Comments for MichaelPrewitt.com

Comment on Bird on Doorstep by Ms Yana

Ms Yana — Wed, 16 May 2012 01:22:16 +0000

OMG!! The EXACT same thing happened to me today. I was wondering was it purhapse a sign. I felt so badly when I had to move him/her in order to get in.

Comment on Sanctuary Geometry and the Garden of Eden by Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Tue, 01 May 2012 22:19:54 +0000

A friend sent me this link after I mentioned I was thinking about a possible connection to the cherubim and flaming sword that turns each way, that God set to guard the way to the tree of life to the cherubim over the mercy seat on the ark. Jesus is mentioned over and over again as having a sharp two edged sword or sabre proceeding from His mouth in Revelation. The sword representing The Word. Could there be a connection to the cherubim seen at the East entrance of Eden with the Sword of God (Word of God) turning each way and aflame, and the fact that two cherubim were on the mercy seat, and the Glory of God rested between the two cherubims touching wings? Jesus is said to sit on the mercy seat in the millinium….just a thought..
Also food for thought. If you trace out the borders of the 4 rivers given in Genesis to water Eden (Euphrates – Euphrates, Hidikel – Tigris, Pishon – believed to be a river that used to run through the Arabian desert (land of Havilah) and the Gihon – some say is the nile, others say is the Jordan which used to run down through Israel and in the middle of the Red Sea (based on fault lines etc.) If these rivers are the boundaries of the garden then Jerusalem would be the origin of all four rivers. The bible says these rivers went out of Eden to water the garden. God built the garden Eastward in Eden… East of Jerusalem and Mt. Zion would be teh Mt. of Olives with the garden of Gethsemane below it in the valley. If the East boundary of the garden is the Euphrates, where the cherubim and flaming sword were placed…then this puts Babylon (Babel – or gate of the gods) a whole lot closer to the garden than I had previously thought. Perhaps this is why they called it the gate of the gods and it was filled with so much demonic activity and strongholds. Perhaps this is also a reason for the building of the tower of Babel… to not only build a fortress from another attempt to flood the earth, but also maybe to breach the wall or entrance to the garden or way to the tree of life. Euphrates comes up again frequently in prophesy. It will dry up in tribulation allowing a huge army to march across it towards Jerusalem. It is the place where certain spirits have been bound, to be released in the tribulation etc.
Just a thought… not sure how it fits or if it does but it’s interesting none the less.

Comment on EGW CD-ROM via Darwine on OS X — It’s Fast! by Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:29:09 +0000

Michael, the link I posted in the above comment didn’t come through.
I’ll try again: http://lists.apple.com/archive.....00018.html

Comment on EGW CD-ROM via Darwine on OS X — It’s Fast! by Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:26:23 +0000

Apparently XQuartz 2.7.1_rc4 will work with ML

Dated february 19 2012, says:
“As many of you have probably notices, a developer preview of OS X 10.8 was released last week. If you are using this developer preview, please note that XQuartz 2.7.0 does not support Mountain Lion and will have some issues with it. Please use the latest development version of XQuartz (currently 2.7.1_rc4) while testing out the preview release of Mountain Lion.”

Comment on EGW CD-ROM via Darwine on OS X — It’s Fast! by Nathan Tyler

Nathan Tyler — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:46:18 +0000

Now what about Mountain Lion? I just got a report from a beta tester that Apple is dropping X11 for the next release of OS X. The alternative will be XQuartz but this tester has been unable to get CRE working. Sounds like something to be aware of because this will need fixing.

Comment on Sanctuary Geometry and the Garden of Eden by Andrew Evans

Andrew Evans — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 20:14:43 +0000

Thanks for this, very interesting. It strikes me, however, that the thing in the Tabernacle/Temple that LOOKS most like a tree is, in fact, the lamp stand – which is specifically described as having tree like features (blossoms, buds and branches) not either the Ark or the Altar.

It’s also, I think, significant that the NT doesn’t explicitly make this connection. Yes the cross is an altar. And yes the cross is also a tree. But these two NT metaphors pick up on slightly different aspects of the cross; and the cross as tree metaphor is clearly picking up on the “cursed is anyone who is hung on a tree” provision of the law and doesn’t seem to have any contextual connection to Eden.

We need to keep asking whether the human author of a particular OT passage (as well as the Divine author!) would recognise our NT use as consistent with (if also beyond) their understanding.

