You are hereBlogs / Mick's blog / The Flood: Not Global, Barely Local, Mostly Theological, I

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

  • 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 Mick - Posted on 08 February 2010

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

read more here:
http://biologos.org/blog/the-flood-not-global-barely-local-mostly-theolo...

read part 2 here:
http://biologos.org/blog/the-flood-not-global-barely-local-mostly-theolo...

Part 3 here:
http://biologos.org/blog/the-flood-not-global-barely-local-mostly-theolo...

Rammingspeed's picture

The flood was only local? Deny Jesus' words in red and you are dead. Jesus is God, God is truth. ALL scripture is give by insperation from God. Does any of this sound familiar? If God said He sent a world wide flood He did, who are we to say that it did not happen. So many 'Christian' teachers are denying the Bible as truth, even so far as to say the virgin birth was not real. The devil wants to twist, corrupt Gods word and he does it through false human reason. yes science is a good thing and God has given us the brains to use it, but to deny the words of God based on science then we are on a slipery slope going down.
All Gods word is truth, old earth, young earth, big deal. Jesus is God, He is Real, He is judge. Stand with Him or stand against Him.

In Jesus Christ
Rammingspeed

JL's picture

If God said He sent a world wide flood He did

But did God say He sent a world-wide flood? Or have fallible men put their own fallible words into God's mouth?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Rammingspeed's picture

Hello JL
"Or have fallible men put their own fallible words into God's mouth?" With this line of thinking then the next line of thought becomes, What parts of the Bible do we ignore? Some say Romans, Here we are talking about ignoring the world wide flood and only taking it as local. Yes there is somethings that can not be taken literaly like God has wings, or Jesus is a four leged lamb. Then give unto Ceasor what is Ceasors,well Ceasor is dead. The Words are Gods Given to men and they put them into the words of the day. Is the Bible corrupt? Has it been changed from the word of God into something else? Slipery slope.

God is Good
Rammingspeed

Virgil's picture

I think Jeff's point was ultimately that we end up calling our interpretation of God's word, God's word. Interpretation of the Scripture is not Scripture - that's the sticky point in this whole mess we find outselves in. This alone should help us realize that we need grace and patience with each other, not bullets and firebombs thrown at each other's position.

JL's picture

Rammingspeed,

You said, "Deny Jesus' words in red." Now you claim Romans. My Bible doesn't have any red in Romans.

You ask, "What parts of the Bible do we ignore?" I try to ignore nothing. You appear to have ignored where Cain was driven from "the face of the earth." The flood destroyed "the face of the earth," the very place Cain was driven from. I haven't ignored that little fact. You have.

I've not said the Bible is corrupt. You made that accusation. That is your invention not mine.

So what can we conclude? You ignore parts of the Bible. Your understanding is clearly missing key points. Your understanding is fallible. Not at all unreasonable, as you are a fallible man, just as I am.

The difference is, I have not condemned you, "you are dead."

Please try to be a bit more Berean. Those who disagree with you might have honest disagreements because they have read things carefully that you have missed.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Ransom's picture

Science, logic, hermeneutics, a firm grasp of the languages in which it was written, and all other machinations of the human mind have the potential to explode interpretations of Scripture that steadfastly remain uninformed, dogmatic, and benighted by prejudice.

Sam's picture

Mick,

thanks for posting this. It clearly illustrates my concern. Right off the bat: "The empirical data of geology, glaciology, and archaeology, as interpreted by virtually all scientists qualified in these areas of study, clearly testify that no flood covered the entire globe or even the entire Near East at any time in the last 11,000 years."

Science precedes interpretation. Those objecting to me bringing this up need only to read Seely here, who is upfront, honest, and, thank God, clear. THAT'S scholarship. Although Seely does not seem to even "question" how these "scientists" (most them probably atheisitic and naturalists when it comes to epistemology - the ones I have read, anyway) arrived at the "empirical data". But, if one accepts that observations of nature gives us "truth" - then, very clearly, Genesis 1-11 CANNOT POSSIBLY be taken literally.

