You are hereOldest known Bible goes online

Oldest known Bible goes online

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

By Virgil - Posted on 06 July 2009

The world's oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday -- but the 1,600-year-old text doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today. Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament. The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.

Juan Garces, the British Library project curator, said it should be no surprise that the ancient text is not quite the same as the modern one, since the Bible has developed and changed over the years.

"The Bible as an inspirational text has a history," he told CNN.

"There are certainly theological questions linked to this," he said. "Everybody should be encouraged to investigate for themselves."

That is part of the reason for putting the Bible online, said Garces, who is both a Biblical scholar and a computer scientist.

"Scholars will want to look very closely at it, and some of the Web site functionality is specifically for them -- the ability to search the text, the ability to highlight a word, the degree of detail is particularly interesting for scholars interested in the text," he said.
Don't Miss

But, he added, "It's for everyone, really a wide audience, because of curiosity, because they appreciate the value of it."

By the middle of the fourth century, when the Codex Sinaiticus was written, there was wide but not complete agreement on which books should be considered authoritative for Christian communities, according to the Web site where the Codex is posted.

The Bible comes from the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai desert, where a scholar named Constantine Tischendorf recognized its significance in 1844 -- and promptly took part of it, Garces explained.

"Constantine Tischendorf was in search for ancient manuscripts, so he appreciated the age and value of it," Garces said.

Click here to read the entire article

Virgil's picture

ATTENTION - ALL PARTIAL PRETERISTS!

It is time for you to stand true to your noble, true and historic roots of the church and wholly reject the bastardized and heretical version of the modern Bible, which is obviously at odds with this early church writing. It is time for you to accept this new historic document as truth, a document which has to be more true than our modern version of the Scripture since it is closer to the times of church fathers and to Jesus himself.

Stand up to your early church values and make this scripture your own!

flannery0's picture

I also have a question. For those who say you can't learn any truth at all outside of the Bible. Which Bible?

MichaelB's picture

I have a question to your question. If this "bible" contradicts Cov. Creation then are you going to still going to hold that position? Why or why not?

psychohmike's picture

What about you Mike? If it supports Cov. Creation then are you going to still be against that position? Why or why not? 8)

MichaelB's picture

Psycho writes:
What about you Mike? If it supports Cov. Creation then are you going to still be against that position? Why or why not?

A) I have ALREADY shown over and over with our current bible that Cov. Creation contradicts our modern bible. See my many blogs on our site of which you are a member.

B) Even if the extra books supported Cov. Creation, I don't believe it is "the bible". So I don't have that issue to deal with.

C) I have read many of the extra books and guess what, they contradict Cov. Creation (as well as the modern bible itself).

So, what say ye "Psycho" one, Tami, Norm? =)

psychohmike's picture

I'm just playing devils advocate...8)

I just thought it was a fair question in light of yours.

You go Mikey

MichaelB's picture

I still am the only one that answered that question psycho one =) Wonder why =)

plymouthrock's picture

Hate to say it Mike, but you are beginning to sound like: a one-trick pony, a broken record, you're beating a dead horse, etc...take your pick.

I say this in jest but I do mean what I am saying. I have no bone to pick with you on this (Covenant Creation), so what I say is from the heart. Think about it, you are writing, "preaching" to some of the smartest people around. And basically, you say the same thing so much people have begun to lose interest in what you're really saying. I know I have.

Let it go already. If Covenant Creation is wrong we will all see the light someday. If it is correct then maybe the light of it will shine to others in due time as well.

But I write to hopefully put life back into these discussions. The incessant attempt to derail CC has become very boring.

Again, at this point, I could care less about the rightness or wrongness (if those are words) of CC, I just want to encourage you to pick up another topic. PLEASE.

plymouthrock!

Virgil's picture

Mike, please stop hijacking threads which are not related to Covenant Creation. I noticed you randomly post responses to users here to comments which have nothing to do with creation. I am asking nicely...

MichaelB's picture

Virgil - the very first post was obviously a jab at us Clarkians from another convo. that Tami was alluding to regarding Cov. Creation and Norm and the extra Biblical material. I simply responded with a question that turned her question around. I apologize if it was a little off track, but with Barnabas in the early manuscripts etc. it sparked a convo about it (Barnabas also wrote a little on creation and on how the Jews got it all wrong in the OT etc. regarding sacrifices etc.) Anyways. Sorry if it got off track (I think Norm and I were at least cordial though so that is a +).

Still - no one wants to answer this - and I have numerous times - tried to bring it back to this subject if you read all the threads. My questions were related to the first jab taken at us in Tami's first post.

