You are hereBeyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Genesis Debate – Part 9

Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Genesis Debate – Part 9

  • 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 30 March 2006

by Timothy P. Martin
The History of the Bible-Science Conflict

Once we have grappled with the nature of biblical language in early Genesis we are ready to consider the historical context of the modern Bible-Science conflict. That order is important, because history documents how Bible-Science conflicts arose after Christians misread or, perhaps more accurately, over-read Scripture. Conrad Hyers explains it this way:The History of the Bible-Science Conflict

Once we have grappled with the nature of biblical language in early Genesis we are ready to consider the historical context of the modern Bible-Science conflict. That order is important, because history documents how Bible-Science conflicts arose after Christians misread or, perhaps more accurately, over-read Scripture. Conrad Hyers explains it this way:When one surveys the history of science/religion controversies, one finds linguistic confusion to be a major source of misunderstanding and conflict.[1]

This problem is not unique to Christians on the Bible side of the Bible-Science conflict. Scientists can also misread or even over-read the scientific evidence on the science side. They have been proven guilty of making false claims, too. Those entrenched on either side of Bible-Science controversy point to the historical errors of the opposing side. Each side belittles their opponents’ credibility in order to win the contemporary argument.

We should first recognize that Christianity has a long history of interaction with scientific progress. It is no coincidence that scientific development occurred primarily within cultures heavily impacted by Christianity. The Christian doctrine of creation provides a cultural worldview. Those impacted by this worldview believe our world is intelligible and predictable – the two basic presuppositions of modern science. Christian and non-Christian scientists accept the broad worldview of creation that Christianity provides.

Even though Christianity arguably provides the worldview necessary for scientific progress, the history of Christianity’s relationship with scientific development is not always characterized by peace and harmony. The historical points of collision offer much wisdom to apply to the current manifestations of the Bible-Science conflict. Many Christians live with such a narrow grasp of history today they often miss the valuable lessons history has to offer. The Bible-Science conflict did not arise in the 20th century with the Scopes Trial. Nor did it appear on the scene as a result of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. The debate goes even further back than Lyell’s geological column in his Principles of Geology of 1830.

There is no greater history lesson for the Bible-Science debate over the flood and creation account in Genesis than the clash between geocentrism and heliocentrism.

Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism

Today, most Christians assume resistance to heliocentrism came from the Roman Catholic Church. While the Roman Church, through the Inquisition, was particularly violent in dealing with a few of Copernicus’ followers, many leaders of the Reformation opposed heliocentrism as well. What’s more, they rejected heliocentrism on biblical grounds. One historian puts it this way:

All branches of the Protestant Church – Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican – vied with each other in denouncing the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture; and at a later period the Puritans showed the same tendency. Said Luther, “People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.[2]

Notice how Martin Luther presents his biblical argument against heliocentrism. He argues from the plain-literal statement of Scripture. This example shows how the plain-literal hermeneutic did not begin in the 20th century. Luther read Joshua 10 as if it were a science textbook on astronomy. All the geocentrists were adamant: the Bible defines the motion of celestial bodies. They claimed that those who accepted heliocentrism rejected what the Bible teaches.

We can draw a clear analogy. This same plain-literal hermeneutic is precisely the Creation Science method when it comes to the Genesis flood. They believe the flood account defines our understanding of geology just as the geocentrist believed Joshua 10 defines a Christian understanding of astronomy.

Perhaps it could be argued that Creation Science methods, as we know them now, find their roots in medieval forms of exegesis. Take, for example, the plain-literalism inherent in the famous idea of transubstantiation. Defenders of this medieval doctrine were adamant. “This is my body” meant the literal, physical body of Jesus. The Reformation reinterpreted (Luther) or overturned (Calvin, Zwingli) that idea. But it never developed a coherent hermeneutic capable of integrating the Copernican revolution. Later theologians simply accepted Copernicus and rejected Luther’s appeal to Joshua 10.[3]

The clash between astronomy and theology was probably inevitable, but we should learn lessons from history. Those who read the language of the flood account in scientifically precise, plain-literal terms may be repeating a historic mistake. Don Stoner puts it this way:

It seems that Galileo’s critics were guilty of the same mistake which many of the present-day young-earth creationists have made. That is, they took the plainest reading of Scripture as the “true” one and disallowed any alternative interpretations.[4]

Much needless damage to Christianity could have been avoided if the theologians who held cultural power in the 16th century had listened to Galileo’s defense. He argued that heliocentrism is perfectly compatible with the Bible, when the Bible is understood on its own terms. Consider Galileo’s famous statement:

The Scriptures are given to teach us, not how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.[5]

Even John Calvin seemed to recognize the nature of biblical language demanded limits to what Christians should claim regarding astronomy in his own day:

I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature… Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend.[6]

What Calvin says, in principle, is profoundly relevant. Even though the Bible peaks of the sun and moon as the two great lights the biblical statement does not invalidate astronomer’s claims that Jupiter is greater in size than the moon. Calvin implies that Genesis was not given as a “scientific” account which defines our knowledge of the universe. Creation Scientists could learn a great deal from Calvin’s embryonic idea. Could his approach apply to geology in our day as he applied it to astronomy in his?

Christians now widely agree that Copernicus’ theory, Galileo’s telescope, and Kepler’s mathematics present no threat to the Biblical Faith.[7] God’s majesty and creative power are magnified by Copernicus’ breakthrough. The historical lesson seems clear: the Christian Church has been hindered far more by ignorant zeal than true scientific advancement. Yet this lesson raises a contemporary question. Does the same principle not apply to the debate over the age of the earth? Could it be that those who categorically dismiss an ancient earth and universe as ungodly compromise with Darwinism have simply over-read their Bible? Are they making the same mistake as the geocentrist theologians of the 16th century?

One key issue relating to the Copernican situation that is yet to be resolved in the modern Bible-Science debate is how, exactly, the biblical text of Scripture and the scientific evidence, whether astronomy, biology, geology, etc., will be allowed to interact with each other.[8]

Is the biblical text self-sufficient all by itself without extra-biblical information? Is scientific evidence useful as a wider context around biblical teaching much like we use cultural and historical context as an external aid in our understanding of Scripture? Or are Bible and Science at all points disconnected to one another – on different tracks so to speak? Are they friends or enemies? Is it legitimate for them to relate as guides, offering helpful advice one to another? The Copernican experience seems to warn against a rigid isolationist approach.

Preterists are in a position to see how the right answers to these questions are crucial. The answers have theological implications. Preterists use extra-biblical cultural context to help the Bible student understand the expectations of the original audience and original meaning of Scripture. A Preterist interpretation of New Testament prophecy inevitably relates to the historical events of A.D. 70. But everyone should note well that the Bible does not say anything about what actually took place in A.D. 70. Only extra-biblical sources tell us what happened in A.D. 70![9]

In many cases preterists have to inform futurists of what the Bible records in biblical prophecy as well as the historical events of A.D. 70. They then rely upon the combined weight of biblical statements and historical facts to lead others into a preterist view of prophecy. History and Scripture harmonize. That is what makes preterism such a powerful case. Would there even be such a thing as preterism if nothing happened in A.D. 70 and the temple remained standing for centuries beyond the generation of Jesus and the disciples?

