You are hereThe Hermeneutic of Covenant Creation As Taught By A. Berkeley Mickelsen

The Hermeneutic of Covenant Creation As Taught By A. Berkeley Mickelsen

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

By MiddleKnowledge - Posted on 13 October 2008

by Timothy P. Martin
Covenant Creation is based on a specific hermeneutic approach to Genesis creation. Jeff Vaughn and I laid out a case for the apocalyptic-symbolic interpretation of Genesis creation in our recent book titled Beyond Creation Science: New Covenant Creation from Genesis to Revelation. Covenant Creation is based on a specific hermeneutic approach to Genesis creation. Jeff Vaughn and I laid out a case for the apocalyptic-symbolic interpretation of Genesis creation in our recent book titled Beyond Creation Science: New Covenant Creation from Genesis to Revelation. Our work refined, expanded and contextualized the general approach to Genesis creation presented by the preterist theologian Milton S. Terry in his 1898 book titled Biblical Apocalyptics. Today, Terry is perhaps best known for his scholarly contributions on the subject of biblical hermeneutics. His massive works are used as textbooks in conservative Bible colleges and seminaries across America. Terry’s reputation as a proponent for the grammatico-historical method of biblical interpretation is well-known.

The Hermeneutic of Covenant Creation

Here is the way he introduced the challenge of properly interpreting the early chapters of Genesis:

“Any satisfactory interpretation of Genesis must be preceded by a determination of the class of literature to which it belongs.”[1]

Few disagree with the notion that the Bible comes to us in different forms and styles of literature. But if that is true, then our interpretation of Scripture must be sensitive to the literary nature of the inspired text we may be reading at any given time.

The implication of recognizing the Bible as literature is that different literary genres require different interpretive approaches. It would be a mistake, for example, to read the book of 1 Kings in exactly the same manner as the book of Revelation. There is a variety of literary genre in our Bible; those who ignore this reality will be doomed to misinterpret vast portions of Scripture. “Literalist” interpretation of the details described in Revelation is a great example of the problem of genre blindness.

Terry went on to ask these key questions which prepared the reader for his presentation:

“But if these opening chapters of the Bible are a revelation of God’s creative relation to the world, may they not be apocalyptical in character? Is it not fitting that the canon of Scripture should open as well as close with an apocalypse?”[2]

Terry argued cogently, from the textual details, that the earliest chapters of Genesis communicate in a similar prophetic-symbolic genre as prophetic portions of the Bible. He also stressed the many structural links and motif connections between Genesis and Revelation.

The Framework of Covenant Creation

We made a case in Beyond Creation Science that the literary genre and central subject in the early chapters of Genesis means that the creation account cannot properly be used to provide a plain-literal scientific record, whether young-earth or old-earth, of the origination of the physical universe.

We believe that Genesis speaks about the origin of the “heavens and earth” that passed away in A.D. 70. Note how the New Testament authors draw the story of the end in direct relationship to the beginning:

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea…” Rev. 21:1 (NIV).

“… In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands, they will perish, but you remain…” Heb. 1:10-11 (NIV).

The fact that the “first heaven and the first earth” (Rev. 21:1), the one made “in the beginning” (Heb. 1:10-11), did pass away in finality by A.D. 70 tells us of the nature of the “heavens and earth” in view of Genesis 1:1. Did the physical universe pass away in A.D. 70? No. That fact provides a powerful demonstration that Genesis creation is not a plain-literal account of the original formation of the physical universe and planet earth. Genesis is focused on the beginning of the covenant world God made with his people, beginning with Adam and Eve.

The creation account offers its own clues as to what it is about. Genesis 2:4 says:

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” (KJV)

The form of this verse, “These are the generations of…,” is used throughout Genesis (e.g. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1, 32; 11:10, etc.). In every other instance where this form is used, the reference is to people. Genesis 2:4 uses that form (referencing generations) in conjunction with “heavens and earth” because the creation account speaks about the original formation of God’s people; Genesis creation is a symbolic statement, involving real people in real history, describing the “beginning” of God’s covenant world of friendship and relationship with his people.

The creation as God’s people? This should not sound strange to preterists at all. Paul, drawing from the earliest chapters of Genesis, identified “the creation” as God’s people in a passage expounding the glory of the children of God:

“For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now” Rom. 8:19-22 (NKJV).

Where did Paul learn to associate God’s creation with God’s people? He certainly didn’t make this up from scratch! Paul understood “the creation” as God’s people because the Old Testament repeatedly associates “heavens and earth” with all those who live in covenant relationship with God (e.g. Deut. 32:1; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 4:23-28).

This covenant-centered focus of creation in the Bible also explains how Paul could call those who believe on Jesus Christ as God’s “new creation” in 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15. Paul’s doctrine of “new creation” was rooted in his own understanding of the earliest chapters of Genesis. How else could Paul naturally make that identification of believers as God’s “new creation”?

Genesis speaks of the creation of “heavens and earth” in the same covenant context as the New Testament teaching of the end of the “heavens and earth.” Covenant Creation at the beginning of the Bible matches Covenant Eschatology at the end.

The Hermeneutic Criticism of Covenant Creation

The main opposition of Covenant Creation from within preterism arises from a competing hermeneutic approach to the creation account in Genesis. Some critics imply that the earliest chapters of Genesis communicate in an altogether different way than prophetic texts found elsewhere in Scripture. Sam Frost, for example, explains his view succinctly:

“Genesis is prose, not apocalyptic, and no Hebrew scholar to date has taken Milton Terry's view seriously...”[3]

Is that assertion true? Let us set aside the fact that Milton Terry (and by extension Martin and Vaughn) could be right regardless of how other Hebrew scholars interpret Genesis. Appeals to the majority are quite odd coming from full-preterists! But is it really true that “no Hebrew scholar to date has taken Milton Terry’s view seriously”?

Terry Not Alone

Those who have read Terry’s work in Genesis might already know he is no “lonely voice in the wilderness” regarding his apocalyptic-symbolic approach to Genesis creation. Terry was not alone in this approach to Genesis even in his own day! He noted in Biblical Apocalyptics that “not a few eminent scholars have called this first section of Genesis a poem” or “inspired Psalm of Creation.”[4] Apocalyptic texts are known to be presented in poetic form and structure. Psalms frequently use metaphorical symbolism.

Another well-known preterist theologian in the 19th century, F. W. Farrar, took a similar apocalyptic approach to Genesis creation:

“There is no other Eastern book in the world which we should have dreamed of understanding literally if it introduced speaking serpents and magic trees. Even the rabbis, stupidly literal as were their frequent methods, were perfectly aware that the story of the fall was a philosopheme – a vivid pictorial revelation of the origin and growth of sin in the human heart.”[5]

J.H. Kurtz outlined this prophetic approach to Genesis creation in 1857, more than three decades before Terry’s Biblical Apocalyptics:

“Therefore, we come into possession of the very important hermeneutical rule that representations of pre-Adamite developments, founded upon revelations, must be viewed from the same standpoint, and interpreted according to the same laws, as prophecies and sketches of future times and developments, founded also upon revelation.”[6]

Matheson argued along the same lines in 1889:

“We have always held that, apart altogether from questions of authorship, [Genesis creation] ought to be interpreted as the visions of the prophets are interpreted; in other words, to be classed with those portions of Jewish literature whose mission was to teach in symbols”[7]

Modern conservative writers add their general agreement to this hermeneutic approach to the earliest chapters of Genesis. Bernard Ramm states:

”The main purpose of Genesis is theological and religious. This has been said innumerable times already, but there is the temptation to get too involved in the details of science and to forget it.”[8]

James Montgomery Boice wrote:

“What do we find when we turn to the opening chapter of Genesis? Here the Christian view is stated for the first time and in definitive form. It is a theological statement, however, and we must acknowledge this because if we do not, we will inevitably find ourselves looking for scientific explanation and be misled… Genesis 1 is not a description from which we can expect to find answers to purely scientific questions. Rather, it is a statement of origins in the area of meanings, purpose and the relationship of all things to God.”[9]

David Chilton anticipated the Covenant Creation view when he wrote as a partial-preterist:

“[T]he same is true of the prophets: They, also, spoke in figures and symbols, drawing on the rich heritage of Biblical images that began in the Garden of Eden.

