You are hereBeyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood
Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood
by Tim Martin
From time to time the issue of young earth creationism comes up in Preterist discussions. Many preterists come from Dispensational and conservative Reformed backgrounds which commonly support a host of Creation Science ministries such as ICR and Answers in Genesis. This article shows clearly why Preterism and Creation Science are incompatible systems. It challenges Preterists to apply their hermeneutic consistently from Genesis through the book of Revelation. It demonstrates how a dogmatic commitment to a global flood in Genesis will actually undermine the Preterist position when we get to the Apostolic Scriptures.
This article was posted here on Planetpreterist over a year ago. I have recently added some additions and revisions based on the response from Preterists across the country. I would appreciate any more comments.
Semper Reformata
Tim Martin
----------
Click here to read the article
Tim:
Excellent article and very well written. It has certainly given me some food for thought! Keep up the good writing and research.
Dr Charles H Roberts
The Shaking of the Foundations
Tim,
Some very good points! I've never really come to a solid conclusion regarding global vs local flood. Thank you for summing up a lot of the research.
I haven't had a chance to read the article in its entirety (I will later tonight) so I'm not sure if you mention 2 Peter 2:5
"...and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he saved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood on a world of the ungodly;..."
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this passage as I've always heard this verse used to defend a global flood.
-A
http://www.covenantpreterism.ning.com
You'll get to that passage if you'll keep reading,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
Great article. I do not think the bible teaches a global flood for all the same reasons Tim lists here. However, I have never looked at any scientific support for or against. Neither have I compared the Genesis account to the parallel flood stories of the ancient pagan world to see if they suggest a regional or global event. Anyone care to briefly comment on the evidence from science or from other pagan histories?
Thanks
Parker
http://www.preteristvision.org
Some of the "old earth" creationist authors, like Don Stoner and Hugh Ross, state that a number of ancient societies around the globe have a variety of catastrophic flood stories in their folk lore. But, if they all are descendants of Noah, maybe it is all highly disparate versions of the same story?
Dave
BigD
More likely, many of these flood traditions come from contact with missionaries.
My two oldest daughters are into geneology of all sorts. It's interesting the number of kings who used to be direct descendants of their gods who became direct descendents of Solomon after conversion. Traditions can be very accomodating.
Personally, I believe the science is irrelevant to the discussion. It might be relevant to the few of us with a good science or engineering background, but the rest of us can't speak the langauge. People believe what they want to believe and ICR and Walt Brown are very good at making fraudulent science that is designed to fool most engineers.
Ultimately what settles the issue is: Do you believe that the seemingly global language used throughout the Bible really means global? Or do you believe that it often means local? As Tim demonstrates, the language of Gen. 7 is the same as the language of Matt. 24. If you look at how the language of Gen. 1-11 is used elsewhere in the Bible, it is always for local events of extreme importance to the people involved. (We often speak the same way. "My whole world is falling apart.") It is rarely or never used for global events.
The time statements in Gen 1:1-2:4 are only used elsewhere to indicate long periods of time. Those types of idioms are never used to indicate 24 hours but only to indicate periods of long activity. A more literal translation might be, "and God worked night and day during the 1st age."
However, since science was asked for, here's some science:
For a good tale of how Ice Age geology won out over Flood geology among professionals 150 years ago, see Chapter Two of Noah's Flood by Ryan and Pitman. These two men are apparently agnostics who've always believed that Noah's Flood was a historical event and went looking for it. Most everything they say about Genesis itself can be proven demonstrably false by their own words. But their proof that there is no evidence for a global flood is fairly convincing and their proof that their candidate flood was one of the most important floods in history is unassailable. Plus it's a good read.
I recommend Ross's Fingerprint of God and Creation and Time. Creator and the Cosmos is more difficult. Beyond the Cosmos is for die-hard Hugh Ross fans only. I didn't think it was worth the effort to read it.
Stoner's New Look at an Old Earth is excellent.
Dick Fisher's The Origins Solution requires a taste for Gary North's style. He writes with a milder dose of the same sort of "confidence."
I've tried to read Van Til's stuff on "fully gifted creation," but can't get through it. Van Til is a principal proponent of what most of us call theistic evolution.
Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box makes an unassailable argument for irreducible complexity. Ultimately, natural processes can not produce life because life is too complicated. Unfortunately, it's a difficult read for those without at least a good college freshman level understanding of biology.
Here's an interesting web site for specific scientific arguments against young earth creationism.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Some of these posts sound like they are being written by stealth atheists/evolutionists in order to make this site lose its credibility.
I mean really we are suppose to take some one seriously who puts up a link to the talkorigins site.