There is no essential difference if we use well-ascertained scientific discoveries as an external context to Scripture. Preterists should understand the value of harmonizing our understanding of Scripture with our knowledge of God’s universe. After all, the same God who created the universe speaks through Scripture. The Bible and Science may be distinguishable, but they cannot be contradictory. When they harmonize, the case for Christianity is compelling in all dimensions.

The philosophical questions behind the Bible-Science debate are numerous and present huge ramifications as they did even back in the 16th century church-astronomy conflict. Devotees to Creation Science often fail to even recognize these questions highlighted in the conflict over astronomy. The reality to them is that when a Christian accepts any scientific discovery that points to a universe older than 10,000 years old, no matter how strong, he is accepting Darwinist evolution by definition. Henry Morris makes this plain:

From our point of view, however, any interpretation which accommodates the standard system of geological ages is a clear-cut compromise with atheistic evolutionism, and it is very sad that Christians who profess to believe the Bible as the Word of God will not acknowledge this... The Bible clearly teaches the special creation of all things in six literal days (e.g. Exodus 20:8-11) and a worldwide cataclysmic destruction by the flood (e.g. II Peter 3:3-6), and it is only special pleading and strained exegesis that can force any other meaning on the Biblical record.[10]

Preterists should note once again how 2 Peter 3 is used as “the proof” for a global flood. Notice how a plain-literal approach to the creation days is logically connected to a plain-literal reading of 2 Peter 3.

One great irony at this point continuously played out through Creation Science literature is a complaint laid against their old-earth creationist brethren. Writers in the Creation Science movement repeatedly accuse old-earth creationists of bending Scripture to conform to modern scientific thought dating to Lyell and Darwin. (They do this even though non-literal approaches to the Genesis creation account were presented by such esteemed theologians as Augustine more than a thousand years before Lyell and Darwin.) All old-earth creationist views are painted with the same anti-Darwinist brush, because any age for the universe beyond 10,000 years is simplistically equated with Darwinism. J. Ligon Duncan and David Hall represent many Creation Science writers when they say:

We should be wary of those who accommodate Scripture to current scientific theory, because he who marries the spirit of the age will be a widower in the next.[11]

Creation Science advocates should take their own advice! The Creation Science system is nothing if it does not accommodate Scripture to a particular scientific theory. What’s worse is this accommodation is ostensibly founded on the authority of God’s Word! This syncretism with Adventist flood geology sets Creation Science up for a repeat of the same disastrous fall we see in the Copernican example. The overriding problem with the public, tenacious commitment to a young-earth and universe is simple. If their science or underlying hermeneutic goes down, it inevitably takes the reliability of Scripture and integrity of Christianity down with it – publicly.

To make matters worse, those dedicated to Creation Science seem blissfully unaware of how their method of handling Scripture is dominated by scientific priorities and concerns. Hyers points out the incongruity of it all:

To attempt to turn this [Genesis creation account] into a scientific statement is to distort its intention and character. Not only does one miss the theological punch lines; one gives the passage a secular reading – and then perhaps complains about the rising tide of secularism in evolutionary science![12]

Hyers notes an important point. On the one hand Creation Science advocates often demonize accepted scientific opinion. They complain that modern science’s commitment to an ancient earth and universe is anti-Christian from beginning to end and has taken over our Western Civilization. On the other hand these same advocates demand Genesis communicates in scientifically precise language and concepts – a demand that springs from the scientism of the modern age!

The history of the Bible-Science debate, if nothing else, should sober zealous advocates of Creation Science who direct many serious charges against their old-earth brethren. Bernard Ramm offers a thought-provoking question:

Does not the most hyper-orthodox among us realize that most of the views he now holds about the Bible, medicine, science, and progress which he thinks are so orthodox, safe, sane, and Biblical, would, a few centuries ago, have cost him his life?[13]

Time tends to erode the sharp criticism that fearful Christians have leveled against solid scientific advance. I’m convinced that neither time nor reputable science is on the side of Creation Science. It’s not that hard to imagine a day to come in a century or two (prayerfully, it may be much less time) when Creation Science opposition to belief that our universe is ancient will be viewed the same way we look back at those Christians who vehemently objected to heliocentrism. As the saying goes: Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Both Scripture and history support a local flood interpretation. There is no denying a local flood view will also have implications for the debate over the age of our universe. No matter how that debate goes in the future, I’m convinced of the basic truth of one powerful insight in William Jennings Bryan’s testimony during the Scope’s Trial of 1925. Responding to Clarence Darrow’s assaulting questions, Bryan said, “The Rock of Ages is more important than the age of rocks.”[14]

This is heresy from the viewpoint of Creation Science. They teach that if rocks are indeed millions of years old, then the “Rock of Ages” is a fraud. Morris claims that Bryan lost the case in the court of public opinion largely because of infidelity on this point. He writes:

Probably the most serious mistake made by Bryan on the stand was to insist repeatedly that he had implicit confidence in the infallibility of Scripture, but then to hedge on the geological question, relying on the day/age theory. He had been warned against this very thing by George McCready Price.[15]

Creation Science resets the trap which snared medieval Christianity in the days of Copernicus. It is past time to admit that geology, like heliocentrism in astronomy, threatens Christianity only if we read the language of Genesis according to a plain-literal method. As I hope to show, there may be a much better way to read the disputed portions of Genesis. For now it is enough to point out that antithesis to unbelief does not require anti-intellectualism. Nor does it require a denial of well-established observational reality in God’s physical creation. Creation Science ideology blocks a rich understanding of our Bible and powerful knowledge of God’s creation.

Don Stoner sums up a reasonable viewpoint that could serve as a baseline guide as Christians progress in their study of God’s Word and God’s works:

Science and theology are both fallible systems for seeking truth. God’s Bible and His universe both supply unerring facts. Our own theories should be built upon the facts from both God’s Bible and His creation. Even then, we must allow for the possibility that we might still make mistakes. Perhaps the most important lesson we should learn from this is humility.[16]

Once Christians grasp the wisdom of Stoner’s advice, they will be able to face any Bible-Science conflict in a manner that brings praise to God. We cannot expect the Kingdom to progress and grow in our day if we continue to engage in the folly of the past.

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] Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), p. 16.

[2]J.N. Larned, The New Larned History (Springfield: C.A. Nichols Publishing, 1922), Vol. 1, p. 576.

[3]For a well-written textual analysis of Joshua’s Long Day as well as another presentation of a local-flood view, see Ralph Woodrow, Noah’s Flood, Joshua’s Long Day, and Lucifer’s Fall: What Really Happened? [1984] (www.ralphwoodrow.org).

[4]Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth: Resolving the Conflict Between the Bible & Science (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1997), pp.34-35.

[5] As quoted by Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson Press [1907] 1985), p. 222.