Indeed, Paradise is where prophecy began. It is worth noting that the very first promise of the coming Redeemer was stated in highly symbolic terms…

‘I will put enmity

Between you and the woman

And between your seed and her Seed;

He shall crush your head,

And you shall strike His heel.’ (Gen.3:15)

Obviously, this is not simply ‘history written in advance.’ It is a symbolic statement, very much of a piece with the evocative, poetic language used throughout the Bible, and especially in Revelation. [emphasis mine].”[10]

The above comments do have some variation among them even though they all clearly imply that the early chapters of Genesis have symbolic elements. The active use of symbolism is a key distinctive marker for apocalyptic texts.

A. Berkeley Mickelsen’s “Descriptive Language of Creation and Climax”

Recently Jeff and I stumbled across another book on biblical hermeneutics. We were surprised by what we found. A. Berkeley Mickelsen’s wrote his book Interpreting the Bible in 1963 while he was professor of New Testament interpretation at Bethel Theological Seminary. The book was published by Eerdmans, no obscure publishing house in the world of Christian publishing.

We highly recommend this book to those interested in studying the art and science of biblical interpretation more in depth. Mickelsen’s book reads like a cross between Milton Terry’s Biblical Hermeneutics and G.B. Caird’s The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Suffice it to say that Mickelsen’s book is a strong contribution to the grammatico-historical method of biblical interpretation

Mickelsen wrote his book as a futurist, but he tipped his hat to Milton Terry in his chapter on Poetry:

“Years ago, Milton S. Terry showed that one could not emphasize too strongly the fact that some structural form is essential to all poetry.”[11]

Mickelsen then offers a footnote to Terry’s Biblical Hermeneutics. But perhaps the most striking and substantive acknowledgement of Milton Terry’s influence is found in Chapter XIV titled “Descriptive Language of Creation and Climax.” See if this looks at all familiar:

“The biblical accounts of creation and climax have been extensively discussed throughout the current century and it is likely that the discussion will continue for some time to come. Most certainly the oft-recurring question as to how God created the world and how he intends to consummate human history is one of wide and intense interest. However, if we are looking for a play-by-play account of either of these divine activities, we will search the Bible in vain. Much is said in Scripture about the fact of creation and God’s vital association with all that took place. Enough is said about climax in the New Testament so that by the time the reader has completed 1 Corinthians he knows that all things will be in subjection to God. When the reader has completed the book of Revelation, he knows that separation from God or fellowship with God are the two possible destinies before mankind…

Yet it is important that we consider the language used to convey to us what God has revealed about creation and climax. Interestingly enough, we find that the same kind of language is employed to describe the beginnings and endings of history [emphasis mine].”[12]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Admittedly, Mickelsen is working from a futurist paradigm, for he believes the subject of the “beginning” and “end” in the Bible is the physical universe. He is consistent. In Mickelsen’s view, “climax” must remain to come in our future at the end of the physical universe as we know it. Yet Mickelsen explicitly draws together the parallel between the language, the genre, of both early Genesis and Revelation. That is precisely what Milton Terry taught decades earlier! Mickelsen, the accomplished Hebrew scholar and giant in the field of biblical hermeneutics, was teaching Milton Terry’s view of linguistic similarity between Genesis creation and biblical prophecy.

What Mickelsen’s comments show us is that you don’t have to agree with Terry’s preterism to see the inherent connections between the language and focus of creation and consummation. That helps to explain why futurists committed to a literal, physical universe reading of creation continue to insist that biblical prophecy, especially the book of Revelation, speaks about the end of the physical universe to come in our future. Mickelsen’s view is very common:

“Creation is past and present. But there is also a future dimension of creation. This future aspect gives meaning and unity to Scripture and history (Isa. 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21-22). The narrative of human history begins with creation. The final removal of sin and rebellion will be climaxed by creation. Here a factor of unity shows itself to be also a factor of harmony.”

The amazing thing is that Mickelsen comes very close to embracing the true central focus of all biblical prophecy. Consider how this statement in his chapter on “Prophecy” could have led him to a preterist view:

“On many subjects prophecy is an unfolding, expanding kind of treatment. The prophets deal with the basic questions of how man and God can come into fellowship with each other – what God requires, what God will do, and what man must do. Prophecy is progressive in the sense that later revelation is based on earlier revelation.”[13]

Note how he advocated a fundamental insight highlighted by Covenant Eschatology in his opening chapter:

“Modern man belongs to an age of technology and to the culture which accompanies it. His environment is different, and his concepts are often correspondingly different. For instance, he tends to think of society individualistically, while the biblical writer emphasizes group unity [emphasis mine].”[14]

And then there are passages in Mickelsen’s book that bear an uncanny resemblance to Milton Terry’s Biblical Apocalyptics. Consider the striking similarity of these statements:

Milton S. Terry (1898): “We gain nothing for the honor of the Scriptures by attempting to force upon them a meaning they were never intended to convey.”[15]

A. Berkeley Mickelsen (1963): “When a commentator fills apocalyptic imagery with his own ideas, he disqualifies himself as a true interpreter. It is much better to say: ‘I do not know what this means’ than to force a meaning upon the imagery which it was not meant to carry.”[16]

Milton S. Terry (1898): “Our interpretation of this remarkable composition [Genesis creation] cannot therefore proceed on any method of literal correspondencies. The narrative is no more a treatise on natural science than it is an almanac.”[17]

A. Berkely Mickelsen (1963): “Yet such questions as the age of the universe, the nature of light, the time and procedures by which God prepared the earth for habitation of man are not touched upon at all.”[18]

Yes, it is absolutely clear that Mickelsen’s work relies heavily on Milton Terry’s view. There is an essential unity regarding the communication of Genesis creation and biblical prophecy; not just in form, but also in content. Mickelsen simply coins his own term, “Descriptive Language of Creation and Climax,” to elucidate what Milton Terry taught decades earlier:

Those who lean toward the Covenant Creation view can appreciate Mickelsen’s conclusion to his chapter titled “Descriptive Language of Creation and Climax.”

“1. We must recognize that figurative language is indispensable in conveying to us the realities beyond empirical experience. If God in revelation had not chosen to use such language, our ignorance would be total…

2. The realities [covenantal/gospel – T.M.] described by the figurative language of creation and climax are crucial for men to understand… Such [covenantal/gospel – T.M.] realities demand the use of combinations of figurative and literal language to give us every possible insight…

3. …The language of Scripture – in this case the figurative language of creation and climax – can penetrate man even in his dull and blind obsession… Creation and climax speak to men about their destiny…

4. Such language and the truths conveyed by it were not given to satisfy our scientific curiosity but to assure us about the ‘whence’ and ‘whither’ of our existence…”[19]

That is the broad context of Covenant Creation. I would add more content based upon the theology of Covenant Eschatology. Both creation and consummation revolve around gospel of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, I believe Milton Terry would have been proud of Mickelsen’s work, even if Terry might have taken issue with Mickelsen’s futurism!

Conclusion

Mickelson wrote his book in the early 1960s. That was about the same time that dispensationalist authors Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb took the Seventh Day Adventist interpretation of Genesis mainstream by publishing The Genesis Flood. Ellen G. White’s visions of flood geology, defended by George McCready Price’s academic writings, exploded among Evangelicals when Morris and Whitcomb applied their own brand of premillennialism to Genesis.