I recently finished reading David Snoke -A Biblical Case for an Old Earth- (Baker, 2006 - thanks Alan Bondar!). And he starts, right off the bat, just like Mr. Seely, by asserting his empiricism under the banner of "all truth is God's truth." What is behind this is the epistemological (read, philosophical) idea of Aquinas: nature and revelation gives us "Truth" with a capital "T". Snoke writes, "But when faced with an overwhelming preponderance of firm evidence, it becomes irrational to hold out" (186). Again, like Seely, the "preponderance of overwhelming evidence" comes, not from the Bible, but from science (see the context). But, Christians object here when I say that, according to science, the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is against a "Virgin Birth" which, if applied Ancient Near Eastern texts to Genesis, then we should apply first century Greek and Roman cultic texts surrounding "virgin births" of the Caesars or other like stories - in which the Virgin Birth (as John Dominic Crossan so admireably argues) is "apocalyptic" and "myth." It is meant to convey a "spiritual truth" - Jesus was "unique."

Some Preterists have gone down this line. If something like Genesis 1-11, which is plain in its style and narratival flow, must be complicated with the likes of "what means what" by deciphering hidden "covenantal" allegory - and it cannot be taken as history (Eve was not made from a rib of Adam - how stupid is that, biologically speaking - and snakes don't talk - I mean, let's be real, here, eh?), then maybe some other stories that are as EQUALLY FANTASTIC as Gen. 1-11 can be read merely as "apocalypse." The "red sea" didn't "split." An earthquake caused it. Water didn't come out of a rock (let's be real - rocks cannot produce water - science can prove this over and over again). The list goes on and on.

Sure, you may object. But you have no basis to object, once I accept that science grants "Truth." I recently purchased a book called, "Jesus was a Liberal" - and it is liberal Christianity that takes "seriously" the claims of science and reduces the Christian message to platitudes, spiritual aphorisms and moral maxims to live by - but don't dare take the Bible "literally." It's a fine line, Mick. A very, very fine line.

Mick's picture

Sam
May I propose an idea. To quote Van Til, “Christianity is the presupposition of intelligibility;” and Bahsen, “ the Bible is the precondition of intelligibility.” I propose that we approach the world around us this way, namely when the Bible speaks on a matter Truth is found; if the Bible is silent about a matter, then we are to use the tools God has provided for us to discern the Truth

What tools has He supplied to us? Namely that part of us that is in His nature, His inspired word contained in the Scriptures, and the signs in His created world that are predictable and observable (Genesis 1:14 and Romans 1:19-20).

What if the Truth is, as many of us have begun to suspect, that the Bible is silent on the questions, “How old is the Earth,” and “How old is the Universe?” Is an answer available? If the Bible is silent, I submit that God has created the Universe in such a way to reveal that answer. Just as God made the Sun and the Moon as clocks for tracing out time, there are other clocks He has made as well. How does this work in a real way. How do I know a day has gone by, God made a clock the Sun for me to know. How do I know a month has gone by, God made a clock, the moon. How do I know the Sun sat still for a day, the Bible tells me it did. Will I ever find other evidence to this fact that the Sun stood still? Maybe, maybe not. How do I know the parousia has happened? The Bible tells me when it would happen in the prophecies and Josephus corroborates this truth.

I now understand your concerns. If Christians turn to Science to find Truth then indeed the miracles could be denied. If Christians understand the Bible to be the precondition of intelligibility then we speak where the Bible speaks. Where the Bible is silent we: explore, conjecture and can legitimately go with the preponderance of the evidence as a current understanding, Knowing there will be other evidence to consider in the future because we are never all knowing. When left with two or more competing theories, we choose the best option at the time, because the Bible is silent on the matter. Does that make any sense at all?