[6] John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, Chapter 1, Section 16. Available online at: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol01/htm/vii.htm. It should be noted that some historians claim Calvin was united with Luther in opposition to heliocentrism. Others claim he was not. Perhaps the solution to this debate is that Calvin simply changed his mind on the issue in his later writings.

[7] There is still a small band of geocentrists standing by their reading of Joshua 10 and the ancient teachings of the Church on the matter. Not surprisingly, they are generally dedicated advocates of Creation Science ideology.

[8] For a masterful theological explanation of the classical “Two Books” understanding of the organic relationship between natural and special revelation see part two, “The Good Creation” in Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992).

[9] There is strong evidence that the entire New Testament was written by A.D. 70. See John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Wipf & Stock Publishers, [1974] 2000) and Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision [1989] 1998).

[10] Henry Morris, History of Modern Creationism (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984),p. 329.

[11] J. Ligon Duncan III & David W. Hall, The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. by David G. Hagopian (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001), p. 30.

[12] Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation, p. 22.

[13] Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1954] 1978), p. 22.

[14] See www.reasons.org/resources/ apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml#bryan (2005).

[15] Henry Morris, History of Modern Creationism, p. 66.

[16] Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth, p.36.

Englishman's picture

Tim and all,

If there is still time to respond in this thread, can you tell me how you see this:

(1) In Genesis 1:31 it says that "evening and morning were the sixth day".

Did God go back to work on the eighth day?

(2) In Genesis 2:1 it says that on the seventh day "God ended his work" and "rested".

Did God rest on any day other than the seventh day?

You answers will give me a better appreciation for what you are seeing.

Englishman

JL's picture

Kurt,

Your questions make no sense to me. You obviously have different assumptions.

1) No eighth day is mentioned in Scripture.

2) One of the Psalms mentions that God is still resting, as does the book of Hebrews. I can't find any mention of the end of the seventh day. So I assume that the seventh day either ended in AD 70 or continues on through eternity. I have absolutely no preference or opinion in the matter.

Sorry, maybe if you rephrased the questions, I might be able to answer them.

Blessings,

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Englishman's picture

JL,

Did the "seventh day" of Genesis 2:1 last more than "one revolution of the earth"? That is my question.

I ask this because I am trying to understand how the popular view of a "literal 24 hour days" of creation can be consistent with the fact that one of the "days" of the creation account clearly appears to be longer than 24 hours.

From what you have said, you seem to be among those who are saying that the "seventh day" of Genesis 2:1 lasted longer than one revolution of the earth. That is what I am seeing. The remarkable fact that there is no "evening and morning" recorded for the seventh day fully supports this.

The question was put forth to see if any "literal 6 days" creationists have ever considered a "long seventh day" and how they might assimilate that. Or if they even admit to any of the seven "days" in the Genesis account lasting more than one revolution of the earth.

It is my feeling that the entire chronological issues and literary style of the Genesis creation account cannot find their proper resting place without first seeing a full handling and application of the several creation texts and creation metaphors (darkness, light, etc.) in the new testament. I am not satisfied at this time with the concept put forth elsewhere that "creation" in the new testament speaks essentially of "redemption" (and not at all of the "Genesis creation" to avoid conflict with the "ended" of Gen 2:1). But since "redemption" is essentially "legal" it would be saying that a "new creation" is a simply a "legal improvement". The jury here is still out. I think "creation" has its highest and fullest meaning in the new testament and will shed abundant light upon Genesis.

Next time I will try to address my question to someone who is known to embrace the 24-hour 6-day view.

Englishman (not "Kurt", as in your response--Kurt would be much clearer.)

valensname's picture

Has anyone purchased or listened to Kenneth Gentry's sermons on Genesis 1-2?

kennethgentry.com

Six Day Creation in Genesis (15 CDs)

Sermonic exposition of Genesis 1 (15 Sermons)
(1) The Importance of Genesis #1.
(2) The Importance of Genesis #2.
(3) Absolute Creation.
(4) The Days of Genesis.
(5) God's Creative Word.
(6) Creation of Light and Atmosphere.
(7) Creation of Land and Plant Life.
(8) The Order of Life. *
(9) Creation of the Sun, Moon, and Stars.
(10) Creation of Sentient Life.
[NOTE: The following tapes are the same as Set #13]
(11) Nobility of Man. #1
(12) Nobility of Man #2.
(13) Dominion Mandate #1.
(14) Dominion Mandate #2.
(15) Genesis 1 & 2: Contradiction?

Just wondering for a review before possibly making the $60 purchase!

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Glenn,

Ken Gentry was one of my professors in college and my pastor for a few years.

Here is what he taught me. He believes in a literal 6 day creation of all things and a universe in the neighborhood of 6000 years old. He also believes that the events of A.D. 70 are a type of the final consummation when all things are destroyed by fire.

He believes 2 Peter 3 and the burning up of the Heavens and Earth refers to the end of our universe - a global destruction on perfect scale with the global flood of Noah. (I have suspected for awhile that he maintains this global futurism in 2 Peter 3 at least partly because of the implications a regional view would have on the Genesis flood. He also futurizes Matthew 24:37f to reference to a coming global judgment just like the flood of Noah.)

Gentry has also labeled those who believe in the fulfillment of all NT prophecy as heretics under the same curse as Paul made of Hymenaeus and Philetus. According to him, full preterists are on their way to hell.

He also did very good work on the dating of the Book of Revelation.

That's what I remember from my college days. Hope it helps.

Later,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Englishman's picture

Tim,

I think the portion of your title that reads "How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood ..." can easily be misconstrued.

The results of the Noachian Deluge is summed up by: "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished".

All of the preterist literature that I have seen most emphatically confirms a Flood consistent with the above summation. And I have never seen in the preterist paradigm any element that would "insist" upon a "local" flood.

On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to support a "recent" and global (as opposed to local) flood. I will never forget the time when I learned about the wooly mammoths that have been dug up in China in the previous few centuries. There were so many tusks protruding from the ground in northern China that many Chinese made a living digging them up and making and selling ornaments from them. Many of these mammoths were found buried in ice, complete with some flesh still remaining on their bones and the remains of food in their stomachs! Not a hundred of them, not two hundred, not five hundred, not a thousand of them, but some sixty-six thousand (66,000!) of these mammoths have been discovered. This is reported in a book called In Search of Adam. There is simply no way these huge mammoths in such large numbers could have been so abruptly preserved without a cataclysmic catastrophe by water, either by a collapse of "water rings" that once circled the earth, or a polar shift, or whatever. And the tusks of a wooly mammoth were found right here in the United States not too long ago!

I have learned that “modern science” is not wholly trustworthy with their pronouncements because they have a profile that usually colors their enthusiasm for certain facts that they come across.

Again, there is nothing in the preterist paradigm that would compel the adoption of a miniature Deluge.

Englishman

NB9M's picture

Englishman:

Only a couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you. We know about the mammoths, the rock layers, the evidences of a global flood, etc. What I had missed was this: What if there HAD been a global flood long before Noah?