One wonders what actually Ryan and Pittman were looking for when they went looking for this evidence. What evidence would they expect to find? say something like billions of dead things laid down by water buried in rock layers.
i've included a discussion of some of the other flood stories in my brief submission "Not Just A Floating Zoo" jCarter
There is no life without prayer. Without prayer there is only madness and horror. - Vasilii Rozanov
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
here are some excellent starting points. you really need to consider that if it was not a Global catastrophe than we are left with a lot of unexplained death and destruction spanning the entire globe with massive catastrophism that even the evolutionists acknowledge.
there are many things that would leave Christians scratching their heads about if the Flood was not Global. In fact calling it just a "Flood" does not do it justice. It was a Global catastrophe that will never be equaled again.
Tim, I would have to read your article before commenting on it, but how do you explain the split of the continents if no global catastrophic event took place?
Virgil,
I have no opposition to "global catastrophic events" of various kinds in the distant past. In fact, I believe there is good evidence for many colossal changes in the earth's structure and eco-systems over many millions of years of the earth's history.
What I do oppose is the dogmatic statement that on the authority of God's Word Noah's flood, a few thousand years ago, is the only key to understanding all geology and biology on this planet. That is a ridiculous assertion for this reason. The belief that Noah's flood was global is a matter of interpretation, not a matter of inspiration. Rabid Creation Scientist confuse the two and transpose the latter onto the former.
This article explains why it is more consistent for preterists to take a "regional" view. My article at least shows that those who dogmatize and anathematize over the issue have gone many steps too far. If we can all at least agree on that, I will consider my article a success even if there is not one person who comes to my particular conclusions. I am firmly convinced as preterism grows, Creation Science dies. It is as simple as that.
One more thing. I use "regional" in my booklet because "local" can imply "small." Noah's flood was in all likelihood a gargantuan event in the near East, particularly if you can imagine the entire plain of Shinar submerged. In fact, there is much discovery in the last few years in the Black Sea area that lends considerable support to the idea that the Black Sea is really the remnants of the flood. They are now uncovering human architectural ruins below the current level of the Black Sea, as well as a perfectly preserved prior shoreline. What is also interesting is there is proof of fresh-water life below this pre-existing shoreline at one time in the not-too-distant past. What makes that significant is that the Black Sea is now salinated (as is the Mediterranean Sea - probably the source for the "fountains of the deep" in the biblical account.) Can you put two and two together?
To answer your question. The issue of the dividing of the continents is a scientific rather than biblical issue. It is beyond the scope of the subject of the covenant Scriptures. All the accepted scientific explanations place this in the distant past. The only hold-outs to this view are the Creation Scientists, and they hold out because of a naive approach to Genesis 6-9. Once you refute global flood nonsense, the entire Creation Science system simply ceases to exist. I hope my work hastens that process which is well under way in our day.
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
Tim,
Good article. I haven't finished reading it, although I have been in discussions recently in which some of your material would have been useful. I see you have copyrighted it. Under what circumstances may I use it?
Mark
Please use it with proper source credit and include a mention of the website, if at all possible, www.truthinliving.org. That is all I ask at this time. By the way, if you want hard copies of this booklet, contact me through the website and I can send you as many as you need. Reading off the web is fine, but in my experience handing a booklet to someone will probably accomplish more in a shorter amount of time.
My concern is not to make money (or anything else) with this project. It actually came to be when I was required to defend myself regarding a decision I made with our congregation concerning a local Creation Science seminar. Much to the chagrin of some of our members, I was instrumental in barring them from use of our facilities. After this took place, I was challendged on my beliefs and, in God's providence, this was the result. As you can see, there is plenty of defense material available from a Covenantal - Grammatico-historical hermeneutic.
Any suggestions as to make the case tighter or additional material that is directly relevant would be greatly appreciated. I am trying to keep the booklet as small as possible for easy reading and wide coverage for those who are interested in the topic. God Bless,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
Tim,
Loved reading your atrticle for about the 3rd or 4th time. It really is thought provoking to say the least.
I have shared with you previously that I agree with you on the flood being regional rather than global. I still have a question though.
Why does it use two "universal" terms saying, "ALL the high mountains (hills) under the ENTIRE heaven". If it had just said, "ALL the mountains (hills) under the heaven", this would have been more supportive of our position. Wouldn't you agree? Maybe you wouldn't.
Maybe the fact that the word "mountains" means "hills" has something to do with it.
Also, real quick. Do you have any thoughts on "Jubal" and "Tubal cain" in Genesis 4:21,22? How did their descendants survive the flood if it was not regional? Maybe I'm not reading this verse correctly.
Robert L. Statzer
mrFOOLpreterist FKA as mrfullpreterist
Still searching to understand the Truth.
Rob,
I think the two "universal" terms are indicative of hyperbole. But remember. I, in fact, do believe the flood was universal and complete WITHIN THE REGIONAL CONTEXT of the account. In other words, Noah's entire civilization was wiped out. The flood is universal, but the context of the account is not global. Do you understand what I am getting at?
