Hosea 6:7 But they like men...

Discussion in 'OT Prophets' started by blhowes, Apr 6, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. blhowes

    blhowes Puritan Board Professor

    Hosea 6:7 (KJV) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

    Hosea 6:7 (NASB) But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

    This is a fascinating verse to study. Its interesting that some translations translate the verse using "Adam" and some using "men". Since the same Hebrew word can be translated either Adam or men, I was wondering if anybody knew what the reasoning was behind those translations that translated the word "men" instead of "Adam"? Was there something in the context of the verse or chapter that swayed them to translate it that way? If men is the correct way to translate it, which covenant did the men transgress?

    If you know Hebrew, how do you think it should be translated and why?

    Thanks,
    Bob
     
  2. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

    Actually... the KJV is in the distinct minority on this one. Virtually all translations translate it as Adam. The real debate - in academic circles is on the preposition attached to it... Should this be translated "at Adam" (thus signifiying a geographic location at which the people commited an act that violated the covenant) or should this be translated "like Adam" (thus signifying an analogy between their covenant violation and the violation of the covenant by the first man).
     
  3. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    Ben...

    [quote:aa2ecd8556]Actually... the KJV is in the distinct minority on this one. Virtually all translations translate it as Adam. The real debate - in academic circles is on the preposition attached to it... Should this be translated "at Adam" (thus signifiying a geographic location at which the people commited an act that violated the covenant) or should this be translated "like Adam" (thus signifying an analogy between their covenant violation and the violation of the covenant by the first man). [/quote:aa2ecd8556]

    Is there a difference in manuscripts? The kaf preposition is most often a comparative particle is it not, and thus would be as, like, according to, the same as? The only time it may not be is if it precedes an infinitive, so says the BDB.

    Where's the debate?

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  4. sundoulos

    sundoulos Puritan Board Freshman

    I believe this refers to breaking the covenant of works which all, like Adam, have done.
     
  5. blhowes

    blhowes Puritan Board Professor

    [b:9f9efae1ea]SolaScriptura wrote:[/b:9f9efae1ea]
    Actually... the KJV is in the distinct minority on this one. Virtually all translations translate it as Adam.

    Another one that translates it "men" is the Geneva bible.

    Not to slight in any way those who translated the other translations, but I remember reading about some of the people who translated the KJV and I was very impressed with how learned they were in the ancient languages. I wonder if there's any way to find out why they chose to translate it the way they did. I'm sure they were aware of the other ways to translate it.

    Bob
     
  6. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    The question about the translation of 'adam' (which is Hebrew for man) in this verse is quite enough, I believe, to lead those who defend the idea of a Covenant of Works to look elsewhere for support.

    I believe it should be translated "men" here.

    Phillip
     
  7. blhowes

    blhowes Puritan Board Professor

    [b:08595f8fdc]Pastor Way wrote:[/b:08595f8fdc]
    The question about the translation of 'adam' (which is Hebrew for man) in this verse is quite enough, I believe, to lead those who defend the idea of a Covenant of Works to look elsewhere for support.

    For your average Christian, who doesn't want to defend anything but just wants to read the scriptures and be guided in their walk with the Lord, it seems like it would be only natural for them to conclude that God had made a covenant with Adam. It would take some digging for them to determine the nature of the covenant (or what to call it).

    The reason I say this is because, from my experience anyway, most Christians and churches don't use the KJV, and they definitely don't use the Geneva bible. Unless they read the margin note that gave an alternate translation for the word, they would conclude that either God had made a covenant with Adam or that somebody had transgressed at a place called Adam, as SolaScriptura mentioned.

    [b:08595f8fdc]Pastor Way wrote:[/b:08595f8fdc]
    I believe it should be translated "men" here.

    It seems like it would be a difficult job to determine the correct translation for the Hebrew word for Adam/man. Forgetting about the debate over the verse's usage to defend the "covenant of works", what is it about the verse that makes you conclude that "men" is the best translation of the word?

