were gonna go here for a while:
)"...the question remains, however. Did Hebraism begin as pure monotheism with Abram, in divine separation from a universal degeneration or did it gradually into monotheism or did it develop gradually into monotheism from primitive animism, and kindred cruder forms via polytheism?
According to its testimony, the religion of the Semites began as monotheism with Shem, the son of Noah (Gen. 9:1, 27), and degenerated into polytheism by the time of Abram (Gen 12:1-3) who was called out of polytheism to be a witness, together with descendants, to the one true God."
"So far from being identical in origin with general Semitic belief, Hebrew religion was a monotheistic purge from the corruption of general Semitic polytheism, which, in tum, represents a continuous and unbroken degeneration from an original common Semitic monotheism."
The vital bearing on the subject of the beginning of Semitic religion in general upon the problem of the origin of demonology appears in a statement of George W. Gilmore: "The entire religious provenience out of which Hebrew religion sprang is full of demonism."4
How is this widespread and deeply ingrained belief in demons among the ancient Semites and their neighbors to be explained? Was it a concomitant feature of an original monotheism? Or is it the result of the solvent of monotheism on a contemporary polytheism? Or is it to be explained as an offshoot of polytheism? Mbel, p.
4 George W. Gilmore, "Demon, Demonise,"
A. VARIOUS ERRONEOUS VIEWS
"On such paramount and significant points as these, conflicting answers are given and variance divergent theories, disagreeing with each other, and at variance with divine revelation are offered, These explanations are but naturalistic attempts to explain phenomena which are above the natural, and hence fall far short of the truth."
"2. The Animistic View
This is the evolutionary hypothesis of W.W.G..Baudissin and others according to which the development of demonism is to be traced from its original source to primitive animism, upward through polytheism into monotheism.
Next, man is supposed to have passed from the animalistic to the polytheistic state. Vaguely conceived spirits of the earlier stage are now advanced to the position of deities, dignified with names, fixed characteristics, specific functions, organized into a pantheon, and worshipped through images."
Biblical demonology is accounted for by a higher step in the evolutionary process..."
"The objections to this plausible and ingenious theory, however, are so serious as to be fatal to its tenability. First, it is at variance with the truth of divine revelation, which represents religious faith and practice as subject to degradation rather than progressive improvement.
(Always remember that,
because its exactly where we are today with LGBTQ+ clergy etc.
I'm going to include the verse that is referenced here as this is 100% absolutely critical, you'll see why here in a minute.
Romans 1:21-23
21 For although they knew God,
they neither glorified him as God
nor gave thanks to him,
but their thinking became futile
(Multiverse much?)
and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
(Hello cosmologist, evolutionary biologist and the like.)
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
The point is?
ALL RELIGONS DEGENERATE FROM THEIR BEGININGS
ALL.
Egyptian
Sumerian
EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM
ALL DEGENERATE FROM THEIR BEGININGS.
UNIVERSAL TRUTH.
WHY?
BECAUSE IT
(religion)
IS A MAN MADE
(a fallen created beings)
ORGANIZATIONAL STRCTURE.
I love Cliffe Knechtle
When asked something to the effect of:
"Which religion should I choose? This one says its the best,
this other one says it is,
why should I bother, what difference does it make?"
"You don't need religion.
You need Christ in your life.")
"Second, it clashes with the witness comparative religion, which also notes a downward rather than an upward tendency in ethnic faiths. Professor Renouf notes the same phenomenon in ancient Egypt where the sublimer portions of Egyptian religion are demonstrably ancient and the "last stage ...was by far the grossest and most corrupt." Modern Hinduism represents a deterioration from the higher religious conceptions in the Vedas. In South Africa, Australia, and elsewhere, traditions still persist of a Creator of all things, but his worship has been set aside in favor of lower and evil deities. The same is true of ancient Babylonia and Assyria. Similar declination has more than once manifested itself in ancient Israel, and in the Christian Church, rendering periodic revival and return to the truth imperative.
(As in
right now.
As in
A Resurrected Church
somebody keeps talking about.)