As far as the "Jubal" and Tubal-Cain" argument, see my responses to those who were kind enough to respond to my booklet through the website. If you click on the "Click Here for Responses" you will see how I presented that argument. I believe that is an excellent "internal evidence" from within Genesis that Moses never intended the flood to be understood as anthropologically/globally universal. In fact, if it was, then the book of Genesis is contains a self-contradiction.
Thanks for your kind comments,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
I guess I'm one of the few who found this article troubling. Tim, you make the statement: "The global flood idea is essentially a dispensational, premillenial concept. Although it predates the system we now know as dispensationalism, the method used to argue for the doctrine is entirely dispensational." You can't be serious, friend. I know many creation scientists who eschew dispensational theology. While creation science has only found favor and attention in the past 40 years, it doesn't mean that church history hasn't had a creationist (young earth, six-day, global flood) perspective. Many great Christian scientists were creationists.
The greatest problem I have with this article is a local flood theory simply doesn't match the geological, anthropological or paleontological evidence, let alone the BIBLICAL account. "Pillow lava" (which can only form UNDER water) has been found at the tops of several mountain ranges around the world. There are over 200 Flood legends from ALL over the world, many of which are eerily similar to the biblical account. The fossil record is ripe with cataclysmic (water-driven) evidence.
I only have one question for Tim: IF the Genesis Flood was LOCAL, as you suggest, what ON EARTH was the Noah story all about? Why build an ark (for a 100 years) and bring all the animals under creation into it, IF it's just a local, regional flood? Why didn't he just tell Noah and his family to flee to another area (like Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod)?
Let me recommend some study on creation science. Tim's comments, while reasonable, suggest he could do more study on creation science evidence and not just their "comments."
By the way, PRETERISM an CREATION SCIENCE are not incompatible, as Tim suggests.
I agree with you rocknrollperfesser! I believe that an event normally happens literally before it is ever used metaphorically. The flood was a global event in which all animal and human life was removed, save those aboard the ark of Noah.
The metaphorical language that we see later on in the scriptures describing national doom is harkening back to when God totally and literally destroyed the world. When a nation is destroyed later in scripture, it is completely destroyed just as God completely destroyed the world in the flood.
Tim believes that the earth has existed for millions of years. This is a statement of faith as well. He has accepted the faith of science and it's so called truth. The Bible knows nothing of millions of years.
The Bible describes a global flood, and that is exactly the evidence we find. Why we have such a hard time accepting this event as is described by Moses baffles me.
None of us were there to witness this event. We therefore must rely upon God to tell us what happened, because only he was there. I have no problem accepting a global flood and preterism together. Creation science and preterism are indeed compatible.
--The Dark Knight
Rocknrollperfesser,
Thank you for your comments.
I am serious about my comment, "The global flood idea is essentially a dispensational, premillenial concept. Although it predates the system we now know as dispensationalism, the method used to argue for the doctrine is entirely dispensational." What I am saying is that the hermeneutic method that lies behind both dispensationalism and global flood doctrine are equivalent. They are both scientific-literalism that is forced onto the text.
A grammatico-historical approach of comparing Scripture with Scripture with special attention upon the term "erets" will yield no unambiguous global flood doctrine. Nor does "face of the earth" language, nor does "under heaven" language. Dispensationalists read this language naively as, I maintain, do those who would mandate a global interpretation. All I did was compare Scripture with Scripture and show all this language was regional in the overwhelming majority of hebrew usage. The problem is you are reading your English Bible without consideration of the Hebrew original.
I don't pay much attention to so called "scientific evidence" in my booklet. I certainly agree (as do all scientists) that there are cataclysmic events in our past. Even a plethora of floods. People have known about floods for as long as people have existed because humans naturally tend to populate rivers and major waterways which happen to flood often. (Even in Eden.) Where I disagree with you is that one flood can reasonably be used to explain all these events, as well as certain strong uniformitarian evidences within the geological record (not to mention astronomical record) which also happen to exist. I don't believe it is good science to pick the evidence you like, and ignore the evidence you don't.
You go on to ask a question you believe is fatal to a regional flood by stating, "I only have one question for Tim: IF the Genesis Flood was LOCAL, as you suggest, what ON EARTH was the Noah story all about? Why build an ark (for a 100 years) and bring all the animals under creation into it, IF it's just a local, regional flood? Why didn't he just tell Noah and his family to flee to another area (like Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod)?"
Here, you have fatally exposed yourself in your uninformed approach to this account. First of all let me challenge one of your assumptions. I have spent many years studying the Genesis flood and I have never found a place in Scripture where we are told how long it took Noah to build the ark. Maybe I missed something in Genesis, but where does it say it took Noah 100 years to build the ark? Greek Orthodox tradition says it was five years. Creation Science tradition says it was a hundred years. The Bible does not say, nor can it be made to say that Noah built the ark over 100 years. Go read the account again. This may be a minor point, but it highlights the main reason I wrote my booklet. The time has come to separate what our traditions tell us about the flood from what the Bible actually teaches.