    I have another question for you or anybody else. Strongs uses different numbers with the Hebrew word for Adam, the two most common seem to be 120 and 121. The Hebrew words used appear to be exactly the same, yet the definitions are quite different for the two words. What criteria did Strong use to assign the different numbers to the Hebrew words?

    Thanks,
    Bob


    H120
    aw-dawm'
    From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): - X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

    H121
    aw-dawm'
    The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine: - Adam.

    [Edited on 4-7-2004 by blhowes]
     
  8. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:3c0f248dae][i:3c0f248dae]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:3c0f248dae]
    The question about the translation of 'adam' (which is Hebrew for man) in this verse is quite enough, I believe, to lead those who defend the idea of a Covenant of Works to look elsewhere for support.

    I believe it should be translated "men" here.

    Phillip [/quote:3c0f248dae]

    Here is the result of looking elsewhere:

    [quote:3c0f248dae]Rom. 5:12-21

    12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
    13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
    14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
    15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.
    16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
    17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
    18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
    19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
    20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
    21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.[/quote:3c0f248dae]

    If there is a covenant of grace, or new covenant as you equivocate it, then there must be a broken covenant that has been surpassed and overcome by it.

    It should be fairly evident from the above, that there are two federal heads. Adam is the one and Christ, the new Adam, is the other.

    What about this is ambiguous? Do you honestly think he wouldn't have had covenant in mind here? He was a Jew to whom the new covenant was revealed. He would have understood this, and he did understand it, perfectly in the context of God's covenant with Adam, and God's covenant with Christ.

    He probably also had Hosea in mind as well.

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  9. Dan....

    Dan.... Puritan Board Sophomore

    I don't understand why any would want to deny that Adam was under covenant obligation (unless they thereby are looking to deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his people).

    Whether we call it "covenant of works" or "the obligation under which God placed Adam, as the Federal head of all in him, requiring of him strict obedience to His revealed law, offering life for obedience to that law and promising death for the breach therof".

    Personally, I think "covenant of works" is a much easier way (short hand) of refering to that obligation.

    Either way you want to put it, it still yields the same result.
     
  10. [quote:f5a9634089]
    I don't understand why any would want to deny that Adam was under covenant obligation (unless they thereby are looking to deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his people).
    [/quote:f5a9634089]

    Dan has hit the nail on the head! :smash:

    The very idea that Christ is the second Adam, and is in Covenant, blows the top off the premise that Adam was not in covenant. Do deny one, is to deny the purpose and manner of the second Adam.
    :amen:
     
  11. Rich Barcellos

    Rich Barcellos Puritan Board Freshman

    Phillip said:

    [quote:e30c60fdfc]
    I believe it should be translated "men" here.
    [/quote:e30c60fdfc]

    If translated men, what men is Hosea referring to? Men in general? Are these men men who transgressed the covenant? If so, what covenant? The Mosaic Covenant? Or, are the men simply transgressors but not of any covenant?
     
  12. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    Reading through Hosea and checking the context of chapter 6 we find that the people being talked about are the tribes of Israel that continually broke the Mosaic Covenant resulting in their captivity. They acted like sinful men instead of being faithful to the covenant. This is all about Ephriam and Judah, there is not need to go back to Adam to make this point about the need for repentance int he Land.

    [quote:fbd9a04c96][b:fbd9a04c96]Hosea 6[/b:fbd9a04c96]
    4 "O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, And like the early dew it goes away. 5Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets, I have slain them by the words of My mouth; And your judgments are like light that goes forth. 6For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. 7"But like men they transgressed the covenant; There they dealt treacherously with Me. 8Gilead is a city of evildoers And defiled with blood. 9As bands of robbers lie in wait for a man, So the company of priests murder on the way to Shechem; Surely they commit lewdness.10I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel: There is the harlotry of Ephraim; Israel is defiled. 11Also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed for you, When I return the captives of My people.[/quote:fbd9a04c96]