On a separate thought. What if the dust that Adam came from and was to return to was the same dust in Isaiah 26.19? Would that change anything? I have proposed elsewhere that the breath of life Adam received was the same breath of life that was received in Revelation 11. Does any of that fit in to this discussion?

Mickey E. Denen

Sam's picture

Your wife is blessed to have such a reasonable man living with her. I am always in praise of your stature and the way you raise your children. Unlike me, its seems as if your education has not gone to your head. God is still working on me, brother.

Operationalism, the view of science that I take, sees science as "useful" - a useful tool. A necessary tool. In fact, we find it in Genesis 2: Adam categorically "naming" the animals - he was the first zoologist! God didn't tell him the names, either. He did that on his own. What he named them, we don't know - the fact that he named them (and we still name them based on genus and specie - thank Aristotle) is what matters. We all use inductive reasoning (verifiability) and we use falsification - we are all aware, as you noted, that we are not omniscient. We don't see the All - the Whole Thing - or, what Clayton called, a "God's eye point of view." However, we have to "see" and "think" and so we construct frameworks in order to fit the "data" - to arrange it. We manipulate the hard data ("facts") into a cohesive picture or model so that it "makes sense." It is here that science, so Operationalists tell us, moves outside its sphere - the data does not give us "frames" - rather, we come at the data with frames already supposed (presupposed). The postmodernists have recognized this. Thus, science, as Kuhn or Feyerabend would say, is always "never arriving". This is not to deny its usefulness or God given traits that allow us to take dominion (manipulate) the elements of the periodic table (which you probably know). Gamow discussed the history of the periodic table - interesting stuff - and quite theoretical. See, the "periodic table" is us "naming" certain "things" that we see based on the idea of individuation. It's quite tricky when you start questioning these things down to their axioms, their core, underlying assumptions. For example, we take "motion" for granted, as if we all knew what that means. The fact is, we don't. I just finished reading a book about Zeno's Paradox by a physicist who basically ends the work in skepticism: we still can't define motion without involving a paradox (seeming contradiction). There are still many paradoxes in heliocentric views of the universe, and massive paradoxes in asserting the idea that the universe is billions of years old. Now, you won't hear this on the Discovery Channel, or the National Geographic Channel (which I enjoy watching with my boys). But, you will hear it (read it, rather) in those scientists that are honest about their discipline. Some scientists have even come out and said, "science is useful fiction". This does not "demean" science in any way. It does limit it in terms of what it can "know" and how far it can "know."

Just as an aside, I am curious, in light of Preterism (and, if you missed them, my lectures on Romans 1) how you interpret Romans 1.19-ff.

Also, are you reading Van Til and Bahnsen? Might I recommend John Frame as well (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing)......

Blessings to you, Mick

Mick's picture

Sam,
Thank you for your kind words. I am humbled and misty eyed as I consider your words, knowing my failings.

I have read bits of and pieces of Van Til over the last 15 years or so. I have his complete works in my Logos library, so when I do a search in “all on my resources”, his writings come up and I often read what he has to say on a related subject.

Bahnsen is new to me. I first encountered him in a series of audio tapes I got at Vision Forum retreat. Then I got a book based upon a manuscript Bahnsen started before he died. Apparently the manuscript was lost behind a file cabinet and was never published; Gary Demar and his organization at American Vision got access to it and with the help of Joel McDurmon published “Presuppositional Apologetics” in 2008. Both the book and the audio tapes are available at American Vision. By the way Bahsen has some interesting things to say about Clark. I presume they were rivals for the title of “heir apparent” to Van Til.

I have not seen your work on Romans, but I do see a first century context to the point Paul is making in Romans 1. The judgment Paul is describing is the judgment God is about to make on the nation of Israel. Jesus uses similar words in John 15. What is the rationale for this judgment? In Romans 1, the judgment is rendered because “they did not see fit to acknowledge God” and “they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them;” John 15, “If I had not come and spoken to them.” These are principles I believe transcend time, culture and covenant, due to God’s unchanging nature. I submit Adam was guilty for exactly these same reasons; that is, God had spoken to Adam and Adam knew Eve deserved death but he approved of her actions and joined in her actions. I submit since these ideas are for all time, then the created world was not the world of Moses, but the created physical universe.

