You are hereGo (Truly) Green - the Answers in Genesis Version

Go (Truly) Green - the Answers in Genesis Version

  • 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 Virgil - Posted on 26 April 2009

Answers in Genesis is attempting to refute (and miserably failing to do so) the "Earth Day" and the supposed arguments in support of protecting the environment and promoting awareness about environmental issues. One reason: "We were told to use the resources that we have been given and to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). However, we must also understand that the world now groans from the effects of sin (Romans 8:22). Only God can restore the earth, but the fallen nature and the promise of restoration are not excuses to ignore the very first task that God gave humanity in Genesis 2:15. Subduing—being a steward—means that no matter the state that creation is in, we are here to use the resources responsibly and to take care of God’s handiwork.3"Click here to read the entire article

MiddleKnowledge's picture

From the article:

"If we start with the Bible, we know how old the earth truly is, what happened in history (e.g., the global Flood, the one Ice Age), and what will happen in the future (Revelation 21–22)."

Interesting.

So.... the Bible is about the original formation of the universe and what will happen to the future of that universe God created and cursed at the fall.

Creation, Curse, Flood, and Fire all defined apart from any covenant context whatsoever.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

Virgil's picture

Using the Bible as a history book only is not working out very well. Very dangerous ground...

flannery0's picture

But they are right about one thing:

They absolutely insist that the nature of the beginning and the nature of the end must be the same. And I really cannot argue with them about this. It makes complete sense to me.

For I too, believe that Revelation 21,22 is about what happened to the creation that was cursed at the fall.

What I *cannot* get my brain around is the idea that YEC preterists hold to, which is that Revelation 21,22 is *not* about what happened to the creation that was cursed at the fall.

Sam's picture

This is where you guys miss it, in my opinion. They "must" be the same, they "can't" be different. This is forced.

Genesis 1.1 does not have to be the same as Revelation 21.1. If one is natural, and the other spiritual, then they are using the same language in different contexts.

I have already shown how Genesis 1.1 and Revelation 21.1 connection fails on the basis of II Peter 3. THE FUTURISTS MUST MAKE these out to be the same, and I faind the same error in BCS. They are NOT the same.

MiddleKnowledge's picture

"You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will grow old like a garment..." (Heb. 1:10-11 NKJ).

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Rev. Frost,

I have been wanting to ask you this question for a long time.

Do you believe that the first mention of the curse in Genesis is a "natural" curse in the same sense that you believe the first mention of creation is a "natural" creation?

Thanks!

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

mazuur's picture

Sam,

So the curse on the natural was physical in Genesis, but the removal is spiritual in Rev??? How can the natural get a "spiritual" healing?

Also, what's up with needing to login into your site now to read your blog?

-Rich

-Rich

Sam's picture

I addressed this in Omaha.

The "curses" (as well as the "blessing" of the seed in Gen. 3.15) form part of the Torah structure later to be fully disclosed under Moses.

With Adam, the breaking of the commandment issued "curses" - and a pronounced "blessing" if the commandment to bear children (multiply and be fruitful - a positive imperative) was followed.

We see the same pattern in Noah. Two sons are "cursed" and one is "blessed."

With Abram, same thing: "blessed are those....cursed are those..."

This finally comes to Dt. 28, the Blessings and Cursings of Israel.

What, then, we find in Genesis are not irrevocable "curses." The were punishments for breaking the commandment. They could be reversed. God has total control over nature. It is false to teach (as we would agree over and against AIG, Morris, Ham, Whitcomb, etc.) that nature is INTRINSICALLY cursed. Even in the story of Noah, God reverses the ground curses (Gen. 5.25).

It is wrong, over and against AIG, etc., that the entire "universe" is cursed. When did God curse the animals? The sun or moon? The stars? When were the trees cursed? The curse, if you pay attention to the text, has to do with MAN'S WORK, the original commandment and purpose for Adam was to WORK...now his WORK will be subjected to a curse, but, again, this is not an intrinsic aspect of EVERY man.

However, there is nothing here that says, in the other extreme, that all of this is covenantal language, etc. I see here two poles, two extremes - the crass literalism of AIG, and the crass spiritualism of BCS. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

Rich, you have my personal invitation to join SGP. Jason is merely "fooling around" with different tools on the site to see the effects of implementing them. Nothing more is to be read into it. It's a computer nerd playing around with his computer toys. He'll prolly take that restriction away after some time. Who knows...it's his site...he can do with it what he likes.

Sam

Barry's picture

Hey Sam,
Quote Sam:
"The curse, if you pay attention to the text, has to do with MAN'S WORK, the original commandment and purpose for Adam was to WORK...now his WORK will be subjected to a curse, but, again, this is not an intrinsic aspect of EVERY man."

This is correct IMO. The first creation was "natural" by the token that it produced an "independent human potential".

The second was spiritual because that "world" that consciousness passed away.

Israel mirrored creation itself as an expression of the independent human potential, thus "the flesh" and the confidence therein.

Thus in my view the purpose of Genesis chapter 1 is not to explain "as such" the physical creation, but to include such in the creation of the "natural" which embodied the independent human potential.
Genesis 1 is thus part of that which is of the "all things written" which were fulfilled.

This is also why Paul can move from universal creation to covenant issues and local microcosmos issues of Israel's sphere of influence all in one single context and chapter. Like Acts 17.

IMO it is impossible to dissect Acts 17 in a way that would try and make it as totally one thing or another. That being then totally covenant or totally universal creation.