The hermeneutic methods which Terry, Mickelsen and other scholarly giants taught about interpreting Genesis creation and biblical prophecy were forgotten and ignored as modern young-earth creationism was born. To the vast majority of conservative Christians, Genesis became a literally precise, scientific record of the origination of the physical universe and planet earth, just as Revelation was taken as a literally precise, scientific record of the end of our planet earth and the universe.

Even here, the astute reader will notice that the language connection that Terry and Mickelsen taught between Genesis creation and biblical prophecy was not entirely abandoned. Their approach was simply redirected in the context of modern “literalism.” As Henry Morris said:

“If you take Genesis literally, you’re more inclined to take Revelation literally.”[20]

Preterists should consider that one reason dispensational premillennialism and modern young-earth creationism were widely successful with American Christians is because they presented a consistent view of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Genesis creation was interpreted as a plain-literal statement of the creation of planet earth and the universe. Noah’s flood was interpreted as an event that flooded all of planet earth. Prophecy spoke of a coming fiery annihilation of planet earth at the Second Coming of Christ. That is what won the day for conservative Christians in America during the late 20th century.

This view is now failing at both ends of the Bible and everywhere in between.

It is past time to jettison futurism in all its varied forms and flavors. But it is not enough to switch prophetic views in isolation from everything else in the Bible. Prophetic views are all rooted in the earliest chapters of Genesis, because the Bible tells one over-arching and interrelated story. It will not work to claim that the Bible opens with a plain-literal, scientific description of the origin of the physical universe, but then goes on to close with prophecies about the final end of the old covenant world which passed away in finality by A.D. 70. A physical-universe “beginning” is not consistent with a covenant “end.”

Wide acceptance of preterism will come only when Preterists keep the central focus of creation in harmony with the central focus of eschatology. Covenant Creation matched with Covenant Eschatology offers true consistency from Genesis to Revelation. These two symmetrical views acknowledge the covenant-centered focus of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

The seed ideas and hermeneutic methods of Covenant Creation were nurtured by many devout Christian scholars including Milton S. Terry and A. Berkeley Mickelsen, two outstanding authorities on sound biblical interpretation. That fact doesn’t make Covenant Creation true or false. But it should encourage honest, objective evaluation of the biblical case for Covenant Creation by those sincerely committed to the truth of God’s Word over the traditions of men.

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

[2] Ibid., p. 43.

[3] Sam Frost, comments available online at: http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1632544:BlogPost:19771&p...

[4] Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, p. 43.

[5] Frederic W. Farrar, The Bible: Its Meaning and Supremacy [1897], pp. 242-243 as quoted by Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, p. 50.

[6] J. H. Kurtz, The Bible and Astronomy [1857] as quoted by Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, p. 152.

[7] As quoted in Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, p. 44n.

[8] Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, pp. 149-150.

[9] James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive and Readable Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), p. 162.

[10] David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), p. 29.

[11] A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), p. 324.

[12] Ibid., pp. 306-307.

[13] Ibid., p. 292.

[14] Ibid., p. 5.

[15] Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, p. 43.

[16] Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, p.303.

[17] Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics. p. 44.

[18] Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible. p. 306.

[19] Ibid., p. 322.

[20] Henry Morris as quoted by Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (New York: Knopf, 1992), p. 339.

Starlight's picture

Quote from Michael Bennett on his blog.
COVENANTAL PLANTS AND ANIMALS?

If Genesis 1 and 2 is about the first "covenantal man" then it is about the creation of the first "covenantal plants, and covenantal animals" too (whatever that means). If it is about actual creation of animals and plants, then animals and plants did not exist prior to this, and therefore man did not either.
http://preterism.ning.com/group/concerningbcs/forum/topic/show?id=163254...

Michael has been ridiculing me for talking about covenantal animals and as one can see from the statement above that Michael does not agree with a covenantal understanding of plants or animals in Genesis 2. Michael may want to read Sam’s section though where he embraces a covenantal understanding for what he calls “earth and heavens” in which Sam calls for plants and animals distinctly seperate somehow from those in Genesis Chapter 1. Sam makes the distinction that the paradise had specific animals and the plants and animals were classified of the “field” instead of the “earth”. Actually Michael did not believe that that animals and plants did not exist prior to their creation in Gen 2, but as one reads Sam’s quotes below it is quite apparent that Sam disagrees with Michael about there not being plants and animals already.

Quote from Sam Frost from his article refuting BCS.

2.4b starts another narrative, a narrative not about The Heavens and The Earth, but
earth and heavens. It is an account of when God made an earth and a heavens distinct from
The Earth and The Heavens. ….

When we read the account of the Garden of Eden (“garden” in the L X X is “paradeisis” or “paradise” – God made a paradise on earth) we find that “shrub of the field” is used, not “shrub of T he Earth” as used in Genesis 1. We find “beasts of the field” not “beasts of The Earth” as in 1. Other scholars have noted this as well: “… the following narrative does not deal with the heavens and the earth but only with the earth, and one bit of it in particular” (ital. mine, op. cit. Blenkinsopp, 7). …

As noted Hebrew scholar Keil remarked, “The creation of the plants is not alluded to here at all, but simply the planting of the garden in Eden” (op. cit. Keil, 77). This is a specific making of the Garden with in the domain of The Heavens and T he Earth. Therefore, the “plants of The Earth” had already been made, but shrubs for the field, the Garden, had not –and no man was in the Garden to serve it. …

This Paradise had specific animals (note the fish are not mentioned – the Levitical
sacrifices did not have fish offerings, but they did have “birds” and various “animals”). We are
not to suppose, then, that every single genus of the first animals and fish entered into this
Garden – and neither are we to suppose that this was the case with Noah’s Arc. The arc also is
a type of “coming in” from the “outside” with “clean and unclean” animals – after all, it called an arc – a word used solely for the Arc of the Covenant.

End quotes.

Norm

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Norm,

Ahhh... yes. The beauty of "literalism."

I was wondering how long it would take for you to have a field day with that point in Sam's article.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.beyondcreationscience.com

tom-g's picture

Tim,

Sam certainly does not need me to defend him, but in all honesty, in Sam's article he did not say that either Genesis 1 or 2 was a covenantal creation. As I understand what he has written Genesis 2 was a physical making, not creating, of an earth and heaven that was different from the first creation of The Heavens and The Earth that occurred in Genesis 1. He specifically wrote that their were "two heavens and earths in the Genesis account" and even italicized that statement.

Tim, if Norm is to have a field day with Sam's article it ought to be for what Sam did write not what Norm thinks he wrote after imposing his theology upon Sam's article.

Blessings,
Tom

tom-g's picture

Dear Virgil,

With respect to your observation. I for one completely agree with you. I also agree that any person, Tim and JL as a particular example, have the right to express their concepts in any form that they determine truly expresses their concepts. I also agree that any author has the right to define any word/s in his expression of his concept in any way that he determines. I also agree that an author does not need to define the word/s he uses unless he is using them in a manner that would not be understood by his audience and then it is incumbent upon the author to explain this usage, and to define the word/s as he uses it, for his audience.

I also agree that it is incumbent upon an author to be internally consistent in the expression of his concepts. That is, he is required not to say one thing is true in one place and then say something contradictory is true of that same thing someplace else. I also agree that at all times the definition of a word/s may be used in place of the word/s to insure that the same word/s is is being used. I find that Tim and JL do not comply with these simple rules that govern an audience's ability to understand the word/s they are using to express the concepts they are presenting.