We know Noah's flood occurred around 2348 B.C. We can trace the descendants of Shem beginning with the birth of his sone Arphazad only 2 years after the flood (Gen. 11:10) Since the Bible (disturbingly to many) is pretty much specific to the chronicaling of God's dealings with His covenent people - and they began here - this necessitates the inclusion of a flood story. After all, Abraham was born only 292 years after this flood (Josephus) and even stayed with Noah and Shem (Jasher 5).

But, if there WAS a huge global flood long before then, must it (by necessity) have been recorded in by Moses? The context of the Word doesn't seem to imply that...

I don't think Tim is implying that he represents the norm in preterist circles with regard to the flood. However, I think Tim has observed that preterists are a smart bunch, with a solid exegesis and a love for Truth. Given time, this idea may really take root.

For his Kingdom,
-Brad

\

Englishman's picture

Brad,

You made some astute observations.

And I have been doing a lot of thinking about this recently.

The woolly mammoths that were buried en masse in topsoil and in frozen tundra certainly indicates a great cataclysm associated with water, but I would not say (with my current knowledge) that they are inescapably associated with the Noachian deluge. I will go further and even say that "a bunch of dead animals" does not prove the essential point about the Noachian deluge. They may give us some interesting and exciting ancillary facts about the Flood, but not its essential point.

I say this because I noticed that Peter, when speaking about the waters of the flood, said that "it took them all away". "Them" refers to people. The ungodly Adamites. The society of wicked men.

So when Peter says "the world that then was" he does not mean "the bugs and spiders and dinosaurs and mammoths that then was".

When I hear of a "universal flood" I am seeing a wicked society, its social structure, codes, and property claims coming to a complete and exhaustive end by a massive inundation of water. No exceptions. A destruction so thorough in every quarter that there was no possibility of a rebuilding of that society. Their public officials were stripped! Gone! Nowhere to be found! No enforceable claims to land because every single landmark and all records swept away! A civilization in total shambles! Even their prestigious edifices may never be found by the archaeologists who show up on the scene a few hundred years later because of the thoroughness of the destruction. And I do not see this as "local". But indeed the entire world that then was. The entire world that received warning by the mouth of Enoch and Noah.

So to "prove" the Flood (to me) all someone would have to do is show me that the next succeeding generation (or those who escaped in the prescribed manner) were indeed completely freed from the legal claims, morality, codes, and constitutions of a once thriving civilization. If archaeologists cannot find the remains of that prior civilization then it only adds to the "scientific" proof of the Flood. And the discovery of buried animals is only incidental and may be accessory, but not necessarily conclusive. The destruction of a particular society by water is the conclusive element.

I am thinking that the essential point is not geological. It is eschatological.

With advance warning and with impeccable faithfulness God destroyed that ungodly society of old. And according to Peter, the same God upon advance warning and with the same impeccable faithfulness would then soon bring to an end another society of scoffing ungodly men.

To prove the occurrence of the Flood only by looking at the geological column under the science of paleontology may defer a discovery of its best proof.

(I do not know if I am here agreeing or disagreeing with you or Tim as I am still catching up on some reading. But if Tim is elsewhere suggesting that Preterism is the basis for a "local" flood within the framework of current Bible-Science terminology then, yes, he will rightly be met with objections from those who recognize that Preterism, per se, does not compel Tim's conclusions. Oh well, iron sharpeneth iron.)

With appreciation,

-Englishman

NB9M's picture

Hello Englishman:

Like you, I surely don't have this locked down. It's wonderful, though, that preterists are brave enough to consider these things.

You said:

>> I am thinking that the essential point
>> is not geological. It is eschatological.

I think that, if this is so, a question follows. To whom was this eschatological event focused? In the Abrahamic Covenant, it was Abraham (the promise carried out through Isaac and Jacob.) In the Mosaic Law Covenant, it was Israel. In the New Covenant, it was Israel (Hebrews 8:8-10/Jer 31:31-34). We know that Abraham came from Noah's son Shem. Does it follow, then, that Noah was preserved as a precursor to the Abrahamic Covenant? Noah was "perfect in his generations." Could this mean that, genetically, the Adamic bloodline in Noah and his family had not been polluted by the recorded intermarriage with the giants, etc.?

For His Kingdom,
-Brad

\

Englishman's picture

Brad,

When I say something is "eschatological" I mean that it is knowingly in anticipation of something yet to occur, or that it is a fulfillment of a long-standing anticipation. (Maybe there is a more precise usage?)

When the author of Genesis gave us the historical account of the Flood I have often wondered what he may have been dreaming of the night before.

Every good historian will record and highlight those facts that he deems are useful for our learning. So if instead of a vision of dinosaurs and mammoths the author actually, in a dream, saw a glimpse of the ultimate New Heavens and New Earth after the Seed of the Woman had finally arrived, he would know exactly what facts about the recent Flood would be most helpful for our learning. In this way a routine historical and accurate account is transformed in to something eschatological.

You have nudged me a little further with your excellent thoughts.

Let me run with them a bit....

With appreciation,

-Englishman

NB9M's picture

Englishman:

Maybe I'm still not following...are you musing about the possibility that the account of the flood might have been idomatic, or a typological expression, rather than a literal, physical event?

Not assuming that you are, but I've noticed a (disturbing) trend in preterist thinking: the replacement of literal/physical things with a spiritual equivalence in cases where a physical context would fly in the face of our current view. For instance: the current Planet Preterist thread about whether the woman can hold office in the church, teach and lead men, etc. When it gets uncomfortable, we spiritualize. Galations 3 is really useful for that :)

If, indeed, Noah's flood was literal and physical AND if it had eschatological significance, then things get uncomfortable.

As the years go by, and the more I study, I believe the Word follows two parallel threads: the physical and the spiritual. Jesus was constantly snapping back and forth between the two (leaven references, parables, etc.) The hysteresis drove His desciples nuts.

I think what Tim is doing is significant. He's examining the relationship between those threads farther back than most.

To be sure, our faith has a lot more depth than those flannelboard figures we saw on the Sunday School board when we were kids.

For His Kindom,
-Brad

\

Englishman's picture

Brad,

I would say yes, the Flood was "literal and physical AND...eschatological".

I conclude this upon a highly authoritative statement: "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Obviously, if there was no literal and physical historical Flood then those words are meaningless.

Also, I am seeing the Flood event as being eschatological by virtue of its Messianic and apostolic application to an age-ending collapse of a particular society as a precursor to a New Heavens and a New Earth.

(Incidentally, I have noticed that the Flood is never here seen as a profound geological event. This is because the essential point is the dissolution of a society, not the creation of a new strata of animals.)

I applaud Tim for seeking to understand the scope and application of the Flood. And I have no problem with Tim bringing a "local" Flood to the table.

But I do not applaud Tim for saying or suggesting that Preterism compels or suggests the adoption of a "local" Flood. I think that is an unnecessary and unsupportable position.

