You are hereBeyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Genesis Debate – Part 8

Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Genesis Debate – Part 8

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By MiddleKnowledge - Posted on 03 March 2006

by Timothy P. Martin
How Preterism Impacts the Genesis Debate

If you are like me with a history of time, effort, money and emotion invested in Creation Science goals, then there are probably a few burning questions on your mind at this point. Maybe it’s disorienting to even consider the plausible failure of Creation Science. Perhaps this reality leads to profound confusion or even anger.How Preterism Impacts the Genesis Debate

If you are like me with a history of time, effort, money and emotion invested in Creation Science goals, then there are probably a few burning questions on your mind at this point. Maybe it’s disorienting to even consider the plausible failure of Creation Science. Perhaps this reality leads to profound confusion or even anger.It’s one thing to poke holes in Creation Science ideology. It’s quite another to offer an alternative view to take its place. Now that the Creation Science system is discredited by preterism there is really only one inescapable question. What do we do now? Where in the world does this leave us in the wider Creation-Evolution debate that rages around us?

My commitment to covenant thinking and its preterist eschatological implications has left me no choice but to look honestly and objectively at alternative creationist cosmogonies. What I want to offer to the thoughtful reader from this point forward is not a quick and easy solution. At this time, I do not believe it is possible to replace Creation Science ideology with any particular old-earth creationist view in some simplistic, cut and paste fashion. What I would like to offer the thoughtful reader is an introduction on how to pursue the mammoth origins issue in light of the paradigm shift to preterism.

This transition to preterism may very well be in the early dawn moments of a new day in Christian theology. Or we may be generations away from seeing the full implications of preterism worked out in cosmogony. Either way, I leave strong conclusions on cosmogony in the hands of others more capable than I. Hopefully they can build on any helpful ideas presented in the prior chapters.

The Nature of Biblical Language

Before we survey the wider Creation-Evolution debate we must first begin with some fundamental issues as Christians. Whenever the Genesis debate arises there is a tendency to think only in terms of conclusions rather than about the underlying methods used to arrive at those conclusions. So, arguments consist of whether the days of Genesis are literal 24 hour days as we know them or whether they are a figurative tool of communication in Hebrew poetry. Other issues revolve around whether a billions-of-years-old-earth is compatible with the Genesis account. Or sometimes the issue is how much room in the debate should be allowed for science and how much room must be reserved for Scripture alone. All these items in the Genesis debate are conclusions which flow from underlying presuppositions and philosophical methods.

Perhaps the greatest neglect among Christians, one that causes terrible results, is the absence of a serious inquiry into the nature of biblical language. We are back once again to the bedrock question of hermeneutics. How can we approach Scripture to understand what it teaches without first thinking deeply about its own mode and style of communication? This is where some of the most significant assumptions are made in the Genesis debate. Bernard Ramm puts it this way:

Genuine relevant thinking cannot be accomplished in the realm of Bible-and-Science until the nature of Biblical language has been deeply probed. Few books on Bible-and-Science treat this point. In those books that do touch on this subject the treatment is usually singularly superficial.[1]

I am convinced this is precisely the point where preterism offers a tremendous gift in God’s Providence to the progress of the Genesis debate in the modern Church. Metaphorically speaking, preterism is a great toolbox that has yet to be opened by theological mechanics struggling with sophisticated exegetical problems. Preterism represents a profound advance in understanding the Hebraic nature and theological function of biblical language. Preterism also emphasizes the importance of examining original audience expectations and cultural mindset. We can see this very clearly in the way preterism interprets the apocalyptic genre of Scripture in terms of itself – particularly the book of Revelation. But it also applies to our overall understanding of Scripture as we compare and contrast parallel biblical language used throughout the Bible.

I believe this methodology, if when applied consistently to Genesis, willl carry the Genesis debate out from the very lengthy shadow of the 20th century Fundamentalism/Modernism controversy. The following quote is the statement to kick off discussions related to the Genesis debate. Pay very close attention. “Any satisfactory interpretation of Genesis must be preceded by a determination of the class of literature to which it belongs.”[2]

Preterists should understand the importance of first determining the class of literature we find in early Genesis. They say the same thing in regard to other controversial portions of Scripture – texts dealing with eschatology. The Creation Science position radically simplifies the issue of the nature of biblical language. This is its Achilles heel. Virtually all biblical language is assumed to be intended in its plain-literal and direct sense from the standpoint of 20th century modernity. From this oversimplification a serious confusion arises. Truth is equated with literality. We will be told that if what the early chapter of Genesis record is true, then it must be literal. What is the net result? Interpretation and inspiration are fused into one seamless reality.

Another quote from Ramm explains the problem:

The psychological problem is that so many Christians fail to differentiate interpretation from inspiration. For example, if from childhood a student has heard only of a universal flood, he will consider a local flood as a heretical innovation. Or, if a Christian has known only the gap theory of Gen. I, having read it in The Scofield Reference Bible... such a person will feel that other interpretations are trifling with Sacred Scripture... First, one must realize that revelation is not interpretation, and conversely, interpretation is not revelation. Revelation is the communication of divine truth; interpretation is the effort to understand it. One cannot say: “I believe just exactly what Gen. I says and I don’t need any theory of reconciliation with science.” Such an assertion identifies revelation with interpretation. The problem still remains; what does Gen.1 say or mean or involve us in? Our mutual problem is not this: is Genesis inspired? On that we agree. Our problem is: what does Gen. I mean – how do we interpret it?[3]

Not only do many approach the issue without thinking about the distinction between interpretation and inspiration, important questions about the nature of biblical language are slighted or ignored outright in popular Creation Scientist books. Conrad Hyers notes the deficiency:

Interestingly and revealingly, most of the religious books dealing with creation and evolution… consist in large part of the authors discussing the merits of evolutionary teaching, reviewing large amounts of scientific data and theory, drawing comparative charts and diagrams, and proposing ingenious ways for putting the Bible in harmony with science or science in harmony with the Bible. Far less time is spent on the biblical texts themselves, and very little time at all is spent in a careful consideration of the type of literature being interpreted, the historical setting of the texts, or the actual meaning of words for those originally using them. If the biblical meaning of creation is clarified, many of these tensions between science and religion disappear or become, at the least, productive rather than confrontational.[4] (emphasis mine)

Many Preterists have experienced this same kind of problem in their dialogue with futurists at one time or another. When they present that the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation speaks of things which came to pass in the 1st century, a common response is that preterists reject what Scripture plainly says in those prophetic passages and undermine biblical authority on the matter. Of course, the objection is based on unexamined hermeneutic assumptions.