It is my understanding that Tim and JL are presenting the concept of a New Covenantal Creation (NewCC or NCC) in their book. And that this NCC supersedes and replaces the Old CC (OCC) that they say according to their concept is being expressed by the author of Genesis (not themselves) in Genesis 1:1

For Tim and JL's concept to be a valid explanation of the true meaning expressed by the author of Genesis it requires that the meaning of the verb, "to create" to be defined as: "to make a covenant with". The NCC of Tim and JL is founded upon their definition of the relationship of the object of the verb "to create" and the object of the verb itself: "the heaven and the earth"

The accepted meaning of the verb "to create", is the act of the subject bringing into existence its object from nothing.
Tim and JL's definition of "to create" is the act of the subject bringing into existence a new relationship with its object that already exists.

Thus, Tim and JL's concept is not, as has always been understood by the accepted meaning of the verb "create" that: In the beginning God brought the Heaven and the earth into existence from nothing. But, their concept is that: In the beginning God brought into existence a covenant with the heaven and the earth that already existed.

I won't continue any further at this point since it is the right of Tim and Jl to agree or disagree with my understanding of their concept of the meaning of Genesis 1:1 that I have explained.

Tom

MichaelB's picture

A) Milton Terry clearly driven by science regarding Genesis interpretation.

"But the discoveries of science have effectually exploded the old notion of the creation of earth and heavens in six ordinary days, and for more than a hundred years expositors have been striving to adjust the state­ments of the first chapter of Genesis to the well-ascertained facts of geology and astronomy" - Milton Terry

Perhaps the most remarkable statement in the whole chapter is that of verse 7: “Jehovah God formed the man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living soul.” Here the man is represented as a prod­uct of the heavens and the earth by the breath of God. But how the earth and the heavens united in the forming of the first man is left in mystery. The language is as well adapted to the concept of a long period of evolution as to that of an instantaneous creation. - Milton Terry

B)Serious hermeneutic issues / explanations lacking by Tim / JL / Tami / Norm etc.

Genesis 2
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,

Are we to think that "no man" is a reference to no first "covenantal" man and that there were other men around already? If we are to think that, then please note the MAJOR hermeneutical problem we run into. We are obligated by hermenutics to explain what the exact same language means when it says "no shrub" and "no plant" - are these really about first "covenantal shrubs and plants" - what does that mean? The EXACT same language is used regarding "no man" as we see regarding "no shrubs" and "no plants" so...

If: No man = no first covenantal man (there were men already)

Then: (according to hermeneutics) no shrub and no plant really = no first covenantal shrub and covenantal plant (there were shrubs and plants already)

What does that mean? Covenantal shrubs and plants? These are BASIC hermeneutic questions and problems that we immediately run into when trying to make Genesis about Covenantal Creation.

C) I am perplexed by those that continue to have to hold on to theories in order to hold on to their newly invented "covenant creation" view when the bible is VERY clear that the ground curse was removed. Also note that even though the ground curse was removed God specifically points out that man still had an evil heart from his youth.

PRE GROUND CURSE

Genesis 1
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

GROUND CURSE

Genesis 3
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

REMEDY OF GROUND CURSE PREDICTED THROUGH NOAH

Genesis 5
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."

GOUND CURSE RESOLVED

Genesis 8
20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
22 "As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."

Genesis 9
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

I noticed that you were confused because of the plants and was wondering if they were covenantal plants. No the plants in Genesis are used metaphorically Michael just as Jesus used them as metaphoric language in the NT. You may notice below that there were no plants because there was no rain. Jesus makes a similar statement in Luke 8:6 where He states that the plants withered because they had no moisture. Michael I believe Jesus is speaking symbolically here and is not intending for us to take His words literally. In fact he explains the language to his followers.

Gen 2:55 when NO PLANT of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth,

Luke 8: 6 Some fell on rock, and when it came up, THE PLANTS WITHERED because THEY HAD NO MOISTURE.

Matt 13: 6 But when the sun came up, THE PLANTS were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell AMONG THORNS, which grew up and CHOKED THE PLANTS

Jesus describes the Pharisees as a plant not planted by God.

MATT 15:13 He replied, "EVERY PLANT that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.

Michael the Hebrew author also uses language very similar to Genesis concerning plants and rain. The writer uses this language to illustrate for the Jews that the Old Covenant was good only to be burned because it wasn’t fruitful.

Heb 6: 7 LAND THAT DRINKS IN THE RAIN often falling on it and that PRODUCES A CROP useful to those for whom it IS FARMED RECEIVES THE BLESSING OF GOD. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned

Also Michael the rain (water) and plants of the field are used as symbols of spiritual blessing in the OT as well. Now be careful when you read these following verses as they must be read in “context” to see that they are not speaking about literal plants and rain but the spiritual kind instead.

Zec 10: 1 Ask the LORD FOR RAIN in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. HE GIVES SHOWERS OF RAIN TO MEN, and PLANTS OF THE FIELD to everyone.

Jer 17: 7 "But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose confidence is in him. 8 He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit."

Michael, I hope this elementary review of how plants and rain are used for illustrating the spiritual blessings from God as the scriptures use them will help you better understand what the Genesis plants are about.

Basically what Gen 2:5 is saying in Bible speak Michael is that there was a spiritual void in place before the introduction of the first Covenant Man: Adam. Of course this is elementary to most bible students as it is obvious that Genesis is about God introducing his plan of salvation for mankind in these stories.

Here is another verse to help you Michael as you discern the language of the Bible and how it is used again to describe how a desert wilderness will be made to be like the Garden of Eden. You will find other scripture throughout God’s word using these same connotations as you further study and investigate this elementary biblical hermeneutic understanding.

(Isa 51:3 NRSV) For the LORD will comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places, and will make her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the voice of song.

Michael I hope I didn’t confuse you with so many scriptures that they overload you. Just let me know if you have some further questions such as why Peter was told to eat the animals in Acts 10. This seemed to indicate to the Jews in some strange metaphorical language that it was about the Gentiles but I guess they could have been familiar with this section of Gen 9 about all the animals now being given for food and have recognized it as prophecy that applied to their times.

(Gen 9:3 NRSV) Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

Michael did you happen to notice above that only the green plants were edible up to Genesis 9 as it appears that the animals were a restricted item for their diet up until then. Do you remember poor ole Cain though and how he got banned from even being able to raise any plants for food. What’s up with that? How do you suppose ole Cain survived to raise offspring to build those cities in Gen 4 with out meat or plants? All he could do is look over there with hunger pains as his daddy (Adam) was gorging himself on dandelion greens and wish for those good ole days when he could eat some of those thorns and thistles.

Norm

MBennett's picture

Norm writes comparing these...
Gen 2:55 - Luke 8: 6 Some fell on rock, and when it came up, THE PLANTS WITHERED because THEY HAD NO MOISTURE. noticed that you were confused because of the plants and was wondering if they were covenantal plants. No the plants in Genesis are used metaphorically Michael just as Jesus used them as metaphoric language in the NT.
Jesus describes the Pharisees as a plant not planted by God. MATT 15:13 He replied, "EVERY PLANT that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.

LOL - now Genesis is merely a parable. Even though it uses the exact same language in the flood account - thats a parable too? GEESH

NOTE TO TAMI - here Norm (above) is saying that the plants in Genesis = people. Get it? Don't act like you guys NEVER say this PLEASE...

Tami wrote: Covenant Creation is NOT...
4. the view that the animals on Noah's ark were really people which God commanded Noah to sacrifice and literally eat (I know, it surprised me also that this needed to be clarified.)

Yet here once again Norm is saying the plants are people in Genesis 1. I rest my case Tami.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. <= NOT REAL HEAVEN AND EARTH - COVENANT 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." <= FIRST COVENANTAL VEGETATION ??? And it was so. 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, <= FIRST COVENANTAL FISH ??? and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." <= FIRST COVENANTAL BIRDS ??? 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. <= FIRST COVENANTAL ANIMALS ??? 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, <= FIRST COVENANTAL MAN - NOT FIRST MAN (ACCORDING TO COVENANTAL CREATION VIEW)

But if you insist still that the animals are really people in Genesis - then you have another issue. Noah was told to eat and sacrifice the animals / people. Also - what would be the point of God saying he was only going to preserve certain humans if REALLY all the animals were humans and were going to be on the ark too. Also - please note Genesis 6 calls the wicked people - "people" - so it would make no sense to later speak of "animals" when they really are supposedly people and God used the term "people" even for the wicked people.

