy, which I've noticed that Preterism must focus down on prophesy to be viable, then there is a need to interpret Genesis in the same way we arrive at our eschatological conclusions- by either spiritualizing the text into allegory, when it's conveinient, or taking it literally, allowing, of course, for legitimate metaphor, hyperbole and analogy, when it's convenient. And it is that point where how you choose to interpret prophesy does affect how you interpret the creation account as well. That's what my previously misunderstood post was really trying to lead to- simply stared.

Clear as mud?

...as it's more typically applied to the interpretation of Revelation;

What I've actually found is that Preterism's logic works best on Jesus' Olivet discourse much more than it does with The Unveiling or 'Revelation' as it's named in English.

... and as far as I'm aware, the logical conclusions of Calvinism are the farthest thing from my understanding of Genesis.

*Smile* So, do you believe that Elohim knew as a fact that The Adam was going to turn before He created them? If so then you have just linked one of the consequences of John Calvin's, KJV supported (that is, it's not found in the original words) doctrine of predestination to Genesis.

For there is nothing anywhere in the Genesis text, when read litertally, that can lead one, by itself, to the conclusion that Elohim knew as a fact that they were going to turn before He created them.

Nothing.

In fact, a truly literal reading will actually lead away from that conclusion, leaving one confused and questioning; assuming one came to Genesis with that Calvinistic conclusion firmly planted into his mind as a fact. After all Jehovah must have known or else He couldn't be God? Right?

I would venture to guess that most of us here at Tent are not preterists, although we may have some leanings in that direction.

Very nicely put! Because I know that there are many who would call themselves only partial preterists. And that, I believe, is because of the conundrum created for trying to relate all of The Unveiling to a 'this has already been fullfilled' way of thinking. Nonetheless, I have observed that the preteristic way of thinking is dominat here on Tentmaker.

I guess in an attempt to answer an earlier question, I don't necessarily agree that the seeming "simplest" solution is the best one. Although this may usually be the case, it all depends on your perspective of simplicity. Sometimes the simplest solutions actually require more explanation, not less, because of the way people have been indoctrinated to think about certain things.

Well put! I couldn't agree more even as I have just likely challenged an indoctrination in your own thinking! 

This can make the simpler answers seem more complicated than they really are. I run into this all the time in patient education...

Believe it or not Doc, you have just hit the nail on the head of what I've been trying to say! Except I was trying to add, also, the reasons for why I believe this is true!

I would put it this way:

Once understood, once comprehension is grasped the truthful answer is indeed simplistic and immediatley answers many, if not all, of the nagging questions raised by the previously presented, non-truthful answers with the reuslt being that, because it's truth, the gained understanding not only clears things up that were previously muddied, but also serves as a springboard to answer questions seemingly unrealted before.

That is what I meant by simplicity. Not just 'being simple'. For often simplicity is not simple to grasp because of not only what we think, even as you pointed out, but because of how we think.

And trying to illustrate how we think is what I've mostly been mostly typing about, so far.

I, for one, did not get the gist of what you were getting at, Eleutheros. Blessings....

Well, to be honest I really haven't presented the gist yet. I've hinted at it. Strongly. But, mostly I've been exploring how to present these ideas in the way that I've come to them, by illustrating first how we think. So, I think that it is my way of thinking about how I think that is foreign. (Gotta smile at that one!)
For that has been my current goal, to arouse the interest of others so that they begin to think about how we think.

So, could you? Would you? Keep trying? These things that are in my heart to share aren't easy to present partly because these concepts of mine are unique in that I've not yet come across anyone who has drawn the same conclusions I have.
In other words, Cardinal, I find myself exactly as Doc described it so eloquently:

Sometimes the simplest solutions actually require more explanation, not less, because of the way people have been indoctrinated to think about certain things.

Nor I Card.

I'm sorry about that Beloved. I am trying though, to be clear.

I for one, hate my flesh.
There is nothing good in it alone.

Wow. I think I know what your trying to say here, Beloved, paraphrasing Rom 7:18. But, I'm not really sure. However, it does sound to me like your theology has really done a number on you! Wow. I wish you could not hate that which is supposed to be dead in you!

So, I will ask: "What is it then exactly that you hate?" Yes I know how Paul used this word, 'flesh', in Romans 7:18 But I would ask: "Was this before or after 'the old man was put to death' in him?" For he also said of flesh that, "... no one at any time hates his own flesh, but is nurturing and cherishing it, according as Christ also the ecclesia, for we are members of His body."

And he also said this: "...you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, for you to become Another's, Who is roused from among the dead, that we should be bearing fruit to God. For, when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were through the law, operated in our members to be bearing fruit to Death. YET NOW we were exempted from the law, dying in that in which we were retained, so that it is for us to be slaving in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter."

And we are told by Jehovah, through both Moses and Jesus, that we are to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. Which prompts me to ask how we can know how to love them if we don't first know how to love ourselves?

So, I would ask bluntly why you feel you should still hate what the Lord has done away with in you? Why do you spend time hating what is supposed to be dead? Why spend time hating at all?

It is, however, going to be filled with the glory/nature of God, the whole purpose of Christ!

Shouldn't that be true now? After all you have been begotten anew and that by the very sperm of Jehovah, even as John said here: "Everyone who is begotten of God is not doing sin, for His sperm is remaining in him, and he can not be sinning, for he is begotten of God."

Do you understand, Beloved Servant, that I am not asking you these things to decry you but to get you to think beyond the Christianese you quote so well to the real thoughts these words are supposed to represent? In other words do you know that I care that you understand and so that is why I am blunt?

HI Eleutheros,

Hey Seth! Glad to have you chiming in!

I have been following the discussion, and so I for one am interested in the discussion. The Bible says that we should be quick to listen and slow to speak.

Well then you are following the Bible well! 

Right now, I am being slow to speak because I have listened and still do not understand where you are going.

Well, as I said to Cardinal, I haven't really made my point, yet! (Or have I?  )

I got the impression that you favored a figurative interpretation of Genesis as well.

Sorry about that. It's needless to say, now, that I don't. And hopefully I addressed that to your satisfaction in my prior replies above.
So, will you go back and re-read what I've written knowing this about me? And then could I ask, if you do go back, that you would prompt me to clarify anything that I am not presenting clearly?

I would really appreciate that.

So that is a pattern, meaning that if many different people are saying they don't understand your words, the conclusion is most likely that your are not communicating clearly enough, or that your style of writing is hard to grasp.

Your logic is sound even as you say it. I think it is both reasons you list.

I hope you don't take that as a discouragement.

Naw. I just want some response that's all! For I'm still working on how to present these concepts so that they are understood before they and I are dismissed, or worse.

I am the kind of person that likes clarity, give it to me clear. But I don't want to put that demand on you. It is just that because the way my mind works, I will probably have to patiently wait until I can see what you are getting at.

Oh, Please do, Seth! Truly I would be honored if  you hung in there with me.

And that goes for all of you! Know then that you are appreciated!

Hi again,
I would challenge the notion that because something takes pages and pages and many words, that it is not simple. For example, the gospel is incredibly simple. Yet look at how many pages and pages written about it in Romans. How about Hebrews? Those books describe a very simple truth, however they do it through pages of explanation. Simplicity is the quality of being easy to understand.

I don't entirely disagree with this, however, on this point I'm going to play a little semantics with you and put it to you that 'being simple' is to be easliy understood but doesn't mean that what you are understanding is the truth. And that simplicity is what you perceive as the result of understanding what is true.

A long explanation does not in itself define something as being difficult to understand, and it does not necessitate complexity. In fact, if something is too concisely stated, leaving out important points, that can actually lead to LESS simplicity and more confusion. Just wanted to throw that out there.

I recognize that this is a way of thinking that is firmly rooted in the Greek schools, even as you stated it. And I am not against it. Not by a long shot. But, I recognize it's limitations; it is much easier for the presenter to present his concepts as arguments, covering all perceived points of contention in advance, even though arguments lead to arguments, rather than educate the 'Eastern way'; for I also recognize that a better way to communicate unique ideas is to lead someone to follow your thoughts, while making them aware of their own, by asking questions.

Even as I have done.

So, anyone want to take a stab at answering the questions in my post here from your own understanding?

Be good!

[Doc]

This is good. Thank you for helping me to grasp what I need to know. I will review and see what I can do better.

Not a problem.

But I did offer just such details, in several places, over several posts in this thread

Well, if you did, they were well disguised in your circumspect manner of writing...

I know. And I'm not sure, right now, how to convey why it does.

Except to say that, of truth, our understanding of Genesis, of which a part is how we choose to interpret it, should be influencing our understanding of prophesy more than how we interpret prophesy should determine the stand we take on how we choose to interpret Genesis.