"Third, the genetic connection between animism and polytheism is far from clear. The precise religious nature of the former Indeed highly problematical, and belongs to the category of primitive philosophy rather than religion.
Fourth, to make polytheism the source of Biblical demonology is indeed a bold step, contradicting the lofty spirit of the Old Testament which manifests how slight and unimportant was the bearing of heathenism upon its thought. The interpretation of pagan deities as demons in no wise proves that polytheism is the source of Biblical demonology. It would rather indicate that the category of demons was already well known to Hebrew thought and that heathen idolotry was interpreted as initiated and energized by demonic activity and deception."
B, THE BIBLICAL VIEW
"In tracing the origin of evil supernaturalism, divine revelation is in sharp contrast to naturalistic theories, in that it goes far beyond them to original sources and ultimate realties. It expands horizons. It goes beyond the creation of man, and the introduction of sin into the human race, beyond even the creation of the the angelic orders and the entrance of sin into the moral universe to the unfathomable eternity when God alone existed in sole sublime majesty.
Sin itself began in heaven with "Lucifer, son of the morning," the highest and most exalted of heavens created beings who became Satan when he led a celestial revolt that spread to myriads of the angelic beings. (Isaiah 14:12-20),. But Satan was not created evil As Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer points out revelation concerning this eminent being begins with his sinless career, embracing the dateless period between the perfect creation of the heavens the earth (Genesis 1:1) and catastrophic judgment upon the planet. (Gen. 1:2: Jer. 4:23-26), which is, in all likelihood, to be connected with his fall. One passage, Ezekiel 28:11-19, despite contention to the contrary, obviously transcends reference to the "prince of Tyre," or to Adam in Eden, and embraces a splendid and detailed portrait of Satan's person in his primeval sinless glory. De Twesten's admonition on this point is wise and significant
"The position that the devil and his angels were not created evil, but became so in consequence of a fall, the possibility of which was given in their free will is to be held fast, especially in opposition to the dualistic doctrine of a principle in itself evil.10"
(I have read commentaries where people are arguing that piece of scripture (Ezekiel 28) is not about Satan and I was aghast. Simply put, the people putting forth such drivel are doing their masters work.)
"Further revelation concerning Satan presents him as a king with a kingdom (Matt. 12:26), a portion of which dominion consist of the demons (Matt. 12:24). Concerning the precise origin of the demons, though, nothing dogmatic ought to be asserted or insisted upon, inasmuch as this is one phase of the subject affected by the problem of the silence of revelation. Of the many hypotheses advanced to explain their origin, the simplest and most likely inference from the facts at hand is that they were created sinless as subjects of Satan in his primal glory, and that he drew them after him in his pride and defection from God. That Satan in his apostasy (rebellion) involved great host of angels, who like him, abode not in the truth (John 8:44) is assumed as a well known fact of revelation by the Now Testament, where some of them are described as those who "kept not their first estate", whom God cut down to Tartarus, and delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement of the great day. (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6) and others are it seems, represented by the demons. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer is of the opinion that, those fallen spirits who were not incarcerated "another company became demons."
"C.L Scofield aptly says, "nothing is clearly revealed" and great latitude exists for speculation. Since the various theories of the origin of demons will be dealt with elsewhere, it will suffice here to mention that many writers, insisting on a rigid distinction between fallen or evil angels and demons, trace the rise of the latter to inhabitants of the pre-Adamite earth, whose sin, it is said, caused its destruction, and whose bodies were destroyed in the catastrophe that overwhelmed it, leaving them "disembodied spirits" with a keen desire to re-embody themselves on the earth where they once lived. Others, following an ancient pre-Christian Jewish exegesis (The Book of Enoch, Chapter XV). trace the beginning of demons to the monstrous progeny (offspring) which was the result of angelic cohabitation with ante-diluvian (Pre flood) women. (Genesis 6:1-6).
(Not my position BTW,
"trace the beginning of demons"
is the key to why that is.
I'll explain it more when we get to it.)
in any event, demons are evil and members of Satan's kingdom (Matt: 12:26). Scripture says nothing of good demons.