This error of blending inspiration and interpretation is prominently displayed by one Creation Science organization, Answers in Genesis. Their bold motto is: “Upholding the Authority of the Bible From the Very First Verse.”[5] The implication is clear. Those who disagree with their approach to origins reject biblical authority from the very first verse. A crucial ingredient necessary to make progress in the Genesis debate is the humility to distinguish human interpretation from Divine inspiration.

To be fair it should be said that Creation Science authors do not consistently mesh inspiration and interpretation. When pressed on other parts of the Bible besides Genesis, they will make allowances for differing interpretations. Consider Henry Morris’ response to criticism of the predominance of premillenialism within the Creation Science movement:

Although John Whitcomb and I are convinced premillenialists, the publishers of our book, The Genesis Flood (which many say catalyzed modern creationism), normally publish only amillenial and postmillennial books. There are in fact quite a few [young-earth] creationists who are postmillennialists and probably even more who are amillenialists. The common ground of almost all Christian [young-earth] creationists is simply that they believe in God and the Bible, not a particular understanding of eschatology.[6]

Do you see the inconsistency? They note how Christians can have different understandings of eschatology and still believe in God and the Bible. But woe to any Christian who parts with their understanding of Genesis! Those who do not believe Genesis references six 24-hour days of creation and a worldwide flood simply don’t believe what the Bible clearly teaches, according to them. But if interpretive issues lead to competing interpretation of biblical eschatology, does it not seem reasonable that these same issues would legitimately lead to competing interpretations in Genesis?

All who engage the Genesis debate should be aware of the hermeneutic options on the proverbial table. Like eschatology, it is not as simple as a divide between those who believe what the Bible says, and those who don’t. Those who study the history of Christian interpretation of Genesis will find the modern fixation on a plain-literal interpretation to be far from the common view throughout church history. The noted preterist theologian, Milton Terry, explains other methods have long and venerable traditions:

It has from ancient times been felt by the most devout and thoughtful interpreters that much in the earlier chapters of Genesis must be understood in some other than a literal sense. St. Augustine spoke of the "ineffable days" of creation, and all the common readers since his time have wondered that light should have been separately created three days before the sun.[7]

F.W. Farrar, another noted preterist theologian of the 19th century, also warns against a simplistic, plain-literal approach to the early chapters of Genesis:

There is no other Eastern book which we should have dreamed of understanding literally if it introduced speaking serpents and magic trees. Even the rabbis, stupidly literal as were their frequent methods, were perfectly aware that the story of the fall was a philosopheme -- a vivid pictoral representation of the origin and growth of sin in the human heart.[8]

One more hermeneutic option when it comes to the flood account, at least, is that the account uses phenomenological language. This term simply means that the author (or someone speaking on behalf of the subject of the account) describes what was witnessed from the human point of view in the common language of the day. So, the universal statements in Genesis 6-9 apply directly to Noah’s experience of the flood event as if he were giving an account.[9] The flood was universal from Noah’s point of view; we might say that the waters covered the land from horizon to horizon, everything under heaven he could see. This is quite a different statement than the dogmatic assumption that the floodwaters covered all the dry land across planet earth.

Creation Scientists often acknowledge this principle when they are presented with a “scientific” reading of biblical texts they do not agree with. For example, the phenomenological language argument is invoked by Creation Scientists to rebut geocentrist arguments regarding Joshua 10. One Creation Science author says the language of the sun “standing still” is an example of how “the Bible uses the language of appearance and observation.”[10] But if that is the case, why does that not apply to the flood account?

Even Augustus H. Strong, the historic Baptist theologian, was perfectly comfortable with this approach to Genesis 7. He says:

Scripture uses the phrases of common life rather than scientific terminology. Thus the language of appearance is probably used in Gen 7:19 – “all the high mountains that were under whole heaven were covered” – such would be the appearance, even if the deluge were local instead of universal.[11]

We should think carefully about this method of biblical language. It becomes relevant to the universal statements in eschatological passages as well. Unfortunately, Strong does not apply the same principles to key eschatological texts in the New Testament. By literalizing the same type of global language we see in the flood account, Strong is forced to make an intriguing speculation:

The final coming of Christ is referred to in: Matthew 24:30 – “they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other… We do not know how all men at one time can see a bodily Christ… The telephone has made it possible for men widely separated to hear the same voice, – it is equally possible that all men may see the same Christ coming in the clouds.[12]

It is remarkable how Strong anticipated, in 1907, a practice that became popular decades later in premillenial literature. He uses technological advance as an evidence for premillenialism. Later writers would come to see special significance in the invention of such things as television, atomic weapons, attack helicopters, and other modern technological items. Premillenialists began to claim these were “really” what John saw in his vision of the Apocalypse. But these common examples only show how the language of the Bible has been ripped from its context and abused to justify fantastic nonsense.

The same error rears its ugly head when Christians fail to examine the nature of biblical language in Genesis and particularly the flood account. The account is quickly gerrymandered along geological and biological lines, and the covenant context is completely ignored. Creation Science dogma turns Genesis into a whipping boy in much the same way futurism discredits Jesus and the authors of the New Testament by nullifying their prophetic statements. The erroneous exposition on both ends of Scripture embarrasses modern Christians of all persuasions. The disaster all stems from the failure to think clearly of the nature of biblical language. It is inevitable from an inflexible plain-literal method of interpretation.