For when the primary focus of an over all understanding of The Words hinges on Prophesy, which I've noticed that Preterism must focus down on prophesy to be viable, then there is a need to interpret Genesis in the same way we arrive at our eschatological conclusions- by either spiritualizing the text into allegory, when it's conveinient, or taking it literally, allowing, of course, for legitimate metaphor, hyperbole and analogy, when it's convenient. And it is that point where how you choose to interpret prophesy does affect how you interpret the creation account as well. That's what my previously misunderstood post was really trying to lead to- simply stared.

Clear as mud?

For me personally, the way I interpret any book of scripture is never influenced by only one factor. For example, I wouldn't consider a non-literal (by which I don't mean non-physical) interpretation of Genesis merely because that's the way I think it makes more sense to interpret more "prophetic" books. Not to mention the fact that individual scripture doesn't interpret itself independently of the rest of the witness. I agree that our understanding of Genesis will affect how we see many other things. There are "layers" to scripture as well, and I wouldn't suggest that a non-literal interpretation would necessarily preclude a literal layer of understanding as well. I am increasingly finding however, that the meatier spiritual truths lie in the non-literal layer.

What I've actually found is that Preterism's logic works best on Jesus' Olivet discourse much more than it does with The Unveiling or 'Revelation' as it's named in English.

I'd forgotten about the Olivet Discourse relationship, but it does quite a good job on both that and significant portions of Revelation when dealing with the literal aspects of that book. I don't think preterism (even partial) quite covers the bases when it comes to Rev. though. It's missing that spiritual layer I was talking about. Partial preterism can be a useful interpretive tool, but I don't think it can be applied well everywhere.

*Smile* So, do you believe that Elohim knew as a fact that The Adam was going to turn before He created them? If so then you have just linked one of the consequences of John Calvin's, KJV supported (that is, it's not found in the original words) doctrine of predestination to Genesis.

For there is nothing anywhere in the Genesis text, when read litertally, that can lead one, by itself, to the conclusion that Elohim knew as a fact that they were going to turn before He created them.

Nothing.

In fact, a truly literal reading will actually lead away from that conclusion, leaving one confused and questioning; assuming one came to Genesis with that Calvinistic conclusion firmly planted into his mind as a fact. After all Jehovah must have known or else He couldn't be God? Right?

I think the whole of the scriptural witness is quite clear about a number of things that would lead us to that conclusion that He foreknew, regardless of Calvin's doctrine. You may be right that a literal reading of Genesis alone wouldn't lead one to that conclusion, but Genesis does not exist in a vacuum. Nor does any other book of scripture.

I would venture to guess that most of us here at Tent are not preterists, although we may have some leanings in that direction.

Very nicely put! Because I know that there are many who would call themselves only partial preterists. And that, I believe, is because of the conundrum created for trying to relate all of The Unveiling to a 'this has already been fullfilled' way of thinking. Nonetheless, I have observed that the preteristic way of thinking is dominat here on Tentmaker.

Well, that's the tricky thing when you're dealing with a God who was, is and is to come. Sometimes it's a bit difficult to try and work out what was, is and is to come. The bottom line for me though is that what falls into each of those categories is all the same from God's perspective. He knows the end from the beginning because he IS the end and the beginning. I don't think many of us would come out and say that all of Revelation has been fulfilled, in the sense that it has all entirely played itself out in time in an observable way. I am not personally a hyperpreterist, either.

Well, to be honest I really haven't presented the gist yet. I've hinted at it. Strongly. But, mostly I've been exploring how to present these ideas in the way that I've come to them, by illustrating first how we think. So, I think that it is my way of thinking about how I think that is foreign. (Gotta smile at that one!)
For that has been my current goal, to arouse the interest of others so that they begin to think about how we think.

So, could you? Would you? Keep trying? These things that are in my heart to share aren't easy to present partly because these concepts of mine are unique in that I've not yet come across anyone who has drawn the same conclusions I have.

Well, I suspected as much.
 
The thing you have to realize here is that many of us at tentmaker do not come to all the conclusions we come to solely by reason and logic. Many of us, for example, have had personal revelations that have lead us to deeper understandings that we would not have arrived at in any other way. So I'm not sure that an assessment of how we think is necessarily going to answer all the questions, or even prove a point, really. That's because it's all based on reason and logic, and that isn't how one generally arrives at the deeper truths of God anyway. One arrives at the deeper truths by God revealing himself directly from his spirit to ours. We walk by faith, not by sight.

So, anyone want to take a stab at answering the questions in my post here from your own understanding?

Be good!

I'll have to take a look and see if I can come up with anything...

[Eleutheros]

Hey Doc! Thanks for the reply. I gotta split this into two parts because the character limit was exceeded. Here goes....

But I did offer just such details, in several places, over several posts in this thread

Well, if you did, they were well disguised in your circumspect manner of writing...

  Well, the 'details' are there, nonetheless.
 
Yes, circumspect. Good word- cautious, deliberate, prudent. A good word with good reason for how I write. I would also add introspective. Even as I want to lead my readers into introspection as well. Which is hard to do, but worth the effort when I see someone gets it.

Thanks for the good word.

I know. And I'm not sure, right now, how to convey why it does.

Except to say that, of truth, our understanding of Genesis, of which a part is how we choose to interpret it, should be influencing our understanding of prophesy more than how we interpret prophesy should determine the stand we take on how we choose to interpret Genesis.

For when the primary focus of an over all understanding of The Words hinges on Prophesy, which I've noticed that Preterism must focus down on prophesy to be viable, then there is a need to interpret Genesis in the same way we arrive at our eschatological conclusions- by either spiritualizing the text into allegory, when it's convenient, or taking it literally, allowing, of course, for legitimate metaphor, hyperbole and analogy, when it's convenient. And it is that point where how you choose to interpret prophesy does affect how you interpret the creation account as well. That's what my previously misunderstood post was really trying to lead to- simply stared.

Clear as mud?

For me personally, the way I interpret any book of scripture is never influenced by only one factor.

Why not? Do you approach everything else you read this way?

For example, I wouldn't consider a non-literal (by which I don't mean non-physical) interpretation of Genesis merely because that's the way I think it makes more sense to interpret more "prophetic" books.

So, do you agree, then, that there were two literal real-time human beings, one male, the other female whom we named 'Adam and Eve' and that these two humans were not dissimilar from us, in that, the only difference between us and them was that they were created, not born, living in a real-time Gan Eden (garden-of-delights), on this very real Earth as well as two literal, real-time fruit trees given the telling names of The Tree of Life and The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

(Feel free to eliminate any factor I've listed that you feel should not be there for you to be in agreement with a physical interpretation, even as you said you don't exclude it.)

And to the rest of what you said, could I ask if you mean, then, that when you read The Words you pick and choose which method of interpretation you want to apply? If so, what is your criteria for judging which method should be used?

Not to mention the fact that individual scripture doesn't interpret itself independently of the rest of the witness.

You called this a fact. That is interesting. I would call it an axiom. Which doesn't mean I think it's an inaccurate one, but, I would first need to know what you have identified as 'the rest of the witness'.

For now I'll asssume your speaking of alignment when you say 'witness'.
If this is what you mean then it is not a matter of using one scripture to interrpret another, but, that what one scripture says, in meaning, doesn't contradict the meaning in another.

That is a different understanding, altogether, than saying that the information in one scripture is needed to interpret (instead of adding information to) what another scripture is saying. For, as it has been proven, the English version of The Words that most influences the thoughts of the English mind, the KJV, is a deliberate and diabolical mis-translation designed to support a very ugly and self-contradictory theology.

I agree that our understanding of Genesis will affect how we see many other things.

Emphasis mine. Exactly my point.

There are "layers" to scripture as well, and I wouldn't suggest that a non-literal interpretation would necessarily preclude a literal layer of understanding as well.

I would.

Let me ask you a few questions:

Is truth knowable?

Is truth singular or plural in nature? Give me a reason for your answer.

What are some of the words we use words for things that are not true?

What do these words, that we must have, imply about the nature of truth?

I am increasingly finding however, that the meatier spiritual truths lie in the non-literal layer.

Yes I know you are, Doc. And I won't gainsay it because I'm not you.

However, could I ask you to illustrate, by example, something of this meatier truth you've come to know for perceiving the non-literal layer? In other words, what (extra?) information does your perception of this non-literal layer grant to you above what you can learn from the literal layer?

I am not discounting the role of the spirit in leading me into truth, no, not at all. I, too, have a spirit and it has given me insights into truth, but, only from my knowledge and only when my knowledge is correct.

However, what I do find is that precious few really know what they're saying when they toss out the Christianese catch phrase "spiritual truths".

To illustrate what I mean I will ask you a question:

We know what flesh is: What is spirit?

What I've actually found is that Preterism's logic works best on Jesus' Olivet discourse much more than it does with The Unveiling or 'Revelation' as it's named in English.

I'd forgotten about the Olivet Discourse relationship, but it does quite a good job on both that and significant portions of Revelation, when dealing with the literal aspects of that book. I don't think preterism (even partial) quite covers the bases when it comes to Rev. though. It's missing that spiritual layer I was talking about. Partial preterism can be a useful interpretive tool, but I don't think it can be applied well everywhere.