C. THE SUPEMORITY OF THE BRILICAL VIEW
But little consideration is necessary to demonstrate how vastly superior ANY of the explanations of the origin of demons on Scripture are to the mere naturalistic theories of man. Where as the bible, in tracing the course of Satan's apostasy and the introduction of sin into the universe, goes back to first causes and ultimate origins, mans speculations cannot get beyond effects rather than causes, and developments rather than origins. Whereas scripture at once lifts the whole subject into the realm of supernatural reality from which diverse and bewildering demonological phenomena may be accurately appraised and discriminatingly evaluated, man's hypotheses but leave the whole field of inquiry and in indiscriminate confusion, wherein reliable criteria are lacking to differentiate reality from fancy and actual existence from pure imagination, and the whole is, as a result, promiscuously pronounced superstition.
D. THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL DEMONOLOGY
The Book of Genesis, besides being the inspired account of the oldest traditions of the human race, contains all the elements requisite for the development of a demonology analogous to that of the New Testament. There is evidence of a cataclysmic judgement upon a pre-Adamite earth, no doubt to be thought of in connection with a defection and apostasy among the angels (Genesis1:2).
Indeed if the much disputed passage of Genesis 6:1-6 really refers to angelic cohabitation with antediluvian women, as an imposing array of scholars hold, there if not lacking added evidence of au elaborate doctrine of evil angels. Be that as it may, the demonology of the Book of Genesis, especially that of earlier chapters, preserving as it does, the history of earth's earliest ages, is remarkably complete in its essential elements, despite its simplicity and underdevelopment. It could well furnish the root from which the many-branched and complex demonologies of the various nations developed, und easily form the essential foundation of demonological facts around which heathen peoples built a superstructure of error and superstition. personality.
The basic similarity between primitive demonological traditions recorded in Genesis, and those preserved in the archaeological records of the earliest nations of the earth, despite the accretions of error and extravagance to the latter, indubitably points to a common source for both and supplies evidence that they are due to a common inheritance of traditions concerning the early history of the race, upon which both have drawn."
(That was precisely my point in the Noah to New Earth/Tribulation Schematic Series. This book came in the mail Wed July 3rd of this year. I just don't see how you can argue for any other position. There had to be a common source between the traditions recorded in Genesis and those found in the archaeological records of the earths earliest nations, and there was.)
"Thus the demonology of the Book of Genesis and the demonological systems of the earliest nations of antiquity present two forms of the same early traditions, with this important difference, however, that the inspired Mosaic account gives the original pure and unadulterated form of these truths, uncolored by extravagances and as they primitively existed, while the ethnic records offer a version of these primeval traditions of mankind so incrusted with error and the excesses and exuberances of centuries, that even the essential core of reality out of which they were developed is, in many cases, almost wholly obliterated."
(As somebody like to point out?
Satan likes to muddy the waters,
he's been doing it a long time
and the reason is
so that truth is harder to discern.)
"Most of the great nations of antiquity have preserved traditions of such epic events as the creation of the world, the origin of man, the story of the fall, and the account of the flood. Some of these are only vaguely suggestive of the presentation in Genesis, and may be dismissed without mention; while others are so startingly similar as to require careful consideration. Of the later variety are the records in the ancient cuneiform language of Babylonia-Assyria. Stories of the creation, of mans forfeiture of eternal life in the "Myth of Adapa", and the deluge bear such striking resemblances, as well as notable differences, to the Genesis narratives as to demand explanation."
How then is the similarity between the passages in Genesis and the versions contained in the inscriptions to be accounted for?
Effects are not produced without causes.
(Vibrations don't cause themselves folks.)
The only explanation is that which has already been given to account for the similarity between primitive demonological facts and inferences contained in the earliest chapters of Genesis, and the traditions preserved in the records of the earliest nations of the earth. Their likeness is due to common inheritance possessed by all the nations of antiquity, of drawing from the same original source of primitive tradition, which dates from a time when the human race occupied a common home and held a common faith."
(And that?
As somebody has been
making the case for a while now,
Would explain:
No comments:
Post a Comment