    Phillip
     
  13. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

    Kevin - in response to your earlier question...
    The reason why some think it refers to a place...
    The inclusion of the word "there" in the verse tends to indicate a geographic region... and there is a place named Adam (see Josh 3:16)... furthermore, in some manuscripts the [i:f9c99524d8]kaph[/i:f9c99524d8] is a [i:f9c99524d8]beth[/i:f9c99524d8] (have you ever seen some of those old handwritten manuscripts? The two letters look alike... a scribal error would have been very possible...)
    Anyway... in verse 8 he starts talking about Gilead... so the argument goes that he is listing some places (as specific examples) where covenant violations occurred.

    Pastor Way - God made a covenant with Israel that He is accusing them of violating. The Israelites knew full-well that no other nation was in a covenant relationship with God. Now, if God is saying that "like sinful men" they have broken the covenant, there is no analogy at all since no other sinful men have a covenant to break. For any analogy in this text to stand then the "ADAM" has to have broken a covenant, just as they had. Furthermore, it is well documented that the language of Genesis 2 is covenantal even if the word berith isn't used. Thus is is possible that the Jews understood Adam to have some sort of covenant with God and this passage makes sense as an analogy if we grant a covenantal relationship for Adam.

    Besides - though "[i:f9c99524d8]adam[/i:f9c99524d8]" is sometimes used for "mankind"... or sometimes for "man" in an implied plural sense (though even in these cases the word is still formally written in the singular as in Gen 1:27)... it isn't usually translated with "men"... by far the most common Hebrew word for "men" is [i:f9c99524d8]anashim[/i:f9c99524d8]. (Likewise, the most common word for "man" is [i:f9c99524d8]ish[/i:f9c99524d8]...)


    So... when I take the fact that the analogy is nonexistent without the "Adam" referring to someone in a covenantal relationship (that he/they broke)... when I take the covenantal language of Genesis.... when I consider what the typical word used to convey the idea of "men" is (and how it isn't ADAM!)... hmmm.... pretty much settles it in my mind... and in the minds of many others.
     
  14. But Phillip, repeating rich's question -

    You said:
    "They acted like sinful men instead of being faithful to the covenant."

    What sinful men broke what covenant?

    That does not make sense. What covenant did God make "with men?"

    If you say, "Adamic" - problem here - God made that "covenant" with Adam (you would be cornered on both accounts). 1) It is a covenant with Adam you would be suceeding to, and 2) God did not make a covenant with men, rather, with Adam, and his trangression is imputed ot them.



    [Edited on 4-8-2004 by webmaster]
     
  15. blhowes

    blhowes Puritan Board Professor

    [brain dump]

    [b:1f0963d11f]Matthew wrote:[/b:1f0963d11f]
    What sinful men broke what covenant? ... That does not make sense. What covenant did God make "with men?"

    These and other questions that have been asked so far make we wonder about the role of the translators. God's word has different levels of clarity - some passages are easy to understand and can be understood by the youngest child, while the meaning of other passages is more obscure and takes more digilence, and time, to unlock the meaning. (case in point, a baptist studying the scriptures and finally coming to the CT position). I wonder if its necessary for the translators to be able to know the answers to these types of questions before they can make a decision regarding the verse's interpretation? Can they be convinced that the best interpretation of the Hebrew word is men, while still wondering, [u:1f0963d11f]That does not make sense. What covenant did God make "with men?" [/u:1f0963d11f]

    I think its very interesting that the two bibles I've found so far that translate the verse men instead of Adam are bibles written around the time of the reformation, the Geneva bible and the KJV. The divines/preachers of that time are often admired for their skills (and superiority) in foreign languages, theology, logic, etc. I would be surprised if this wouldn't hold true for those who translated the KJV and the Geneva bibles.