"Paul's understanding of world"
http://infinite-grace.com/paulsdefofworld.htm

Blessings
Barry

we are all in this together

Sam's picture

Barry,

You wrote, "Thus in my view the purpose of Genesis chapter 1 is not to explain "as such" the physical creation, but to include such in the creation of the "natural" which embodied the independent human potential." That has great merit for exploration. To ignore the "natural" aspect of the "creature" later mirrored in Israel (and indeed, Israel mirrors all of us, we all fall short) captures the natural man's image: obtaining a rigteousness on his own merit. That is the natural man, the secular man, the man who does not know God.

Good stuff.

Sam

Barry's picture

Nice to touch base Sam.
We seem to have some similar thoughts here.

A few thoughts of my own Sam. Some you may agree with and some you may not. Some need some more refining :)

The "natural man's image" the "self defined self" (Adam) was covenentally captured in the "work" that which was "made with hands".
The Greeks (Acts 17) embodied the same issues with that which was formed of "man's device".

It is very much about "image".

John (the Baptist) told them to "repent" of the self sufficiency of this "image". And so "think not to say within yourselves..." as a matter of self defined self sufficiency.
It was this "self" that they were to "deny" and come follow Christ.

Such was the "natural" man.
In my view then, the story of "creation" was not for the express purpose of explaining a physical creation as we would try to look at things from our modern mindset, but rather it explains the creation of the natural "man" which needs a "physical" back drop to give the play its proper perspective.

A micro-cosmos so to speak is brought to full formation through Adam and then through Israel to bring forth a fulfilled revelation.

Where us Preterists seem to be having our debates is in the "either or" attempts to distinguish exact boundaries between Universal creation and covenant creation. There is of course but one Creator and one single "intent" behind creation. Which is IMO to love and to share.

Sometimes these boundaries are clear and sometimes they are merged together (as in Acts 17).
It's not as if new creation displaced physical matter. What it did displace is the "natural man" that stood in the precedence of types and figures and had only the back drop of the perceived natural order of things around him from which to derive his conclusions from. The "natural man" that stood in a "world" that did not contain a fulfilled revelation.
RE-Creation was about image.

This still needs some more work I think.
Blessings Barry.

we are all in this together

mazuur's picture

Barry,

are you coming to TruthVoice this year? Would like to sit down and discuss these thoughts.

-Rich

-Rich

Barry's picture

No Rich. However I am very open to discussing just about anything.
BTW I have digital phone service so I can call free in North America (from Canada).
I'd be happy to set up a good time to call if you don't mind that sort of thing. Not as good as in person but much better than just typed words.
In such a case just PM me or Email me.

I can be emailed from here:
http://infinite-grace.com/

Whatever and whenever, let me know.

Barry

we are all in this together

mazuur's picture

Barry,

bummer. I was really hoping we (You, Sam, Tim, JL, Virgil etc etc) could all, one night at the conference, sit around over a beer and really dive into a good conversation about Genesis 1 and how we all see it.

I may in the future take you up on your offer though.

-Rich

Barry's picture

Perhaps we can keep in mind a little conference get together on the net. Some of my talk-grace friends have been known to organize such a thing.
If you or any of the others are interested I'll bring up to those who have the know how.

Sorry, no beer for me. Prefer Rum. :)

Barry

we are all in this together

mazuur's picture

Sam,

I'm going to print this off and save it for TV where we can talk face to face about this. There is too much here to exchange using this medium. Plus, we need something good to talk about over a beer. :)

-Rich

-Rich

RiversOfEden4's picture

Good comments, Sam.

The problem with the whole Beyond Creation Science house of cards is that these people do not understand that the literal meaning (e.g. context of Genesis 1-3) of words used in a figure of speech always comes before the figurative expression that develops later (e.g. context of Revelation 21-22).

If the "heavens and earth" did not literally refer to a "skies and land" (i.e. the land of Israel) in Genesis 1-2, then they cannot figuratively represent the "covenant" later in the Bible. The figurative usage of "heavens and earth" would have no meaning without the original literal use of the terms for the particular "skies and land" where Adam and the generations before Israel actually lived (Genesis 5:1-3).

Likewise, we don't metaphorically refer to Jesus as the "lamb" of God or the "lion of Judah" without already understanding that there were literal "lambs" (meek) and "lions" (courage) that make the later figure of speech comprehensible. On the other hand, the silly Beyond Creation Science mentality would then suggest that every occurence of the words "lamb" and "lion" thoughout scripture would have to be a personal reference to Jesus since they were used as metaphors for Jesus at a later time.

The only reason the term "heavens and earth" became an idiomatic expression for Israel and the covenant is because the people of Israel LATER understood that they were elected (Genesis 12:1-3) by God to possess the Promised Land (Genesis 17:1-8) which corresponded to the literal geographic area (Genesis 15:18) where their ancestor, Adam, was literally formed by God (Genesis 2:6-7), and so the literal Land became the location of the jurisdication of the covenant.

Starlight's picture

Just as I predicted all those who depend upon literalizing the scriptures such as futurist would flock to that umbrella that Sam is espousing. Look at who joins in with Sam in protecting their wacked out ideas about scripture. We now have (no God past AD70 Rivers of Eden) and several universalist (not all) 2 MIll-Kurt Simmons, AD70 rapture Ed Stevens, and the futurist crowd all opposing CC and uniting together. I love it.

Let this observation soak in for a while as you ponder what their commonality is.

Norm

Paige's picture

Norm,

Correlation does not equal causation.

Paige

Starlight's picture

Paige,

Oh, I think we can draw some good correlations from the historic literalizing of scripture.

Norm

Barry's picture

I found this post quite offencive.
Perhaps I have misread it.
Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry

I’m sorry.

Yes, my language was over the edge but my point was not.

My observation is that historically almost all problems that arise from scripture can be derived from reading literally what was intended to infer something different than what that literalness would suggest.