With appreciation,

-Englishman

NB9M's picture

Englishman:

I'm in agreement - makes absolute sense to me. First-rate thoughts.

-Brad

\

valensname's picture

Is this more correct science or attempts to discredit the Bible?

Thought you might find it interesting.

Jesus Could Have Walked on Ice, Scientist Says

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060404/sc_space/jesuscouldhavewalkedonic...

valensname's picture

Evidence for Global Flood
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.com/articles/2885

JL's picture

I already read the article. It does no such thing. This is merely one of the many massive local or regional floods that occurred at the end of the last ice-age.

The fact that these floods can be found is evidence that no global flood has occured since.

This one is dated about 6200 BC. The dating method used is not as accurate as most dating methods, but I think this is much too early for the Genesis flood which happened a few hundred years before Abaraham's birth, not a few thousand years.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

JL's picture

I can't imagine how it would work. You'll have to explain it to us.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Englishman's picture

Tim,

You have re-awakened me to this issue when I saw you mention the name of George McCready Price.

I was so impressed by his literary style that I sought to obtain every book of his that I could get my hands on (that was several years ago.)

I think the view of Genesis 1 as "apocalyptic genre" (a la Milton Terry and others, and as published on your website) is significant and merits worthy consideration.

With regard to the "day" and the "evening and morning" of the Genesis account I have always observed a rather remarkable omission in the text. Nowhere can I find that there was ever an "evening and morning" on the seventh "day". It is no where stated!

So by the same hermeneutic that has been applied to the priesthood of Melchizedek wherein it is concluded that Melchizedek had an everlasting priesthood because of an omission with regard to his genealogy, I can thereby also conclude that the “seventh day” of Genesis 2:2 was typical of an everlasting day (more than “one revolution of the earth”) because of an omission with regard to its sunset. So here I see in Genesis a “day”. A very very long “day”.

Also, I came across something perplexing to me. After reading in Genesis that God had "ended his work" and had "rested" I was surprised to learn that God was yet "still working". Or at least "went back to work". Because it was said by His Son in the first century "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” Does this Work shed any light on the original intention of the Genesis account? Is this first-century creative work subject to any “24-hour rule”? Is God still “creating”? Can the purpose, intention, and relevance of the Genesis account be better understood after carefully considering the “creation of God” mentioned Revelation 3:14?

I agree that it is indeed highly unlikely that a "dinosaur" or a "geological column" was in view when Genesis was penned. Rather, a populated Holy City was the anticipatory event. This is evidenced by the "day" which has no recorded sunset.

Englishman

valensname's picture

Englishman,

I suggest reading The Bible and the Age of the Earth at this address:

http://apologeticspress.com/pdfs/e-books_pdf/BibleAge.pdf

Pages 46 to 52

Glenn

Englishman's picture

Glenn,

I have perused pages 46-52 of the treatise you referenced.

Thank you very much!

It was wonderful to learn that others have considered the possible significance of a lack of an "evening and morning" on the seventh day.

The author of that treatise is alarmed by any suggestion that the seventh day is longer than 24 hours. Because, he says, it is nothing but a guise to support a day-age theory of creation. And he says that as if any creative act spanning more than 24 hours is anathema to the scriptures. Well, I submit that the purpose of the Genesis account was not to convince us that God does his creative acts in 24-hour days, but to encourage us that Man is his crowning creation whom he intended to have fellowship with forever in a day that has no sunset.

He does not address the "apocalyptic genre" approach suggested by Terry and others. He may not even be aware of it. But he unknowingly adopts elements of the apocalyptic when he plainly recognizes the "eternal Rest" for the righteous.

He also says something that needs to be developed further . He insists that God has stopped all creating. Ever since Adam, he infers, there has been no more creating. So what God was doing in the first century, he says, was not a "work of creation" but a "work of redemption".

In contrast to this, I can think of several apostolic scriptures. "A new creation in Christ Jesus". "The firstborn of many brethren". "A new heavens and a new earth". "The beginning of the creation of God". Etc., etc., etc. This is clearly the language of "creation" in the highest and best sense.

I sense that the author of that treatise is reluctant to embrace "post-Adam creation" because it would seriously challenge his current understanding and application of the Genesis account.

As usual, these types of treatises are very interesting.

And very challenging.

Englishman

valensname's picture

Englishman,

You are welcome.

I do believe Thompson does indeed know about Milton Terry's book and he did address types of literature in the booklet but didn't use "apocalyptic" but prophecy. Gentry also prefers to refer to biblical literary sections that way as well, or he did in Before Jerusalem Fell. I agree with that as, to me there is a difference in the prophetic language in the Bible while apocalyptic genere refers to non-biblical writings.

Not to speak for Thompson but I believe he was referring to God resting from His physical creation work not from creating other things. Also the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 refers to creating something from nothing while the Hebrew word in Isiah 65:17 and 66:22 are different Hebrew words and I believe have different meanings than found in Genesis 1. Also the Greek for "new" heavens and earth in Peter and in Revelation denote newness in quality not a brand new thing. Also same word for new in 2 Cor 5:17. Thus I don't see that as impacting the creation account in Genesis as being any different than ordinary solar days.

Milton Terry in his short Chapter 3 of BA doesn't deal at all with the language of evening, morning, and day. I don't see his work at all convincing to suggest that Genesis is not historical narrative.

Glenn

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Englishman,

You anticipate the subject matter very well. The next segment deals with some of your questions. Particularly the parallels between "new creation" and original creation.

I'm convinced at this time that our understanding of the new creation experience by grace through faith has much light to throw on our understanding of original creation. As we watch God work in our lives, we begin to understand the kind of Person He is. That personality is expressed in the creation of the universe as well.

Creation and New Creation parallel each other, and the implications of that are tremendous in the Genesis debate.

You'll enjoy the next article.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

psychohmike's picture

Beautiful thoughts Englishman. And you know...I've always wondered about new species that they are finding. Are they finding new species that have always been around but unobserved. Or are these new species simply a new creation by God?

Theological bubblegum...Chew on that one for a while.

Mike 8)

Windpressor's picture

********

After looking at the text in Genesis 1-2, I have questions. Where does anyone get such dogmatic "answers" from the obvious anomalies and apparent ambiguities in the account?

I am not a scholar of Hebraic idiom and have not yet researched into various commentaries. Just reviewing the text by comparing translations at biblegateway.com and an interlinear (at -- http://www.scripture4all.org/), some puzzlements jump into my ponderation.

Consider thus a decent translation of Genesis 1:1 --

In beginning, God created sky and land.

Observations: 1) the interlinear Hebrew renders "In beginning" without definite article "the" which is inserted in the translations.
2) the same Hebrew word for heavens(eshmim) is also translated as "sky" and "air"(as in "birds of the air" -- 1:26,28,30 and 2:19 NIV).
3) the similar use of "land" and "earth" has already been noted in the articles and comments.

Now the questions:

1) How long is "a beginning" or "the beginning" or "in beginning"?

2) Is the Genesis beginning the absolute beginning of existent universe/reality? Or is it a beginning of specifics from or after an ending or other demarcation?