Genesis 6
12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.

Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

Genesis 8
20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.

Genesis 9
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

You are simply also mocking the prophets, Jesus and the apostles for their using language about plants as people. I gave you examples also from both the OT and NT that were not Parables as I knew that would be the route you would take. You see Michael I set you up on purpose for that one. I could give many more verses that are not considered parables. But that is only because you have some kind of fetish concerning biblical symbols inserted into parable stories. It seems in your mind it disqualifies them being used in Genesis once they are used in a parable. Now I guess it is ok to use plants as people in Isaiah and all the other books of the bible but for some inexplicable reasoning of yours just not in Genesis.
Thanks for pointing out that new Genesis hermeneutic rule Michael.

And so Michael they (Plants and Animals) are not used exclusively as parables are they. No they were also used in poetic literature or quoted as poetic segments Just like they are in Genesis but you wouldn’t notice that would you. No because that might mean that Genesis uses them in the same style and manner as other scripture and you and Sam’s literal hermeneutic goes out the door when that happens. That is why you guys are so desperate to restrict any possibility of poetic and prophetic language in Genesis. But you know what Michael if the prophets, Jesus and the apostles can use the plants and animals as metaphors of people and spiritual blessings then I feel in good company. It’s you who should be concerned in not recognizing how Hebrew literature is used.

Michael, you have been avoiding my hermeneutic explanation ever since we have been debating this subject. Why do you keep avoiding addressing a non scientific answer, one that is based upon a Preterist hermeneutic and then you have the audacity to say I’m not providing an answer. Would you please deal with it in an honest and open manner addressing the issues I raised for you in my earlier post to you? Now I realize that you are out there copying and pasting like mad to respond with the same old tired points that we have answered a dozen times before. Why don't you step back from that approach and consider a little dialogue and mental interaction on the subject at hand instead of bringing ridicule upon yourself. Otherwise you are simply shaming your friends who are depending upon you to actually interact with us intelligently so that they can follow your logical reasoning. You’re leaving your friends to be hung out and to dry by not responding to my non scientific approach and demonstrating to them you actually have a reasoned answer.

By the way Michael, it is *your* approach which is driven by *science* as you disavow everything that makes sense of Genesis in a Preterist Hermeneutic so that you can hang on to your “scientific” YEC paradigm. You hadn’t thought of that had you Michael. Well what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You are no different than the OEC folks who I also take to task for the same thing you are doing. Both of you read Genesis in a scientific approach and different than the Hebrew method calls for so that you can stay in the good graces of your YEC pseudo science buddies. You are the one who is perverting the language of the Bible. You are the one who reads through your literal scientific YEC eyes trying to make it say something it doesn’t.

Come on Michael try to write something original that shows some new mental activity up there. I gave you several points to ponder Michael and again you answered none of them in an honest manner.

Otherwise quit wasting our time with your elementary skirting of the issues.

Norm

flannery0's picture

Norm wrote: "By the way Michael, it is *your* approach which is driven by *science* as you disavow everything that makes sense of Genesis in a Preterist Hermeneutic so that you can hang on to your “scientific” YEC paradigm."

That really is the bottom line.

Conversely, those who have not chained themselves to a YEC paradigm are free to explore Genesis according to the analogy of Scripture.

mazuur's picture

Amen!

I'm also still waiting (just like Micky) for the Scriptures that say the earth is 6000 years old. They just don't ever seem to be presented.

-Rich

-Rich

JL's picture

What? You're not convinced by a Clarkian mindlessly parroting of a list of empirically derived dates?

No investigation of the assumptions.

No investigation into whether the person making those assumptions actually believes them. (Us "empiricists" are known to make simplifying assumptions, just so they can do the calculation.)

So we have a self-proclaimed Clarkian basing his defense of a young earth on a mix of irrationality and empiricism.

And when one item in his list is specifically questioned, he adds to his irrationality, by a dogmatic assertion into what amounts to be the inerrancy of his list.

You've got to love it.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MBennett's picture

Tami wrote:
Norm wrote: "By the way Michael, it is *your* approach which is driven by *science* as you disavow everything that makes sense of Genesis in a Preterist Hermeneutic so that you can hang on to your “scientific” YEC paradigm." That really is the bottom line. Conversely, those who have not chained themselves to a YEC paradigm are free to explore Genesis according to the analogy of Scripture.

Ya - I am so "chained" to the YEC paradigm even though science throughout my entire life has said otherwise - LOL - I use no analogy of scripture at all - LOL. Heck - even Tim Martin said that not all the scriptures are / can be "covenantal creation" HELLO!!! =)

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 - a reference to the law - which Martin admits at times is impossible to make figurative)
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."

Even Tim Martin admitted that there are issues with reading everything in a "covenantal" manner. He mentions Acts and the law. Yet now - without these problems being solved - people are being dogmatic about this new reading. See the quote below - what changed? I don't recall any of these "real problems" being adressed.

Tim Martin:
"So long as preterists are committed to a covenantal rather than cosmological reading of "heavens and earth" in biblical redemptive history the idea of a covenantal, rather than cosmological reading of the original creation of the "heavens and earth" in Genesis 1:1 is a legitimate possibility. The only way to rule it out as impossible is to consistently read all "heavens and earth" language cosmologically which would make preterism impossible. 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. Another example of a clear creational use of the "heavens and earth" language is in the Law. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. Exodus 20:4. Clearly, a physical, creational reading is the right one. These examples of a creational, cosmological reading of "heavens and earth" could be multiplied in the Psalms and prophets and wisdom literature of Scripture. This demonstrates that, while the language of "heavens and earth" often can and should be read in reference to covenant, there are many examples of "heavens and earth" which are primarily creational based in the physical "heavens and earth." A Local Creation interpretation is possible once we understand the covenant use of "heavens and earth" but it is not textually required in Genesis 1 by the covenantal reading of "heavens and earth" language elsewhere in Scripture. The great textual difficulty with the Local Creation View does not appear in Genesis 1. Indeed, the language in the Genesis account does uniformly use "erets" which leaves the door open to regional events in connection with the covenant history of Israel. The textual problem is that there is a passage in the Old Testament which is an inspired commentary on creation which uses the Hebrew word "tebel" rather than "erets" in reference to creation. "Tebel" is very different than "erets" in that it does denote universal scope and extent. Speaking of personified wisdom’s role in the creation of the "heavens and earth," Solomon writes: I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountain of the deep, when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world [tebel] and delighting in mankind. Proverbs 8:27-31. Proverbs 8 seems to makes a local creation interpretation in Genesis 1 highly doubtful"

JL's picture

No Michael,

You are being dogmatic about Covenant Creation being false without offering a better system. We have stated why all systems of physical creation fail. You have not countered a one of those statements. In fact, you just now endorsed that claim of ours again.

As for your evidence against Covenant Creation, I'm not willing to sift through your chaff to see if there's any wheat in it. If there is, there isn't much.

For example: How many more times must I address the local creation issue before you will read it?

The text you quoted from comes from Tim's 2nd edition. Not his original or first book. Get it right. Excuse me, the text you quoted comes from Roderick Edwards. You hope he quoted Tim's 2nd ed. correctly, but you don't know. One of you certainly mislabeled your quote.

That chapter was a description of several physical creation models and why none of them work with Scripture. We both stand by everything in that chapter.