Tami wrote (first post):
I also have a question. For those who say you can't learn any truth at all outside of the Bible. Which Bible?

Psycho writes:
What about you Mike? If it supports Cov. Creation then are you going to still be against that position? Why or why not?

A) I have ALREADY shown over and over with our current bible that Cov. Creation contradicts our modern bible. See my many blogs on our site of which you are a member.

B) Even if the extra books supported Cov. Creation, I don't believe it is "the bible". So I don't have that issue to deal with.

C) I have read many of the "extra" books and guess what, they contradict Cov. Creation (as well as the modern bible itself).

So, what say ye "Psycho" one, Tami, Norm? =)

So Virgil - I simply want to know (per Tami's first post) whether she thinks that these "extra" books are the bible. After all she says "which Bible". So it is related - though a bit of a tangent / rabbit trail admittedly.

Virgil's picture

Mike, come on dude, just drop it. I am tired of this...when someone comes to this website to learn about Preterism, the first thing they see is you going off on almost everyone posting here. It's not constructive AT ALL and I don't see how it benefits anyone.

If Tami wanted to exchange comments with you, she would have probably answered your question a few days ago; it seems like she may not be interested in that.

If you want to post relevant information on ANY topic, submit an article or email it to me and I'll post it on the website, but when an article is about an ancient church manuscript, we need to discuss that topic. Let's not hijack every article posted here and turn it somehow into some conspiracy theory about Covenant Creation.

MichaelB's picture

Virgil - Okeedokee

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Covenant Creation is a conspiracy theory?

Whoah!

MichaelB's picture

Tim - slow your role and pump your brakes. Virgil's words no one elses - geesh.

Virgil's picture

Judging by the way Mike acts, it seems to be. Every thread and article posted here is some hidden agenda for you and I to promote Covenant Creation. We are not very good at conspiracies!!

MichaelB's picture

Oh I get it Virgil - you can go off on a tangent about my "agenda" and make "judgments" about me even after I apologized. But you must correct me for going on a tangent that is actually related somewhat to the subject. Makes sense =) You are a funny guy Virgil - that's why I kill you last =)HAHA. You make me laugh =). Thanks =). Maybe I just haven't evolved yet from man/ape - LOL.

Starlight's picture

This Bible Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas.

The question becomes was Barnabas written by an early church Father or was it inspired scripture. Barnabas is a unique piece of early biblical literature that assumes the practical application as an instructive commentary of sorts as its intended message. The question of its dating is of utmost importance and may be the deciding factor on how it should be viewed. Sam Frost in his book “Misplaced Hope” performs a fine evaluation of the issues surrounding this piece of literature and highlights that it remains very close to a full Preterist view but Sam appears to come down on the side of placing it with the early church fathers rather than inspired scripture. I believe the jury is still out on that discussion and would like to add to it at this point.

There are two issues that seem to preclude Barnabas falling into the realm of inspirational scripture. One is Barnabas use of the 1000 years as a Day segment found in chapter 15. The other is the appearance of the destruction of the Temple in Chapter 16.
Otherwise the book appears to be spot on concerning its full embracing of a Preterist understanding of the Last Days and the removal of “the Death”. If it should be determined that the letter was written around 70AD or before then it becomes very problematic to only assign this piece to the literature of the early church fathers.

Even if the letter is written shortly after 70Ad it presents a highly uncertain analysis to say that a writer that had just come through the most turbulent time of Jewish History would get it wrong and forget so quickly what the Apostles had emphasized about the significance of Jerusalem’s destruction concerning resurrection and its timing. The Barnabas writer seems to get everything exactly right except perhaps for the Temple timing it seems. After a careful evaluation I would challenge the idea that he got anything wrong at all and Barnabas may indeed be the most accurate full Preterist supporting piece of literature that can be found. Whether people are comfortable of reinstating it with the cannon is another question.

Lets consider the Barnabas explanation of the 6000 years found in chapter 15 and realize that he quotes almost verbatim the same words that Peter quotes in 2 Pet 3:8 concerning the “day as a 1000 years”. Research will show that this highly understood phrase from 1st century Judaism and Christianity is found originating in the highly favored Book of Jubilees circa 200 BC. This book explains the passage as metaphorical concerning Adam not completing an eternal 1000 years which corresponds to the understanding of a “Day”. It says that Adam died during that “Day” taken from early Genesis concerning his eating of the forbidden Tree. The Barnabas author then turns around and applies this metaphorical understanding of “Day” to the six days of creation pointing out that they are in the process of being finished and they are about to enter into the Seventh Day Sabbath rest in which Heb 4 also supports this understanding.