That was a very thoughtful and succinct reply. You agree, then, that The Unveiling has at least some literal portions or even better a literal layer? Good. OK. So, I would ask, if it's a truth that the preteristic way of thinking is a truthful way to interpret scripture, or even just 'a useful tool' then why doesn't it work for the rest of The Unveiling, even as you just admitted that it doesn't?

Is a tool that doesn't get the job done truly a useful tool?

I ask that to illuminate this question: Is there a way of thinking, Doc, that brings understanding and unity to every portion of The Unveiling?

And I would then ask, since you have astutely perceived that the preteristic way of thinking doesn't work for all of The Unveiling, despite it being a useful interpretive tool, then how do you determine the lines of demarcation that must be drawn to know when this tool should be used and when it shouldn't? And why should I trust the lines that you draw as opposed to the lines someone else draws? Or, even that I want to draw?

Would you say, Doc, that this is a very important question that should be answered satisfactorily before going off and accepting, as truth, the axiom that the preteristic way of thinking is even a useful tool?

Let me ask you, also, about this spiritual layer you are talking about:

Given the nature of humans in this age, and given that most humans don't even know what spirit is, why wouldn't it be dangerous to a truthful understanding to let anything anyone wants to say, from 'spiritual truth', stand as truth, especially when these individual 'spiritual truths' are often contradictory with each other, or factually inaccurate, or in conflict with the human conscience?

(End of Part One)

[Eleutheros]

(Part Two)

*Smile* So, do you believe that Elohim knew as a fact that The Adam was going to turn before He created them? If so then you have just linked one of the consequences of John Calvin's, KJV supported (that is, it's not found in the original words) doctrine of predestination to Genesis.

For there is nothing anywhere in the Genesis text, when read literally, that can lead one, by itself, to the conclusion that Elohim knew as a fact that they were going to turn before He created them.

Nothing.

In fact, a truly literal reading will actually lead away from that conclusion, leaving one confused and questioning; assuming one came to Genesis with that Calvinistic conclusion firmly planted into his mind as a fact. After all Jehovah must have known or else He couldn't be God? Right?

I think the whole of the scriptural witness is quite clear about a number of things that would lead us to that conclusion that He foreknew, regardless of Calvin's doctrine.

Could you quote to me which of The Words you see as leading to this conclusion and tell me why these quotes lead you to conclude that Elohim knew, as a fact, that The Adam were going to turn before He created them?

You may be right that a literal reading of Genesis alone wouldn't lead one to that conclusion, but Genesis does not exist in a vacuum. Nor does any other book of scripture.

Again this is an axiom. Not a fact. I'm not saying it's not a truthful axiom, but, in this case I would need to know why you feel that Genesis needs anything else in scripture to bring understanding to it, even as you said earlier, of a truth:

I agree that our understanding of Genesis will affect how we see many other things.

Let me ask you, did the human writers of Genesis write it as a literal or a figurative narration?
That is, did they write the creation account wanting to convey information that they at least believed was factual?
Or did they write Genesis like say, C.S. Lewis wrote "The Chronicles of Narnia", that is as allegory or like J.R.R. Tolkien wrote The Silmarillion that is as a fantasy?

For if it is a truth that they wrote it to present information that they believed was factual then what right do we have to even say that it could be interpreted as an allegory or as a fantasy- or even 'spiritually', whatever that means to whoever is claiming the right to do this?

Isn't that rather hubristic? At least, wouldn't you think so of someone who, if you wrote a book about how you came to be a millionaire, said you were only being allegorical of fantastic?

I would venture to guess that most of us here at Tent are not preterists, although we may have some leanings in that direction.

Very nicely put! Because I know that there are many who would call themselves only partial preterists. And that, I believe, is because of the conundrum created for trying to relate all of The Unveiling to a 'this has already been fulfilled' way of thinking. Nonetheless, I have observed that the preteristic way of thinking is dominant here on Tentmaker.

Well, that's the tricky thing when you're dealing with a God who was, is and is to come. Sometimes it's a bit difficult to try and work out what was, is and is to come. The bottom line for me though is that what falls into each of those categories is all the same from God's perspective.

Tricky, yes, I agree. If you hold to the idea that there should be more than one way to interpret The Words and that all the different ways are equally valid, then it is tricky to draw lines between what was, what is and what is to come.

Have you ever considered parallels as a valid way of interpreting scripture?

And I would ask if the past, present and future are all the same from God's perspective, even as you say, than why does His Name Jah-Ho-Veh (Jehovah) mean  HE WILL BE/ BEING/ HE WAS?
 
Yes, I know that, also 'He is to come' (actually it should read 'He is coming' not 'He is to come'; a small mater of semantics with a big difference in meaning) even as is said of Him, repeatedly, in The Unveiling. But, what I'm asking, from the meaning of His Name, is if his ability to tell the future originates in His foreknowledge, as if future things were facts to Him, just facts not yet realized, OR if his ability to tell what is coming stems from His ability to influence the course of the future, from the present, so that what He says is going to happen happens?

(Note: YaHWeH derived from YHWH is not His Name. Yahweh is a nonsense word in Hebrew, that is, it has no meaning.)

And by the way what were Peter and Paul really talking about when they spoke of His foreknowledge? When they wrote of this in Him what is it exactly that they said He foreknows/foreknew?

Hint: It's not the future.

He knows the end from the beginning because he IS the end and the beginning.

This is good logic. But is the conclusion a truthful and accurate one?

He said this exactly of Himself, in this order, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, is saying the Lord God, Who is and Who was and Who is coming, the Almighty" (Rev 1:8): "I have become the Alpha and the Omega, the Origin and the Consummation"(Rev 21:8 ): And "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Origin and the Consummation." (Rev 22:13).

Did you catch the verb tense shift thingy not made clear in the KJV? (By the way the KJV interpreters, in Rev 1:11 inserted the phrase "I am the Alpha and the Omega the first and the last" between 'saying' and 'what you hear'. This phrase is not found in the original text. Why would they want to do this wrong thing to do?)

So, what He said exactly is that He is the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. Then, that He has become the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet and The Origin and The Consummation. Then, that  He is the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, The First and the Last, The Origin and The Consummation.

Is this to be read literally of Him or metaphorically? I believe it's meant metaphorically. So what is this a metaphor for? What truth is he trying to convey by applying this metaphoric image to Himself of both being and becoming the first and last letters of the Greek Alphabet, The First and the Last, The Origin and Consummation? Is it to convey the idea that He knows the end from the beginning as You said? Or is it that He is the meaning behind everything including The Words; that He is The First Word (The Logos, as John describes Him) and The Last and that He is The Origin of all things and their Consummation?

I don't think many of us would come out and say that all of Revelation has been fulfilled, in the sense that it has all entirely played itself out in time in an observable way. I am not personally a hyperpreterist, either.

That's good. Thank you for clarifying. Again I ask, have you ever considered seeing the Olivet discourse and The Unveiling as being parallel? Rather than trying to discern when this was fulfilled as opposed to that, like the preteristic way of thinking forces one to do?

Well, to be honest I really haven't presented the gist yet. I've hinted at it. Strongly. But, mostly I've been exploring how to present these ideas in the way that I've come to them, by illustrating first how we think. So, I think that it is my way of thinking about how I think that is foreign. (Gotta smile at that one!)
For that has been my current goal, to arouse the interest of others so that they begin to think about how we think.

So, could you? Would you? Keep trying? These things that are in my heart to share aren't easy to present partly because these concepts of mine are unique in that I've not yet come across anyone who has drawn the same conclusions I have.

Well, I suspected as much.

Of course. I am, after all, both circumspect and introspective when I type out my thoughts. What else could you suspect?
 

The thing you have to realize here is that many of us at tentmaker do not come to all the conclusions we come to solely by reason and logic. Many of us, for example, have had personal revelations that have lead us to deeper understandings that we would not have arrived at in any other way.

Is this the 'spiritual truths' you were talking about? Well, personal revelation is not a very reliable way of discerning truth, because it is a fact that humans in this age have ulterior motives that all to often don't align with what's good and true and grave and just and pure and agreeable and worthy of renown, but, instead, with what is evil, in motive.

Which means that I need something else besides the other persons word that God revealed this truth to him or her for me to know if what they are telling me is the truth. I need a gauge or guide to discern whether these personal revelations are indeed truthful and of truth. And that job falls to what I have reliably concluded from the use of reason and logic, even as it should.

Let me ask you then, from your experience, what do you do when someone comes to you with a 'spiritual truth' revealed to them that contradicts a 'spiritual truth' that's been revealed to you or to someone else you know?

Or does this never happen?

So I'm not sure that an assessment of how we think is necessarily going to answer all the questions, or even prove a point, really. That's because it's all based on reason and logic, and that isn't how one generally arrives at the deeper truths of God anyway.