    So I ask myself, "Given the knowledge these men had, why did they conclude that the word should be translated men instead of Adam"? I haven't found out yet what the theological background of the translators was, but I get the impression so far that they were somewhere in the reformed camp and would have been aware of (and perhaps believed)the covenant that God made with Adam.

    I don't know Hebrew, but it would make sense for the translators to first read the verse and consider translating the Hebrew as "like Adam" or "at Adam", according to their understanding of the construction of the surrounding words. I'm sure that they were also aware that the word could be translated "like men". Something, I would think, made them decide to go with "like men" over the other possibilities, in spite of their understanding of the construction of the verse and, perhaps their theology that would tell them that "like Adam" is a very strong possibility.

    In the case of the KJV, I think it was a group of 3 or for men that initially agreed on that translation. Then, if I'm not mistaken, their section of the bible was passed on to another group(s) to doublecheck their work. I would seem kind of strange for this kind of translation error to have gone unnoticed or unchallenged.

    What do you think is the most compelling argument that convinced them to go with "like men"? Do you think, as Pastor Way says, that the context of the word within the book was the deciding factor? Looking at the context of the verse, it makes sense to me that the covenant being referred to is the Mosaic covenant. The book, as I see it, is a call for repentence and an explanation of why repentence was necessary...Disobedience of the Mosaic covenant, worship of other gods, false worship of God, etc.

    Then, in Hosea 8:1, the covenant that was transgressed, as far as I can tell, points to the Mosaic covenant.

    Hos 8:1 Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of the LORD, because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law.

    Maybe this was the (or one of the) compelling reasons they translated it the way they did. The two verses (6:7 and 8:1) speak of the covenant being transgressed, 8:1 seems to point to the Mosaic law, and there certainly seems to be a continuity of thought between 6:7 and 8:1.

    Why do you think the translators of the KJV and the Geneva bibles translated the verse the way they did? Seems like the obvious translation would have been Adam, but they went with the not so obvious translation.

    [/brain dump]

    Well, I've gotta run. Work calls.

    Bob
     
  16. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    Ben...

    [quote:5e86cdd17f][i:5e86cdd17f]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:5e86cdd17f]
    Kevin - in response to your earlier question...
    The reason why some think it refers to a place...
    The inclusion of the word "there" in the verse tends to indicate a geographic region... and there is a place named Adam (see Josh 3:16)... furthermore, in some manuscripts the [i:5e86cdd17f]kaph[/i:5e86cdd17f] is a [i:5e86cdd17f]beth[/i:5e86cdd17f] (have you ever seen some of those old handwritten manuscripts? The two letters look alike... a scribal error would have been very possible...)
    Anyway... in verse 8 he starts talking about Gilead... so the argument goes that he is listing some places (as specific examples) where covenant violations occurred.[/quote:5e86cdd17f]

    Thanks for clearing that up. If it is the bet preposition, then region makes perfect sense (but unfortunately for Phillip, it would have to be Adam and not men). I wonder if we have any of Hosea in the dead sea scrolls. We might be able to see it there.

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  17. blhowes

    blhowes Puritan Board Professor

    Yesterday I read Matthew Henry's commentary on Hosea 6:7 and tonight what John Gill wrote in his. Its interesting to me that neither one seems compelled to be dogmatic about the proper interpretation of the Hebrew word for Adam/men, but both seem to be quite content to accept alternate translations. There doesn't seem to be the need to say that one translation is correct to the exclusion of the others.

    The bottom line seems to be with them that Israel transgressed the law of God, which their forefathers promised to obey at mount Sinai. The different translations/interpretations of the word are all valid ways to describe their disobedience. Here's what John Gill wrote about the first part of the verse.
    [quote:c520433428]
    Hos 6:7 - But they, like men, have transgressed the covenant,.... The false prophets, as Aben Ezra, whom he threatened to cut off and slay, Hos_6:5; or rather Ephraim and Judah, whose goodness was so fickle and unstable; and who, instead of doing acts of mercy, and seeking after the true knowledge of God and his worship, which are preferable to all sacrifices, they transgressed the law of God, which they promised at Mount Sinai to obey; the precepts of the moral law, even of both tables, which concern both God and man; and also the ceremonial law, by appointing priests to sacrifice who were not of the tribe of Levi, as did Ephraim or the ten tribes under Jeroboam; and by offering sacrifices to their calves, and by not observing the solemn feasts; and the precepts relating to both these laws constitute the covenant made with the children of Israel at Sinai, Exo_24:3; which they transgressed, either...