Starting with the dispensationalist and their understanding of the literal land and the futurist with their reading of the end of the world we have ongoing misapplications. This is no great secret out there in the Preterist community. What happens is we Preterist tend to read in the Preterist hermeneutic until it challenges one of our pet world view perceptions that we simply aren’t ready to part with. Then we work the scriptures back into a literal rendering and proof test the scriptures to fit our supposition. Some applications are more benign to the biblical message than others. Case in point is RofE and his application to post AD70 contrasted to Ed Stevens’s dubious but possibly less problematic AD70 rapture idea.

Actually I find myself falling back into this simplistic literal tendency occasionally and when I step back and look at it from the original Hebrew mindset then I can see how I’m reading my own modern concepts into the story. My point is that if we really want to understand the scriptures from beginning to end then we need to be aware of this propensity to read scripture out of its Hebrew context. It’s a discipline that we all have to fight against because of the extensive Hebrew knowledge that it requires to be aware of it. If we don’t recognize it and watch out for it our tendency will to be to fall right back in.

Norm

mazuur's picture

Norm,

well stated. I catch myself doing that all the time as well. It is hard to stop. We have been raised all our life to think a certain way. We have also from day one of being a Christian taught to read the Scriptures in the same light.

I do see the Christendom waking up from this though. It seems like everyday somebody is pointing out a how a certain passage from Jesus and/or Paul is dealing with Israel, and can't be applied universally.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

I’m not as optimistic as I once was. The reason is that I have observed in these many forums that there is still such a wide diversity of thinking on these subjects. And this is from folks who are generally much further along in understanding these issues than the average pew sitter and still we are just making slow progress. The deeper we go the more knowledge one needs and the further we leave others behind and therefore become somewhat irrelevant ourselves to a degree.

Being a realist I tend to think this is going to take an exceedingly long time and will continue to be a jumbled mess out there for the long term foreseeable future. I think our goals should be to help educate the biblical knowledgeable and help present these issues to those who may gradually take on some of these positions slowly. Issues that may speed up the process we simply have to leave to Gods providence and timing.

Christendom has found that historically that they must simplify or dumb down and emotionalize the message before the masses will hear it. That is why movements like dipensationalism took hold so quickly and is why you won’t see ministers preach a series of lessons from the full Preterist viewpoint anytime soon. In order to do so you will have to simplify Preterism into 20 min sermons and put forth some sort of emotional appeal that can replace the current emotional one of looking for a new physical body, living in a jeweled mansion and no more lions and tigers with teeth. ;-)

Norm

Barry's picture

Hey Rich,

Quote:
It seems like everyday somebody is pointing out a how a certain passage from Jesus and/or Paul is dealing with Israel, and can't be applied universally.

-Rich
end quote.

Israel mirrored the world at large. The form of that world was changed is totality.

Excerpt from a possible book I'm writing:
Quote:
The world:
The "world" in question that did pass away, is not the world as westerners of today think of it. It was the "world" that was attached to and upheld a given consciousness. A consciousness of how people thought things were. That world was supported by types and figures of things that were yet to come.

Here is a bit of an example of how that worked:
NIV
Act 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.

NIV
Act 17:29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man's design and skill.

The temple had precedence in that "world" as a type and figure, headed up in general terms all that was made of an independent human potential.
So we could speak of that "world" in spesific terms which were headed up in Israel or in general terms for what Israel mirrored on a much larger scale.

There was an "old world" an "old economy". The "law" came in to head up that world.
This economy was structured around an independent human potential. The following text is an example of an independent human potential set over-against God's possibility.
NIV
Mat 3:9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Mat 3:10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

A sort of separation then from God and man. Man's independent sufficiency is set against that of the Creator's. In simple terms Man is taking a ride on an ego trip.

God allowed man (Adam) to choose this by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This being much like a father allowing a child to do something that is in some ways none beneficial for them so that they can learn a much needed lesson. If such a lesson is not learned even worse consequences would follow.

Better then to take an inevitable course of development and control it for the best possible outcome. And such was the purpose of "covenant".

The structure of this "independent human potential" stood in types and figures. Man would live in the framework of his own capacity, and sufficiency as a matter of his own identity. As we can see this was indeed the appeal of the knowledge of good and evil.

NIV
Gen 3:5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

The knowledge of good and evil relates strongly then on how man would interpret his natural surroundings from his own perspectives and then form conclusions about such things in relation to his or her own identity.

What was not available to Adam and Eve prior to eating or consuming of this "knowledge" or "wisdom" is an independent means of determining who they were for themselves.

It is not as if they were so immature that they were incapable of doing the work that God had given them or incapable of determining what was productive or inappropriate to their work and their relationship together. We have every indication that they were fully sentient beings. What they were not doing is independently trying to see who they were for themselves apart from God.

Anyway, this is not to say that they were totally on their own now. And God did not totally abandon everyone to such an economy, but sufficiently enough however, to create a historical revelation of the whole matter. He always remained the loving Father through it all. But he allowed this wisdom to have a precedence in the absence of a fulfilled revelation.

1Cr 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Cr 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

So the old world was a world bound to human sufficiency and all the inequality that such a sufficiency implies. Everyone then is jockeying for superior position. People then are looking to things like genealogies, ethnicity, sectarianism, tribal thinking, wealth, gender and so on and so on, as if any of those type things can make anyone inherently better or worse than anyone else. The opposite if you wish, to something like "We are all in this together".

Those who got a glimpse of better things through God's possibility and so had "faith" apart from this independent human sufficiency were "vindicated" at the end of that world when the types and figures such as the temple and the holy city were taken away as [types and figures]. For God does not dwell in temples made with hands.
End quote.
Barry

we are all in this together

Barry's picture

Norm,
Since you feel so free about being candid, allow me to do likewise.