Let me say, first, for the purpose of clarity: I certainly wasn't trying to assess how anyone thinks, as if I wanted to critique anyone's thoughts. I was only trying to instruct on how we think so that I can illustrate how logic and reason are misused and abused and thus help my readers to know how to discern when logic is being used correctly and when it's not.

I know you did not mean to imply an insincere motive to me, Doc but you're use of the word assessment meant I needed to clarify because don'tcha know? Words mean things.

That being said, all else I can say in response to what you believe is that as long as you hold this axiom to be a truth you likely will never will know how logic and reason and spirit and conscience are used to arrive at the deeper truths of God, without and apart from 'personal revelation'.

For all the personal revelations I've had- and I've had them- have always aligned with what my reason and logic have guided me to trust in and believe, first. But don't take my word for it.

For the truth is even as The LORD Himself said: "Come now, and let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool."

Reason aligns itself well, apart from the need for personal revelation, with the whole purpose behind why Jesus accomplished the forgiveness of sins and the cleansing of our conscience. It's so that we could and would stop sinning and begin to live lives of righteousness, which is simply enough defined as choosing to do what is right, even as right is known from our knowledge of the difference between good and evil, commonly called, our conscience.

And one doesn't need personal revelation to arrive at this deep truth of God. Just a conscience and the heralding of the Gospel that the forgiveness of sins has been accomplished through Jesus, The Anointed One.

One more question, Doc:

Is it a truth that there are there are, indeed, right and wrong ways of thinking?

So, anyone want to take a stab at answering the questions in my post here from your own understanding?

Be good!

I'll have to take a look and see if I can come up with anything...

As you wish! I look forward, then, to our next exchange.

Dennis!

[Doc]

Why not? Do you approach everything else you read this way?

Well, because there are usually multiple factors in scriptural interpretation. I don't know that I approach everything else that way, but some things, certainly; What sense would it make to take multiple considerations into account when reading a work of fiction that is of no consequence?

So, do you agree, then, that there were two literal real-time human beings, one male, the other female whom we named 'Adam and Eve' and that these two humans were not dissimilar from us, in that, the only difference between us and them was that they were created, not born, living in a real-time Gan Eden (garden-of-delights), on this very real Earth as well as two literal, real-time fruit trees given the telling names of The Tree of Life and The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

(Feel free to eliminate any factor I've listed that you feel should not be there for you to be in agreement with a physical interpretation, even as you said you don't exclude it.)

I think I would agree that on one level, there probably were two literal human beings. They probably were in some form of  "garden" on earth, although the garden may have been more of a spiritual reality than a physical one. The same with the trees. Why would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil? Or one that bestows immortality on those who eat of it? There is a lot of scripture that is symbolic, and not to say that what is symbolized isn't real, but it may not be literal in the physical sense. The physical is representative of spiritual truth, not the other way around.

And to the rest of what you said, could I ask if you mean, then, that when you read The Words you pick and choose which method of interpretation you want to apply? If so, what is your criteria for judging which method should be used?

Not to mention the fact that individual scripture doesn't interpret itself independently of the rest of the witness.

You called this a fact. That is interesting. I would call it an axiom. Which doesn't mean I think it's an inaccurate one, but, I would first need to know what you have identified as 'the rest of the witness'.

The rest of the witness is the rest of the collection of books of scripture collectively referred to as the Bible.

That is a different understanding, altogether, than saying that the information in one scripture is needed to interpret (instead of adding information to) what another scripture is saying. For, as it has been proven, the English version of The Words that most influences the thoughts of the English mind, the KJV, is a deliberate and diabolical mis-translation designed to support a very ugly and self-contradictory theology.

For the record, I do not use the King James version, except to get Strong's numbers for referencing the words in the original languages. I use literal translations.

There are "layers" to scripture as well, and I wouldn't suggest that a non-literal interpretation would necessarily preclude a literal layer of understanding as well.

I would.

Some elaboration on that comment might be helpful

Let me ask you a few questions:

Is truth knowable?

Yes, but truth is not a thing, it's a person.

Is truth singular or plural in nature? Give me a reason for your answer.

I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Based on my last answer though, I'd have to answer 'plural'.

What are some of the words we use words for things that are not true?

False? Lie?

What do these words, that we must have, imply about the nature of truth?

...That it's not false  

However, could I ask you to illustrate, by example, something of this meatier truth you've come to know for perceiving the non-literal layer? In other words, what (extra?) information does your perception of this non-literal layer grant to you above what you can learn from the literal layer?

To use a relatively easy example, getting the spiritual truths from parables requires that you look beyond the literal words of the story for the meaning behind the words.

I am not discounting the role of the spirit in leading me into truth, no, not at all. I, too, have a spirit and it has given me insights into truth, but, only from my knowledge and only when my knowledge is correct.

What you're saying here, in effect, is that the Spirit has a subordinate role to knowledge. Yet the scripture states that we are not to lean on our own understanding, and that the Spirit will guide us into all truth, and teach us all things. What you have just outlined in that statement is called gnosticism.

However, what I do find is that precious few really know what they're saying when they toss out the Christianese catch phrase "spiritual truths".

As do I.

To illustrate what I mean I will ask you a question:

We know what flesh is: What is spirit?

I'm not sure how to answer that question. In what sense?

That was a very thoughtful and succinct reply. You agree, then, that The Unveiling has at least some literal portions or even better a literal layer? Good. OK. So, I would ask, if it's a truth that the preteristic way of thinking is a truthful way to interpret scripture, or even just 'a useful tool' then why doesn't it work for the rest of The Unveiling, even as you just admitted that it doesn't?

Is a tool that doesn't get the job done truly a useful tool?

Is a wrench a useful tool for what it's good for, even though I can't use it as a hammer?  Preterism is useful for making sense of historical context.

I ask that to illuminate this question: Is there a way of thinking, Doc, that brings understanding and unity to every portion of The Unveiling?

Yeah. It's called the mind of Christ, Whom the unveiling reveals.

And I would then ask, since you have astutely perceived that the preteristic way of thinking doesn't work for all of The Unveiling, despite it being a useful interpretive tool, then how do you determine the lines of demarcation that must be drawn to know when this tool should be used and when it shouldn't? And why should I trust the lines that you draw as opposed to the lines someone else draws? Or, even that I want to draw?

I determine them by listening to the Spirit of truth. I don't know that you should trust the lines that I draw, nor that I should necessarily trust yours.

Would you say, Doc, that this is a very important question that should be answered satisfactorily before going off and accepting, as truth, the axiom that the preteristic way of thinking is even a useful tool?

Let me ask you, also, about this spiritual layer you are talking about:

Given the nature of humans in this age, and given that most humans don't even know what spirit is, why wouldn't it be dangerous to a truthful understanding to let anything anyone wants to say, from 'spiritual truth', stand as truth, especially when these individual 'spiritual truths' are often contradictory with each other, or factually inaccurate, or in conflict with the human conscience?

(End of Part One)

It could be an important question based upon where you place your emphasis in what you receive as truth .

About your last point, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus telling the religious leaders of his day "You have heard it said, but I say" contradictory to their understanding of spiritual truth, factually inaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, or in conflict with their conscience about what those words in scripture meant?


I'll visit part two when I have more time.

[Molly]

Hi Eleutheros--

I'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.

When I started studying the Bible, I made a decision to take it literally, as though it were the literal truth.  I've found that this approach opens up a lot of spiritual pathways, eventually.  But, for me, the two stand side by side, and are equally important, and the natural comes first.

I am, after all, a physical creature.

So I do take it literally, and have pictured it in my mind many times as a literal occurrence.  God created everything discretely, and in an orderly fashion.  I do not consider the theory of evolution to be truth or science, rather a deliberate attempt to mask the truth of God and create an artificial barrier between God and science.  But, that's another story.

Anyway, I'd like to talk to you about some of the specific things you yourself have discovered to be true in these chapters.  Also, you mention Jesus referring to Genesis--could you show me the scripture you are talking about?  Thanks.

[Gilbert]

Hi Eleutheros--

I'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.

When I started studying the Bible, I made a decision to take it literally, as though it were the literal truth.  I've found that this approach opens up a lot of spiritual pathways, eventually.  But, for me, the two stand side by side, and are equally important, and the natural comes first.

I am, after all, a physical creature.

So I do take it literally, and have pictured it in my mind many times as a literal occurrence.  God created everything discretely, and in an orderly fashion.  I do not consider the theory of evolution to be truth or science, rather a deliberate attempt to mask the truth of God and create an artificial barrier between God and science.  But, that's another story.

Anyway, I'd like to talk to you about some of the specific things you yourself have discovered to be true in these chapters.  Also, you mention Jesus referring to Genesis--could you show me the scripture you are talking about?  Thanks.