    "like Adam" (y) the first man, as Jarchi; who transgressed the covenant of works in paradise God made with him, and all mankind in him:

    or like the men of old, the former generations, as the Targum; meaning either the old inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites;

    or the men of the old world at the time of the flood, who were a very wicked and abandoned generation of men;

    or like men in common, depraved and degenerated, fickle and inconstant, vain and deceitful, and not at all to be depended upon; especially like the lower sort of men, the common people, who have no regard to their word, covenant, and agreement;

    or particularly like such men that are given to penury, and make no conscience of oaths and covenants ever so solemnly made:

    or, as others read the words, "but they have transgressed the covenant like man's; making no more account of it than if it was a man's covenant;
    [/quote:c520433428]

    I liked John Gill's commentary on the verse, but I also liked the way he didn't seem to feel the need to be dogmatic where the Bible isn't dogmatic (about the correct way to interpret the Hebrew word).

    Like Adam :handshake: Like men

    Bob
     
  18. Rich Barcellos

    Rich Barcellos Puritan Board Freshman

    Bob,

    I would recommend reading Robert Reymond's "A New Syst. Theo..." pp. 430ff. before making a final decision.

    Here's his evidence of a divine covenant in Gen. 2 from p. 430:

    Although the word "covenant" does not occur in Genesis 2, there are four reasons for regarding the arrangement between God and Adam as a covenant ...:
    1. The word [covenant] does not have to be actually used at the time a covenant is made in order for a covenant to be present, as is made clear from Second Samuel 7, where, although the word is not employed, according to Psalm 89:19-37 God covenantally promised David that his dynastic house would rule over Israel [see especially Psalm 89:3; and 2 Chronicles 7:18 and 21:7].
    2. Covenant elements (parties, stipulation, promise, and threat) are present.
    3. Hosea 6:7, "But they, like Adam, transgressed covenant," states by implication that Adam's sin was a "transgression of covenant," ...
    4. The New Testament parallels between Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:12-19; I Cor. 15:22, 45-49) imply that just as Christ was the federal (foedus: "covenant") representative of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; Heb. 9:15), so also Adam acted as a federal representative of a covenant arrangement.

    Here's his comments on Hos. 6:7:

    "Hosea 6:7, "But they, like Adam, transgressed covenant," states by implication that Adam's sin was a "transgression of covenant." Some commentators suggest that the phrase "like Adam" should be translated "like men," but this is to intrude an inanity [empty or void] into the text, for how else could Hosea's contemporaries transgress than "like men"? Other commentators have wanted to emend the "like Adam" ... phrase to "in Adam" ..., and then they speak of some transgression which occurred in the town by that name mentioned in Joshua 3:16. But the Scriptures are silent regarding such an event. It seems best to retain the most obvious sense of the phrase" (Ibid., 430).

    Shaw agrees, when he says, "This necessarily implies that a covenant was made with Adam, and that he violated it" (Shaw, WCF, 125).

    My comments:

    It is in the capacity of covenant transgressors that Israel is likened to Adam. It is not likened to him generically, but very specifically. As Adam was a covenant transgressor so Israel is a covenant transgressor. Adam broke the covenant imposed upon him by God in the Garden and Israel broke the covenant God imposed upon her at Sinai.
    Hosea 6:7 as it relates to the Adamic administration of Genesis 2 functions like Psalm 89:3-4 as it relates to the Davidic administration of 2 Samuel 7 (see especially v. 16). In both cases, subsequent revelation makes explicit what was implicit in antecedent revelation. As Psalm 89:3-4 makes explicit what was implicit in 2 Samuel 7, so Hosea 6:7 makes explicit what was implicit in Genesis 2. In both cases, Genesis 2 and Second Samuel 7, a covenant is present in a text without the word covenant in the text and that according to subsequent Scripture's interpretation of antecedent Scripture.