Both you and Rod have endorsed our arguments in that chapter. Think about it. You are attempting to use our arguments against us.

Now what is it you are actually endorsing? No form of a physical creation works in Genesis 1. Got that? Genesis 1 is not the physical creation of anything. It is not the physical creation of an old earth, a young earth, an earth with a gap in it, or of a local creation of Palestine like Lightfoot believed.

What does that leave? Ta-daa! A non-physical creation. Genesis 1 has nothing to do with physical land, sea, or sky.

So how does Covenant Creation contradict the claim that "a local creation interpretation in Genesis 1 [is] highly doubtful?" Even Jason has admitted we are consistent on this issue.

But no, Roderick has spoken that they are the same thing. With Roderick, you will take your stand. Everything you know about Covenant Creation comes from Roderick.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

JL writes:
No form of a physical creation works in Genesis 1. Got that? Genesis 1 is not the physical creation of anything.

Let us remember Tim Martin's statement awhile back before the new book.

Tim Martin: before the latest Beyond Creation Science 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" ie Adam and Genesis 1.

Ta-daa! As you like to say =)

JL's picture

Michael,

You get a lot of mileage out of a doctrinally driven mistranslation don't you. Look it up in the Greek. It doesn't say "one man."

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

Geesh - The greek escape hatch. Yes - of course JL all these translations got it wrong...

NIV
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.

NASB
26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,

KJV
26And 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;

ESV
26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

YLT
26He made also of one blood every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth -- having ordained times before appointed, and the bounds of their dwellings --

NKJV
26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZOvlstXwBo
One Blood - The Game - Clean Version

mazuur's picture

Well Michael,

Do all those translation correctly translate 1 Cor 15 correctly? Sam has already demonstrated they all have indeed incorrectly translated it. Not a one renders the present passives in the entire chapter. Sam has also demonstrated other places in the NT where they all got it wrong. So, quit being a jerk about these things and go and check it. Are you truly interested in discovering what God has said, or just protecting your pride to save face?

I know when I get home tonight I will check the Greek. Praise God for Bible software!!!!

Now, you may be right about the translation, and you may be wrong. We shall soon [that is "soon" as in less than 2000 years :)] see. If you are right, then you will have a legitimate argument. One that I will have to consider in my quest in discovering what God has truly given us in his word.

-Rich

-Rich

MichaelB's picture

Arent you kind of obligated to tell me how the versions render a different interpretation here first?

Why do I need to address it whether it is one blood or one man? I mean - does it REALLY change things? You guys are pretty desperate here. Do you know of ANY commentary that says that it does not mean what I am inferring?

I mean other than JL's LOL - My argument is Q.E.D.

JL's picture

Oh I get it. Our view is proven false until we answer every conceivable argument made from every conceivable verse and every other conceivable source.

Funny how that standard doesn't apply to anything you believe.

Funny how you haven't even bothered to try to put together a consistent view of creation and preterism. Is this another example of Clarkian irrationalism? Or are you a closet YEC-dispie?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

JL - every commentary I can get my hands on says the same thing.

I would say yes - since your arguement is the new argument you need to prove it. I really don't think my point is some stretch of a minor concept. This is a MAJOR issue and really causes a problem with your view. Gen 2 and Acts 17 are talking about the exact same thing and Acts 17 is to Gentiles and phys. creation (TM would even admit that about Acts 17). This is a legitimate issue.

If you think the way I presented it was out of line I apoogize but are you guys really innocent in all this? Look at your posts. I never called you guys one name. You (cov creation group) on the other hand have called me / us - liars, frauds and crazy uncles etc. I can only speak for myself but I only went after your views - no name calling. MB

JL's picture

Michael,

Every commentary I can get my hands on says the same thing.

Christ will come in the future and a physical resurrection of the dead will occur at that time. So what does that prove?

They all say physical death started with Adam's sin. Do you really want to go there?

Not one commentary explains how the Greeks would have understood Paul's argument. Isn't that an interesting omission? They all explain how we should understand Paul today. Is that audience relevance or what?

Every commentary connects the creation and consummation. If you willy-nilly endorse their view of creation, you have blindly endorsed their view of the fall and their view of the consummation. You don't want to go there.

Look Michael, I have answered several of these claims of yours before. You never bothered to respond to that fact. You just bring up the same thing again later, as if it is brand new.

What would lead me to believe you've made an honest argument? Your tactics are exactly like those of the futurists who know nothing about preterism but are certain they can take it down by these ignorant antics. Are they honest critics? You act no differently.

The reigning Genesis paradigm in the conservative church is young-earth creationism of the form we've spelled out. You disagree with that form. Preterism demands physical death before the fall.

If you are really so dead set against Covenant Creation, then give us a workable option. At least stop the criticisms that depend on someone else's futurism.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

JL - my criticisms are valid. You just do not like that. Sam just wrote a paper on your view (21 pages). Hopefully you can open - there is / was a font problem when I try.

JL's picture

Michael,

My criticisms of modern YEC are valid. You just do not like that. Why? You can't live with no physical death before the fall either. So give me another option.

And no. When you use futurist arguments and arguments that require no death before the fall, they are not valid criticisms. You deny the conclusions of those arguments just as strongly as I do. They only show that you have not done your homework.

I appear to have the same font problem. Sam's PDF is unreadable.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MichaelB's picture

JL - trying to get that fixed.

When you use futurist arguments and arguments that require no death before the fall, they are not valid criticisms.

My view does not "require" no physical death before the fall. My view is that Adam was in a Garden with God and died that day / seperated from God / got the boot from Garden.

Josephus agrees on the "literal" idea of creation and you guys told us to believe what Josephus says.

JOSEPHUS ON CREATION / FLOOD

From Tim Martin's first book “Preterists love to quote Josephus on the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. When will they learn to quote Josephus on the flood?”

Josephus taught 6 day creation.

Also that the seventh day ended. "That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made. And that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue" Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 1

Josephus taught Adam first man and from literal dust.

"That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living" Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 2 "Now Adam, who was the first man, and made out of the earth, (for our discourse must now be about him,)" Antiquities of the Jews: Concerning The Posterity Of Adam Book I, Chapter 2, Section 3

Josephus taught a literal snake. Literal tree. Snake spoke.

"God therefore commanded that Adam and his wife should eat of all the rest of the plants, but to abstain from the tree of knowledge; and foretold to them, that if they touched it, it would prove their destruction. But while all the living creatures had one language, at that time the serpent, which then lived together with Adam and his wife, shewed an envious disposition, at his supposal of their living happily" Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 4 "He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them, that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him, that way. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place" Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 4

Josephus taught long ages of people.

"after Abel was slain, and Cain fled away, on account of his murder, was solicitous for posterity, and had a vehement desire of children, he being two hundred and thirty years old; after which time he lived other seven hundred, and then died. He had indeed many other children, but Seth in particular" Antiquities of the Jews: Concerning The Posterity Of Adam Book I, Chapter 2, Section 3 "Now when Noah had lived three hundred and fifty years after the Flood, and that all that time happily, he died, having lived the number of nine hundred and fifty years. But let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the shortness of our lives at present an argument, that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life, for those ancients were beloved of God, and [lately] made by God himself; and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years: and besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 9

Josephus taught a literal garden.

And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place. Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION

The one controversial quote below does not actually say that it was a local flood...

Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus:"There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 6

The many who fled could be those on the Ark. Also Noah was quoting an account that someone else gave. Not his own account. Josephus goes on to say...

"Now God loved this man for his righteousness: yet he not only condemned those other men for their wickedness, but determined to destroy the whole race of mankind, and to make another race that should be pure from wickedness; and cutting short their lives, and making their years not so many as they formerly lived, but one hundred and twenty only, he turned the dry land into sea; and thus were all these men destroyed: but Noah alone was saved" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 2 "When God gave the signal, and it began to rain, the water poured down forty entire days, till it became fifteen cubits higher than the earth; which was the reason why there was no greater number preserved, since they had no place to fly to" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 5

Josephus goes on to say that Noah was not even in the "land"

"But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 1

Josephus taught Adam had 50 + kids.