Romans 2:1-16 seems to indicate this judgment applies universally, “on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” It is clear that this judgment took place at the Parousia. Again, I would ask is there a principle which transcends time culture and covenant. Once again I return to the paradise of Eden and find Adam, “self-seeking,” “disobedient to truth” and “obedient to unrighteousness” receiving judgment at the first "Parousia" of God.

Maybe this is all a stretch, but this is where my mind is now.

Blessings to you and your family.

P.S.
I just discovered that Logos has the collective works of John Frame available. It includes the title you mentioned as well as others. I will put it on my wish list.

Mickey E. Denen

Mick's picture

Sam,
Here is a quote from Bahnsen in “Presuppositional Apologetics page 274” that affects my thinking. It may be hard to follow without the preceding 273 pages.

“It is obvious to most people, however, that no human (or even a computer) can attain to omniscience; failing this, man can have no assurance of meaningful knowledge, no system of truth. He seems to be caught on the horns of a dilemma; one horn is uninterpreted (uncategorized) particulars, and the other is rootles interpretive principles (i.e., divorced from factual and particular information). The choice is meaninglessness or sheer imagination. If the would-be autonomous thinker would work in the context of revelation, however, he could be in a position to recognize the objective integrity of historical particulars while being assured that they were all meaningful. The comprehensive system of God’s mind must precede temporal experience and pre-interpret all facts if they are going to be objectively meaningful. God’s revelation to man provides the contours within which man’s thinking about the world can take place and make sense. Working within the context of God’s revelation the human thinker can attain coherence in his interpretation of his experience and can make meaningful predictions. This he would do by striving to think God’s thoughts after Him (i.e., on the basis of revelation) on a creaturely level (thereby imaging what God thinks on the level of Creator), thoughts that constitute the plan according to which history proceeds and has meaning. Because man’s mind is created by God and is revelatory of Him, and because the world is created by God and is revealing Him and His plan, man’s mind and the facts of his experiences are suitable for each other—they can meaningfully come together. Man can build further meaningful knowledge upon the foundation of God’s revelation; alternatively put he reads general revelation through the spectacles of special revelation.”

As an example that I gave at the Covenant Creation Seminar, there is evidence of a genetic mutation in the human genome that causes resistance to HIV infection. What is interesting is this mutation exists in humans who have had no previous exposure to HIV. Up to this time “beneficial” mutations have been thought of as responses of the human genome to environmental stress, think sickle cell anemia or thalassemia as a response of the human genome to malaria. I propose that we have the thinking backwards. An omniscient God, desiring to preserve humanity from various environmental stresses over time either from the beginning or though manipulation of the genome by one or many preceding stressors brought about the mutation that confers resistance to HIV. So observation can reveal truth when interpreted though the “spectacles of special revelation.”

Ah the joys of delusion because of a finite mind.

Mickey E. Denen

Sam's picture

Mick,

You wrote, "So observation can reveal truth when interpreted though the “spectacles of special revelation.”"

Bingo.

Ransom's picture

The question then becomes, does special revelation need absolutely no spectacles? If it's not all entirely perspicuous, which parts are?

JL's picture

Ransom,

The problem is, "special revelation" is the Words on the Paper. It is not the thoughts in our heads. The standard problem of Fundamentalism, especially the Dispensational/YEC variety, is the inability to tell the difference.

We have Scripture. And we have our thoughts and interpretations of Scripture. They are not the same thing.

Do our thoughts conform to all Scripture? Have we looked at all Scripture testing it against our interpretation? Not likely. Do we pick and choose which Scripture to take "literally" and which to explain away? This is common practice. The people doing this practice have their reasons.

