Covenant Key promo
Here’s a bit of fun. Well, maybe my definition of fun is different to yours.
Tags: Bible Matrix, Covenant Theology
This entry was posted on Monday, July 11th, 2011 at 3:43 pmand is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.@EstherOfReilly Pulling rank is the inverse of an ad hominem. 4 years ago
RT @Eric_Conn: The foundation of tyranny is the corruption of language. — Anthony Esolen 4 years ago
RT @JamesBejon: So, what are the specific purposes of Matthew and Luke’s birth narratives? We’ll start with Matthew’s. Its main distincti… 4 years ago
Abraham
AD70
Atonement
Babylon
Baptism
Bible Matrix
Church History
Circumcision
Communion
Compromise
Covenant curse
Covenant Theology
Culture
Daniel
David
Doug Wilson
Ecclesiology
Esther
Exodus
Ezekiel
Feasts
Federal Vision
Genesis
Hermeneutics
Herod
High Priest
James Jordan
Leviticus
Literary Structure
Matthew
Moses
Noah
Paul
Peter Leithart
Postmillennialism
Resurrection
Revelation
Satan
Solomon
Systematic typology
Tabernacle
Temple
Totus Christus
Typology
Zechariah Against Hyperpreterism (74)
Apologetics (80)
Bible Matrix (386)
Biblical Theology (1184)
Christian Life (309)
Creation (128)
Ethics (123)
Q&A (11)
Quotes (489)
Reading the Bible in 3D (8)
Sermon Notes (2)
The Last Days (389)
The Restoration Era (117)
Totus Christus (95)
Uncategorized (5)
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck requires Flash Player 9 or better.
July 11th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Cool. Is that an Australian thing, IIIII instead of V? Also, when you have two lines on screen, they should face in and out and being moving past each other ever so slightly. Also, the ‘II’ of a sequel should be an enormous stamp that comes down on the words. But very cool, especially at 720.
July 11th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Nah, it’s V here, too. It’s IIIII because it leads into North’s Five Pillars.
Can’t do the moving text thing in KeyNote without it looking a bit jerky. I wanted red cut outs of hands and stuff, but enough time spent!
July 13th, 2011 at 6:18 am
Mr. Bull, I hate to barge in on this post. My question isn’t quite related (nor to baptism). I’ve enjoyed your particular brand of orthodox preterism. Working through Acts recently, I began to wonder what Michael Bull’s take on Acts 1:11 and 3:19-21 would be. Maybe you could point me to an older post where you may have already commented on those texts? This particular post not being a preterism post, would this be more appropriate email to email? Thanks for any insight. -todd
July 13th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Todd
Thanks for the questions. I’ll have the answers in a new post here tomorrow.
Mike