There is nothing new here, just the same old stuff. Oh for sure an improvement over the utter nonsense that's been out there for so long. But nothing of your "conclusions" on the whole that seems to fundamentally change anything as viewed from my perspective.

The thrust of the scriptures is actually how man was allowed to gain a precedence toward an independent self formed identity through an independent human potential. They gained a perceived self sufficiency in the precedence of types and figures. This mirrored a universal issue concerning the development of humanity.
It is all about the (old man's) ego.

Once one grasps this basic notion they open themselves up to an understanding of how we are in reality all in this together.
All of this jocking for position though the acquiring of knowledge that I see throughout Christendom is superfluous and is itself anti-productive to the meaning of fulfillment.

The bible was never, ever, about getting to heaven or who would get there and who would not. It was about bringing the spirit of heaven here.
It is about how that spirit as vindicated in the faithful would forever change things.

Until and unless we can come to the meaning of how the law STOOD on two commandments and how those two commandments were as the law was, fulfilled, then the rest is pretty much just a bunch of more learning of more "facts".

Unity is not made, it is realized.

And that is the beauty of my doctrinal understanding. No matter how much I learn and grow it just reveals to me how much like everyone else I am. And how much they are like me. We are all one and interconnected weather we realize the fact or not.
This is the fulfillment of the two greatest commandments of the law. This is why the second is like the first.

Norm, we all struggle with the VERY SAME THINGS. If one were to think for just one moment they would see that there can be only ONE answer to this universal problem of sectarianism. Divine Unity.

God made a new world.
Your answer is that "God did not make a new physical world". My answer is "yes he did".
But it was not about how physical things themselves would change for themselves, it was about how man's very world would change because nothing would look the same.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can begin to get over ourselves and really start making things happen in an on the ground sort of way.
My failing of recent is one of impatience I think.
I have much to lay at the feet of my Lord today.

Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

There is much you have said that I can agree with. We tend to forget that in these forum discussions we pick arguments that make us look one dimensional. We all tend to pigeon hole each other to a degree.

What I’m concerned with though is the cultural undermining of bedrock biblical principles such as the fundamental belief in the one true God and that individual relationship which is called for to benefit any man. This appears to me as the main tenet of scripture but its ramifications are many fold some of which you have touched upon.

Barry, I’m sorry to have caused you any distress because I have generally considered our relationship good even with our differences. Yes sometimes I get impatient and arrogant and for that I again apologize as I’m sure it is frustrating to you as well as others.

You are indeed correct though that knowledge is not the end all be all of the message, but a certain lack of it does have ramifications in lives. I think what I’m about is trying to iron out those unhealthy understandings that poison our culture and relationships. Undoubtedly you have much good that you are striving to influence as well and your wisdom may indeed be well above my level.

Again I apologize for causing you to be upset as that is my failure alone and I know better.

Norm

Barry's picture

Hey Norm,
Quote:
There is much you have said that I can agree with. We tend to forget that in these forum discussions we pick arguments that make us look one dimensional. We all tend to pigeon hole each other to a degree.
End quote.

Absolutely. A very good point IMO.

Quote:
What I’m concerned with though is the cultural undermining of bedrock biblical principles such as the fundamental belief in the one true God and that individual relationship which is called for to benefit any man. This appears to me as the main tenet of scripture but its ramifications are many fold some of which you have touched upon.
End quote.

There is nothing in that statement that I would disagree with.

IMO the key is culture. I've lived in a heck of a lot of places and IMO one of the major keys is culture (and micro cultures within cultures).

People are very often looking at "issues" when "culture" is far more a factor. One could bring up gun control for example and make observations about safety and rights. But whether guns are easy or hard to get and own are the issues not the culture. One culture could be loaded with guns and have little violence and another could be loaded with guns and have much violence or vice versa.
What's the difference? Culture. The issues and the arguments on both sides often prove very little. Violence is very much a cultural aspect.

In Guadeloupe people will argue face to face like they were about to kill each other and yet culturally words and contact take on very different aspects. In North America you would see less of this sort of verbal confrontation because it leads to contact. What is the difference? Culture.

Culture is a way of seeing things. The key is to get more loving kindness into the culture. More interconnectedness into the culture. More hope and purpose. More spirituality.
The task seems impossible. But much of this stuff is highly addictive. The problem is that the "church" of present day has taken a beautiful addictive drug and framed it in ego and condemnation. The end result is not applied Unity but sectarianism all over again. But when we start to get things right watch out!

My brother moved from New Hampshire to countryside west Texas. Now that's a culture shock! What he left was at least a small cultural sense of aloofness to a culture where people (neighbors) are actively helping people and everyone is reaping the benefits.

Spirituality is very much a cultural thing. This is a major problem in my neck of the woods. While there are "churches" around the culture is very spiritually lacking.

This is how I see spirituality and not in any special order: [and none of this is directed to you or any one person]

1) An understanding that the person you see in the mirror is not really you.

That is one's perceived self. That image has been formed through experiences and interactions. How one sees themselves is never them. Only God sees the person that is actually there.

2) Ownership and stewardship.
We are stewards not owners. When one owns nothing is when they posses all things. It all Daddy's and we are his.

3) We do not own ourselves for ourselves for such was bought with a price.
We cannot ego-ly define ourselves or own ourselves for ourselves. This is similar to number one. This was the attribute of the "old man" that had precedence in types and figures, in the absence of a fulfilled revelation.

4)Thanksgiving without ceasing.