Comment on Today’s Coloring Project: Ellen White’s First Vision by Michael

Michael — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:07:22 +0000

The colorized version was designed for print, but the original (black and white) and resulting colorized version are not very large. I would guess it is less than 1000 px wide, or about 3 inches wide at 300 ppi. But I don’t have the image here at home to verify.

Comment on Today’s Coloring Project: Ellen White’s First Vision by Mark O'Ffill

Mark O'Ffill — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:13:50 +0000

I am an SDA Bible teacher teaching Adventist a history. Does the colorized image exist in a hi-res version?

Comment on Jewish Feasts in Type and Antitype Chart by Michael

Michael — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:58:19 +0000

You may link to my website from your blog. But please don’t upload the PDF to another site.

Comment on Jewish Feasts in Type and Antitype Chart by Grace

Grace — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:26:44 +0000

Thanks for the chart. I am going to use it in a Bible study. Do you mind if I post it as a resource on my blog?

Comment on Adventism and the Case of the Missing Dinosaurs by Carolyn

Carolyn — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:59:34 +0000

Hi Michael,
Thank you so much.
This information was just what I was looking for!

Comment on Does Foreknowledge Negate Free Will? by John Bryan

John Bryan — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:22:23 +0000

Hi Michael,

I really enjoyed your response. It was refreshing to have a christian take on what I saw as a big flaw head on, as well as in what I would consider a completely intellectually honest way.

Having said that, I still remain unconvinced that:
1.) The current outcome is the “best of all possible outcomes” — especially if we are to posit an omnipotent God. (This really is neither here nor there and your explanation stands as a possibility)

2.) If this IS in fact the best possible outcome (and I don’t mean to say that you said so with any degree of certainty), that a free will universe is the most morally correct action for an all loving God. (Again neither here nor there, just my opinion.)

I would like to just say again I really appreciate you taking the time to help me with some of the objections that could be raised to the issues I presented. This has been a really helpful dialogue for me. I feel like I definitely have some new things to think about, which is exactly what I was looking for.

Comment on Does Foreknowledge Negate Free Will? by Michael

Michael — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:12:07 +0000

Hi John,

My personal feeling is that God has not done anything to directly force any person’s will (free choice). I would say the free will choices were influenced (but not forced) by the historical and situational circumstances into which people were born, but I believe God has seen to it that, no matter how unfortunate a person’s circumstances, they at least have a fair shot at choosing for good or for evil at some point in their lives. So in short, each person it still responsible for their moral choices, and thus their destiny. Those with less privileges are judged by God less exactingly, according to what could reasonably be expected of them.

But, winding the clock back, it is possible that the original setup of things predisposed people to outcomes that might have been different with a different original setup. But, considering God is not only able to see the future, but all-wise as well, it could also be argued that the current outcome is the “best of all possible outcomes”, given a set of priorities that God seems to have, which include letting humans live with their choices. In other words, it could be that in a truly free-will universe, it is utterly impossible to not have anyone ever make wrong choices, and the current universe with its bad choices is the best that could be achieved without excessive interference on God’s part.

In a certain sense, I believe God does share in the “blame” for the current evils in the world, if for no other reason than that He decided to create beings with free will in the first place. But I also believe from God’s perspective this is not a “fault” at all, but an essential part of the price of having a universe with free-will beings in it.

Comment on Does Foreknowledge Negate Free Will? by John Bryan

John Bryan — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:13:42 +0000

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the quick response. You have, for the most part, summed up my comment correctly. The only part I take issue with is when you said the following:

“Inevitable, not because He rigged the decisions or forced them, but they were inevitable because they were what would happen.”

I never actually said that he didn’t rig the decisions or force them. That’s a big part of my objection. I have a hard time finding an excuse for him on that very issue. It would seem as though God, as the creator of all things, started a chain of events with full knowledge of the outcome. How can we place the culpability anywhere but on his shoulders?

FYI, I am an atheist, however, I only ask because I feel as though there is something I am missing here and that my conclusion is somehow flawed. Any insights you have would be very helpful.

Comment on Does Foreknowledge Negate Free Will? by Michael

Michael — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:01:23 +0000

Hi John, thanks for the comment. So, before I try to respond to that, let me see if I am understanding you correctly. Basically you seem to be saying that in the beginning, before anything was created, God could see the future. And seeing the future, He nevertheless created a particular “scenario” in which various decisions would inevitably work out. Inevitable, not because He rigged the decisions or forced them, but they were inevitable because they were what would happen. And because of this, it appears that God is to blame for the bad outcomes in that scenario He created. Am I summing it up correctly?