Science is no different. What happens in nature is the assumed truth. We measure something. It either conforms to our theories, that is thoughts and interpretations, or it doesn't. Do our thoughts and interpretations conform to all possible experiments? Not a chance. Have we looked at a wide enough variety of experiments? What constitutes a wide enough variety? Do we pick and choose which experiments to take "literally" and which to explain away? Again, this is common practice.

God has given us multiple sources of truth. For the most part, God has left it to ourselves to figure out how to deal with these sources of truth, how to use them, how to interpret them, and integrate them. What one thinks is transparent, another thinks is obscure. God has not told us which is which.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

davo's picture

JL: God has given us multiple sources of truth. For the most part, God has left it to ourselves to figure out how to deal with these sources of truth, how to use them, how to interpret them, and integrate them. What one thinks is transparent, another thinks is obscure. God has not told us which is which.

Well Jeff I don't see any "problem" in that… in fact it makes sense.

I also notice "truth" recorded in the Scriptures revealed to or through those not even in covenant – two that immediately that come to mind are the Magi and Paul's audience at Athens; these involved "sources" of sorts.

Sam's picture

Spoken like a true postmodernist, Jeff. I mean that in no offense. I mean it academically. At bottom, we can have no absolute truth that is not conditioned. The end result: skepticism. I can't settle for that. I really wish, as a favor to me, that you would, if you can find it, pick up volume one of Carl F.H. Henry's God, Revelation, and Authority. That book solved the problems you have raised above - and they are solvable. Just a suggestion.

JL's picture

Sam,

I had my share of postmodern college professors. My view is not postmodern.

There is a big difference between believing that the postmodern critique of modernism is correct, which even the thoroughly modernistic philosophers at nearby Biola readily admit, and believing postmodernism is also correct.

Modernism claims absolute truth exists and that we can know it. The fact that you and I read the same Olivet Discourse as the Dispys do and can not agree with them on what it says demonstrates that we can't know absolute truth with absolute certainty.

Postmodernism denies absolute truth. I don't see how anybody can do science while holding such a view. I can't see how anybody can come to any hard conclusions on any subject while holding such a view. My world view assumes absolute truth exists and that if I work hard and study carefully, my understanding will slowly converge to that truth.

Your own quotes from Ellis and Popper, and your use of their work, shows me that you do not understand the role of falsification. I've found that to be the primary problem in Fundamentalism. Basically a total trust in a certain interpretation of a passage and a denial that it can mean anything but that interpretation. And with it, a denial that it is impossible for that interpretation to be falsified.

You've seen it too, dealing with futurists. They will not, can not, question their own view. They will question your view until the cows come home, then deny you answered any of their questions.

I found Carl Henry's six volumes available, but not that one volume alone. That's a bit pricey. I am extremely skeptical that Henry has a solution. But at your recommendation, I will purchase the set and read Vol. 1.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Ransom's picture

Preaching to the choir, my friend. ;-)

JL's picture

Some Preterists have gone down this line. If something like Genesis 1-11, which is plain in its style and narratival flow, must be complicated with the likes of "what means what" by deciphering hidden "covenantal" allegory - and it cannot be taken as history (Eve was not made from a rib of Adam - how stupid is that, biologically speaking - and snakes don't talk - I mean, let's be real, here, eh?), then maybe some other stories that are as EQUALLY FANTASTIC as Gen. 1-11 can be read merely as "apocalypse." The "red sea" didn't "split." An earthquake caused it. Water didn't come out of a rock (let's be real - rocks cannot produce water - science can prove this over and over again). The list goes on and on.

In BCS, we made our case for a local Genesis flood from the text of Scripture. We did not make our case from science. For 8 years now, Frost has ignored Tim Martin's exegetical case from Scripture and continues to make the false claim that the case is from science.

Frost has for years made the false claim that we deny miracles. Frost again makes the false claim that we deny the historicity of Adam and Eve. Frost believes it is wrong to not take Genesis "literally." Frost denies physical death in Genesis 3. Just like the dispensationalists, Frost picks and chooses his own "literalness." Frost does not allow Scripture to interpret Scripture in Genesis. He reserves that only for new testament prophecy.