I would give this answer to your common question so many naive Creation Scientists love to pose. I believe there is a good spiritual reason God told Noah to build an ark, even given a regional flood. The ark is a picture of Christ in the midst of God’s judgment. It was important, as a picture of Christ, that Noah enter the ark as an "incarnation" of the gospel of Christ - resting in Christ for salvation. He had to have faith in the ark, in a sense. To tell Noah to hike over there where he would be safe is to teach that man must get up and save himself from God's judgment by his own two feet. Your suggestion that God should tell Noah to get up and save himself because it was only a "local" flood is to bastardize the Gospel of Jesus Christ - which this account is all about. So let’s acknowledge, even in our disagreement, that this account is about Jesus Christ. I believe that Creation Scientists invariably miss this truth in their dogmatic zeal for a scientific-literal interpretation. They teach this account is *really* about evolution and the age of the earth. Sophomoric arguments like yours are common in Creation Science literature. But they reflect a wrong priority in biblical exegesis which is nearly universal in dispensational circles. There is nothing I can see in your question that is even remotely problematic for a regional flood - which very well may have been huge.
You conclude by saying, "Let me recommend some study on creation science. Tim's comments, while reasonable, suggest he could do more study on creation science evidence and not just their "comments.""
I'll take the part about presenting "reasonable" comments as a compliment. Thank you. I also was a raving Creation Scientist for nearly ten years. I worked at a Christian Worldview camp (Summit Ministries) for three summers that had Creation Scientists teach bi-weekly, and even hosted an ICR seminar once a year. I graduated from a college (Christ College) which had six-day creationism as one of its five main distinctives (The others being Reformed Theology, Theonomy, Presuppositional Apologetics and Postmillenialism if I remember correctly.) I wrote papers defending Creation Science. I am here to say publicly that I was duped by well-intentioned, yet badly misguided leaders. Their dogmas do not help a biblical/preterist understanding of Scripture, but in fact harm it.
While you suggest more study on so-called Creation Science, I would recommend reading Bernard Ramm's "A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE" as well as Cornelius Van Til's writings on old earth, process creation. Hugh Ross has some good material as well. CREATION AND TIME has some very good critiques of young-earth Creation Science material even if you don't agree with his day-age view.
Time will tell if Creation Science and Preterism are compatible, give it a hundred years.
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
Hugh Ross's attempts to marry up the Book of Genesis with uniformitarianism are a mockery. If the book of Genesis can be stretched into the Gap Theory or Day age theory are whatever other long age system you hold to than we are wasting are time debating scripture becuase words have no meaning and the scriptures can be forced to mean anything.
Creationists that i read do not use a "scientific-literal" approach as you describe. In fact most of the scientists I have read are quick to point out that this whole conversation/argument has very little to do with "science" and everything to do with "worldview" and interpreting evidence or drawing conclusions about what we find in the fossil record.
The creationists interpret the data using the lense or worldview as outlined in the scriptures. The evolutionists and long agers have decided that they can ignore the book of Genesis and draw their own conclusions using some other world view as the basis for interpreting the evidence. than they reinterpret the book of Genesis to fit the scienctific beliefs of the day.
We might as well stop arguing about the accuracy of the scriptures because that becomes meaningless if you can honestly say that the book of Genesis can be understood in the sense that Hugh Ross and his ilk understand it.
I hate to bring this up but...
regional flood, regional destruction (i.e. AD70).
Doesn't this all translate into a regional God as well?
I shudder at the thought.
Jim D.
Your logic here escapes me.
But boldness without truth will never make a Christian confessor: and if a man injures himself for the love of error, he is not a martyr but a suicide. William A. Jones
Jim:
You just said what I was thinking in church this morning! If God is said to be king of all the earth, can it be legitimately said (using a "hyper-hyper-preterist" hermenuetic) that he's only king locally and not in charge of the rest of the universe?
There is no life without prayer. Without prayer there is only madness and horror. - Vasilii Rozanov
Doesn't the argument for "local" use of the Hebrew word for world/earth ("erets") fall apart by reading Genesis 1:1? Are we now to suggest that the entire world wasn't formless and void, just the local area? Are we now to redefine "the beginning" as the beginning of something else and not time itself?
There is no life without prayer. Without prayer there is only madness and horror. - Vasilii Rozanov
Yes, I believe that one could suggest this. If "the light" in genesis that God created is the light to illuminate the earth only, then you could suggest that time exited before earth was created, thus you could reason that both matter and light (space-time) also pre-existed the creation of planet earth. Now it could be that Genesis only deals with the beginning of earth itself, rather than the creation of the entire universe - regardless, we can still ask questions.