Those who look at the wider Creation-Evolution debate with this issue of the nature of biblical language in mind will see a stunning truth. When it comes to reading Genesis, contrary to popular thought, the atheistic Darwinist has a lot in common with the young-earth creationist. Conrad Hyers states the obvious, yet overlooked fact:

Thus, quite ironically, those who would dismiss the Bible as contradicting science and those who would defend it as the true science find themselves in agreement that these biblical texts are to be interpreted “literally”....[13]

Both the Darwinist and Creation Scientist read Genesis the same way! They both evaluate it in plain-literal terms. The Creation Scientist does it because of theological habit. The Darwinist does it because of theological ignorance. Their agreement about what Genesis actually teaches in plain-literal, scientific terms is a good example of C.S. Lewis’ dictum, “The devil sends errors into the world in pairs of exact opposites.” The error is forcing Genesis into a plain-literal hermeneutic “box”; the result is the explosive conflict that rages around us today. Lewis explains the principle drive on both sides:

He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors.[14]

Proponents of Darwinism who declare the Genesis account false on scientific grounds and proponents of Creation Science who declare Genesis true as a scientific oriented text represent two opposing errors that in many ways need each other to propagate themselves year after year. Both extremes grow from the same soil and sustain each other:

The extremity of [young-earth] creationist charges and claims is, to a degree a reflection of corresponding extremities on the part of evolutionists themselves. Both extremes tend to fuel the fires of the other, and to find their worst fears realized.[15]

Let there be no mistake at this crucial point. The nature of biblical language is a fundamental issue for everyone in the Creation-Evolution debate. Christians would do well to point out to Darwinists, who find it convenient to take Creation Scientist exposition of Genesis as representative of all Christianity, that there are other interpretive options. They should carefully point out to their own Christian brethren, who neglect the issue of the nature biblical language, of legitimate alternative interpretations. Once we understand the importance of this question of language, we’ll be ready to consider the next important issue to grapple with in the Creation-Evolution debate: the history of the Bible-Science conflict.

To be continued…

Copyright 2005 by Timothy P. Martin. All rights reserved. Reprinted by Permission

[Beyond Creation Science (2nd Edition) will be available at the Planetpreterist bookstore]

 

[1]Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, p. 45.

[2]Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1898] 1988), p. 39.

[3]Ibid., pp. 30-31.

[4] Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), p. 8.

[5]See their webpage at www.answersingenesis.org (2005).

[6] Henry Morris, Acts and Facts, vol. 35, no. 2 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 2006), p. b. Also available online at http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2604.

[7] Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1898] 1988), p. 40.

[8] F.W. Farrar, The Bible: Its Meaning and Supremacy, 1897 p. 242. As quoted in Milton Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, p. 50.

[9] It may very well be that Noah (or one of his sons) is the author of the account. A full discussion on the original authorship of Genesis will be presented in a future segment.

[10] Russel Grigg, “Joshua’s Long Day,” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/longday.asp).

[11] Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson Press [1907], 1985), p. 223.

[12] Ibid., pp. 1004-1005.

[13]Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984) p.26.

[14]C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1952) p. 145.

[15]Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984) p.10.

Malachi's picture

The fatal flaw in Tim’s whole regional flood/old earth program is that there is not a single verse of scripture that positively affirms any of his conclusions. If we were to place a circle on paper and ask Tim to place in it the verses that teach more persons survived the flood than eight, that the flood was merely regional, that the earth is materially older than the sum of generations from Adam to ourselves, that the creation took more than six evenings and mornings (24 hrs), at the end of the day the circle would still be empty. It would be empty because there is not one verse of scripture – not even one - that ever positively teaches these things.

The danger, as I see it, in Tim’s teaching is not that he questions the scope of the flood or examines evidence regarding the literalness of the six days of creation, we all have done that. The danger is that he consistently wants to lead his readers to conclusions for which not a single verse of scripture can be produced. Yes, arguments can be made that more people survived the flood than eight. But in the end, it can never be proved. It can be argued that the flood was not universal, but it can never be proved by scripture that it was regional. We may reason about the age of the earth, but proof it is materially older than the sum of generations from Adam simply does not exist. At least not in the Bible.

Tim wants to argue for the same elasticity of language that is used in interpreting prophecy and eschatology. But the Genesis accounts are of a totally different nature. In prophetic passages the writer nearly always 1) states that the subject is limited to a particular nation or people, Babylon or Edom, for example, (Isa. 13, 34); 2) the cataclysmic events never actually transpire: the sun is not darkened nor the moon turned to blood, the stars do not drop out of their courses, nor the land turn to brimstone and pitch; 3) the established method of writing in the prophets shows that the language is figurative. Hence, although the language is of a universal nature, we are virtually COMPELLED to conclude that it is figurative and was of local application. Nothing else makes any sense and would in fact be ludicrous.

None of this is true of the flood narrative. 1) There is no statement or suggestion that the narrative speaks to merely a regional judgment; 2) the language was not hyperbolic or figurative;the cataclysmic event (rain) actually occurred; 3) the narratives are not prophetic, but historical and therefore cannot be interpreted in the established manner of prophecy. Thus, there is not a single point of contact between the prophetic method and the Genesis narrative of the flood. They are of two totally separate genre.

I really adore Tim and always listen with admiration to his presentation when he is on John Anderson’s. But his presentation always suffers the fatal flaw of wanting to take the NEXT STEP beyond what the Bible states into the realm of speculation and conjecture that can never be proved by scripture. And that is the important point to bear in mind: In the end, no verses exist that teach more than eight survived the flood or that the flood was merely regional or that the earth is older than the sum of generations from Adam or took more than six days to create. If it cannot be proved by resort to “book, chapter, and verse,” it is not where we want to go. Once loosed from "book, chapter, and verse" we will end up in liberalism like every other church that has gone down that path. I am sure this is not what Tim intends, but I believe that when we begin to affirm what the Bible nowhere positively states we are on a very, very slippery slope. I would entreat Tim not to lead us there.

yeoldbook's picture

I fully endorse what Kurt has stated in his posts. Thank you for taking the time to post them.

Eirik

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Kurt,

Thanks for your input. I will carefully consider every issue you have raised.

Blessings,

Tim Martin

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Kurt,

We obviously disagree.

Here's the deal. Don't you think it is interesting that two noted preterist theologians of the 19th century both go this direction in early Genesis? Milton Terry is known for his hermeneutic prowess! Terry's stuff on hermeneutics is a standard in the evangelical "world" not just among preterists.

I have read both Milton Terry and F.W. Farrar on this issue. They lay out a careful analysis of language and comparison to Revelation and other apocalyptic portions of Scripture. Have you read Terry's BIBLICAL APOCALYPTICS. It's going to take more than your bare assertion, "it's not apocalyptic" to prove them (and me) wrong.