Hi! Molly

I thought that I would throw my opinion into the mix.
The Bible was written for the spiritually blind as well as those who now see; the spiritually deaf as well as those who now are enabled to hear the voice of God and live.
So, most begin to follow after the Gospel as one who chases a shadow. By that I mean, their thoughts have been elevated and their spirit quickened sufficiently to perceive the glorious message; albeit somewhat blurred.
More often than not, it is the literalists who we find still chasing after the shadow many years after their first being introduced to the Gospel; never quite able to "put their minds on things above".
There are those who remain unable to see past the shadow of the Genesis narrative; as such their understanding of narrative continues to be somewhat blurred.

The meaning of the earthly garden of Eden was derived from the unseen, spiritual, heavenly paradise. As Jesus pictured the Kingdom of heaven in parables, so the earthly Garden of Eden was a 'parable' of the heavenly Father. It says of Jesus that He did not speak to them without a parable and this too He had learned from the Father.

There is a heavenly temple and there was an earthly picture of the unseen things. God said to Moses: "According to all that I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and all of its furniture, so you shall make it." (Ex 25:9). Thus there is a heavenly temple and there was the image of an earthly sanctuary; there is a heavenly Jerusalem and there was an earthly city of God. Similarly there is a heavenly garden of Eden and there was the earthly picture or shadow.

[Doc]

I agree, Gilbert. The physical and literal understanding is a shadow, a type, of the spiritual and real.

[Eleutheros]

For me personally, the way I interpret any book of scripture is never influenced by only one factor.

Why not? Do you approach everything else you read this way?

Well, because there are usually multiple factors in scriptural interpretation.

OK. Do these factors have a name so anyone can know what factor your choosing when you present your conclusions? How do you choose which factor is appropriate to get the truth?
Will any and every conclusion you draw from all these factors all be the truth? How do you know if they are? Is it simply because you thought of it?

Have you ever drawn a conclusion from these factors you mention that turned out to be false?

What I perceive, Doc, from what you said here and elsewhere, is that all these factors you mention, which will ever only produce a truthful conclusion, effectively makes The Bible into a magical book that can make anything you want to believe a truth simply because you can quote something from it and draw a conclusion.

I don't know that I approach everything else that way, but some things, certainly; What sense would it make to take multiple considerations into account when reading a work of fiction that is of no consequence?

I agree. But isn't allegory a form of fiction?

So, do you agree, then, that there were two literal real-time human beings, one male, the other female whom we named 'Adam and Eve' and that these two humans were not dissimilar from us, in that, the only difference between us and them was that they were created, not born, living in a real-time Gan Eden (garden-of-delights), on this very real Earth as well as two literal, real-time fruit trees given the telling names of The Tree of Life and The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

(Feel free to eliminate any factor I've listed that you feel should not be there for you to be in agreement with a physical interpretation, even as you said you don't exclude it.)

I think I would agree that on one level, there probably were two literal human beings. They probably were in some form of  "garden" on earth, although the garden may have been more of a spiritual reality than a physical one. The same with the trees. Why would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil? Or one that bestows immortality on those who eat of it? There is a lot of scripture that is symbolic, and not to say that what is symbolized isn't real, but it may not be literal in the physical sense. The physical is representative of spiritual truth, not the other way around.

Why do you want to avoid, with such studiousness, Doc, a literal interpretation of Genesis? What is it about a literal, straightforward reading of it that makes you so wary and indecisive?

Why can't you simply say "Yes" to what I wrote?

By the way how did you come to the conclusion that The Tree of Life bestows immortality?!?

And if Elohim can create trees whose fruit can feed the human body's needs so well why is it a stretch to imagine that he could create a tree whose fruit can awaken a human to the knowledge of Good and Evil?

Or did all these fruit trees we know get here by an evolutionary process?

Seeminlgly unrelated but really it's not, I would also like to ask if you think the flood was a real-time, world-wide event? Or is that to be interpreted also in layers, with factors, as well?

You asked this question:

Why would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil?

In short order, you will have my answer.

There are "layers" to scripture as well, and I wouldn't suggest that a non-literal interpretation would necessarily preclude a literal layer of understanding as well.

I would.

Some elaboration on that comment might be helpful.

OK. I would say that a non-literal interpretation would definately preclude a literal 'layer' of understanding.

Even as you demonstrated in your own words with your inability to answer yes to anything I wrote that was derived from a literal reading.

Let me ask you a few questions:

Is truth knowable?

Yes, but truth is not a thing, it's a person.

Got me there! Yes, Jesus metaphorically described Himself as The Way the Truth and The Life, but, what I meant was is it possible for us, as humans to grasp truth. In other words can we know truth from non-truth?

Is truth singular or plural in nature? Give me a reason for your answer.

I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Based on my last answer though, I'd have to answer 'plural'.

What are some of the words we use words for things that are not true?

False? Lie?

What do these words, that we must have, imply about the nature of truth?

...That it's not false 

Actually, if it is a neccesity for us to have the words 'lie' and 'false' and even 'half-truth' and 'deception', so that we have a way of describing something that is not truth, then truth is singular in nature and it is non-truths, or lies, that are plural.

For simple logic says that if two conclusions are contradictory then one is false and the other is not or they are both false.

And that is because contradictory conclusions cannot both be true at the same time.

To illustrate this truth I offer this humorous anecdote: When my wife and I are driving and we are in a disagreement over which way to go I say "Let's keep going this way till one of us is right or both of us are wrong!"

However, could I ask you to illustrate, by example, something of this meatier truth you've come to know for perceiving the non-literal layer? In other words, what (extra?) information does your perception of this non-literal layer grant to you above what you can learn from the literal layer?

To use a relatively easy example, getting the spiritual truths from parables requires that you look beyond the literal words of the story for the meaning behind the words.

Even as Jesus meant you to. But, there is a meaning! All of Jesus' parables were drawn from things of the Earth and were presented so that they might be understood by someone attune to truth, effectively 'locking out' those who were not.

Even as He said: "I am acclaiming You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for You did conceal these things from the wise and intelligent and You did reveal them to minors. Yes, Father, seeing that thus it became a delight in front of You."

So, is it a truth that whatever my interpretation of a parable would be is a truth as long as *I* say it's a spirtual truth?

I am not discounting the role of the spirit in leading me into truth, no, not at all. I, too, have a spirit and it has given me insights into truth, but, only from my knowledge and only when my knowledge is correct.

What you're saying here, in effect, is that the Spirit has a subordinate role to knowledge. Yet the scripture states that we are not to lean on our own understanding, and that the Spirit will guide us into all truth, and teach us all things. What you have just outlined in that statement is called gnosticism.

Thank you for your interpretation of what I said. I can tell then that I need to clarify.

I said that, from my knowledge and only when my knowledge was correct, did I receive insight from the spirit to gain a further understanding of truth. This has been my experience. I did not 'gnostically' subordinate my spirit to my knowledge in my statement I simply acknowledged that the spirit and correct knowledge work together in me to prove when I am grasping truth.

You see, Doc, I don't put my faith in the belief that truth is plural. I know it is singular both through reason and logic and through spirit. Which means that I  know that there are conclusions that are correct and that there are conclusions that are wrong. There are lies and there are wrong ways of thinking- For not every cocnlusion is a truth just because someone claims they had a personal revealtion revealing to them a spiritual truth. Even as John said, "…do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are of God, for many false prophets have come out into the world.

You have said that you believe that truth is plural and I would conclude then that you don't even bother to examine for falsity when someone says I've been shown a spiritual truth! You seem to be saying that you just accept it.  And so, because you put your faith in this I am prevented from being able to convey to you how I know when a conclusion is false and when it is a truth. Except to try and let this quote from the Words convey my understanding:

Let no one be seducing you with empty words, for because of these things the indignation of God is coming on the sons of stubbornness. Do not, then, become joint partakers with them, for you were once darkness, yet now you are light in the Lord.
As children of light be walking (for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth), testing what is well pleasing to the Lord…. Now all that which is being exposed, by the light is made manifest, for everything which is making manifest is light.

However, what I do find is that precious few really know what they're saying when they toss out the Christianese catch phrase "spiritual truths".

As do I.

To illustrate what I mean I will ask you a question:

We know what flesh is: What is spirit?

I'm not sure how to answer that question. In what sense?

If I ask "What is flesh?" The answer is, "It is our appetites and desires and the drives to fulfill these that originate in the needs of the body."

And so I ask similarly "What is spirit?"

That was a very thoughtful and succinct reply. You agree, then, that The Unveiling has at least some literal portions or even better a literal layer? Good. OK. So, I would ask, if it's a truth that the preteristic way of thinking is a truthful way to interpret scripture, or even just 'a useful tool' then why doesn't it work for the rest of The Unveiling, even as you just admitted that it doesn't?

Is a tool that doesn't get the job done truly a useful tool?

Is a wrench a useful tool for what it's good for, even though I can't use it as a hammer?  Preterism is useful for making sense of historical context.

I think you missed my point. Preterism cannot provide a full comprehension of prophesy, even as you say. That means it is not getting the job done like a truthful understanding will accomplish.

I ask that to illuminate this question: Is there a way of thinking, Doc, that brings understanding and unity to every portion of The Unveiling?