Some have suggested this. That the account of Gen. 1 is merely a picture of the creation of The Middle East, Israel, Palestine, The Garden of Eden, etc.
If we take Gen. 1 literally then the plants were created before the sun was. How could they live? They would have frozen.
Some have suggested that God was only a regional God in the sense that he was only concerned with the Israelites - his chosen race. Jeremiah says he will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah - no gentiles mentioned here.
The word gentiles is actually a bad word. The people, nations, tribes, diaspora, etc. might be better words. These same people claim that the gospel only went to other nations to reach the diaspora (the lost ten tribes).
I don't necessarily agree with these people I'm just explaining to you where they might be coming from.
Rick
Seeker
Tim,
I just finished reading your article. Now I will have to read it again. You make a very sound case for a regional flood. Thanks for the article.
kc
Some people are like cement all mixed up and permanently set.
Thanks for your comment.
I am not that concerned that anyone out there necessarily come to my particular conclusions. If this article at least explains how conservative, Bible-believing, preterist Christians can reasonably come to a regional flood view, then I will consider it a success. If you want to believe the Bible teaches a global flood, that's fine. I won't label you a heretic or say that you are twisting Scripture, or violating the clear meaning of the language of Genesis, etc. All I ask is for the same courtesy to be applied to those of us on the other side of this particular fence. Please realize the scope of the flood is an issue of interpretation, not inspiration. Once we all do that we can live together in Christian charity and peace even amidst our disagreements.
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
I will really have to rethink my being labeled as a preterist if this is what preterists really are all about.
Preterism doesn't refute a Global Flood what so ever.
The entire earth is one complete monument to catastrophism. There are fossils of sea creatures on the tops of mountains. The earth would be covered by 1 mile deep in water if the mountains and valleys were smoothed out. I won't go into all the areas of why i believe it was a global flood because i stand firmly with the Answers in Genesis folks on that one. if you would like to read their website for more information please see here:
www.answersingenesis.org
but the notion of trying to interpret every verse under the lense of preterism is just plain wrong.
there are many forms of writing in the scriptures which you are all aware of there is no need to interpret every text under the prism of preterism.
Historical narrative as portrayed in Genesis need not be understood in that light.
The comparisons to the Flood in the new testament do not demand a local flood in order to be understood. God said he would never again destroy every living thing as I have done. If it was a local flood than he has violated that covenant over and over again. There are billions and billions of dead things laid down by water and buried in rock layers all over the world. Where did this all come from if not a global flood. Some event/events had to have caused all that damage which would make a regional flood nothing by comparison.
Not that it matters to anyone but I am very sad to see this type of nonsense ( and I do mean non-sense) posted on a Preterist site.
The concept of reading and understanding scripture should be about coming to a conclusion about what it meant to convey to the original audience, not how can I twist every verse to fit with my pet theology.
very disappointed
Chris King
Young earth creationist, global flood, Preterist.
have at me:)))
Chris,
You endorsed AiG. They are dispensationalist to the core. Being a preterist, you are in violation of their Statement of Faith.
With their definition of kind, AiG endorses evolution at a rate that would make an atheists head spin. The people at AiG are young-earth evolutionists. They don't believe in the seperate creation of each species at all.
Their science is filled with error. (I've not looked at it long enough to conclude that it is outright fraudulent like that from Morris and Brown's respective organizations.) They have no more credibility than the evolutionists they are trying to refute. They have none of the credibility that the astronomers and geologists have.
They also waste a lot of time, effort, and money trying to get government schools to change their ways. It is impossible for outsiders to change an institution.
I'm disappointed.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
AIG are futurists to be sure but I am not aware that they hold to dispensationalism. I have not seen much on their site that even addresses their specific views on prophecy. I do know that they believe in a real physical new heaven and new earth. I do not work for them so what does it matter if I am in violation of their statement of faith. I would be hard pressed to find a church/organization that i agree with 100% of the time.
AiG does not endorse "evolution" as most people understand the term (molecules to man). (That one statement alone makes me seriously question whether you have really studied what some of these words and concepts mean) In fact it would be more accurate to say that AiG endorses "devolution" or "sorting and loss of information" that may in fact make an atheists head spin. You are correct when you say they do not believe in the separate creation of each species at all. I don't either. "Species" is a man made classification. The scriptures speak of the created "kinds". There are boundaries which the created kinds cannot cross. Dogs remain dogs and bacteria remain bacteria. However, no new information is added.(http://www.trueorigins.org/spetner1.asp)
some examples of their errors might be nice. Most of what they discuss is world view related and deals with interprations of evidence and has nothing to do with "science". Science deals with the repeatable and testable. Questions of origins and the age of the earth are not subject to testing.