Is Exodus 20:11 the best you can do for an argument for 24-hour days? Let me ask you a question, since we are talking about the Sabbath. Was not the seventh YEAR Sabbath also based in the creation days? Yet, that Sabbath is one year long, not one day. And the pattern expands from there. Seven "sevens" end with the Year of Jubilee, making the "week" fifty years long. God can use sevenfold creational patterns in various time lengths. That simply cannot require the days of creation to be 24-hours. In fact, the variety of the Sabbath demonstrates the time of day is not the issue in the creation account.

That device relates to Daniel's "evening and mornings," which are obviously not 24 hours long. Moses judged from "evening till morning" and wore himself out. This took more than 24 hours. You are arguing for a wooden literal approach more in line with dispensational literalism. Your argument sounds strong until we compare the biblical language across the biblical gamut.

As to the original authorship of Genesis, you'll have to wait till that segment is posted. What will be presented there is nothing new, though. Jim Jordan, Ken Ham, and Don Stoner all reference some BIG problems with the "oral tradition" view or "direct revelation to Moses" view. I must ask your patience for this material is still in the process of being put together.

One more thing. I think the Genesis account is historic even though there are elements of apocalyptic involved. Why does it have to be "either/or." Your material on Revelation shows clearly that there are historic events being referenced in Revelation, though Revelation is not a plain history. Why is Genesis any different?

Blessings again,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

valensname's picture

Tim,

Are you referring to Terry's chapter 6? Which I assume this is the whole chapter online:

http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/books/ba/part_one/Chapter06.htm

Which reference are you referring to by Farrar?
The Early Days of Christianity (1882)?

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Glenn,

Actually I was referring to chapters 3-7 in Biblical Apocalyptics. Terry quotes Farrar at length in the opening of chapter 4. Farrar's book is "The Bible: It's Meaning and Supremacy" dated 1897.

From where you stand on Genesis and flood, Farrar was quite the liberal. Of course, I maintain a global flood view understood in scientific terms is a modern invention that rose to prominence in the 20th century with fundamentalism and dispensational futurism.

Hope you keep studying,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Malachi's picture

Your first argument is based upon this statement: “Any satisfactory interpretation of Genesis must be preceded by a determination of the class of literature to which it belongs.” You then proceded to classify the creation/flood narratives as apocalyptic. You say this is "the origins issue in light of the paradigm shift to preterism." In other words, you want to bootleg your interpretation of the flood and creation on Preterist interpretation of eschatological passages; to make them of the same genre of literature.

But this is wrong. Preterism does not impact the Genesis debate for the simple reason that Genesis is of a completely different genre. Genesis is not apocalyptic; it is narrative. It is not a book of signs and symbols, like Ezekiel or Daniel or Revelation. There is nothing in the flood narrative that suggests it is of the apocalyptic genre, any more than there is in the Babel or Sodom/Gomorrah narratives. Was Noah an historical person, or a poetic fiction, a merely literary device? What about Abraham, David, and Jesus Christ?

Naturally, you want Genesis to be of an apocalyptic and symbolic nature, so you can argue about the language, but the arguments are unconvincing. The basic teaching of Genesis is repeated over and over again throughout the Bible. Jesus said that "in the beginning God created them male and female." Are Jesus' statements apocalyptic? Exodus 20:11 says that in six days God created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all things in them. Is Exodus apocalyptic?

Unlike passages of judgment in the prophets where universal language is used to describe the judgment upon a nation and the context plainly demonstrates the poetic nature of the passage, there is nothing in Genesis' flood account to suggest this was merely a regional disaster. All of the hyperbolic language of the prophets is missing here. Yes, from Noah's view it may have appeared universal when it wasn't, but I am of the impression that Moses wrote the book by the word of God, not Noah. So the argument is invalid. In fact, the account is not prophetic at all, but historic; it is not of the genre of prophetic passages predicting events of the future, but retelling events of the past.

Your attempt to make Genesis apocalyptic are forced and unavailing and are the first place you wonder out of the way and into error.

Malachi's picture

Dear Tim,

I really regret that you are devoting so much talent and energy to such an unprofitable and destructive doctrine. Exodus 20:11 expressly states that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all this them is." I cannot imagine how a statement can be clearer. But you seem intent on "proving" an "old earth" theory of origins, which cannot be done by resort to the Bible. One must go OUT OF the Bible to prove the earth is older than the Genesis account, or that the six days of creation are not literal, 24 hours days (an evening and a morning).

I wonder what your motivation for this is; what would move a man, who professes love of God and the scripture, to spend so much of his waking energy to overthrowing the scripture in favor of some "scientific" theory that has no origin in the Bible?

The same is true of your efforts against the global flood. It cannot be proven by scripture that the flood was merely regional. At best, you can only show that sometimes universal language is used for local or regional events. But that is far - very far - from proving the flood was not global. Intellectual honesty requires that you confess you cannot prove your case. You can show that there are reasons to question whether the flood was universal, but proof it was regional can never be produced from the Bible. This is the weak link in your whole agenda - you are trying to prove a negative. So, why do you insist on attempting to prove what can never be proved? You have made your point and raised your question. Now move on to something more constructive, rather than wasting your talents on something that is so completely unfruitful and impossible to prove and only tends to play into evolutionist hands.

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Malachi,

Thanks for the compliment. I am one who believes in hard work; I'm glad that comes through in my material.

Have I mentioned any argument from science? I haven't elaborated one scientific argument for an old earth yet. Why do you make this accusation? What is your evidence to back it up?Maybe you are confusing my work with someone else.

There are at least 8 more segments to go. Maybe you will be convinced when the whole case is presented. Maybe not.

Blessings upon you either way,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Malachi's picture

I have heard you speak and have copy of your book. You definitely do not believe in a young earth and are a proponent of an old earth. Since the Bible speaks unequivocally to the six literal days of creation (evenings and mornings) and says that all things in the heavens and earth were made in that period (Ex. 20:11), it is a question of science/Tim Martin verus the Bible. Forgive me if I stick with the Bible.