Yeah. It's called the mind of Christ, Whom the unveiling reveals.

Actually, I would say a literal reading of it with the understanding that there are in it metaphoric representations for real-time humans who will exist in a time when all the events written about in the Unveiling will be taking place. The Unveiling makes a lot of sense when it's read as a 'future history' utilizing metaphors, with a one-to one correspondence to actual humans, who will be living in and causing real and very desperate and evil times.

And I would then ask, since you have astutely perceived that the preteristic way of thinking doesn't work for all of The Unveiling, despite it being a useful interpretive tool, then how do you determine the lines of demarcation that must be drawn to know when this tool should be used and when it shouldn't? And why should I trust the lines that you draw as opposed to the lines someone else draws? Or, even that I want to draw?

I determine them by listening to the Spirit of truth. I don't know that you should trust the lines that I draw, nor that I should necessarily trust yours.

Well, you just illustrated what I was trying to say about why the preterist 'tool' cannot get the job done of providing a full understanding.
 

Would you say, Doc, that this is a very important question that should be answered satisfactorily before going off and accepting, as truth, the axiom that the preteristic way of thinking is even a useful tool?

Let me ask you, also, about this spiritual layer you are talking about:

Given the nature of humans in this age, and given that most humans don't even know what spirit is, why wouldn't it be dangerous to a truthful understanding to let anything anyone wants to say, from 'spiritual truth', stand as truth, especially when these individual 'spiritual truths' are often contradictory with each other, or factually inaccurate, or in conflict with the human conscience?

It could be an important question based upon where you place your emphasis in what you receive as truth

The answer is actually that it would be dangerous to truth to let stand as truth, in your thinking, contradictory 'spiritual truths' and especailly so when they can be proven to go against facts or against the conscience.

About your last point, let me ask you a question. Was Jesus telling the religious leaders of his day "You have heard it said, but I say" contradictory to their understanding of spiritual truth, factually inaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, or in conflict with their conscience about what those words in scripture meant?

Good one!

What Jesus did in addressing the Jews gathered around Him, of whom He said "You are the salt of the earth and a light on a hill" was to illustrate the importance of  righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness above the demands of the law, so that they would be the good witness they were intended to be for God to the Gentiles. The very same righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness that works in those Gentiles re-sired by Jehovah to make them a good witness for God to the world today.
And these qualities of  righteousness, mercy, lieiency and forgivness were not contradictory to their understanding of truth, 'spiritual' or otherwise, nor where they innaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, nor where they in conflict with their conscience about what 'those words' (The Law) in scripture meant.

I'll visit part two when I have more time.

OK.

Till then Be good! We'll 'wrestle' some more when you're ready!

[Molly]

What Jesus did in addressing the Jews gathered around Him, of whom He said "You are the salt of the earth and a light on a hill" was to illustrate the importance of  righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness above the demands of the law, so that they would be the good witness they were intended to be for God to the Gentiles. The very same righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness that works in those Gentiles re-sired by Jehovah to make them a good witness for God to the world today.

And these qualities of  righteousness, mercy, lieiency and forgivness were not contradictory to their understanding of truth, 'spiritual' or otherwise, nor where they innaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, nor where they in conflict with their conscience about what 'those words' (The Law) in scripture meant.

23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law:  justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

--Mat 23




Micah 6:8


8He has told you, O man, what is good;
   and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,

and to walk humbly with your God?

[Eleutheros]

Hi Eleutheros--

Good Morning, Molly!

I'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.

How about I do you one better and let you read the end result of the answers to those questions?

I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.

I'll let you know when it's up.

When I started studying the Bible, I made a decision to take it literally, as though it were the literal truth.  I've found that this approach opens up a lot of spiritual pathways, eventually.  But, for me, the two (What 'two'? Did you leave something out here?) stand side by side, and are equally important, and the natural comes first.

Good decision! Could I ask if it's been your experience that these 'spiritual pathways' you mention tend to narrow down to a specific, singular understanding, rather than broadening to be inclusive of any and every understanding?

I am, after all, a physical creature.

So, The Adam must have been as well! Good logic with a correct conclusion!

So I do take it literally, and have pictured it in my mind many times as a literal occurrence.

As have I. Years of it, in fact.

God created everything discretely, and in an orderly fashion.

Yes He did! Exactly as was needed to get the job done in six mornings and evenings or six 24 hour days as we would say.

I do not consider the theory of evolution to be truth or science, rather a deliberate attempt to mask the truth of God and create an artificial barrier between God and science.  But, that's another story.

And a really great one to start talking about at gatherings of the ecclesia you don't ever want to be invited to again!

It's almost as maddening to a Modern Christian as saying that you believe Jesus will restore every single human being to the Father!

You would be amazed at how many Believers out there actually think that evolution must be incorporated into our understanding simply because they can't believe that all those scientists could all be wrong! Despite the fact that everything these scientists, so called, have ever touted as proof and I do mean, literally, everything is eventually found to be a hoax or misapplied. Case in point this recent article on the appendix.

Anyway, I'd like to talk to you about some of the specific things you yourself have discovered to be true in these chapters.

Wait for my narrative and then we'll talk some more. Because after reading it you will then be able to ask better questions.

Also, you mention Jesus referring to Genesis--could you show me the scripture you are talking about?  Thanks.

Sure thing!

(Matt: 19:3-6) And the Pharisees came to Him, trying Him, and saying, "Is it allowed one to dismiss his wife for every cause?"
Now He, answering, said, "Did you not read that the Maker from the beginning makes them male and female, and He said, 'On this account a man shall be leaving father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh'? So that no longer are they two, but one flesh. What God, then, yokes together, let not man be separating."

(Mk 10:2-7) And approaching, the Pharisees, trying Him, inquired of Him if it is allowed a husband to dismiss a wife.
Yet He, answering, said to them, "What does Moses direct you?"
Yet they say, "Moses permits us to write a scroll of divorce, and to dismiss her."
And answering, Jesus said to them, "In view of your hardheartedness he writes for you this precept. Yet from the beginning of creation God makes them male and female. On this account a man will be leaving his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will be one flesh. So that no longer are they two, but one flesh. What God, then, yokes together, let not man be separating."

(Matt 24:36-39) Now, concerning that day and hour no one is aware, neither the messengers of the heavens, nor the Son; except the Father only. For even as the days of Noah, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind. For as they were in those days before the deluge, masticating and drinking and marrying and taking in marriage until the day on which Noah entered into the ark, and did not know till the deluge came and takes them all away, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind.

(Luke 17:26-30) "And according as it occurred in the days of Noah, thus will it be in the days of the Son of Mankind also. They ate, they drank, they married, they took out in marriage, until the day on which Noah entered into the ark, and the deluge came and destroys them all. Likewise, according as it occurred in the days of Lot, they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built. Yet on the day in which Lot came out from Sodom, fire and sulphur rains from heaven and destroys them all. In accord with these will it be on the day in which the Son of Mankind is unveiled.

There are many, many more examples where Jesus refers to Abraham as if he were an actual person just like He does Solomon and David, even as He refers to them as male and female as if The Adam were just as real as Abraham, Noah, and Lot.

And so I conclude that The Adam was just as real as I am, even as you did also. And that axiom leads me to the correct conclusion that the rest of the Genesis narrative must be a literal account of Creation because all those things that He created would need to exist, almost simultaneously, to keep this real-time, very real human, The Adam, alive.

And for additional proof there is this from Luke's genealogy of Jesus:

And He, Jesus, when beginning, was about thirty years old, being a son (as to the law) of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat,… of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God.

Those who support anything but a literal interpretation of Genesis are hard pressed to explain, with any sense, why Adam should be considered the only figurative figure in this genealogy.

And of course the apostles also quote from Genesis as if the humans talked about were actual, real humans. For example:

(Rom 5:14) … nevertheless death reigns from Adam unto Moses, (even) over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him Who is about to be. (What's this?!? What's this?!? Did he just say that there are humans who don't sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam?!? Whaaaat? I thought we were all depraved?

(I Cor 15:21-22 & 45)  For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.
 If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, "became a living soul:" the last Adam a vivifying Spirit.

(1 Tim 2:13-15) …(for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression). Yet she shall be saved through the child bearing, if ever they should be remaining in faith and love and holiness with sanity. If you're actually reading all this prompt me to and I'll provide for you an explanation of what Paul meant here that actually make sense.

(Jude 14) Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesies to these also, saying, "Lo! the Lord came among ten thousand of His saints…

(Heb 11:7- 12) By faith Noah, being apprized concerning that which is not as yet being observed, being pious, constructs an ark for the salvation of his house, through which he condemns the world, and became an enjoyer of the allotment of the righteousness which accords with faith.
By faith Abraham, being called, obeys, coming out into the place which he was about to obtain to enjoy as an allotment, and came out, not versed in where he is coming. By faith he sojourns in the land of promise as in an alien land, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the joint enjoyers of the allotment of the same promise. For he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is God.
By faith Sarah herself also obtained power for the disruption of seed, and brought forth beyond the period of her prime, since she deems the Promiser faithful; wherefore, also, were begotten by one, and these of one who is deadened, according as the constellations of heaven in multitude, and as the sand beside the sea shore innumerable.