“The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.” William Whiston, translator, The Complete Works of Josephus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1981), p. 27. Answers in Genesis article link: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID...

Josephus taught that the temple was a "type" of the world / creation.

"Now the room within those pillars was the most holy place; but the rest of the room was the tabernacle, which was open for the priests. However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world; for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a heaven peculiar to God." Of the veil at the holy of holies, he said, "This veil was very ornamental, and embroidered with all sorts of flowers which the earth produces; and there were interwoven into it all sorts of variety that might be an ornament, excepting the forms of animals" Antiquities of the Jews: Josephus: Book III, chap.6, section 4

In the new book BCS it says that the standard for truth is 2 witnesses.

"Now I have for witnesses to what I have said, all those that have written Antiquities, both among the Greeks and barbarians; for even Manetho, who wrote the Egyptian History, and Berosus, who collected the Chaldean Monuments, and Mochus, and Hestieus, and, besides these, Hieronymus the Egyptian, and those who composed the Phoenician History, agree to what I here say: Hesiod also, and Hecatseus, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus; and, besides these, Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a thousand years" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 9

JL's picture

Michael,

Instead of making us guess, could you just tell us what you actually believe about creation and why?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

Michael,

My understanding of your question to JL is that if God's covenantal creation was made with the heaven and the earth, then God's covenantal creation was made with all of the parts of the heaven and the earth.

And since shrubs and vegetation and all other things mentioned in Genesis chapter one are parts of the heaven and the earth, then God's covenantal creation was with shrubs and vegetation and all other things mentioned in Genesis chapter one.

Therefore, as I understand it, you are asking JL to either affirm the antecedent or deny the consequent of your question in agreement with his premise that Genesis chapter one is a covenantal creation not a physical creation.

As I understand it, that is the premise of the book that JL co-authored and would be a very valid question to ask of him.

Tom

flannery0's picture

No one called you or anyone else a "crazy uncle", Mike, and you know it. But still you keep spewing your accusations.

Norm called the so-called "science" of YEC (Young Earth Creationism--the system, Michael, not a person) the "crazy uncle" and I commented that I thought it was a good analogy.

Even Sam rejects YEC, because it is based upon empirical arguments, not Scripture.

How many times are you going to keep saying that someone called you this, Michael, when you know it isn't true? Maybe the first time you accused, it was a mistake, but it has been pointed out to you now more than once. Why won't you stop repeating this falsehood?

MichaelB's picture

Tami - I thought you weren't going to grace me with your presence LOL. OK - sure you and Norm weren't aiming that at us (whatever - if you say so)...

So your "mercy" ministiry leader / partner said this - you cool with that? Geesh...

Ward wrote:
I have decided to stop writing heretics after the first and second admonition. Bennett,...Bradfield...they are all sowing discord among the brethren, thus empirically speaking, fall under the category as those hated by God.

How have I sown discord by disagreeing? Did I call you any names? Did I misquote you? (Tami I cut and pasted your entire article and commented on each section) - since when is that a crime? Did I say you arent saved? Did I call you any names like Ward does? No comment about JL's "liar" comment when I am quoting Lightfoot word for word?

BTW - remember these days - NOTHING has changed...

"This demonstrates that, while the language of "heavens and earth" often can and should be read in reference to covenant, there are many examples of "heavens and earth" which are primarily creational based in the physical "heavens and earth." A Local Creation interpretation is possible once we understand the covenant use of "heavens and earth" but it is not textually required in Genesis 1 by the covenantal reading of "heavens and earth" language elsewhere in Scripture" - Tim Martin

mazuur's picture

We're desperate??? Sheeesh, Michael, I am not sure why I waste any of my time with you.

-Rich

-Rich

JL's picture

Michael,

"One blood" is not the same as "one man." As I said, "one man" was a mistranslation, based on doctrine. Your quotes from different translations demonstrate that I am correct. Your inability to see this shows you have the same doctrinal blindness as the translators of the first version you quoted.

I demonstrated your fallacy on your previous point and off you go to this one, without even an acknowledgement. As I said, it is all chaff, or at least so much is chaff, it isn't worth threshing.

You have no honest objections. All you have is a presuppositional disagreement and a prove it wrong at all costs mentality.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Ransom's picture

I feel compelled to point out that in the Greek manuscripts, only the substantivized numeral "one". In the earliest and most reliable sources, there is no noun at all. Somewhere along the line, "blood" was chosen as a clarification and ends up in the Textus Receptus as the source for the KJV and others since. Regardless the wannabe refuter cannot use this verse as an explicit contradiction of your view.

mazuur's picture

Ransom,

Thanks for the information. Interesting comments.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Stephen,

In your opinion does the use of “blood” in John 1:13 shed any light?

John 1: 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, *NOT OF BLOOD* nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is the Greek word and definition.
aima
hah'ee-mah
Of uncertain derivation; blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specifically (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication bloodshed, also kindred: - blood.

Norm

Ransom's picture

Norm,
I don't see how these are related. The John passage you quoted focused on "blood" in contradistinction to those who did not receive their faith based upon their physical lineage through birth (blood could either refer to "race" or to the blood of childbirth). In other words, this is a clear example of the "faith, not race" aspect of Christianity. The context of Acts 17, especially v. 23, is that Paul was trying to establish a common heritage for the purpose of making his "unknown god" argument: in order for Paul to make the argument that this Hebrew deity had any relevance beyond that of a tribal god, he had to make the argument for a bond between the Greeks and the Hebrews and he did that by pointing out their presumed common ancestry. This falls well short of saying that they had a single common ancestor, much less that this progenitor was Adam. Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears, of course, because the Greeks did not recognize Adam as their ancestor.

Starlight's picture

Stephen,

Thanks for the reply

But actually it sure appears at first glance that John 1:13 may tie in very well with what you describe in Acts 17. It seems that John is using the phrase “born, not of Blood” to indicate exactly the point of their faith not being of a physical linage such as being born of blood like is described in Acts 17. I really didn’t follow you on why there would not be similarities but I do agree that it does not necessarily refer to being of Adam’s lineage at all.

Jn 1: 1 who WERE BORN, NOT OF BLOOD nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Acts 17: 26 He MADE ALSO OF ONE BLOOD every nation of men, to dwell upon all the face of the earth

Norm

Ransom's picture

Norm,

Two points here.

1) Your insistence on using the translation "made also of one blood" leads me to believe you didn't catch the point of my first comment: Paul didn't say anything about "blood". The link can only be by implication, and even then it's quite weak.

2) John referred to Old Covenant propagation by physical means and Paul, in implying common ancestry with the Greeks, implied the same sort of propagation for the human race. Their points were not the same; nor does one bolster the other. That's not much of a link. It's not useful for either side. My advice: just let it go. :)

Starlight's picture

Stephen,

Thanks again,
Yes I didn't fully grasp completly what you were driving at. I can't really argue with the earliest transcripts can I. :)

Since the argument is discreted either way then it really is insignificant except for those who like to use it for linkage to Adam as Sam Frost and Michael have and may not be inclined to give it up even in light of the earliest transcripts.

Norm

Ransom's picture

Quite so, my friend. It's a completely invalid argument either way.

MichaelB's picture

Stephen writes:
The context of Acts 17, especially v. 23, is that Paul was trying to establish a common heritage for the purpose of making his "unknown god" argument: in order for Paul to make the argument that this Hebrew deity had any relevance beyond that of a tribal god, he had to make the argument for a bond between the Greeks and the Hebrews and he did that by pointing out their presumed common ancestry. This falls well short of saying that they had a single common ancestor, much less that this progenitor was Adam. Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears, of course, because the Greeks did not recognize Adam as their ancestor.