Similarly with your arguments for the regional flood. You rely on pagan historians cited by Josephus (which Josephus cites for proof of the flood, not that other men than Noah and his sons survived, but which you cite for proof other men survived). The Bible is very explicit in tracing all mankind to Noah: "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread" (Gen. 9:19). No biblical evidence exists for other races of people who survived the flood: "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died" (Gen. 7:22).

You rely heavily (almost entirely) on the argument from silence: that these passages must interpretted in keeping with their purpose; that merely because others are not mentioned that doesn't mean others did not in fact survive, and so forth. So, at bottom, you want to build you case on what the Bible doesn't say; you want to build a case on non biblical sources. But in Christian churches we teach the Bible. So, doctrines like yours can never have an abiding place in the church, but must be driven out.

It is fine to raise questions and note the use of language and point out that universal language is sometimes of regional proportion, but to take the next step and positively affirm what cannot be proven is to remove oneself from the scripture and to venture into the realm of speculation and "science falsely so called."

There is much wisdom in the hermeneutic to "speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent." You would do well to learn it.

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Hi Kurt,

If you remember my presentation last year, you'll remember that I did not make my argument from science at all. My position on the age of the earth is a result, not cause, of my position.

In 2001 when I completed my 1st edition I had read one old-earth creationist book in my life. It was "Creation and Time" by Hugh Ross. Here's the ironic thing. I didn't agree with it, nor do I now.

I look forward to seeing you in North Carolina in a few months. I've got a ton more material on the Biblical text side, from Daniel 9:26 to Revelation 6:2.

Oh, one more thing. I've got a neat quote from your work that will probably make it in the final edition to be published later this year.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

valensname's picture

Thank you Malachi.

Well said.

One has to interject into, twist, be told, or have a bias to get something besides God creating the universe in six 24 hour days and the flood account being global from the text.

Glenn

JL's picture

One has to interject into, twist, be told, or have a bias to get something besides God creating the universe in many generations as Genesis 2:4 says.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

My understanding is that "generations" in Genesis 2:4 is better translated as "births."

Glenn

JL's picture

In other words, you twist the meaning of generations and condemn us for twisting the meaning of days.

Dispy-literal days and dispy-literal generations generate a contradiction. The problem is not days or generations. It is your insistence on dispy-literalism until it becomes inconvenient. It is your lack of a consistent hermeneutic.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

Actually JL, I was difering to Jay Green Sr. who has a much better grasp of Hebrew than I. Where in the LITV it reads in Gen 2:4 "These are the births of the heavens and of the earth..."

Glenn

JL's picture

Sorry to bother you Glenn, but Eirik seems concerned that I didn't respond to this post. Accusatory actually. He seems to think that replacing "generations" with "births" solves yours (and his) timing problem.

I think it speaks for itself. It's an excellent example of how dispensationalists and young-earth creationists work. Just throw up something, anything, without considering the ramifications and pretend everyone will understand your point.

What does, "These are the births of the heavens and of the earth..." mean? Genesis 1 talks of only one "birth" or "creation" of the heavens and earth. I don't know why you and Eirik seem to think that many births solves your problem.

Eirik hasn't shown me the same courtesy he chastised me for not showing you. If you expected a response, please accept my apologies and my belated attempts to correct this deficiency.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

JL,

No bother and no apology necessary. I had been away from the computer for a week, on spring break.

LITV Gen 2:4 These are the births of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens.

My understanding/interpretation regarding this verse is the word “births” more accurately reflects than “generations” and that this is a summary verse of what came prior. Births reflects that the heavens (universe – stars, sun, moon, sky, etc… and the planet Earth and all upon it were created/given birth/began during the creation days. Plural because many things were created during the creation week. The use of the phrase here, from the context, “in the day” is referring to the creation days. It is like saying “in my father’s day” – meaning when he was younger or when he was alive. Or the expression “back in the day” referring to a certain time period like when someone was in college. In this case “in the day” is referring to the creation days mentioned previous to this verse.

Hope this clarifies.

I do still plan to not comment further until all the posts are in or the book is published. I have to admit I got a little lost, or maybe it was too late, reading the rebuttal to Kurt. I’ll have to re-read it.

I may have missed it previously but now I see that Tim has now stated that you are the co-author of the second edition.

Glenn

psychohmike's picture

I like better the idea that God is a deceiver. That he would intentionally make the universe and what's in it appear to be old even though it's not. Take light for example. Now with the Hubble telescope, according to NASA, a star can be seen at about 15 million light years away. If we can see the light then correct me if I'm wrong...It either took that long to get here or God made it appear that way when it in actuality is not. Which is in simple terms deception.

Why would God need to make something appear to be 15 million years old if it is not???

Any good answers out there?

8) Mike

Erick's picture

Mike, I think the good answer (and one I agree with) is that God was also not deceptive when he made Adam - the first human being - as a full-grown man. It's the answer to the question "what came first, the chicken or he egg?" Well, I can't see any good reason for making a bunch of eggs, and the Bible doesn't say that, so I'd say the full-grown chicken, the full-grown man, and the full-grown universe (all would necessarily be created as mature (i.e. "aged")). I don't think this is unreasonable. It is certainly not deception - I've never felt deceived. I hope that helps.
Peace,
Erick

psychohmike's picture

I just threw that one out there as a way to stay on the offensive. I dont think that we are ever going to be able to answer all of the mysteries of the universe. I just hope that we will be able to travel to places like Mars before I kick the bucket. How cool would that be. 8) Mike

valensname's picture

Mike,

Just a thought...I kinda believe that God didn't just make the universe for us to look at but to someday go out there and explore. And since the Bible never speaks of the end of the physical universe, perhaps our posterity will get to. Hyperspace seems to be the way to go though :-).

Glenn

Waidmann's picture

Glenn,

A related thought. I think that in some ways Earth is to the Garden of Eden as the Universe is to Earth. I think we're supposed to (and some day will) be fruitful, multiply and fill the universe.

Waidmann

psychohmike's picture

That would be cool...Everyone will be preterists of some sort by then. Eventually everyone will get tired of the failed predictions. Or maybe someone more biguns in the christian world will turn to preterism. Guess Hanagraaf isn't enough by himself. But...its a start.

8) Mike

psychohmike's picture

More like this then. If we can see stars burn out that are just say for the sake of argument 5 million light years away. Then this means that if the Universe is only 6500 years old then all that we are seeing is something that actually never happened because...Well...It is not possible to see something that by it's nature requires 4,993,500 years longer than the universe has existed.