The problem is that most analyst get bogged down in the Barnabas statement that it equates to 6000 actual years not realizing that it was a metaphorical application just as Peter understood and apparently so did John in Revelation concerning his usage of the metaphorical 1000 years. So we should understand from its applied usage that the authors did not intend for the 1000 years to be taken literally as he quoted the poetic phrase just as Peter did. It is highly suspect then to declare that the Barnabas author forgot or never understood this metaphorical application of 1000 years as a day in just a couple of years after Revelations and 2 Peter’s writing. One other point that should be mentioned is that the Book of Jubilees from which this quote is very likely taken is a compilation of years from Adam until Joseph which was 50 periods of Jubilees or about 2450 years and if you add the roughly 1500 years onward to Christ you come up with a literal 4000 years and not 6000 years. This Barnabas author is too accurate and knowledgeable to have overlooked such a reality and would not be initiating the 6000 years as an undercutting of Jubilees Jewish history. No the best answer lies in the consistent metaphorical application of a “Day as a 1000 years” just as Peter and John utilized. Therefore Barnabas was looking for the completion of the end of the metaphorical 6000 years imminently which would put him back on the right path as recognizing the full Preterist application.

Next we need to look at chapter 16 in which we have a phrase that indeed may support the idea that this letter was written post 70AD and concerns the Temple destruction. One need to put in context that everything in the Barnabas letter posit that they were waiting for the consummation of the ages just as Revelation and other NT scripture does. This one sentence that we find in Chapter 16 then may be the hinge upon whether to classify Barnabas as inspired commentary or simply an extremely early and problematic church father’s view of the consummation. If the destruction of Jerusalem happened right before the authors eyes and he forgot the Apostles and his own application within a year or two then we have an astounding forgetfulness indeed by the early church fathers and the loss of the full Preterist understanding took hold immediately by those who had been instructed properly.

I would challenge that highly uncertain idea as the discernment of the language discussing the Temple destruction in Chapter 16 is tied into the dialogue of Christ as the Temple and the saints being built up into the new Temple. When one examines the language in this context then the idea that the physical Temple was the main idea under consideration becomes somewhat problematic. What adds to the uncertainty is the Greek language of 16:5 in which depending upon the writers contextual intent could be read less assertively concerning the Greek word “ginomai”. Let’s first look at and compare Barnabas 16 with Jn 2 concerning the destruction of the Temple and see if we can discern some similar patterns.

Jn 2: 18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "DESTROY THIS TEMPLE, AND I WILL RAISE IT AGAIN IN THREE DAYS." 20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21But THE TEMPLE HE HAD SPOKEN OF WAS HIS BODY.

Barn 16:1 I will also speak with you concerning the Temple, and show how the wretched men erred by putting their hope on the building, and not on the God who made them, and is the true house of God.

Bar 16:2 For they consecrated him in the Temple almost like the heathen. But learn how the Lord speaks, in bringing it to naught, "Who has measured the heaven with a span, or the earth with his outstretched hand? Have not I? saith the Lord. Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, what house will ye build for me, or what is the place of my rest?" You know that their hope was vain.

It is obvious that Barnabas is setting up the same understanding of Christ as the Temple contrasted to the physical Temple.

3 Furthermore he says again, "Lo, they WHO DESTROYED THIS TEMPLE SHALL THEMSELVES BUILD IT."

(The question here is to which Temple is the author referring (the physical building or Christ Body Temple? The reason it is confusing is the next verse says that is happening now and the servants would build it up again and we should understand that the physical building was not what the author meant) indeed he lays out the spiritual Temple concept. There may have been some Jews already wanting to rebuild the physical Temple shortly after 70AD but it is dubious that this is what Barnabas was referring as I believe it was written before AD70.

4 THAT IS HAPPENING NOW. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again.

Is verse 4 above referring to building up the Temple spiritually?
Now look at what the author states just a couple of verses later on as it is obvious that the discussion is clearly about the Temple being built was of the spiritual nature there and not the physical. So he says in verse 6 and 7 that a Temple exist but it is being built up which we know from the NT was the process taking place within the believers. He says that this Temple would be competed when the last day of the week is ended essentially confirming God dwelling in His Temple of the seventh Day Sabbath Rest.

6 But let us inquire IF A TEMPLE OF GOD EXISTS. Yes, it exists, where he himself said that he makes and perfects it. For it is written, "And it shall come to pass WHEN THE WEEK IS ENDED THAT A TEMPLE OF GOD SHALL BE BUILT gloriously in the name of the Lord."