Statements such as "they have none of the credibility that the astronomers and geologists have" are absolutely meaningless. In fact i would argue that most of these people think so highly of themselves and "science" that they can explain everything in a purely naturalistic way without any need for God. Do not confuse naturalism with "science".
Are you implying that Doctor Henry Morris has engaged in Fraud? Please provide some more information on this. I am thouroghly intrigued by this statement. I do not know much about him other than I was under the impression that he was a well respected creation scientist.
Evidence does not speak for itself my friend. Rocks do not have born on dates on them when they come out of the ground. It takes a framework to be interpreted. Most geologists interpret the evidence based on uniformitarian/evolutionary worldview. They than impose this worldview back onto the scriptures. The folks at AiG use a biblical worldview young earth/global flood lense in order to intrepret the evidence. They also admit that their conclusions are fallible and subject to change upon further study.
Actually I am not sure you have your facts straight about AiG and Government Schools
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/education.asp
I would like to know where you obtained the idea that they are spending a lot of time and effort on this. Actually they are trying to change the Church first. If we cannot convince the Church of our views what credibility will we have with people who hold to philosophical/naturalism.
Chris
Do you believe that foxes evolved from dogs (or the dog kind) since the Flood? This is evolution. This is such an incredible rate of evolution that no evolutionary biologist would even consider it.
Morris' first book looks way too much like a book written in the 1930's by a 7th-Day-Adventist. He copied large amounts of it without giving any credit to the original author. They have a name for that.
Morris and Brown have both published a lot of "science" complete with equations that appears to be carefully designed to fool engineers and anyone else with about two years of real college-level science plus further technical training. There is too much of this to excuse it.
AiG has decided on a young earth/ global flood interpretation and have claimed this interpretation is God's inspired Word. This is driven, as Tim demonstrated, by their dispensational views.
I reject interpretation as inspiration. I want to know what the Bible says and means.
If AiG wants to do real science, why don't they sink an olive tree under 10,000 feet of sea water for a year. Then see if it will sprout new growth in a few days time. It won't happen. Olive trees don't do well submerged under water. They don't do well in salt.
I've never seen a Creation Scientist try a simple experiment to see if what they say can actually happen. Instead, they make false claims about other people's science and false equations that they never put to the test. Then they write books and ask for donations to support their "ministry."
I was raised with a young earth/global flood view. I used that lens to try to interprete the evidence for years. It doesn't work. The earth denies view. It falsifies that view at every point. Spend a couple years learning some math and some physics. Then pick anything that AiG claims and put it to a proper test. It will fail.
Pick something that deals with an old universe (not biology) and I will do it for you. (Take your time. After I hit the Ok! button, I'm out of here for a week.)
(I went to AiG's web-site, clicked "Questions and Answers" followed by "How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?" I was surprised. They debunked all of the standard falacious answers, then ended with a day-age argument, "He certainly did, but six days by which clock?" So AiG supports day-age one place but denies it in their Statement of Faith. Is this a game?)
As for the government school issue, put school into AiG's search engine. In how many of the 200 items does AiG claim they did something towards trying to get "creation science" into government schools?
If evolution is so evil, christians need to abandon the government schools and save their children. Instead our churches and para-church organizations are telling us to put our children into these hell-holes so they can evangelize them. This is the forget the future and only think about today thinking of dispensationalism. It denies the future. It destroys all hope.
Instead, if we take all of our children out of government schools and let them collapse, we can build something new and effective. But dispensationalists would never think of that.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
JL:
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here ...
You just love to misrepresent people, don't you? Do you do this on purpose, or does it simply come from not reading (carefully) enough, if at all? I just checked out AiG's Q&A: "How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp). AiG doesn't subscribe to the day-age theory in any place in this article, or anywhere else on their website. What they are speaking of is Dr. Russell Humphrey's "time dilation" theory, which is totally different. If you read as carefully as you ask others to on matters of creation and science, how could you have made this error? Or did you purposefully misrepresent an organization with the intent of purposefully misleading someone?
As for your accusations that Henry Morris committed fraud, that's nonsense. Don't you know the legal difference between plagiarism and fraud? (Maybe a few courses in law will help clear this up, eh?) As for your implied claim that Morris committed *scientific* fraud, let's see some proof!!! (Oh, yeah ... what does Morris' alleged plagiarism have anything to do with "bad science"? All it proves is that he took someone else's ideas and called them his own. I could say I discovered Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but that doesn't make the theory any less true.)
And what does one's creation/evolution view have anything to do with one's eschatology? I'm a full preterist who's also a young-earth creationist, and I find absolutely no contradiction in that. The two views are compatible, regardless of what some hyper-preterists claim.