Does this make sense?

8) Mike

Erick's picture

Mike, here is qoute from a creation science book, maybe there is something here you might want to look into:

"The argument that star distances in millions of light years imputes like age to the universe is founded upon a tenuous assumption, namely, the assumption that the universe is Einsteinian. Scientists at M.I.T. and the University of Connecticut have shown through Riemannian curved space astrophysics that 'the time required to reach us from the most distant stars is only 15 years.'"

His source is:
P. Moon and D. Spencer: "Binary Stars and the Velocity of Light," in Journal Of The Optical Society Of America, 43 (1953): 635

I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but maybe that's something worth looking into.
Peace,
Erick

JL's picture

Erick,

If someone makes an argument you don't understand, whether for or against something you believe, may I recommend you don't pass it around. Sorry to be blunt but, it makes it look like you're willing to believe anything and you look like a gulible sucker for a con-artist. It hasn't stopped Glenn, but maybe a word to the wise is sufficient.

That article was done in 1953. (It's in the company library.) Back then most cosmologists believed the universe was of infinite age. Yet no light appearred to come from more than a few billion light-years away.

As I read the Moon and Spencer paper, it was not an attempt to prove anything of the sort. In 1902 (before Einstein), Ritz proposed an explanation for the above, with space being curved so that light had a shorter path.

In 1942, Bergmann did some analysis that made predictions of what Ritz' theory would show. Shortly after Spencer did some tests which showed Bergmann and therefore Ritz wrong.

In 1953, Moon and Spencer showed Bergman had some errors and refined his predictions. They showed that Spencer's experiments still showed Ritz wrong. They concluded that either Ritz was wrong (Einstein was right) or space is curved in just the right way so that Ritz is right.

Curved space makes predictions about what would be seen. They didn't hold and as this link says, Ritz was throughly disproved by 1964.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Phillips.html

So back in 1953, Moon and Spencer said "we need just one more nail before we can bury Ritz' theory." Over the next few years, that nail was supplied. After the nail was found, the YECs made the (no longer) missing nail out to be a whole cosmology.

Consider this. This curved space idea is ridiculous on the surface. All we see is light. We measure distance by light. The light takes the path that light takes and we measure that path. That path is millions or billions of light years.

That is, after 1964, no responsible cosmologist would have suggested it.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Erick's picture

JL, I appreciate the advice and I read the article you linked. No offense, but it is really hard for the average laymen to keep track of all the changing theories that fallible scientists with various biases and presuppositions make up in their vast ignorance of the universe (which is only slightly less than a child’s, and gullible suckers like myself). I was simply (and admittedly) speaking as one non-expert to another about something I read that that person could look into (I even included a reference). I apologize if I came off sounding like a scientist. Go yell at R.L. Wysong – he’s the "con-artist" brother in the Lord I got the quote from. Regardless, in the final analysis the Bible has veto power over any abstract theory scientists develop or discard, and the Bible seems to indicate a young earth. Exegesis – not scientific models based on limited data - is what I will need to believe otherwise, but thanks anyway. You may have the last word.

- Erick

JL's picture

Erick,

There is no need for you to try to keep up with scientists. All you need to do is quit repeating arguments you don't understand. That way, you won't inadvertantly or innocently repeat someone else's lies and falsehoods.

If you insist, then at least search for a rebuttal.

Besides, if Mike or Tim believes in an old earth, would an argument none of you understand going to sway them? Would a rebuttal you also didn't understand sway you to give up on a young earth? Both are emphatically "No!" So why risk the danger of spreading someone else's lies as fact?

And your final point. You claim the Bible trumps science. Okay for you, but what about for unbelievers? How does ignorantly repeating someone else's lies and calling them scientific evidence for the Bible help your case? The unbelievers are likely to conclude wrongly, that the Bible says what you mistakenly claim science says. That is, they will trust you and conclude the Bible is filled with fairy tales.

Please. Do not repeat arguments you don't understand. Many of them are lies. Repeating someone else's lies is very dangerous to your witness.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

JL and Erick,

What we young Earth, six 24 hour day creationists, ages reflect true years of people in Genesis, global flood, and fulfilled eschatology holders I believe have been try to say is that we believe (or interpret) whole heartly that that is what the Bible plainly teaches. We have been trying to point that out from Scripture and then trying to point out where current scientific theory/understanding seems to support what we believe the Bible teaches. Yes that disagrees with muct of popular scientific teaching today (i.e., billions of years for evolution, the universe) that is so widely proclaimed as unquestionable fact in everyday life. When current scientific theory disagrees with our understanding/interpretation then we side with the Bible.

And I don't see from the posts that any of us have convinced the other from what we have believed prior to Tim's posts.

Erick, you do need to remember that Tim has come out and said that a global flood view is an "absurdity" and that JL agrees and also calls it a "lie." So they are entrenched in their view. So anything that stands against the local flood and old earth view is encouraging a lie to JL.

But JL, I'd would think you would be kinder with your words to your fellow preterists who don't agree with your views.

I believe Kurt summed it up eloquently, much better than I can.

As Erick said, you may have the last word.

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

I'm sorry I'm not making my point clear. Our differences on Scripture have nothing to do with my point here.

You claim that the Bible trumps science, fine. Since science doesn't matter to you, would you please answer the following questions.

1) Then why do you keep sending people to so-called science arguments?

2) Why do you send people to read science arguments that neither you nor the other person can understand?

3) Why do you send people to read a science argument that is demonstrably false and the person who wrote the argument knows it to be false?

4) Why do you bring disrepute on Christ, on Scripture, on yourself, and on your christian brothers by proclaiming false science as truth?

I don't really expect an answer on the last two. That is what you are doing. I believe you are not doing it on purpose, but out of ignorance. Regardless, it is still harmful and you need to stop.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

JL,

You requested a reply.

1. I send people to science arugments so that people can read and decide for themselves.

2. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but this seems to be a completely arrogrant statement. This sounds, to me, a lot like what old or maybe modern as well, Catholic teaching that the lay people couldn't understand things so we priests need to explain it to you.