    You may want to read Turretin as well (Institutes, I, 574-578 [esp. 576]).
     
  19. [quote:a19be16e35]
    You may want to read Turretin as well (Institutes, I, 574-578 [esp. 576]).
    [/quote:a19be16e35]

    It does not get much better than the big "T".
    :banana:
     
  20. blhowes

    blhowes Puritan Board Professor

    Rich,
    Thanks for your post and your reading recommendations. I'll check into them.

    I tried searching online to see if I could find an online copy of Turretin's institutes. Just so I'm looking for the right thing, is it called "Institutes of Elenctic Theology"? And, what does elenctic mean - couldn't find it in the dictionary?

    The idea that its not necessary for the word "covenant" to necessarily be in the immediate proximity of the passage makes sense. I think it was Matthew who pointed out another example, either in a post or in his CT series, about the covenant God made with the night and the day (Jeremiah 33:20). Same thing.

    It seems like I'm full of questions these days. The more I learn, the more questions I have.

    Last night, I was surfing around reading stuff about the Hosea passage and I came across a discussion about covenant theology. I didn't bookmark the site, but the man made the point that, even though the word covenant wasn't found in the Genesis account, still there's strong evidence that a covenant was made. He said that you find throughout Genesis 2 and 3 the word "Lord", which he said pointed to God being a covenant-making God (or something like that). Although of course God does make covenants, I wasn't sure how the word "Lord" points to that.

    Strongs says for the word Lord:

    H3068
    yeh-ho-vaw
    From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

    Any thoughts?

    Thanks,
    Bob
     
  21. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

    Bob-

    E*lenc"tic, Elenctical E*lenc"tic*al, a. [Gr.?.] (Logic) Serving to refute; refutative; -- applied to indirect modes of proof, and opposed to deictic.
    from dictionary.com

    :)
     
  22. Rich Barcellos

    Rich Barcellos Puritan Board Freshman

    Bob,

    I believe "Elenctic" refers to that which exposses error.
     
  23. blhowes

    blhowes Puritan Board Professor

    Ben and Rich,
    Thanks for the definition. I was surprised that the Merriam-Webster online dictionary wouldn't give me the definition. Instead, it took me to some other page for a free trial of their upgraded dictionary.

    The word even stumped my editor (I work as a technical writer). He hadn't heard of it before, which surprised me a little since he was an english major, etc. He asked where I saw it, so I told him about the forum. He was curious about the meaning of the word, so he did an internet search for the word and it came up with the name of the institutes in a couple of the search results. I pointed to Turretin's name and said he was the guy who wrote them, sometime during the time of the puritans (??? - guessing). He read a little bit in the search blurp about it being Calvinistic and then said he had taken some religion courses in college and found them interesting...

    Perhaps this will open a door to witness to him.

    Thanks for your help,

    Bob
     
  24. Bob,

    Turretin is the best systematic Theology work you will ever read, until someone writes a new one that's better. In MHO it is better than Calvin.

    The REASON he wrote it was to create a catechism for families in Geneva. However, it is deep. Most pastors I know don't like to read him because he is known as a "scholastic." So when we say Elenctic, practically, that means this - by way of example: The WCF does not treat error. it is a positive document that states what is "true." It doe snot debate other errors but simply lays out the systematic treatment of Christian beleief. Turretin will askquestions - "Do we believe this...why?....why not?....who does not believe this?....why do we believe this over the Socinians, or Arminisn, or Romanists? So his style is like a long refutation coupled with a systematic treatment of doctrine.