3) Is 1:1 just introductory expression for expanded recapitulation in further detail outlined in the later creation verses?

4) How do we account for vegetation and seed germination occurring during *day 3* before the *day 4* creation of "lights", "stars" and the "two great lights"? (1:11-19)

5) When does the account of 1:9,10 occur? Entirely on day 3 without any transition from day 2? During a timeout between? What respective proportions of the day were used for sea/land deployment from the divided waters and later sprouting vegetation?

6) When God spoke to create, did He speak slowly and take a full 24 hours to say the particular day's conditions into formation? Why would he have to take a whole day?

OK, I am sure these and other questions have been discussed in numerous forums. Are there any good sensible resolutions?

G1

----------

G-Juan Wind

JL's picture

G1,

1) Hugh Ross makes it an instant 13.7 +/- years ago. reasons.org

2) I've been told that Dave Green of Preterist Cosmos used to advocate that Genesis 1 referred to a local creation. One of his "students" from that time has taken up a study of this to test it.

3) I don't understand the question.

4) Hugh Ross has a good explanation for this.

5) & 6) In Genesis 2, God formed "by hand" some of the things he spoke into existance in Genesis 1. So did God really just speak and it was there? Or was it a rhetorical device? Did God decide to do it, then did each thing "by hand?"

I don't believe anybody has a good resolution. Our views (everyone's views) are too contaminated by YECism.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Windpressor's picture

************

JL,

#3 is an allusion to the literary device of repetition. I have heard that in a number of places the Hebrew in scripture is often layered so that each succeeding verse or paragraph will repeat a theme and also add further detail. (sorry, I am laboring for correct terminology here)

In school we were taught to compose a paragraph or essay with intro, body, and conclusion. "In beginning ..." could be seen as simply a heading for the following details.

Consider my basic simple translation offered. How do we arrive at a conclusion that 1:1 is about ex nihlo creation? Why not just an intro heading to terra-forming the landscape. Audience relevance would very well have accepted divine creation of substance as a given without speculation or need for in depth inquiry.

G1

..............

G-Juan Wind

JL's picture

G1,

There are other people working on interpretations other than creation ex nihlo. It's an obvious consideration, but not one either Tim or I have investigated. Tim has stated a few problems with the idea that he currently feels can not be overcome. (See chapter 7 of his book.) I'm convinced that they are real concerns, but will reserve judgment.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Malachi's picture

The fatal flaw in Tim's attempt to impugn the historicity of the Genesis account of creation is that God created the earth and cosmos with apparent age . That is, God created the universe as a working, functioning system from its inception. Rivers already had channels carved to the sea; light, which takes millions of light-years to travel here, was created here already and did not require time to travel here at all. The same is true of rocks, soil, seas, and Adam: all were created with apparent age. Thus, science can extrapolate the age of rocks all it wants, but God created them "old" from the day they were made. Sedimentary rocks did not need long ages of heat and pressure to mold sediment to stone, igneous rocks did not need to be spewed from earth's core, and so forth. God made them instantly by speaking them into existence. Time was not required. So the whole dating system is flawed. Besides, as I understand it, the whole carbon-dating theory is sort of like firing a rifle at a target: a little error over short distances doesn't effect its overall accuracy, but over long distances a small measure will put you miles wide of the mark! Thus, when "science" claims that the earth is billions of years old its credibility is about "nil" because its inaccuracy grows more pronouced the further it attempts to penetrate the distant past.

Again, Tim is leading readers away from faith in the inerrancy of God's Word, motivated by attempts to reconcile the Bible to modern science. But modern "science" has shown that in the area of origins it has nothing to offer but the most extravagant theories (can an intelligent person really believe the universe resulted from a big bang, with no guiding intelligence behind it at all? - if that is the best "science" can do, why is Tim so instant that we abandon our Bibles in favor of science? That is the question I would like answered).

I feel the whole course of Tim's inquiry is destructive; his methology unsound, his hermeneutics unsupportable; his presuming upon the sciptures dangerous. I wish Tim would find a more profitable area to devote his talents.

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Mike,

The other problem is "where do you stop." How do we know that the universe is not merely 5 minutes old? Maybe God created us with the appearance that everything happened that we think happened in our lives. Maybe God created us with our memories of things that never took place.

The "appearance of age" argument resembles eastern gnosticism. All that we see is illusion. The more we know the "truth" the more we transcend the reality of the physical world.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

vento's picture

It light of this discussion, I found this to be very funny:

Adam was a super being when God created him. I don't know whether people realize this, but he was the first Superman that really ever lived. First of all, the Scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea - which means he used to fly. Of course, how can he have dominion over the birds and not be able to do what they do? The word 'dominion' in the Hebrew clearly declares that if you have dominion over a subject, that you do everything that subject does. In other words, that subject, if it does something you cannot do, you don't have dominion over it. I'll prove it further. Adam not only flew, he flew to space. He was - with one thought he would be on the moon."
-- Benny Hinn

Talk about literalism...Superman and Aquaman all in one!!

Scott

psychohmike's picture

Hey Malachi,

You said, "light, which takes millions of light-years to travel here, was created here already and did not require time to travel here at all."

1. If we see stars burn out that are more than 10,000 light years away then what actually are we seeing?

If your apparent age theory is correct then we are seing something happen that never actually happened. I'm not just talking about seeing the light, but the ceasing of it.

It's one thing to put something in place that is but it's a whole other thing to put something in place that never was. This is by definition deception.

2. Adam...Virgin birth...These things are a special creation. They by definition are not deception.

See Above #1 we can observe...#2 we cannot.

If this isn't clear enough...JL...Paige. Anyone feel free to help flesh out this concept...cause I'm not even sure I totally understand what I am trying to say.

And realistically...What purpose would it serve for God to make His creation appear to be 13+ Billion years old, if it is not?

And can anybody give me any good reason that God wouldn't make creation appear to be exactly as old as it is? Whatever age that might be.

Mike 8)

NB9M's picture

>> If your apparent age theory is correct then
>> we are seing something happen that never
>> actually happened.

This is an awesome statement. Never thought of that (even with 2 or 3 cups of coffee at hand.) Wow.

\

psychohmike's picture

Red Bull Brother...Red Bull

Mike 8)

JL's picture

Kurt,

You keep making false claims. First of all, there is no science in Tim's book. Science is irrelevant to Tim's argument.

Second, you keep appealing to science. And sadly, your science is downright false. For example, no one uses carbon dating to infer billions of years of age. Carbon dating goes to 100,000 years tops. As for your "rifle shot," out to 50,000 years, carbon dating has constant error, not steadily increasing error. And your notions about the big bang are both foolishly naive and evidence of your own malicious intent.

Third, if God created the earth with apparent age, then why is it wrong to attempt to measure that apparent age? God created a universe that by every measure appears to be 13.7 +/- billion years old. He created an earth that appears to be 4.5 +/- billion years old. Why is it wrong to try to measure what God created?