3. If you are referring to Starlight and Time...again I prefer people to read for themselves. I have not heard of
Humphreys retracting his book and dvd. And I do believe he is on staff at AIG and if he had retracted it, I assume they wouldn't still be sellling it. If you refer to reviews of it, such as those online, then I would hope that readers would seek those out as well as rebuttals by Humphreys.

4. I don't recall myself ever proclaim that I totally agree with anything regarding creation and the flood from a science point of view. I believe I have stated that one shouldn't put too much stock in science regarding origins, flood etc...

Of course I believe you are promoting an error which in turn from my point of view, you are doing what you are claiming I am.

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

Do you understand the details of General Relativity well enough to follow Humphreys' argument?

Do you honestly expect that PsychoMike knows what a differential equation is? He went to Calvary Chapel Bible College where he was taught every detail of YECism and Dispyism. (He might, but you have no reason or right to expect it.)

Don't give me that crap about Catholic priesthoods. Humphreys wrote a book that requires a cosmology graduate student to understand it. You don't understand it. Mike can't understand it. I couldn't even get through Humphreys' stuff without help and I'm a working physicist.

Humphreys' did not write that snow job for cosmologists. He refuses to discuss his work with the very people qualified to review it. Instead, he markets it to "true believers" like you who just accept it.

I am qualified to review some of Humphreys' other work. Pick something. It's all crap.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=371

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=114

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=362

If he's that bad with the "easy" stuff (none of this stuff is really easy), I can't trust him on the stuff I can't follow.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

JL,

I don't even like to mention it but I have a background and license in psychology and suppose am "qualified" for certain things but don't make assertions that others can't and strive to speak professionally. In this arena here on PP, I'm just a Bible student.

My whole point in even mentioning anything regarding science, which I see I was not clear of or it was just a big mistake was to give people references to seek out the information for themselves. Back years and years ago, I had wished someone had mentioned what an Interlinear was, it would have been extremely helpful in my studies.

This is my interpretation - when people resort to speaking as you have done, even if they didn't have that intention, turns me off to hearing what they have to say and lowers their credibility considerablity.

I wish that you continue to study and re-examine your understanding, as I strive to continue to do. If I didn't I wouldn't have read much past Tim's first post. However, I'm done posting on this subject until the last post or post-book release.

I do believe you agree with Max here:
"The Father does not want slaves(legalists) for sons, who reach a certain plateau of knowledge on the mountain of truth, stake out their little piece of ground and settle down as "guardians of truth," as though they have under their feet "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Instead, the Father wants growing sons; sons who are searchers, who are not the "sevants of men," and who are not content to be restricted to a certain level of understanding simply to remain within an established framework of the church." The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 758

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Glenn,

I have yet to raise an objection to a global flood from science in any of my posted material.

Creation Science material (how about that 400 page book you just bought?) spends the lion's share of their space on scientific/philosophic argumentation. In fact, I have more detailed discussion on Genesis 6-9 than The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris. And that is still considered the standard foundational book for young-earth creationism.

If you cut out their futurist based argumentation from Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation, you are left with a miniscule biblical argument.

Now let me turn your oft-repeated objection around and ask you if you are consistent. Can you give me a global flood book which deals with the entire text of Genesis 6-9? I've never seen one. They quote certain universal terms and beat their chest about how "literal" and "plain" their view is. Give me a reference to a global flood book that you find acceptable in dealing with the flood account in detail from Genesis 6-9. If you can't, you are guilty of a double standard, because you accept their interpretation on more flimsy exegesis than I have provided in the current edition.

Blessings,

Tim Martin,
www.truthinliving.org

valensname's picture

Tim,

Sorry Tim, that's the way I study the Scriptures.

I was basically attempting to hold you to the standard I use in my studies and that some of the fullfilled eschatology books have. Max was thorough with 1 Cor 15. Don went through the entire chapter of 2 Peter 3, Mills has verse by verse commentary on Revelation, Daniel, 1 Cor., and Simmons has a verse by verse commentary of Revelation. And don't forget Russell.

I have only read two books on the flood, and that was years ago. My understanding of Genesis comes from my own individual study and re-examining things after holding to a fulfilled view.

If I was writing a global or a local flood view book, I'd deal more with the text.

That 400 page book hasn't arrived yet, it is on backorder. It is,
Fox, Marion R. (2000) A Study of the Biblical Flood. Oklahoma City, OK: Five F. Pub. Co.
Have you heard of it or read it?

I ask for a more extensive presentation - leave no stone unturned. But as a fellow preterist, you presented something "new" and I want to hear you out. Maybe I'll have to wait for an expanded second edition like Don has done with The Elements.

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Glenn,

I haven't heard of Marion Fox. Let me know how it breaks down percentage-wise on pages dealing with the whole text of Gen 6-9, pages dealing with philosophical arguments, pages arguing from a futurist view of NT flood passages, and pages arguing science. I'd also be interested if he places himself in the "literal" interpretation tradition, too.

Can I point out that you still didn't give me what I asked for? Where is a book that meets your standards of dealing with the entire flood text of Gen. 6-9? Have you ever read one that met your standards? I am just curious to better understand what your standards are in the matter since you keep repeating this criticism. If there is no book that meets your standard, then isn't it a bit inconsistent to take your current view and reject my thesis on those grounds?

Funny you mentioned Don Preston. I think you'll see marked improvement just like his improvement in the new edition on many, many levels.

Blessings,

Tim Martin

valensname's picture

Tim,

No I haven't read any books nor know of any regarding the flood that meet my standards. Although Morris has a commentary on Genesis, I don't know how extensive it is. And I don't know of any written from a accomplished salvation viewpoint on the Flood or a book on Genesis, except for yours and Tim King's A House That Stands and his talks on Edenic Curse in Light of NT Soteriology. There is not much out there.

I don't reject your thesis just on that it doesn't meet my standards for detail. I believe if you did go fully into the context it will not support a local flood conclusion. Since it is short, from what I have seen so far regarding the Genesis account, it appears you are doing a "passover" on it that might disprove your thesis.

It gets back to interpretation.

I will refrain from making comments until all the posts are in and/or the book is out unless I get accused again of not sticking with what is in that particular post.

Is there a release date goal?

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

As far as a date, later this year.