    He is not perfect. For instacne, you simply have to checkle once you get to his section ont he earth being in the center of the solar system and everything else revolves around it. But hey, he was a man of his day. There is not much of that kind of craziness. but he does deal with just about everythign and he is very particular and precise.

    OH that we could gain such a thing back int he church today!!
     
  25. fredtgreco

    fredtgreco Vanilla Westminsterian Staff Member

    [quote:953e2ad252][i:953e2ad252]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:953e2ad252]
    Bob,

    Turretin is the best systematic Theology work you will ever read, until someone writes a new one that's better. In MHO it is better than Calvin.

    The REASON he wrote it was to create a catechism for families in Geneva. However, it is deep. Most pastors I know don't like to read him because he is known as a "scholastic." So when we say Elenctic, practically, that means this - by way of example: The WCF does not treat error. it is a positive document that states what is "true." It doe snot debate other errors but simply lays out the systematic treatment of Christian beleief. Turretin will askquestions - "Do we believe this...why?....why not?....who does not believe this?....why do we believe this over the Socinians, or Arminisn, or Romanists? So his style is like a long refutation coupled with a systematic treatment of doctrine.

    He is not perfect. For instacne, you simply have to checkle once you get to his section ont he earth being in the center of the solar system and everything else revolves around it. But hey, he was a man of his day. There is not much of that kind of craziness. but he does deal with just about everythign and he is very particular and precise.

    OH that we could gain such a thing back int he church today!! [/quote:953e2ad252]


    Horrors!!
    :rant:


    Calvin not the best??

    {Deep voice...} Come now, young Matthew, we will see if you are strong in the force...

    :sw:
    :sw:
    :sw::sw:

    Turretin is good, but not Calvin. BUT - I do think he is an excellent Systematic theology.

    hey wait!

    We had this discussion before!
    http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3316
    :banghead:
     
  26. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

    Matt and Fred - you both are crazy. Every reasonable person knows that Norman Geisler is the best theologian around.:tank:
     
  27. luvroftheWord

    luvroftheWord Puritan Board Sophomore

    Either him or Elmer Towns. :lb:

    [Edited on 4-9-2004 by luvroftheWord]
     
  28. daveb

    daveb Puritan Board Sophomore

    [quote:4672ece794][i:4672ece794]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:4672ece794]
    Matt and Fred - you both are crazy. Every reasonable person knows that Norman Geisler is the best theologian around.:tank: [/quote:4672ece794]

    Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

    :closed: ;)

    [Edited on 4-9-2004 by daveb]
     
  29. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    answering a previous question

    [quote:44ebc4e28c]Last night, I was surfing around reading stuff about the Hosea passage and I came across a discussion about covenant theology. I didn't bookmark the site, but the man made the point that, even though the word covenant wasn't found in the Genesis account, still there's strong evidence that a covenant was made. He said that you find throughout Genesis 2 and 3 the word "Lord", which he said pointed to God being a covenant-making God (or something like that). Although of course God does make covenants, I wasn't sure how the word "Lord" points to that.

    Strongs says for the word Lord:

    H3068
    yeh-ho-vaw
    From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.

    Any thoughts? [/quote:44ebc4e28c]
    :wr50: since this query had not yet been addressed...
    I believe his point is that "Jehovah", as the personal Name of God, pre-eminently reveals the Covenant making, Covenant keeping God (Ex. 3:13-16; 5:1, 2; 6:2-8; 20:2, etc.).

    And for another exposition defending "Adam" the name in Hos.6:7, see B.B. Warfield, "Selected Shorter Writings" (ed. John E. Meeter), vol. 1, ch. 17, pp. 116-129. The list of those in agreement with him at the end goes from ancient to modern (his own era). (For any who care, the Jonathan Edwards reference is found in vol. 2, p. 682 of the Banner edition of his works).
     
  30. blhowes

    blhowes Puritan Board Professor

    Bruce,
    Thanks for you help.
    Bob
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page