Fourth, please make up your mind. You argue apparent age, then you deny science's ability to measure that apparent age. This is a contradiction. Either the earth and universe appear young and measure young or they appear old and measure old. Why are you so double-minded?

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Malachi's picture

Hi JL,

First, although Tim may not "use" science in his presentation, it is clear that his whole motivation is prompted by modern science. Nobody speaks of the earth being billions of years old based upon the Genesis account; one must go out of the Bible to arrive at conclusions like that. Second, Tim has an agenda against "creation science" - his whole program pivots around it. Creation science versus modern science is a recurring theme in Tim's articles. Tim thinks modern science is reliable whereas creation science is not. Third, if science is irrelevant to Tim's program, how come this article features the history of Biblical/science conflict? Clearly, science is very much apart of what you and Tim are about and it is silly to try to deny it.

As to science's ability to measure apparent age, that is all they can do! The actual age can never be discovered by science. Science can look at a mountain and estimate the length of time required for it reach its height based upon how mountains are formed today, but as God instantly created mountains fully formed when he created the dry ground, their actual age cannot be discerned by empirical evidence - their actual age is revealed only by the Bible! So, while science may attempt to discover some thing's apparent age, its actual age is known only to God.

Another point that should be made for the record is that setting passages like Joshua asking the sun and moon to stand still against the Genesis creation account creates a false comparison. In Joshua's case, he merely spoke as any man would or does concerning the sun's apparent movement around the earth. Joshua did not intend to make a scientific statement about the movement of celestial bodies. Genesis is different. In Genesis, God is the speaker, having directly and verbally inspired Moses. To attempt to "figuratize" the language of Genesis based upon the figure of speech used by Joshua is bad hermeneutics. Genesis is intended to give an account of the origin and order of things, Joshua's statement was not. This is something Tim consistently does: he uses figures of speech in other parts of scripture to destroy the literalness of Genesis, but the intent of the author/speaker must control our interpretation, not Tim's whim or caprice! There is no hermeneutical basis to interpret Genesis figuratively based upon Joshua commanding the sun to stand still.

JL's picture

In other words Kurt, God created the mountains to look old. Then when we measure how old they look, God gets mad at us.

At least you now admit science does measure something meaningful. It measures God's carefully designed appearance of age.

Where outside of Genesis 1 is the phrase "evening and morning" used? Neither of them mean an ordinary day. Both mean a long period of time. Since every Scriptural example of "evening and morning" means a long period of time, on what basis do you deny it?

Why does generations, in Genesis 2:4, not mean generations?

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

JL,

Can you give me exactly again where your post on "evening and morning" was? What I remember of the post it was more of an assertion than going into the context, but I could be remembering wrong.

I have done word searches and I find no support for your view that outside of Genesis 1 the phrase means a long period of time. However, I will go back and look at all the times evening and morning are used in Scripture again. And then post a response.

Also I believe the context of Genesis 1 clearly shows the day of evening and morning to be an ordinary day. And even IF there are other places where the phrase evening and morning and the term day is used outside of Genesis 1 in another context does not necessary mean it does not mean an ordinary day in Genesis 1.

And I've dealt with Genesis 2:4 before in a previous post.

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

You've twisted my words around and already given yourself an out, so why should I bother? You obviously plan to not take this seriously.

JL

**********

From A Response to Kurt Simmons’ Rebuttal of Beyond Creation Science

http://planetpreterist.com/news-2828.html

We’ll take up that challenge. We’ll begin with the phrase “evening and morning” in the creation account. The form of the Hebrew phrase “ereb boqer” that translates “evening and morning” appears only twice outside of Genesis 1. Those two places are Psalm 55:17 and Daniel 8:26. In Psalm 55:17, David claims he prays “evening and morning”—hardly an example of 24 hours. In Daniel 8:26 the King James Version translates literally “the vision of evening and morning” whereas all modern translations make it plural “vision of the evenings and mornings.” The KJV shows the similarity to the Genesis phrase (proving another connection between Genesis and prophecy, contrary to Kurt’s prior claims) and the modern translations shows agreement that “evening and morning” does not necessarily mean an ordinary 24-hour day. It can and does refer to a longer period of time.

To this evidence we will add the conclusion of the initial creation account:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and heavens. Genesis 2:1-4 (KJV).

Notice that Scripture teaches creation took place over “generations.” We will talk about what that might mean in the context of the original audience and culture of Genesis in an upcoming article and in the new book. But for now, we mention that Christians agree that “generation” means “generation” across the Bible except two cases. The young-earth futurist denies this example and Matthew 24:34 (and related texts).

A preterist who denies “generation” means “generation” here, contradicts his defense of preterism from the New Testament. The fact that multiple generations are referenced in the creation account proves the universe is materially older than the sum of generations from Adam to us. The Scriptures are silent about how much older. To demand we follow Bishop Usser’s methods to date the universe down to the year and day is to speak where Scripture is silent.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

I was going to deal with every time evening and morning was used in Scripture but since JL only mentions two, I will just mention those.

Again, an poor hermeneutic is being used. First he is ignoring the context of the words used in Psalm 55 and in Daniel 8. He is going straight to trying to prove that the context in Genesis has no meaning but what he wants it to mean. And again Psalms is a different type of literature than in Genesis as well as Daniel being a different type of literature. Asserting that Genesis is not historical narrative and trying to used Milton Terry and others for support and then crying that one has to prove against all those assertions doesn't prove a point.

In Psalm 55, David states he will cry aloud three times, evening, morning and at noon. What does this have anything to do with God stating that He made things in an evening and morning, the third day? Extremely clear language denoting a normal day's time.

The context of Daniel 8 is a vision. How does this have anything to do with God telling us how long He took to create the heavens and everything in them?

Psalms 55 and Daniel 8 give no support at all for the false teaching that Genesis teaches anything other than an evening and morning, the first(second, third, etc) day being a normal ordinary day's time.

And since I keep getting accused of being in the Creationist camp or AIG, I went looking at their site and will quote from them.

Here is one place:
http://answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

Study Guide to Did God Create in 6 Literal Days?

Biblical uses of the word 'day':

* The Hebrew word for day (yom) is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1:
o Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day.
o The words 'evening' and 'morning' together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day.
o Yom + 'evening' or 'morning' (23 times each) always indicates an ordinary day.
o Yom + 'night' (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.
o Genesis 2:4--Yom is not qualified with a number or the phrases 'evening and/or morning,' and represents a period of time.
o Exodus 20:11--The basis for our week is the six days of creation and one day of rest.
o The Israelites walked around Jericho for seven days, not an indeter- minate number of days.
o Jonah was in the whale for three days, not three thousand years.
o 2 Peter 3:8--In context, this verse is showing God is outside of time, and is not attempting to define a 'day.'

The Bible only teaches that:
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.

Evening and morning being one normal ordinary day is clear simple unambiguous language in Genesis. Any teaching that denies this is false doctrine and needs to be opposed.