This is the first time I have ever tried to write and publish a book. I'm learning a lot as I go. With a new co-author, the process gets a little more complicated - though the end product will be highly improved.

Later,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

JL's picture

Tim,

He won't find much Bible in Fox's book.

http://www.oabs.org/info/floodsyl.htm

This article on Fox's church website on the flood didn't even list one OT verse.

http://www.bible-infonet.org/bin/short_articles/salvation/flood_sermon.htm

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Paige's picture

Glenn,

When you say this:

" When current scientific theory disagrees with our understanding/interpretation then we side with the Bible. "

You have just shown how entrenched you are that your "view" IS synonymous with the Bible. What JL and others have tried to show is that your view is your view.

A more correct an honest statement would have been, "When current scientific theory disagrees with our understanding/interpretation then we side with our understanding/interpretation."

Your words reveal that you are as entrenched in your view as you accuse others of being. Can you not see that?

JL is every bit as adamant that he is siding with the Bible. So, we have two people on different sides of an issue, both claiming to side with the Bible. Why is it that you get to assume that you are pro-Bible, and those on the other side are anti-Bible? Because you have a majority of "Bible-believers" on your side? Since when does it come down to a numbers game? A majority of christians have been taught and thoroughly believe the Bible supports a "future" return of Christ. Their numbers do not impress me.

Paige

valensname's picture

Paige,

I tried to say "interpretation" many times in my post but I see I failed to.

Yes I'm entrenched in my understanding/interpretation. My view regarding Creation, and the flood are as strong on my views regarding the parousia occurred in the first century. However, I don't use terms such as "absurdity,"a lie" and other terms that Tim and JL have. I wouldn't even say that to one who holds futurist eschatology. Winning over people or getting people to even consider this postion, the tones are not, in my interpretation.

Not once have I used a numbers game as you stated but was only refering to those on this site who have been posting with a global flood view.

About the Bible, I have always found it interesting that the local flood view holders have not gone into the text (a full verse by verse exegesis of the Flood account from Gen 6 to 9. Why not I wonder? I still ask for recommendations to read such a verse by verse local flood view.

Again, Kurt's posts are much better stated than mine.

Glenn

Paige's picture

Glenn,

I agree that we need to be careful with our words and how we come across to others, or ultimately we turn people away before we ever get down to the 'nuts and bolts'.

I would ask if you always understood that the parousia occurred in the first century. For most, we didn't. There was a time that I was as certain that Christ would return in the future as I was certain that creation was a literal 6/24 hour day event. I came to see that scripturally the futurist position was not tenable. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I was influenced not only by scripture, but by outside sources as well. (I consider commentaries to be outside sources, and Josephus to be an historian outside of the Bible.) I feel we have all been highly influenced by commentary in all aspects of theology, and it is going to take commentary from other paradigms most likely, to get us to budge a new way.

More and more, I'm comfortable with the old earth/local flood view. I don't feel that to abandon a YEC interpretation means that I'm abandoning scripture, but rather that scripture harmonizes more with the OEC viewpoint. At one time I would have thought otherwise.

You stated this: "About the Bible, I have always found it interesting that the local flood view holders have not gone into the text (a full verse by verse exegesis of the Flood account from Gen 6 to 9."

I would ask what local flood advocates you have read. Have you read Milton Terry yet? I haven't, but I know he has been recommended several times in these conversations. If so, what are your thoughts? If not, how can you say that "they have NOT done a full vs. by vs. exegesis?" Someone I recommended to you before, and I still highly recommend is Ralph Edward Woodrow. He wrote an interesting little book called, "Noah's Flood, Joshua's Long Day, and Lucifer's Fall...What Really Happened." He does a really good job covering the flood topic, but it is an old book put out in 1984. It might be hard to come by.

Anyway, if you're interested in the book, let me know and I'll try and see how a copy might be rounded up.

Paige

Waidmann's picture

Paige,

The book you recommended (Noah's flood...) is available at amazon.com for $8. They have 2 copies in stock at present, with more on the way. There are also 8 used copies for sale, beginning at $5.

Waidmann

Paige's picture

Thanks Waidmann! Thats good to know. If anyone is interested it is an 8 chapter book, 5 of which are spent covering the flood. :)

Paige

valensname's picture

Paige,

I looked the book up on Amazon, (table of contents, the pages that were available to read etc..). That is not the type of book I am looking for. I want an indepth, verse by verse interpretation that explains the entire context (plus early Genesis and other references in the Bible) of the Genesis account of how it is a local flood. That book is basically like the information Tim has presented.

Thanks for the reference though. Any others - that approach addressing the entire context?

Glenn

valensname's picture

Paige,

If this is the entire chapter online:

http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/books/ba/part_one/Chapter06.htm

Then M. Terry doesn't have much to say about the flood.

And I don't at all buy into the oral tradition/compiler concept.

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Ralph's book is a good little book from more of a "logistical" perspective than a "theological" perspective. I believe is available directly from Ralph at www.ralphwoodrow.org.

I sent a copy of my first edition to Ralph. He said he liked it... and sent me a free autographed copy of his book. Also, Gary DeMar quotes Ralph Woodrow in "Last Days Madness" concerning fulfilled prophecy.

Interesting how people contact one another,

Later,

Tim Martin

valensname's picture

Paige,

No I have not always held to a fulfilled eschatology view. That has only been in the last fourteen years. And I freely admit I was raised with and have always held to a global flood view. However, since holding a fulfilled view, I hope I can say that I have a better grasp of understanding Scripture. A fulfilled view only strengthened my understanding and ability to defend my faith, including my understanding of Genesis.

While I can't say exactly how much others have influenced me, what convinced me of the truth of fulfilled eschatology was through my own studies - not talking to others. I hope I have maintained that as well as I have and continue to re-examined my beliefs in light of fulfilled eschatology.

Yes I once read M. Terry's Biblical Apol. from cover to cover. Don't have my copy anymore though. I did think at the time it was a strange book and didn't agree with him about many things. I have Biblical Herm. but have never read but tiny portions of it.

Covenant eschatology holders have a history of being thorough in exploring the text. Those of you who hold to a local flood view, I have not seen do this. Hence why I continue to ask for a full verse by verse interpretation.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll see if I can find a copy.

Glenn

psychohmike's picture

You go girl...8)

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43