Thanksgiving is appreciation and an acknowledgment of one's own independent insufficiency.

Thanksgiving and purpose touch each other directly.
We are linear beings. We are a functioning product of history. We are a functioning product of the printing press and the Internet. We are a functioning product of the fulfillment of all things written. We are a functioning product of rights that have been secured in previous generation.
Thanksgiving remembers the past and embraces the future as one who is ready to live for God and Life in the present.

Well what about the other side of the coin, what about Hitler?
As pertains to these matters of Love God and Love your neighbor, his worm will never die and in his final demise the smoke of his torments rises forever and ever. No matter how much he is forgiven he cannot get out of history.

5) Laying everything at the feet of the Lord. This is similar to number 2 and 3.
Got a talent, lay it at his feet.
Got a gift, lay it at his feet.

No, not talking about killing one's self in "service", as if there is something to prove about one's self or one's faithfulness, but rather not trying to own it ego-ly.

Got a problem, lay it at his feet.
Got a sickness, lay it at his feet.

Our job is the function not to own. We shall not and do not live by bread alone.

Got a relationship problem, lay it at his feet.
Got an addiction, lay it at his feet.
WE WORK TOO HARD ON OURSELVES INSTEAD OF HANDING OVER to God out of the ownership of our EGO.
And never try to get ride of the ego. It never works. It's only the ego trying to get rid of itself. Man shall not live by bread alone, but bread we must have as long as we are here.
We just don't have the final say so on who we are.

IMO I believe that all of the above can be proven scriptural in the fulfillment and the extrapolation of, all things which are written.

I know that I rambled A LOT, I'm sorry. I'm sorry for my impatience. I was in a bad mood yesterday.
Blessings to you
Barry

we are all in this together

mazuur's picture

"Likewise, we don't metaphorically refer to Jesus as the "lamb" of God or the "lion of Judah" without already understanding that there were literal "lambs" (meek) and "lions" (courage) that make the later figure of speech comprehensible."

Read Davo's approach here: http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&sid=5616&...

Now, under Davo's system, isn't there a physical world already in existence prior to Adam's "Heaven and Earth" being created? Problem solved with the physical needing to exist prior to any covenant language being employed.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

I find this article funny. When are people going to wake up and realize that the "creation" in Romans 8 is Israel? It was Israel that was subjected to frustration by being placed under the law. Thus, their hope was in their Messiah who would liberate them from the bondage of the Law. Of course much much more could be stated.

Something I've always wanted to ask people like AIG is, since you've already accounted for everything that has been created by verse 21 ("creation" by definition is everything since only God is uncreated), what is added to the "creation" to require Paul to address the "whole" creation (which is the inclusion of the Gentiles)?

-Rich

-Rich

Virgil's picture

Rich, that's a very good observation!

mazuur's picture

Virgil,

While I would like to take the credit, it is all Max King's observation. In fact, if you wish to read a complete presentation on this see King's book CP on pages 519-527. Brilliant stuff!

-Rich

-Rich

Sam's picture

Rich,

I would agree, to some extent, that Israel is indeed in mind in Rom 8. However, as King taught, Israel is but a mirror of Adam and the original fall from the commandment of God. King does not limit "the creature" in Rom 8 to Israel, but is able to extend back to Adam THROUGH the analogy of Israel.

Thus, Paul's argument is that "through the one man" not only are the Gentiles in darkness, but indeed, all that have come from Adam (all mankind). Since not "all" are under the Torah of Moses (Gentiles), then it by "all" being in Adam that "all" are condemned. Likewise, if the universal condemnation of "all" (Jew and Gentiles) is by "one man Adam", then the justification of "all" (Jews and Gentiles) will come through one man, Jesus. Paul's entire argument (and King's) is built on the solidarity of Adam with every man, because every man is born "in Adam." BCS, again, destroys this relationship and Paul's fundamental argument (and, also, the corporate, or federal headship of Adam which originally attracted me to King in the first place).

Sam

mazuur's picture

Sam,

I disagree. While I agree with you about both Jew and Gentile being in darkness stemming from Adam (Romans 5:12-21, which is what your entire second paragraph is referring to), I disagree that Paul's (and King's) "creation" in Romans 8 is Jew and Gentile; the "whole creation" yes, but not the creature in verses 18-21. Paul (and King) does reach back to Adam by stating that the "whole creation" (22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now") groaned to be set free, but Paul's main focus (in Romans 8) is the redemption of Israel. By redeeming Israel, God was also redeeming the Gentile. "For if their (Israel's) rejection is the reconciliation of the world (Gentile), what will their (Israel's) acceptance be but life (for the Gentile) from the dead (Israel)? " (Romans 11:15)

There are many points (King presents 7) that King brings out to identify who the "creature" is, but one of his greatest thoughts is his tying together Paul's "baptism for the dead" and the representative or vicarious redemption of the "Sons of God" (first-fruits) on behalf of the "creation" (Israel) is brilliant!

See King in CP on pages 519-527, (if you wish to see the connection with the "baptism for the dead" start on page 513).

I am looking forward to seeing you at TruthVoice.

-Rich

-Rich

Sam's picture

I think we are probably saying the same thing (or at least what I wanted to say). "the creature" and "the whole creation" (both with the article in Greek) are connected in their "creaturly-ness", and thus, we both see Paul reaching back, so to speak, to Adam (as I am sure you would agree that Chapter 8 begins in 5.12...8 is the grand finale...MORE than conquerors!).

I am looking forward to seeing you again..at least this time I will recognize you!!!! lol

Sam

MichaelB's picture

Tim Martin: before the latest Beyond Creation Science book admits that the Covenant Creation view does not have to be taken in all instances. So now why do they insist that Genesis has to be "Covenantal" what has changed (other than they wrote a book)?