So you admit a common ancestry / just not Adam? So when Acts 17 says one man and Gen 2 says no man yet and they are talking about the same thing - at least you can see I have a VALID argument.

Look at this:

Acts 17: heaven and earth / all from one man / breath of life

Genesis 2: heaven and earth / no man yet / breath of life

Genesis 2
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Acts 17
21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) 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. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 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.

Stephen - if the point was not about Adam what is your thought about the common ancestry?

Ransom's picture

So you admit a common ancestry / just not Adam? So when Acts 17 says one man and Gen 2 says no man yet and they are talking about the same thing - at least you can see I have a VALID argument.

Hi, Michael. First off, you should know that I am not a CC advocate. Next, Acts 17 doesn't say "one man", but "one". Moreover, the contextual referent is almost certainly "one tribe/nation": the Greek reads, "And he made out of one every nation of men." This should probably be understood in this slightly rearranged order: "He made every nation out of one [nation]." In other words, even if he is a tribal deity, we (Hebrews and Greeks) ultimately come from the same tribe.

As to whether you have a valid argument, I'd say no, because for the life of me I can't see how Paul's rhetorical argument that the Greeks and Hebrews all come from one tribe implies that Adam is the progenitor of all humanity. That said, as he made clear elsewhere (but not in Acts 17), I am convinced that is what Paul believed. He was just mistaken as to the origin and intent of the Genesis accounts.

Most importantly, what Paul was not mistaken about was that Adam served as a type for all humanity born into sin; we are naturally sinners, and this cuts off our relationship with God. The point of the Fall story is that it's man's natural predisposition to sin that estranges our species from God. Our participation in the New Covenant really is a result of a changeover from "one man" to "one man": from me and my failures to Jesus and his victory.

Starlight's picture

Mitochondrial Eve, She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago
Y-chromosomal Adam, is the patrilineal human most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all Y chromosomes in living men are descended. Y-chromosomal Adam is thus the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve. Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker studies. Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by at least 30,000 years, or possibly a thousand generations. This is due to the differences found in male and female reproductive strategies
Excerpts from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Norm
PS. Michael you might want to repost something to Ransom/Stephen's post instead of mine so that he will know that you were addressing him.

MichaelB's picture

JL writes:
You have no honest objections. All you have is a presuppositional disagreement and a prove it wrong at all costs mentality.

Wow - thanks for straightening me out JL. My presuppositions were getting in the way.

I mean there is no way this...

Genesis 2
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

and this...(which Tim would admit can not be about covenantal creation...)

Acts 17
21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) 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. 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. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 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.

There is no way at all that these scriptures above are about the same thing. I am reading INTO the text my presuppostions about there being no man before Adam (Gen 2) and all men being from one man (Acts 17).

Thanks JL - I am back on track - thanks to you =)

JL's picture

Michael,

You're back to harping on Gen. 2 again. Wow! Did you go look up what Jeremiah and Ezekial have to say on the subject (as I suggested above)? It certainly doesn't look like it.

Are you lazy? Or are you afraid to test your presuppositions against Scripture?

I've posted on Acts 17 several times over the past 4 or 5 years. A couple times in direct response to Roderick. You were there. I have no problem with the passage. Go look up those responses.

I'm sorry. That's too much to expect of someone who can't look up a few Bible verses. (It's too much to expect you to use a more accurate translation, after your previous fiasco.) Tell you what though, I'll give you a hint. When I answered Roderick, I brought up Acts 17 to prove Roderick's silly little point to be in error.

If your present argument was anything more than pure chaff, I'd find it rather ironic.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

mazuur's picture

Michael,

WOW, what a tuck and run. Nothing more to say about the translation???

What is really amazing is you finish by saying, "There is no way at all that these scriptures above are about the same thing. I am reading INTO the text my presuppostions about there being no man before Adam (Gen 2) and all men being from one man (Acts 17)."

You just ignored what JL proved (the text does not say "one man"), and acted as if that whole conversation didn't take place. And then proceeded to close your argument by using the very text which is mistranslated (Acts 17) to support your incorrect view. Just stuck head in sand?!?

That was a truly amazing show of pride getting in the way to save face.

Personally, I'm going to take the road of saying thanks JL. That is an interesting insight. Just one more piece of data in support of CC. I'm going to have to take that and input it into the CC model. Sure does seem to be just more and more support of the view.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

And people wonder why we get so frustrated interacting with Michael. This is classic Michael to just ignore everything you said and come back and copy and paste the same thing you answered for the umpteenth time. It’s like the guy has short term amnesia or can’t comprehend what you have just pointed out to him is wrong with his position.

Virgil it is very hard to stay on focus with Michael and not let one’s guard down in our replies. Michael is illustrating arrogance toward those he disagrees with by ignoring our detailed responses to him. Many of us are left between the proverbial rock and a hard spot in deciding whether to answer him. We can choose to ignore his prognostications and leave him to his antics and thus let him monopolize the discussion or we can choose and attempt to interface with him which heads downhill faster than the train going to nowhere. It is a no win situation with Michael as he is so profuse with his attacks that one feels a need to at least attempt to refute him on occasion. It just so happens that you end up feeling dirty as you are pulled into this downward spiral that inevitably happens every time. Believe me I wrestle constantly with whether to deal with Michael but would love to have a civil and constructive dialogue with him which could then benefit others as well.

I give you in contrast my dialogue with Amie and Davo, two people that I disagree with on some fundamental applications concerning the “corporate body” understanding. Both of whom I respect and want to honor with my responses to them. Now in responding to them one does have to point out what one believes are misapplications that they are implying which can ruffle some sensitive folk’s skin sometimes. But this is what we do on this web site that you provide for us here and with some work we can still interact civilly while retaining our respect for each other.

I give you Davo’s latest response to me concerning my response to Amie. Davo did what a person should do, he came back and asked for clarifications on some of my points and then he made some additional points to clarify his position. This is the way these things should work out. Now I have the opportunity to come back with a reasoned and I hope logical response and we should all learn from this interaction. But if I was Michael, I would simply copy and paste my previous response back again and declare myself the winner and go back to my blog and tell all my friends how I quickly disposed of that heretical idea that the other person was spouting.

It really becomes an issue of are we dealing with someone who is professional and courteous or are we dealing with an amateur who doesn’t know how to discourse properly. If one of the two is of the later type the discussion has low probabilities of being fruitful for anyone.

Norm

Virgil's picture

Rich, actually I noticed the same thing in Mike's comment: avoidance of the issue and insistence that "you are wrong...I am right."

I am not sure why there is such a difficulty in just even talking about this issue with at least respect towards each other. Whenever we post comments here, at the very least we should show respect, not arrogance...otherwise we dishonor a brother in Christ.

mazuur's picture

Virgil,

"show respect, not arrogance"

I agree. But, I will admit, Michael sure test my patience (by doing the very kind of stunt he just pulled), which anyone can probably tell with some of my comments. I am trying though.

It's so clear to me that what Tim and JL are on to has so much credibility it isn't funny. I for one am going to talk about this issue and keep investigating and studying it. JL point about the translation of Act 17 is just one more item to be correct to alleviate these translations of men biases.

We (preterist) have already seen the damage they have done to our translations concerning resurrection passages. Is not expected they have done the same thing to other pet doctrines such as YEC?

-Rich

-Rich

Virgil's picture

I was actually not referring to you when I wrote that...I was talking about all of us :) but you are right about the translation issue.

mazuur's picture

Virgil,

I know you weren't. I was just admitting that I am guilty, and trying to deal with it.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

"a list of empirically derived dates"

Still waiting to see that list.

-Rich

-Rich

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