(1 Pet 3:20) He heralds to those once stubborn, when the patience of God awaited in the days of Noah while the ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water…

(2 Pet 2: 4-11) For if God spares not sinning messengers, but thrusting them into the gloomy caverns of Tartarus, gives them up to be kept for chastening judging; and spares not the ancient world, but guards Noah, an eighth, a herald of righteousness, bringing a deluge on the world of the irreverent; and condemns the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to cinders by an overthrow, having placed them as an example for those about to be irreverent: and rescues the just man, Lot, harried by the behavior of the dissolute in their wantonness (for the just man dwelling among them, in observing and hearing from day to day, tormented his just soul by their lawless acts), the Lord is acquainted with the rescue of the devout out of trial, yet is keeping the unjust for chastening in the day of judging, yet specially those going after the flesh in defiling lust and despising lordship. Audacious, given to self-gratification, they are not trembling when calumniating glories, where messengers, being greater in strength and power, are not bringing against them a calumniating judging before the Lord.

Be good, Molly!

It's what you were created to be!

(BTW my wife's name is Molly- Love that name!)

[Molly]

Good decision! Could I ask if it's been your experience that these 'spiritual pathways' you mention tend to narrow down to a specific, singular understanding, rather than broadening to be inclusive of any and every understanding?

Yes, it does.  It gets more and more focused, a narrow path.  Truth is absolute!  (Not saying I know it all yet).  But it is a path we walk on, not turning to the right or the left.  He is the Way--literally the road, the journey, the highway.

I understand now that the reason for the literal is that we have to be standing on something.  Without that, we are just falling through space (the pit of evil is bottomless).  Christ is our foundation in a very literal sense.  We are standing on [his] faith, and it's real!

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, ...

"substance"

G5287
ὑπόστασις
hupostasis
hoop-os'-tas-is
From a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), that is, (figuratively) concretely essence, or abstractly assurance (objectively or subjectively): - confidence, confident, person, substance.


....the evidence of things not seen.

"evidence"

G1650
ἔλεγχος
elegchos
el'-eng-khos
From G1651; proof, conviction: - evidence, reproof.

You would be amazed at how many Believers out there actually think that evolution must be incorporated into our understanding simply because they can't believe that all those scientists could all be wrong! Despite the fact that everything these scientists, so called, have ever touted as proof and I do mean, literally, everything is eventually found to be a hoax or misapplied.

Not amazed, we are-- literally --surrounded in a bath of lies.  Everything we think we know (because we learned it from man) is lies.  The liars know they are lying and do it anyway.  Those scientists all know that evolution as presented to the public is a lie--but they are afraid, they are cowards, they want their jobs, they want the praise of men, they think what's the harm?--so they keep their heads down and go along.  But, that's just one drop in the bucket.  It is pervasive.  Our Lord warns us we will have to count the cost if we want to walk with him.  The cost is high (in earthly terms).


Thanks for the scripture!

[Eleutheros]

Hey Molly!

I'm interested in hearing your specific ideas on Genesis 1-3, that is, the answers you have to the questions you posted.

How about I do you one better and let you read the end result of the answers to those questions?

I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.

I'll let you know when it's up.

As promised.

Hey Doc!

Why would there be a literal tree with literal fruit that bestows knowledge of good and evil?

In short order, you will have my answer.

Here it is.

[Molly]

Hey Molly!

How about I do you one better and let you read the end result of the answers to those questions?

I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.

I'll let you know when it's up.

I loved it.   

One of the first things that struck me most when I actually read the Bible about Adam (instead of just hearing bad things about him in the popular culture) was how much God loved him--and you captured that perfectly!

[Eleutheros]

Hey Molly!

How about I do you one better and let you read the end result of the answers to those questions?

I will soon be posting a narrative that will sum up my conclusions.

I'll let you know when it's up.

I loved it.   

One of the first things that struck me most when I actually read the Bible about Adam (instead of just hearing bad things about him in the popular culture) was how much God loved him--and you captured that perfectly!

Thank you Molly for your reply. I'm delighted that you loved it!

I gotta ask: "What bad things did you hear about Adam in the popular culture?"

It was always bad things about God that I heard. And that was because of what Calvinist/Arminian Christians preached to the world for 1700 years; of that peculiar hell, yes, but, also that God knew, as a fact, that The Adam was going to 'fall' (their word choice and reflective of their theology) before He created him/her- An axiomatic belief that was translated into existence exactly as that peculiar hell was.

And of course, this axiom turns the set-up in the Garden to nothing less than a diabolical sting operation.

For it is a truth, even as I heard it once said, facetiously, of the logical and quite horrific conclusions accurately drawn from that axiom about the character of Jehovah:

"No one will believe in a 'good' God who creates faulty humans and then blames them for His mistakes!"

And that was being kind.

What I have written, after studying Genesis 1-3 literally and scientifically and in the light, also, of a literal reading of the rest of scripture, even though the Genesis account can stand on it's own, when read literally, is to introduce anyone who can accept it to an understanding- a way of thinking- that, once grasped, can answer a lot of heretofore 'difficult' questions.

Any, of course, are free to reject it as a truthful way of thinking. As they wish. I don't think ill of anyone who does, nor do I believe anyone is wrong-headed who rejects it.

After all, to say that there might be something Jehovah couldn't know, as a fact, is bordering on blasphemy in many Believer's thoughts exactly because of the 1700 years of Calvinistic/Arminianistic indoctrination that, in this time, is now being exposed for the deception that it is.

And even though I do hold that there are right and wrong ways of thinking- right and wrong understandings- my God's Lady, Wisdom personified in Jesus, is mostly concerned with getting humans to stop sinning, even as my understanding concludes. And any and every belief that, comming from faith in Jesus The Messiah- Who cleanses the human conscience by forgiving sins and Whose spirit re-sires these humans to be the Children of God they were intended to be- can be used to stop a human from sinning and start them being righteous, is OK with me! Even as I perceive that, for now, the plurality of these many and often contradictory beliefs is OK with Him until He sees fit to guide any one of us, who are among the first to believe, into that narrowing of their beliefs to a singular understanding that coaleses everything into Truth, even as He has done so with me.

And so I share Creation Hymn. Freely. It is my gift to my God. For even as the understanding I have come to know, built up over the years as I tried to find reasonable answers to those hard questions I asked, so long ago, has given me insight into things others have no real answer for, so I hope it will illuminate any others who both can and want to receive it.

Do with it, Tentmakers, as you will. It is a gift.

But, above all be good!

Exactly as you were created to be.

Dennis!

[Doc]

What Jesus did in addressing the Jews gathered around Him, of whom He said "You are the salt of the earth and a light on a hill" was to illustrate the importance of  righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness above the demands of the law, so that they would be the good witness they were intended to be for God to the Gentiles. The very same righteousness, mercy, lieniency and forgivness that works in those Gentiles re-sired by Jehovah to make them a good witness for God to the world today.
And these qualities of  righteousness, mercy, lieiency and forgivness were not contradictory to their understanding of truth, 'spiritual' or otherwise, nor where they innaccurate with regard to their literal reading of scripture, nor where they in conflict with their conscience about what 'those words' (The Law) in scripture meant.

I'm only going to directly address this part, as these exchanges are getting too long for me to keep up with. I don't really think we're getting anywhere with this long-winded vague sniping back and forth.

I understand the point that this is what Jesus was trying to do, but, it appeared to them as I suggested, which was the point. They thought they had the truth (the letter/ literal), so they didn't believe the Truth when he was standing right in front of them (the Spirit).


At any rate, I don't disagree that truth can be known at least at some level, and that the (absolute) truth itself is not plural. I do maintain however, that the only possible way that we can know this is by knowing the person who is the Truth (and Way, and Life). Anytime we put any knowledge or reason above this, we are guilty of missing the mark, which is exactly what happened to the Jews. We have to hear with spiritual ears and see with spiritual eyes, or we'll miss the message by not seeing the forest for the trees.

Now, I suspect that you have a point to make regarding your thread title, so I'd like to hear you lay out your position so that we can perhaps continue a more meaningful discussion.

[Eleutheros]

Greetings Gentle Readers.

In my first post on this thread I summed up exactly how that peculiar hell was translated into existence by the KJV interpreters.

And later I said, in other posts, that I wrote all that out, right off the bat, to demonstrate my solidarity with what you guys, the Tentmakers, are trying to accomplish for the kingdom as well as to show that I am not a troublemaker or a threat, or even just frustrating, even as some, I knew, would later perceive me to be because of what the way they think would reveal to them about what I would say.