"While the theory does have a logical consistency to it there are some real textual challenges with rendering the creation account as the creation of Israel. First of all, even preterists recognize that not every use of the phrase "heavens and earth" in Scripture must be covenantally based. A good example where a covenantal reading would be exceedingly difficult to maintain is Paul’s gospel presentation to the Gentiles at Lystra: Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. Acts 14:15. It seems clear in that passage that Paul is referencing God’s physical creation of the "heavens and earth and sea and everything in them" as an apologetic for the truth of the gospel. The Gentiles, who were strangers to the covenant, could never have heard Paul in a Hebraic covenant context. The subject at least includes the cosmological creation."

So let's look at that event.

Acts 14 (Martin admits can not be Covenantal) - to Gentile worshippers of Zeus

11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 15"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. 16In the past, he let all nations go their own way.

But the same thing is going on in Acts 17 (to Gentiles). He is talking to Gentiles and telling them that all men came from ONE MAN (including the Gentiles he is speaking with).

Acts 17 (Same thing going on as in Acts 14) - to Gentiles

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

Therefore:

The Covenantal Creation view can not be true. Paul is referring to EVERY man coming from one man (Adam) and in context is directed to unbelieving Gentiles. The BIBLE refutes the Covenantal Creation view because Covenantal Creation requires that there were many men before / not in Adam. It also proves that Acts 14 and Acts 17 (which Tim admits can not be about covenantal creation) is referencing "one man" i.e. Adam and Genesis 1 and is therefore about physical creation not covenantal creation.

Or to put it another way. There is NO reason to insist that Genesis 1 is covenantal when the above example makes it impossible and below we see the exact same language being used about PHYSICAL creation in Deuteronomy and Acts 14 as examples. Even in the quote above Martin admitted that not every time is it covenantal.

Acts 14 (Martin admits can not be Covenantal) - to Gentile worshippers of Zeus

15"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. 16In the past, he let all nations go their own way.

Deuteronomy 4 (In regards to all nations just like above)

15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

Genesis 1 (combines the exact same language in Acts 14 and Deuteronomy 4 - which were about all nations)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

mazuur's picture

Michael,

Oh brother, is your whole existence defined by trying to debunk other people's view? It seems to me you have such a personal motive to just attack attack attack. I'm starting to wonder if Roderick is your brother.

Rich

-Rich

MichaelB's picture

Mazuur writes:
"I'm starting to wonder if Roderick is your brother"

I am "Roderick's brother" and that is not a "personal attack" at all right? Geesh. But then you chastise me for disagreeing with what...a view (with no personal attack against them whatsoever). We are not allowed to disagree anymore?

Mazuur - listen - if the view was correct I would accept it no problem - but the view has more holes than swiss cheese -IMO. Personally - I really like Tim and JL. I consider JL a friend form our SD studies he would come to from time to time - so please don't gimme that stuff. If you have ever been to our site I have always said I consider them brothers but disagree on this or that. No personal attack at all.

The fact is Tims own word contradict his own view. Maybe the answer is Mitochandrial Adam and Eve as somoene here ones espoused. Ya...that is what the bible is about. MB

Barry's picture

A small interjection if I may:

Quote Rich:
"I'm starting to wonder if Roderick is your brother"
End quote.

Quote MB
"I am "Roderick's brother" and that is not a "personal attack" at all right? Geesh."

Semantics IMO. Not the point of Rich (IMHO).
Rich is using a figure of speech (IMHO) as in "you must be related" as per the aggressive nature of your approach. Personally speaking I can relate to his point.

Your answer relates to another point entirely which Rich, I presume, would also relate too at least in general terms. It is thus a little misrepresentation of you to frame this the way you have.
For surely Rich is not saying that those of faith in Christ Jesus are not his brothers!

Now this is something that all of us need to keep in mind, but IMHO it was not an unwarranted remark on Rich's behalf.
For an unnecessary "polarizing" of the subject matter may not prove to be productive.
None of us need to be 100% right.
This we should IMHO get over.

However, since I got a bonafide handle on it all.....
LOL ROFL..

Blessings Barry

we are all in this together

Sam's picture

Rich,

It's comment like that that start junk. You and I have been quite civil, and I basically came on here first commenting on how wrong it was to put Rev. 21.1 with Gen. 1.1. No problems. No one got mad. But, then, Mike comes on here, and basically elaborates what he thinks is a problem, and the only response is to mention Frankenstein? Why can't you just say, "Hey, Mike, I disagree, brother, and here's why...." Why can't we just REMAIN civil as we have been so far.

SAm

JL's picture

Michael,

You are most welcome to join Tim and I at the Covenant Creation Conference. One of the key texts for my talk, Diplomatic Immunity and Covenant Creation, will be Acts 17. It will be a dramatic expansion of the comments I've made on that passage on Planet Preterist over the years.

We expect to see The Rev. Samuel Frost and Jason in Ohio. I sincerely hope they also make our conference.

If you can't make it or if you'd like to listen again, we plan to make CDs available after the conference.

Hope to see you there.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Sam's picture

Jeff,

Now THAT'S the way to respond! Well done, brother!

Sam

Virgil's picture

You guys are both way too emergent for me!! I want to see both of you hugging in a couple of weeks! :)

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Welcome back to Planet Preterist. I’ve missed our lively interfacing with you. :)
I also used to read your blogging over on the SGP site but now that it’s blocked I can’t follow your discussions anymore.

But here we go.

Using the logic that you are presenting then it seems that we can’t be for sure of any covenantal usage of Heaven and Earth can we.