Glenn

valensname's picture

For those reading these posts, I encourage the reader explore what others also have said and go to

http://apologeticspress.com/pdfs/e-books_pdf/BibleAge.pdf

The Bible and the Age of the Earth
Pages 24 to 38

regarding time in Genesis 1.

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

The phrase "evening and morning" only occurs twice outside of Genesis 1. Neither time does it mean an "ordinary day."

Your analysis of Psalm 55 is pathetic. To take "evening and morning and noon" in the context of that passage, the way you have requires David to pray precisely 3 times and quit. Instead, any reader should see that David prayed every evening, every morning, and every noon for a long period of time. That is the meaning of the passage.

Your analysis of Daniel 8 is non-existent.

AiG's claim, which you obviously endorse, is false. (AiG's claim about Yom + ordinal number is equally false.)

And since you can't find any other occurences of "evening and morning," the clear meaning of those two examples as a long period of time (Scripture interprets Scripture) requires the phrase in Genesis 1 to likewise be a long period of time.

To do anything less is to deny the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture and use the dispensational plain-literal hermeneutic.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Malachi's picture

Hi JL,

The term "generation" (towledah) in Gen. 2:1-4 carries the meaning of descent, offspring, or family; the idea of a particular period of time is not suggested by the term. Thus, Moses is not saying that the creation took generations of time to bring into existence, but is saying that the preceding chapter and verses provide the pedigree of all that is; viz., their origin or descent. The same word occurs in Gen. 5:1 where it describes the descent ("generations") of Adam, meaning his offspring, and in Gen. 6:9 where it gives the descent of Noah. Your use of the term to show time is erroneous.
As to your "evening and morning" argument, we would assert that the passages you cite prove that literal 24 hour days are meant; there were to be 2,400 days before the sanctuary was cleansed from the defilement of Antiochus Epiphanes and David prayed each morning and evening at the established hours of daily prayer.
A theory can only be as sound as its hermeneutical methods and exegesis of passages. To my mind, your flawed hermeneutical methods are the best argument against the regional flood theory.

valensname's picture

If I may, I believe Adam was created on Day 6 as the Bible states. He was created a man, not an infant. His age on Day 6 was less than a day, on day 7 he was one day old, etc...But he was created a man. If we were to see Adam on the day he was created he would appear to be a young adult as we measure age today but he'd be only a day old. So the measure we use today would not apply. We know how old Adam was because God told us and how old he was from Day 6 till he died physically.

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

1) Where is Adam so we can test your hypothesis?

2) Do you believe Adam was created with scars? I've never seen a man with no scars. Have you?

3) Do you believe Adam was created with a memory of his non-existent childhood?

You've ignored #2 and #3 in the past. I'm still waiting for you to answer them.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

JL,

You are trying to split hairs to distract from the Biblical account. I believe Adam was created a fully formed man with what we would today view as apparent age but he was not but one day old on Day 7.

The Bible states Adam was created on Day 6 a walking talking man, but I believe you state he was fine tuned over millions of years? Or I forget you believe other people were created or made before Adam, which is totally unbiblical.

Glenn

JL's picture

No Glenn,

I am not splitting hairs. You made claims about appearance of age. Scripture does not claim creation was made with appearance of age. I'm not going to make your bald assertion that it is "totally unbiblical," but I will claim YOU have no Scriptural support. I can safely make this claim because you haven't answered 2) and 3) above. Because you keep repeating the appearance of age argument, I'm also becoming more confident that you are not bright enough to understand the issue.

I have consistently denied evolution. This is another one of your libels. You and Kurt are the only evolutionists here. You both require hyper-evolution after the flood for the creation of all those millions of species from a relatively few kinds.

As for your other speculation about what I believe, you haven't proven Fischer's scenario wrong or unbiblical. You haven't even tried. You just continue to make these bald claims about things you don't understand.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

valensname's picture

JL keeps making statements that apparently only he understands the Bible or such, "I'm also becoming more confident that you are not bright enough to understand the issue."

I guess God creating Adam as a man in one days time is not creating him with apparent age.

Fischer's model is completely unbiblical. Another group of people created or evolved apart from Adam is a theory from silence. It is not supported from the Bible. There is nothing to disprove.

JL has stated that the Earth was "fine tuned" over millions or billions of years. That is not creation, that is evolution in a different form.

It is is difficult to understand what JL and Tim believe since they continue to undermine the authority of Scripture. The false doctrine of a local flood, Genesis teaching a billion year old universe, and on and on down the line, to what is truth in the Bible? If Genesis doesn't teach that the flood covered the Earth or that God created the universe in six normal ordinary days time, then Bible can mean anything. Which in turn makes the NT mean anything as well.

Glenn

Glenn

JL's picture

Glenn,

Talk about debater's tactics.

You said, "The Bible states Adam was created on Day 6 a walking talking man, but I believe you state he was fine tuned over millions of years?"

When I denied it, you claimed, "JL has stated that the Earth was "fine tuned" over millions or billions of years. That is not creation, that is evolution in a different form."

Either you think those two claims are the same. In which case you clearly have demonstrated an inability to understand the issues. Or you are lying again.

So which are you? An idiot or a liar?

As for undermining the authority of Scripture, that is another lie.

The doctrine of a local flood has a long history in the Church. What creed teaches a global flood? Your claim that a local flood is a false doctrine is another lie.

Hugh Ross lists 21 major creation passages. You haven't bothered to even look at 19 of them. You haven't bothered to deal honestly with the two you've looked at. Scripture teaches an extremely old universe. For you to declare that a false doctrine is sheer willful ignorance at best.

And you haven't even bothered to work out a reasonable explanation for your own beliefs. All you have to support your view are lies, false accusations, and complaints that I'm not civil.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Paige's picture

I'd like to add a 4) Can you provide the scriptural documentation for this claim?

"If we were to see Adam on the day he was created he would appear to be a young adult as we measure age today but he'd be only a day old."

Why do you think he would be a young adult? Why not a middle-aged adult?

doughoist's picture

“Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:3-5, NKJV.

In this verse we find a narration of a day of creation. This passage defines a day as an evening and a morning. So on day one God created light, separated it from darkness and that was day one. The day and the events of that day are defined.

Later on, we see the same concept of an ending and a beginning, being called a day, as in the phrase "the day of the Lord." This being used not of a literal day but of the ending of one age and the beginning of another or the end of one kingdom and the beginning of another.

This however, was not the case in the story of creation. The day was defined. Are we, by our less than perfect rationalization to try and rectify an evening and a morning, day one, to actually be thousands or millions of evenings and mornings. And to do that just to justify our religion to science?

You look forward to " a day to come in a century or two (prayerfully, it may be much less time) when Creation Science opposition to belief that our universe is ancient will be viewed the same way we look back at those Christians who vehemently objected to heliocentrism"

I on the other hand look forward to the day when science so called so, is brought to the realization of the One who is. God defined the days of creation and science would do well to listen.

I do understand and believe that the language of the Bible can be used symbolically. But in this case, I do not believe it to be so nor do I believe that science in later years will be able to withstand its truth.

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