Frost's own example, "The 'red sea' didn't 'split.' An earthquake caused it." I don't know of any covenant creationist who actually claimed this. It is Frost's own imagination. But even if "an earthquake caused it," how does that deny that the Red Sea split? Or that God caused it?

Did Jesus destroy Jerusalem? Or did Titus? Jesus promised to destroy Jerusalem. Is it denial to claim Titus did it?

Seely reads the flood account in precisely the same manner as Frost does. Seely then says that Frost's version didn't happen and therefore, the flood didn't really happen.

Seely did find a flood that actually happened though. But Seely, like Frost, is blinded by his modern "literalism." The two of them have a quandry. Seely settles it by calling the flood account a myth. Frost settles it by denying physical reality.

Sadly for both of them, the flood Genesis describes is actually a lot like the one Seely discovered. Neither man will reconsider their interpretation of the flood account. They are both convinced that their interpretations are inerrant. Frost has made his interpretation equivalent to God's Word. Seely has demoted God's Word.

The liberals and the Fundamentalists share the same false standard of interpretation. One group says it didn't happen and then denies Scripture. The other denies physical reality. As preterists we reject that false standard in eschatology. That false standard fares no better in Genesis. We must reject that standard and use the standard Scripture sets for itself.

If you take Genesis "literally" as Frost, Seely, the liberalsm, and the Fundamentalists do, you are making your interpretation the standard, not Scripture.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Sam's picture

Jeff,

"Modern scientific research explodes literal interpretations of Revelation as surely as it explodes literal interpretations of creation" - Vaughn and Martin, page 327, Beyond Creation Science.

What this admission here tells us (taken from the cue given by Milton Terry) is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along, but what Vaughn does not want you to hear. Modern science---SCIENCE----explodes the idea of taking Genesis literally. Why? Why does it EXPLODE the idea that god created the heavens and the earth in six ordinary days? Note that Vaughn does not say, "the Bible explodes the idea of taking Genesis literally." He says it quite plain: MODERN SCIENCE does this.

Now, they can deny this all that they want to. But right there it is. It's in the book.

Now, I don't take Revelation "literally" in SOME places because of the type of language used (genre). This is purely a literary criticism. Genesis exhibits none of the traits of the genre "apocalypse." None. Zilch. This is why the great majority of the church and Judaism took it as straight forward narrative. I take it as fact that water came from a rock because the apocalyptic element is not there. This story occurs in as a narrative.

I don't know why, Jeff, you want to evade your own point, or why you are upset for me pointing it out. The thing I like about Seely is that he is upfront. Terry was, too. you quote Terry, and write the quote above (327). Yet, turn around here on this post and say, "I never said that!" You DID say it. You wrote it. It's in your book. Modern science explodes the idea of reading Genesis literally......at least own up to that.

JL's picture

Sam,

How does your game of "gotcha" justify your false accusations that we deny miracles?

You've made that accusation for years. You have never backed it up. Just false accusation after false accusation.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Sam's picture

Jeff,

Ya might want to provide a quote that comes from me to the effect that, "Jeff Vaughn and Tim Martin deny miracles." I'd like to see that. If you can't provide it, please, stop the misrepresentation. I never said you denied miracles in such a blanket way.....please provide the quote for all to read and put me in my place. Thanks.

JL's picture

Sam,

I have no interest going through your old podcasts to get an exact quote. It suffices for me that you have 1) said it several times in the past and 2) are still insinuating it in the post above.

Some Preterists have gone down this line. If something like Genesis 1-11, which is plain in its style and narratival flow, must be complicated with the likes of "what means what" by deciphering hidden "covenantal" allegory - and it cannot be taken as history (Eve was not made from a rib of Adam - how stupid is that, biologically speaking - and snakes don't talk - I mean, let's be real, here, eh?), then maybe some other stories that are as EQUALLY FANTASTIC as Gen. 1-11 can be read merely as "apocalypse." The "red sea" didn't "split." An earthquake caused it. Water didn't come out of a rock (let's be real - rocks cannot produce water - science can prove this over and over again). The list goes on and on.