You also imply AiG doesn't support homeschooling. What a load of crap. Did you take the time to research this? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4283news4-22-2000.asp)
BTW, I'm only being vitriolic because I figure a taste of your own medicine might make you see this. All you have done on these boards is denigrate, accuse, namecall, and put down. (What's next: slander and libel?) Stop it, please. I've had enough. (And don't come back with "he started it" ... I've heard that excuse from you one too many times.)
Mike,
I can vouch for the fact that JL can get pretty mean sometimes (and he admits it too). But you have to understand the quandry that he faces. He is educated, all the way to a PhD. Each of his degrees is in Math and Science. He does this stuff for a living.
The problem is, JL doesn't want to let people know that. Why? Because some cocky, mealy-mouth will come along and say, "Paul said to boast in the Lord, you are boasting in yourself." I've seen it. Learned men have no chance. If they try to share what they know, and why they know it, they are slammed.
What is maddening about this whole argument is what is maddening about virtually every "theological" argument there is. Preterists love to condemn others if they have a disagreement with them. It is funny to see heretics labeling others as heretics. LOL. Side-splitting funny.....if not so sad.
This site is the absolute worst of its kind. While at the same time condeming dispensational forums, planet preterist has one that is every bit as dogmatic and mean. Those who lurk on the forum here are waiting for some heretic to come along so that they can make themselves look "orthodox" again.
The bottom line is this: If JL, Tim, ME, et al, want to believe in an old earth. Leave us the hell alone. If we want to share why we believe it, leave us the hell alone. Why does it concern you so much that we all be "young-earth" adherents? Scriptural integrity? That's funny since those you quote to support your theories deny the scriptures in most of the rest of the bible.
JL has tried to make this a scientific argument, not a theological one. Tim has tried to make it a theological one. Two streams. It is worth considering.
However, if you don't wish to, fine. As JL and Tim have both pointed out, this is not a salvific issue (or do you think it is?). However it seems that you guys worry about JL or Tim convincing someone of the "old earth" beliefs (which were very common in the church from the time of Augustine - when fundamentalism/dispensationalism took over the theological landscape, 6 day creation became "orthodoxy"). If you are so worried, write some stuff about 6 day creation. Regurgitate the answersingenesis dispensational stuff if you would like. I don't care, because I will not answer it. Perhaps though, you are frightened to put it under scrutiny. Don't you want to discuss science with a scientist like JL, or theology with a theologian like Tim?
I'm done. I hope you guys never find the forum in which I normally participate. We have loving discussions that allow for opinions to be stated and discussed. Inflammatory language is seldom heard (unless folks like you show up).
Oh, and Mike, that "devil's advocate" line was pretty funny. Don't use it again unless you mean it.
'nuff said,
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Ed:
Firstly, I don't consider the old-earth/young-earth argument essential. (How did you come to think I did?) I could care less what a person thinks on the issue; however, I do care about how a person APPROACHES the issue. JL has not done a good job of being CHARITABLE. As for Tim Martin, I have absolutely no problem with Tim sharing his views! I've printed out his paper and am currently in the process of reading it! If I didn't want to give his views the time of day, I wouldn't have printed it out. (In fact, I think Tim Martin's been quite gracious and patient, and I appreciate that! But JL's not helping Tim's side any with his mean spirit.)
And where did you get the idea that I was solidly young-earth? Just because I defended AiG or Henry Morris from JL's outrageous claims? I'd rather the TRUTH be told regardless of one's position instead of watching others intentionally mislead, regardless of their "good intentions." As for me, I've vacillated between the two positions for years, and I still am vacillating, carefully weighing both scientific and theological evidence to determine my personal choice. (Heck, it's hard to do so when I can see how both old-earth and young-earth can be compatible with preterism.) If I am so loyal to young-earth creationsim and intolerant of the other view (as you've suggested), why do I possess all of Hugh Ross' books? Why do I have a Howard Van Till book on my shelf? Let's mention Stephen Hawking, shall we?
What it comes down to, Ed, is that you've judged my position based on me playing "devil's advocate." I intentionally used that "line" to keep someone like yourself from labeling me a heretic-crying young-earther. Apparently, you didn't "get it." So (in your words), "leave me the hell alone."
In every instance where you have posted on this website (forum or otherwise) on this topic, you have posted from a young earth perspective. Research it yourself (do a search in the forums...you'll see).
Secondly, your use of the term "hyper preterist" in the previous post. Totally out of line whether you are playing the "devil's advocate" or not. Hyper-preterist is a perjorative, plain and simple. Your use of it is out of line, just as much as JL's attitude you claim to deplore.
Normally, the use of the term "devil's advocate" is to denote a "thought provoking" discussion from the opposite perspective, not a diatribe of the sorts you plastered on this site. Your tone was no less mean-spirited than anything else that has appeared from JL. Are you claiming that you can "(spite) those who spitefully use you", or "(curse) those who curse you?" And you do it in the name of playing the "devil's advocate"? You should be ashamed of yourself. JL at least has the guts to put his position out there. You on the other hand want to hide behind falsehood (making out like you have no position, and are simply trying to help other's see the opposing point of view...what tripe!).