Since you don’t believe that we can for sure know whether Act 14 & 17 are used with covenant implications then that proves Genesis is not used in a covenant context as well. Am I following you correctly? So if we carried your thinking to its logical conclusion then we can’t really determine if any OT or NT application of H & E refers to the covenant story of the bible. Maybe even Rev 21:1 is not covenantal but physical like the futurist believe and we Preterist have just been confused all this time perhaps.

I would be curious how you have determined conclusively that Genesis chapter one is not covenantal but absolutely physical. Was it because the language was being spoken to Greeks like it is in Acts?

Also you’re quoting of Acts 17:26 of “one man” does not appear as precise for the context you may be attempting to derive. There seems to be a contextual difference between “ONE BLOOD” and “one man” and the conclusions you can draw from that inference. You may possibly be simply imposing your own preconceived conjecture upon Paul’s language to infer Adam as his meaning.

Act 17:26 KJVA And hath made of ONE BLOOD all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Again good to have you here again.

Blessings

Norm

MichaelB's picture

JL - thanks bro - not sure about the conference - but will try to pick up the audios. BTW - we are talking about getting the study going again. I assume it is different then the Planet P conference. Sounds cool.

Norm - hey bro - thanks for your thoughts. I don't take Heaven and earth as covenantal - I personally think it is used broader in the bible than just covenants. I have blogged on it in the past and provided many quotes that support that idea. We can chat more on a personal level if you like. I think you have my email still. Thanks for the stuff you sent me in the passed. enjoyed and shared that stuff you sent me on "the body" etc.

Virgil - can I get a hug =) HAHA - that was funny bro. Hope you guys have a great time at the conference.

Hey I may be getting hitched soon. She even knows I am a Preterist and Calvinistic. Miracles do still happen - LOL =) Maybe when I settle down and get all domesticated - I will be even nicer than my usual charming self? HAHA.

I do care about you all - hope you are all doing well. Things have been crazy here from a thumb injury - to deciding to get hitched - to a brother that had to move to Jersey - and the company I work for got bought. Lots of changes and stuff to deal with. I may not write alot anymore here - but I do follow along when I have time. We are busy at our site too.

Peace bros - MB

Starlight's picture

Michael,

First off congratulations on your pending marriage. Yes, we should see a new Michael after the knot is tied as that is the woman’s specialty. ;-)

Blessings

Norm

JL's picture

Congrats Michael.

Don't mind Norm. There's a saying about marriage. "The woman marries, hoping the man will change. He doesn't. The man marries, hoping the woman will never change. She does."

Ten years from now, I hope to run into half a dozen home-schooled Bennetts when we visit the zoo.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

davo's picture

G'day Mike… I'm not an apologist for Tim and Jeff's specific CC model, however, I do lean in their direction though maybe not in such strict "either/or" terms but more akin to Barry's "both/and" approach. Just as I see a real and tangible local flood thus I see a real and tangible local creation, and both underpinned with a covenantal reality. So, my view would be "old earth by special creation" – but I don't buy the dismissive argument sometimes espoused, that as such, anything "literal" with regards to Gen1 must be somehow "scientific" and thus invalidated. My present view could be explained something like this:I see the metaphoric understanding of CC as the "deeper" or greater story behind the very literal happenings as recorded, and these seen wholly and solely in terms of Israel. As I see it… the "heaven and earth" of Gen 1:1 could be both a stand alone global statement relative to the physical universe and yet encompassing or pointing towards the creation of Israel specific. THEN… Gen 1:2ff simply being descriptive in somewhat vivid terms of the creation of the Promised Land [Eden] wherein the promised people [Adam/Israel] began, and so the story unfolding accordingly.

Thus the "physical" aspects of the Gen1 story ring true "universally" when applied to Israel – this then being the underpinning "covenantal" basis of the creation story. As such, the tangible nature of the story has its "physical" outworking more on the "local" plane, not dissimilar to the local scene where Noah's new creation literally came up out of the water – full of metaphor and covenantal reality and yet also very much rooted in "this world". So all very "physical" YET applicable directly to Israel and so inherently "covenantal".

So while acknowledging "metaphor", trying to read everything in Gen1 as pure metaphor and as devoid of anything tangible IMO misses the woods for the trees – IOW, IF the flood was both local AND literal, so too can Gen1 be seen as both local AND literal.

I could be wrong, but I can see how Gen1&2 can be viewed in terms of Adam's/Israel's formation out of the chaos of darkness [ignorance of humanity] into those in whom the light of God's presence and revelation was to shine – something that was to be inherently filled with blessing [order]. This again being the story within the story – where the chosen are appointed [election] to serve [dress and till] the wider creation; and so understanding the literality of the Gen1 creation account though vivid yet quite factual; again, being descriptive of the birth of Israel in the Land of Promise [Eden]. So, this is how I roughly view it:

The creation language of Gen1 is descriptive of the clearing of a desolate wasteland [the Promised Land] via a flood so it would become viable and habitable for Adam, and his Israelite descendants to whom the Land would be given by way of God's promise through Abraham [Gen 12:1-8; 17:1-8].

At the time of the "beginning" [Gen 1:1-2] the Land was flooded, not dissimilar to that of Noah's time; the waters then receded and the Land is prepared for new life to begin. These "days of creation" describe this time of clearing rains, storm clouds and flood waters, so that the Land would became a place where vegetation, animals, and Adam could live, prosper and propagate:

Day One: The skies [the heavens] and the land [the earth] were in darkness because it was night [evening] and nothing was visible because deep flood waters covered all the Land and dark rain clouds filled the skies. Then, with the coming morning came the light of day where the sun's light became visible through the storm clouds.