You said that you don't want to play games of he said she said. You are still playing those games. Your claims were false then. They are false now.

As we wrote on page 70 of BCS

But before we move on we would like to emphasize to the reader that the arguments for a local flood that have been developed in these pages are solely biblical. We have not raised one scientific objection to a global flood. No one can legitimately claim that we have used scienceto interpret the Bible. We are interpreting the Bible in terms of itself in iorder to understand what the Bible means by what it says. We have shown that there is good reason to believe the Bible teaches a local flood.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Sam's picture

Jeff,

"Some" means "some" and I know of "some" who have gone down that path and come to reject the Bible. I did not say "Jeff" and "Tim" - nor can you find any quote, any podcast, where I said, "Jeff and Tim deny miracles." I think I know what I have said in the past about you two, and that ain't one of them. I mean, think about it Jeff, if I really believed you denied miracles, don't ya think I'd be all over that with a loud speaker?!! I mean, if you really believe that I said this about you, then that would mean that you have to think that I think that you deny the miracle of all miracles: the resurrection of Christ! Now, really, Jeff....do you really think I think that about your view? Let's be reasonable here. But, it is a face that "some" preterists have gone down the line of resting on science to establish "truth" - and have taken that all the way....You don't, of course. I am merely showing the POSSIBLE (and legitimate) consequences of the view that posits that observations leads to Truth (empiricism).

As for your quote, I have used that before, noting that you and Tim appeal to the Bible itself for a case of an "old earth" and also for the "local flood." You are not the first to do this. Nor are you the only ones doing this. Many theologians today argue along that line. And, that's FINE WITH ME. However, you did write page 372, too. Therefore, science is not something ENTIRELY outside of your motivations and scope.

Let me say it this way: I could take your veiw in BCS and argue for a local flood, say, and that still would not affect my epistimology or thoughts on the philosophy of science (Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend, P.W. Bridgman, et al). I could even take Norm's view of seeing Genesis as an apocalyptic prophecy of some sort that frames the old covenant of Moses in terms of a cosmogeny. That still would not affect my view of epistemology or of science.

The simple fact of the matter is that I don't "see" (well, I see what you are concluding and how you attempt to get there) your exegesis as "sound" in certain (not all) areas. That's really it. I don't see where the Bible teaches that Adam was merely a man picked out of already pre-existing nations. There are numerable theological reasons that must be addressed if such were the case.

It's like this, Jeff. When we both assert that the Parousia was in A.D. 70 - then the RAMIFICATIONS of that view affects others theological concerns. I know you agree with this, because what you and Tim (and Norm and others) are doing is showing how it may AFFECT the Genesis debate. I have shown how it affects the doctrine of sanctification, others have shown other things as well. If the Parousia was in A.D. 70, then certain things, theologically speaking, must be rearranged. Therefore, when you posit that Adam was not the first human being, or Norm posits that Adam was not made in God's image, there are numerous theological subjects that are affected as well - and these MUST BE dealt with so that your view CAN deal with these questions; because they are inevitably GOING TO BE RAISED.

You know, in the beginnning, even in the book, you thanked me (p.18). I don't want this to be a "I hate Jeff" "Jeff hates Sam" "Norm and Sam don't get along" thing. I don't take it personally, either. It's a theological thing with me. I want Preterism to be full, robust, sound and entirely able to erect an entire Weltenshaunng (wordview). I don't condemn your view as "heresy" or "not the gospel" (as my young earth view has been called by some in your camp). I just see major problems with it. I may change down the road. Who knows? I don't shut off anything anymore (well, Mormonism....I will never consider Mormonism - lol). Hopefully you are "hearing" me here.....

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