Well, after I  summed up well the shenanigans of the KJV interpreters, with a gracious comment on it by Tim thrown in, thank you again, Tim, I then asked this question:

"Given the deliberate, ulterior motivated dishonesty of the KJV interpreters, how can we trust the rest of their work? Indeed, why should we?

My answer was that I don't. I don't trust that any logical conclusion, derived from the English sense forced onto the Greek and Hebrew text by King James's interpreters, is truthful.

And the majority of you here don't either, at least from what you know.

Why? Because words mean things. And that is why words can convey things we call thoughts or ideas.

The fact is that the KJV interpreters screwed with The Words of God. Which means we, the Believers, were the ones screwed. Specifically, we were screwed into trusting, at least for the next several centuries, that the hell-based theology of  St. Augustine and John Calvin was truthful- and that, unfortunately, God was Who they interpreted Him to be- Mean, Angry and Capricious. Despite the 'agape' He supposedly demonstrated when He allowed His Son to be murdered, just so He could save a few humans, for whatever His purposes were in making these few His Son's (Gulp!) 'Bride' (*Chill* Imagine having John Calvin's God as your Father in Law for all of eternity!!)
 
Now, that doesn't mean that I disagree with how the KJV interpreters translated everything. For obviously The truth of the Gospel has gone out, successfully, into the World, preached from the final 1728 version of the 1611 KJV Bible right into the present.

And that is because the truth is that God is Agape! And He is a Good and Kind and Patient Father, even as those who receive his re-siring spirit come to know Him to be.

What I am saying is that I don't trust what I or anyone else will conclude from the English sense they gave to the original text, until I can verify it with my own word studies. Then I can know whether their's or my conclusions, drawn from this English sense they imposed, are accurate.

And how can I know whether my conclusions, or anyone else's, for that matter, are accurate? Because truth is singular in nature. It is lies that are plural. Therefore, I know, both logically and from experience, that many of the conclusions that are drawn from that foreign, English sense that was imposed on The Words by the KJV interpreters, lie to you in your thoughts.

So, what's in a word? Answer: Meaning: One word can mean almost the same thing as another and one word can mean exactly the opposite of another.

But it only ever takes just one word to mean exactly one thing.

Which is why you can change the thought you want to convey if you change just one single word. It can be a subtle change (using synonyms) or it can be a substantial one, even as substantial as to invert the meaning originally intended (using antonyms).

To illustrate this I am going to attempt to change your thinking about Jacob- that dirty scoundrel, that liar and deceiver, that suppplanter, that damn heel- grabber- by changing one English word that does not reflect the truth in the Hebrew word it was made to stand for in the English translation.

The Hebrew word is tawm

It occurs 13 times in 13 verses of the Hebrew text.

It is translated with the English word 'perfect' nine times, with the English word 'undefiled' twice and with the English word 'upright' one time. All of these words are synonyms and based on the Hebrew context, these English words accurately convey the thought in the Hebrew text where tawm is used, variously, to describe, by God Himself, the character of Job and in two Psalms and a Proverb to contrast the righteous man with the unrighteous and once by Solomon to describe his Shulamite's physical beauty even as it is once used by her to describe his.

That accounts for twelve of the thirteen times tawm appears in the Hebrew text..

The thirteenth is actually the first time the word tawm appears. And it is used to describe Jacob.

And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a tawm man, dwelling in tents. Genesis 25:27 KJV.

But, here, in this first occurrence of tawm, did the KJV interpreters use any of the English words they choose to translate tawm everywhere else it appears, that is 'perfect', 'upright' or 'undefiled'?

No.

They said that Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.

Do you see, now, what I mean, how one word can literally and even drastically change everything?

Think now on the story of Jacob and Esau. What thought's are in your mind about Jacob, thoughts that you had planted in you by those who preached 'the truth' from the KJV, that now must be altered, assuming you desire truthfulness in your thinking about Jacob, because now you know the truth that Jacob was an 'upright', 'undefiled' or 'perfect' man, dwelling in tents?
Even as the Bible declares him to be and even as God Himself used tawm to describe Job, that is to say that he was upright and undefiled, or 'perfect'?

Well, Gentle Readers, in the similitude of what the KJV interpreters did to malign the character of Jacob, (a man God apparently had a lot of respect for and thus chose over another who really was a scoundrel), by changing one word and thus put it into our minds that he was a plain man, rather than an upright man, there is another deception that they foisted on the English speaking mind when they did something quite similar to what they needed to do to the text to translate into existence that peculiar hell that is the cornerstone of Calvin's theology: They translated two different Greek words katabole (Strong's # 2602) and themelios (Strong's # 2310)- which, in Greek,  posses dissimilar, even opposite meanings- with one English word, thus translating into existence an idea that is as peculiar as hell.

First let's look at themelios

It appears 16 times in 15 verses.

For your convenience I have provided all 15 of the scriptures, from the KJV, were this word appears and have italicized the English word used where themelios appears in the original text.

Lu 6:48- 49 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded (themelioo # 2311) upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Lu 14:28-30  For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Acts 16:25 And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed.

Rom 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation…

1 Cor 3: 10-12 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Eph 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

1 Tim 6:17-19 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

2 Tim 2:19 …Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying (katabollo #2598) again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God…

Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Rev 21:14 & 19And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb… And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald…

Here then is the dictionary definition of the English word 'foundation':

-noun
1) the basis or groundwork of anything: the moral foundation of both society and religion.
2) the natural or prepared ground or base on which some structure rests.
3) the lowest division of a building, wall, or the like, usually of masonry and partly or wholly below the surface of the ground.
4) the act of founding, setting up, establishing, etc.: a policy in effect since the foundation.
5) the state of being founded.
6) an institution financed by a donation or legacy to aid research, education, the arts, etc.: the Ford Foundation.
7) an endowment for such an institution.
8) a cosmetic, as a cream or liquid, used as a base for facial makeup.
9) Solitaire. a card of given denomination on which other cards are to be added according to denomination or suit.

And this is what Strong says it means:

1) laid down as a foundation, the foundation (of a building, wall, city)
2) metaph. the foundations, beginnings, first principals
  a) of institution or system of truth

So, we see that, given the context of the Greek, when the word themelios appears, that our English word 'foundation' was a very good choice for accurately conveying the original writers intent.

That is, 'foundation' is concordant with themelios everywhere themelios appears and is a good word to convey the original writers intent.

Now in exactly the same way let's look at katabole and the Greek word it comes from katabollo

Katabole appears 11 times in 11 verses and katabollo appears 3 times in 3 verses.

Again, for your convenience, I have provided all 14 of the scriptures, from the KJV, were this word appears and this time have italicized in green the English words chosen by the KJV interpreters to use where katabole appears in the original text and in blue where katabollo appears.

Matt 13: 34-35 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
 
Matt 25:31-40 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came.

Luke 11: 48-51 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

2 Cor 4:8-10 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down , but not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

Eph 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundationof the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
 
Heb 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God… This verse is special. It uses both katabollo and themelios in the same thought which, all by itself, proves quite nicely that 'foundation' can not be what katabollo or katabole means.

Heb 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Heb 9: 24-26 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
 
Heb 11:11-12 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

1 Pet 1: 17-21 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Rev13: 8-9 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear.
 
Rev 17: 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

The definition for foundation has already been given.

However, in one place katabole cannot be translated with the word 'foundation' because it just wouldn't make any sense.

In that troublesome place they chose the word 'conceive'.

Interesting, eh?

(Sound familiar? this is exactly like the situation where they had to translate aionios with phrases like 'since the world began' to keep some kind of sense because, in those toublesome places, the wrong word choice, 'eternal', just wouldn't work. Which, of course, just adds to the proof that many of their word choices aren't accurate ones.)

Now here is what Strong says katabole means:

1) a throwing or laying down
  a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
  b) of the seed of plants and animals
2) a founding (laying down a foundation)

And what katabollo means:

1) to cast down
  a) to throw to the ground, prostrate
2) to put in a lower place
  a) to lay (down) a foundation

Now it is a truth, even as you are likely aware of it, I'm sure, from your own word studies, that Strong got his definitions from the context where the KJV interpreters said the English word should be used, with no regard for whether the Greek and English words were truly concordant.

In other words, if the KJV interpreters said that this is what the word meant then, for him, that is what the word meant.
 
OK. So, does the Greek language really have two words that mean exactly the same thing as all the ideas that come into our mind when we hear the English word 'foundation'?

The answer is no.

The Greek language does not have two words that mean exactly the same thing as 'foundation' anymore than the English language has two words that mean exactly the same thing as foundation.

Nor can any other language have two words that mean exactly the same thing. (Except for differences in spelling)

What the KJV interpreters are doing here is the exact same thing they did when they used one English word 'eternal' to translate aion, aionios and aiodios.

Only aiodios means exactly the same thing as our English word 'eternal'. Which means that aion and it's adjective, aionios, do not mean 'eternal' (as you all know), anymore than katabole and katabollo mean 'foundation' (as you all now know).

Themelios means 'foundation' in Greek, not katabole

End of Part 1