You are hereCovenant Creation

Covenant Creation

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/vaduva/ on line 34.

Debate on the Nature of the Heavens and the Earth of Genesis 1:1

This debate is being conducted at

Both yours truly and my opponent Kangaroojack have posted affirmatives of our respective positions. Mine is below. A Word file with links and original formatting is available upon request.

The Nature of the Genesis 1 Heavens and Earth

First Affirmative by

The End of the Earth and Full Preterism

I wrote an article here on PP about 3 years ago dealing with the subject of the end of the Physical earth. Sam's comments then seem to be in stark contrast to what he says now. Sam is currently implying that a never ending earth is part of the full Preterist viewpoint. Some of us never embraced this idea in the first place as we understood the symbolic nature of the language.

Paul’s Adam (Part 3)

Here are three more issues that arise when trying to understand Paul’s use of the Adam story. The rest will follow in next week’s post. These issues are pretty involved, and so this post is longer than I would like. My apologies in advance.

Created in the Image of God: The ANE Background of the Imago Dei

I want to introduce an article concerning the Image of God in the background of ANE. In this article I see some very important backdrop considerations that would be helpful in understanding a discussion of the “Image of God”. I have selected excerpts from the complete article to provide a condensed flavor of the author’s investigation.

Pete Enns: Adam is Israel

Read this stunning piece by Pete Enns, late of Westminster Theological Seminary. Below is a significant part of his remarks, but do read the whole essay.

I am impressed that the Covenant Creation model seems to anticipate much of this.

I think it would be helpful to have Tim and/or Jeff clarify specifically how their view differs from (not just expounds upon) the view below.

Adam is Israel

Adam is Israel
by Pete Enns

read the full article at this link.

For the past few posts we’ve been looking at creation in the Old Testament as a cosmic battle, and we’ve spent a lot of time seeing how that idea works itself out in the book of Exodus.

N. T. Wright on Genesis 2 and 3

Please see The BioLogos Foundation's site, where the following video and discussion is found. How does this understanding comport with the Covenant Creation model? ~ Ransom

Wright begins by noting that while there are divergent views on the date of authorship of Genesis—with some scholars attributing its authorship to Moses, thus dating it c. 1500 B.C., and others dating it around the third century B.C.. Regardless of its actual date of composition, however, Wright is most interested in the way in which Jesus’ antecedents would have read the text in the period right before the New Testament.

He asserts that any Jew from the period of the Babylonian exile to the life of Jesus reading the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden—and their ultimate expulsion after violating the terms of their covenant with God—would have identified with the story on a deep level. These readers would have thought “this is our story” because Israel had repeated this experience.

The Image of God continued

Recently Sam and I have been debating issues surrounding the Image of God in relation to Man. We left off agreeing on some basic principles but still there is a residual difference and I want to create a new blog trying to highlight those differences for clarity sake so that those who may be interested can summarize my position and check it out for themselves.

“Does Christ confer the Image of God upon man?”

I want to piggy back off a series that Sam is posting on “Gordon H. Clark: The Definition of Man” and most importantly to the Biblical definition of man as regards the Image of God. I want to differentiate that a Biblical understanding of the “Image of God” in lieu of how it is to be understood through a philosophical application is helpful in understanding a primary theme of scripture.

Creation as Covenant


Cosmogony, Combat and Covenant

The Flood: Not Global, Barely Local, Mostly Theological, I

by Paul Seely.
Data from various scientific disciplines provides a clear indication that Noah’s Flood did not cover the globe of the earth. Before considering that data, however, we must first determine a rough earliest probable date for the Flood. If the Flood is an actual historical event, it must touch down in the empirical data of history somewhere. We can make a rough approximation of its date from the two genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. At one end is Adam, whose culture is Neolithic and therefore can be dated no earlier than around 9,000 or 10,000 B.C. At the other end is Abraham who can be dated to approximately 2000 B.C. In both genealogies the Flood occurs in the middle of these two ends, and therefore roughly at 5500 or 6000 B.C. An even clearer indication of the Flood’s date is implied by the statement that shortly after the Flood, Noah planted a vineyard. This implies the growing of domesticated grapes, which do not show up in the archaeological record until c. 4000 B.C. The biblical Flood is therefore probably not earlier than 4000 or maybe 5000 B.C.

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43