Day Two: The light of day made the horizons visible so one could distinguish the difference between the flood waters that covered the Land and the rain clouds that filled the skies. Thus were the "waters" divided.

Day Three: From this the flood waters began to recede so that the Land became visible and vegetation began to grow up from out of the ground.

Day Four: With the rain clouds now dispersing the sun [the source of the light of Day One] is revealed; along it the lesser lights of the moon and stars – all becoming visible so providing light for the night.

Day Five: Now with the flood waters finally settled and the storm filled skies clear, marine life flourishes and bird life returns to the skies of the Land where there is now abundance of vegetation and insects for food.

Day Six: With the flood waters now fully dissipated animal life returns to the Land to also feast upon the growing vegetation. It was into this setting that Adam [Israel's progenitor] having been taken out of the ground [humanity] was planted – into a Land where he could now live and prosper with his family.

Read in this fashion, "creation" like "Noah's flood" becomes prêteristically both local AND literal, and yet also carries the deeper covenantal meanings [metaphors] beyond just the surface level story; where in time, Israel being taken out of the ground [Deut 7:6] becomes God's vice-regent servant nation of kings and priests [Ex 19:5-6] to impart God's blessings to the world beyond [Gen 12:3] from whence they were first taken. I think this proposition could fit the mindscape of the ancients' geocentric "world" more consistently than just a metaphor ONLY model; that is, in the recounting of their story [history] they had something firm to grasp and so understand.

Now I'm not saying the above is water-tight but IMO is feasible, and it is not beholden to some obligatory or arbitrary "any sort of physical creation requires a physical fulfillment of Rev. 21:1" mandate etc.Now Michael, with that said, referring to Act 17:26 you said:

MichaelB: The Covenantal Creation view can not be true. Paul is referring to EVERY man coming from one man (Adam)…

Michael… what happens IF:

[1] Applying the classic Calvinist option for disputing "all = all" by inserting a clarifying "types" as is the Calvinist practice and reading of 1Tim 4:10 as per "all types of men" etc; and…

[2] Noting that as opposed to the NU texts, the Majority Text has the word "blood" after the word "one" – noting again the "man" is NOT actually in either texts at all; and…

[3] Understanding "blood" along the same lines as Paul's "all flesh is not the same, but there is one kind" [or type…]; THEN why could it not be possible that Paul here in Acts 17:26 references the same type or kind of diversity as to "blood" origins i.e., man from animals, as he does with regards to the diversity of "flesh" as in man from animals.

IOW… "from one blood" may not speak to a particular individual [Adam], but rather of a particular genus [group] i.e., "of the human variety" etc.

davo

Starlight's picture

Davo,

I can agree with some of your thinking on the meaning of Gen 1 as I too believe it is a picture of Adam/Abraham/Israel/Christian’s creation account. Where I disagree with you is that I think you overstep to an extent the Hebrew purpose of the language in trying to create more physically out of it than it actually calls for. I think you are correct that the language is also speaking of physical realities but what I’m seeing is the same or similar metaphorical language being utilized throughout OT and NT scriptures and the results do not call for the exact physical explanations that you seem to think necessary. There are no doubt physical realities but the idioms being used are consistently the same ones that are used over and over again in scriptures and we don’t feel the need to apply excessive physical explanations in those other uses.

One thing you might look at is the language of Adam’s creation account in Gen 2:5 and onward and notice the creation of the plant metaphors and observe that there had been no rain upon the Land and thus any plant or shrub. However Day three is the introduction of these plants in Gen 1 so it seems that to correlate Adam’s creation time to coincide with Gen 1 then it should be around or before day 3 or 4 when those plants and the lights are brought forth. Day 6 already has plants well established so that Day doesn’t seem to match up with Adam’s creation account of no plants until God planted the Garden. Of course as you search the scriptures we find that the metaphorical plant, tree and fruit after their own seeds also have spiritual connotations.

I think that implied Hebrew metaphorical message is the primary purpose of the creation accounts language as it appears to be consistently throughout scriptures. It just doesn’t seem to make sense for the Hebrew authors to use metaphorical language to describe spiritual and physical realities through out scripture but change its purpose only at the beginning stories of Genesis. If we go through and read some of Ezekiel’s sections and commentary about the trees found in the Garden of Eden we can begin to grasp how the Hebrews interpreted their own language. In doing so I think we become more accurate in staying true to how it was intended.

Again I agree with some of your overview but it’s in the definition of the metaphorical details that I would have some difference.

Davo if I’m reading the metaphorical language consistently throughout scripture and draw both spiritual and physical conclusions as it appears it may be intended then my question to you is how does that interpretative method do damage to the Hebrew scriptures. It seems to me I’m being conservative and consistent by not going beyond what can be determined from examining scripture in the light of scripture. It appears that the only harm that is done is to evangelical ideas of biblical literalness being overridden for the sake of accuracy.

Norm

davo's picture

Starlight: Davo if I’m reading the metaphorical language consistently throughout scripture and draw both spiritual and physical conclusions as it appears it may be intended then my question to you is how does that interpretative method do damage to the Hebrew scriptures.

Hey Norm… I wasn't so much thinking in terms of "damage" but rather the feeling or need you seem have to remove the literal for the metaphorical. All I'm really saying is that I see one [deeper meaning] because of or drawn from the other [as presented]. IOW… I see it as consistent – to view a literal and local Noah/flood, and so apply the same consistent and historical hermeneutic in viewing a literal and local creation/Adam etc.

Now none of that as I see it really diminishes anything from Ezekiel and Co's beyond the literal use and applicatory language relative to the Garden etc, at least not that I can tell. ?? Anyway, I know we see things slightly differently but I'm ok with that, as are you. :)

davo

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