I misjudged no one. I pointed out a glaring inconsistency in your post. It has made you squirm. How about living up to that honor that you claim (as a Marine) and admit what you did. No...you couldn't do that. That would make you just as bad as JL. God forbid.
Old earth preterist,
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Ed:
(1) I will not deny that I post from a young-earth perspective. That's where I am currently at, even though I claim no loyalty to the position. Just as I came from dispensationalism, I find it equally plausible that I could convert to an old-earth perspective. All I wish for is the ENTIRE truth to be made known, not just selective evidence.
(2) You are correct that my use of "hyper-preterist" was pejorative and out of line. For that, I apologize and I will no longer use that term.
(3) You are correct that I've "cursed" someone who "cursed" another, and (once again) I apologize. I was wrong and that won't happen again either. Very un-Christian of me.
(4) I'm not a Marine.
--Mike
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Mike,
"You just love to misrepresent people, don't you? Do you do this on purpose, or does it simply come from not reading (carefully) enough, if at all? I just checked out AiG's Q&A: "How can we see distant stars in a young Universe?" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp). AiG doesn't subscribe to the day-age theory in any place in this article, or anywhere else on their website."
Do you misread on purpose? I carefully quoted the day-age statement from their article. AiG specifically admits different clocks. How more literal can day-age get? A day by one clock is an age on another. Every old-earth creationist knows this. We get called heretics for less. What does it take for you to see?
I know the difference between plagerism and fraud. I also expained the level at which the fraud was commited. Do you have a BS in engineering, chemistry, math, or physics? If not, you are probably not capable of understanding the carefully contrived models they've developed. If you are, I'll be happy to go through each of these models and show you where each one has gone wrong. Each model goes wrong at the same place. Some function that is hard to obtain is replaced by a number that sounds reasonable to those without specialized knowledge. This happens time and again, and much too frequently.
And when it still appears in edition after edition of their books, even though you've attempted to bring it to their attention, it looks doubly suspicious. So give me some evidence of your science background and I will show you example after example.
As for schooling, I did not misrepresent AiG. You're selectively ignoring evidence. AiG's homeschool program is brand new and has reached "almost 60" children. Big deal. AiG and all the other young earth creationist organizations print some sop for use by christian schools and homeschoolers, but they are politically active in trying to get young-earth creationism into government schools. They are actively working to prepetuate the view that we can redeem government schools. This undermines homeschooling and private schooling.
This is an abrasive medium. I'm an abrasive person in real life. So I'm doubly abrasive on-line. I'm sorry.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
I have recently switched to a local flood theory, but I was just wondering about the rainbow. It seems silly to have a global sign (rainbows show up everywhere) for a local flood.
Seeker
Seeker
Seeker,
Here is an excerp I offer concerning the issue of the rainbow. The full discussion can be found on THE REFORMER page at www.truthinliving.org. Simply click on "Click Here for Responses", and you will find a host of topics covered concerning this regional flood view. Here is my comment concerning how the rainbow fits into a regional flood as well as to other signs of covenants...
"Finally, the rainbow is indeed given as a sign, but I believe it is a human tradition alone which says this was created or "new" after the flood. All God says is "I have set my rainbow in the clouds... I will see it and remember my covenant... " (Gen. 9:13, 15) This proves that the rainbow was in the sky when He gave his covenant to Noah, but it does not say that the rainbow did not exist before the flood! Where does Genesis say that? Our traditions tell us that, but let us separate what our tradition says from what God’s Word actually says.
You see, covenant signs always take a regular, pre-existing object (global as you say) and gives it new covenant meaning. God gave water baptism for a sign, yet he did not create water at that point. God gave bread and wine as a sign, yet he did not create them at that point. God gave circumcision as a sign, yet he did not create the foreskin at that point. The Passover meal was a sign, yet, I assure you, lambs existed before that. So, again I’m struggling to understand how this implies anything concerning the scope of the flood. However it does show that covenant signs can be normal, everyday occurrences in God’s creation as well as ceremonial church things. We should consider that when we discuss the proper covenant signs of the New Covenant."
Hope that helps,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
In spite of this article I have a few issues:
1) Where is this plain that supposedly could have flooded? Did Cain and his descendants live there?
2) I see nothing in my translation that indicates that Tubal is given an assumed continuing descendancy.
Having said that, my biggest issue w/ a global flood is that the Bible timeframe is within the last 10,000 years. Even with the end of the last Ice Age, even with every drop of humidity squeezed out of the atmosphere, even with every bit of subterranean water bubbling up, how on Earth (no pun intended) would enough water be available to cover Mt. Everest?
http://www.preteristvision.org