Tom, your humane hunter analogy fails to explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Your unwillingness to address this issue is what drove me to the "whatever" episode expressed above.

out of curiousity my brothers, would either of you know how and when this got derailed from the "covenants"?

i only looked at a couple of the first posts and dont know how it "ends" but it certainly looks like something we dont really get.

Ellen White described Waggoner's view of the covenant as "clear as sunlight," which has been my impression as well. Here are a couple of places he discusses it: http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT04RedeemedfromtheCurse.htm

Here's a paragraph:



Also: http://www.brooklawn.org/Books/GladTidings/GT05TheAdoptionofSons.htm

A good place to start reading would be from where it says "These Are the Two Covenants."

MM, the analogy does not fail to address the issue. I'm sorry you're not seeing this. I'm also sorry I cannot explain it any more clearly than the story does.

However, there are many other topics to discuss.

In relation to God commanding Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, the following passage is insightful:

If the one tried for murder were proved guilty, no atonement or ransom could rescue him. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Genesis 9:6. "Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death." "Thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die," was the command of God; "the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Numbers 35:31, 33; Exodus 21:14. The safety and purity of the nation demanded that the sin of murder be severely punished. Human life, which God alone could give, must be sacredly guarded. {PP 516.2}

Tom, in light of the quote I posted above, I do not see how your humane hunter analogy explains why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. The father in your story taught his son, against his wishes, how to hunt animals in the most humane way possible. The principle here seems to involve the father teaching his son how to do something that goes against his will but is not a sin in and of itself. Are you implying, therefore, that God taught the COI how to kill people in the most humane manner possible, even though it went against His will, but that is was not a sin in and of itself?

Had the COI followed God's desires, they would never have killed anyone, just as the lad in the hunter story would not have hunted had he followed his father's wishes. God did not arm the Israelites. It was not God's wish to conquer the Holy Land by military force. We have a couple of examples where the people allowed God to fight their battles for them, and in these instances, not a single Israelite died. Had they always exercised faith, no Israelite would ever have died. Instead destruction would have come upon their enemies (provided they didn't repent) along the lines of GC chapter 1, in a similar manner to how Israel's enemies were defeated when they did trust God.

The point of the hunter story has to do with how it would have sounded to a neighbor to hear the father explaining to the son how to hunt. It would have sounded like the father was in favor of hunting. Similarly, without knowing the details, it would seem that God is in favor of getting what you want by violence, since there are so many stories of this type in the OT. However, God's words and actions are being taken out of context to get this idea. God's words and actions, His true feelings and thoughts, are best understood as revealed by Jesus Christ. Through Him we see what God is really like.

There is an apparent contradiction between the God of the OT and Jesus Christ's revelation of God while hear in the flesh. Anyone can see this. The OT stories present God as violent, whereas Jesus was not only non violent, He was opposed to violence. So how do we resolve this apparent contradiction?

One way would be to assume that Jesus Christ really did have a violent streak to Him, just like God does, but because of circumstances that violent part was hidden. In this case, Jesus did not present a full revelation of God, but a partial one, where certain actions God does were not revealed, because of circumstances. This looks to be the approach you have chosen to take. To understand God, we need to supplement the picture of God that Jesus presented with what we learn about God from the OT. Many people feel this way.

Another approach to take is that we have not properly understood what was really happening in the OT. God is presented as actively doing things by inspiration that He merely allowed to happen. We know this happened some of the time. Perhaps it happened much, much more frequently than a simple reading of the OT would suggest, but which a reading of the OT in the light of Jesus Christ's revelation of God would suggest. Also the analogy of the father of the hunter son can help explain some difficult to understand passages.

But overall we're dealing with a difference of conviction and approach. One can have the conviction that Scripture, as we understand it on the surface, should be our foundation. We should allow that to supplement our view of God, based on what Jesus Christ revealed. In this approach, our view of God is pliable, but our understanding of Scripture is not. This view allows God to be different than Jesus Christ (drastically different), but has the advantage of our understanding of Scripture, nor our paradigm, having to change.

The other approach would have our paradigm shift, and our understanding of Scripture change. We would perceive, for example, that much of what happened in Scripture is along the lines presented by GC chapter One, even when not explicitly stated. This is a key point.

This has the advantage of allowing our view of God to be exactly that which Jesus Christ, while in the flesh, revealed.

Teresaq, this aspect of the OC is being discussed at this point because we were unable to agree on the other aspects that have been discussed. Of course, this aspect of the discussion is no better off than the rest of the discussion. Oh well. We do not study together to prove a point or to persuade the other guy to believe like we do; instead, we study together because it helps us express what we have learned, and what makes sense to us.

There are several covenants mentioned in the Bible: 1) The Everlasting Covenant, 2) The Old Covenant, and 3) The New Covenant. Of course, there are also the Adamic, Noatic (aka Noahic), and the Abrahamic covenants. What do you know about it?

From what I read about it, the EC and the NC are, in the context of the GC, essentially the same covenant, namely, that God promises to pardon our sin, empower us to love and obey Him, eliminate sin and sinners, and to restore paradise lost. The blood of Jesus ratifies the covenant. The OC, on the other hand, was implemented in response to Israel's failure to comply with the conditions of the EC/NC. It was designed to teach them the truth about the EC/NC and to how meet the conditions outlined therein. The OC was ratified by the blood of animals. The terms and requirements unique to the OC ended when Jesus died on the cross. Exactly what we are still obligated by law to obey is often hotly debated. Nevertheless, people who experience the awesome miracle of rebirth this side of the cross are born again under the terms and conditions of the EC/NC. What those are are also debated.

MM, if you reject the foundational basis, how can we move on?

Tom, I think that is most helpful to me in understanding the problem!

Some people view their understanding of the Scriptures are right, and then fit God to match those views.

I suppose a corollary could be made with evolutionists.

I'm not sure what to do with it, but I'm starting to see why some can reject something which seems to me to be so clear, plain, and explicitly stated.