7 I FIND THEN THAT A TEMPLE EXISTS. Learn then HOW IT WILL BE BUILT in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, like a temple really built with hands, because it was full of idolatry, and was the house of demons through doing things which were contrary to God.

Now this is why it is somewhat confusing in verse 5 that I am questioning. Here it is again for anyone to decipher how it fits in with the destruction of Christ Temple and the Destruction of the physical Temple if that was even the primary context of this discussion.

5 Again, it was made manifest that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be delivered up. For the Scripture says, "AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS IN THE LAST DAYS that the Lord shall deliver the sheep of his pasture, and the sheep-fold, and THEIR TOWER TO DESTRUCTION." AND IT TOOK PLACE according to what the Lord said.

“Ant it took place according to what the Lord said” is the only place in all of Barnabas that I have identified that possibly puts a past AD70 fulfillment upon it. Is it possible to read contextually from the Greek that “IT WAS TAKING PLACE”? The question needs to be asked it seems. Just as in many translations it depends upon what the translator thinks is being inferred. The language could even infer that “it took place” was still an ongoing process as it had begun the last day’s countdown and the Tower destruction was expected.

Look at these earlier verses and you will see why I’m somewhat concerned about how to determine the date and timing although there is the distinct possibility that the author could be speaking in a past mode in some of these verses as well.

4:1 … Let us then utterly flee from all the works of lawlessness, lest the works of lawlessness overcome us, and let us hate the error of this present time, THAT WE MAY BE LOVED IN THAT WHICH IS TO COME.

4:9 Wherefore LET US PAY HEED IN THE LAST DAYS, for the whole time of our life and faith will profit us nothing, unless we resist, as becomes the sons of GOD IN THIS PRESENT EVIL TIME, against the offences which are to come, that the Black One may have no opportunity of entry.

5: 6 Learn: -- The Prophets who received grace from him prophesied of him, and he, in order that he "MIGHT DESTROY DEATH," and SHOW FORTH THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, because he needs must be made "manifest in the flesh," endured

7 in order to fulfil the promise made to the fathers, and himself prepare for himself the new people and show WHILE HE WAS ON EARTH THAT HE HIMSELF WILL RAISE THE DEAD AND JUDGE THE RISEN.

6:12 For IT IS CONCERNING US that the scripture says that he says to the Son, "LET US MAKE MAN AFTER OUR IMAGE and likeness, and let them rule the beasts of the earth, and the birds of heaven, and the fishes of the sea." And the Lord said, when he saw our fair creation, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth"; THESE THINGS WERE SPOKEN TO THE SON.

13 Again I will show you how he speaks to us. IN THE LAST DAYS HE MADE A SECOND CREATION; and the Lord says, "See, I make the last things as the first." To this then the Prophet referred when he proclaimed, "Enter into a land flowing with milk and honey, and rule over it." … 19 If then this DOES NOT HAPPEN AT PRESENT he has told us the time when it will; -- WHEN WE OURSELVES ALSO HAVE BEEN MADE PERFECT as heirs of the covenant of the Lord.

The Epistle of Barnabas when read in its entirety appears to reflect the same concerns and timing that the NT letters presents. Is it probable that this author who gets so much right concerning the theology of the times would lose and forget it within a year or two after the Parousia. I would present that this is a doubtful consideration but it is possible. The whole letters timing then seems to possibly hinge upon the Greek “ginomai” at the end of chapter 16 verse 5. I again posit that the better explanation is that it was written shortly before or during AD70 and that is why it endured so long with the early church as part of the canon. It was discarded when futurism took hold of the early church after about 300 years.

It not only being a confirmation of fullfilled Preterism it is a solid confirmation as well of Covenant Creation as attested to by Barnabas understanding of Genesis one being 6 days coming to a close during that period of time around 70AD.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

So are you saying that nothing in Barnabas contradicts the Cov. Creation view or the Bible as we know it? Same question above to you. If this "bible" (the other books in it) contradicts Cov. Creation will you not hold that view anymore? Why or why not? What if this "bible" contradicts the bible that we have today?

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Did you read all of my post?

I consider Barnabas as one of the strongest confirmations of full Preterism and Covenant Creation that you can find.

Norm

flannery0's picture

"Did you read all of my post?"

if only I had a dime for every time I have wanted to ask that question....

;)

flannery0's picture

"Did you read all of my post?"

if only I had a dime for every time I have wanted to ask that question....

;)

MichaelB's picture

Norm - I have read in entirety - Barnabas, Enoch and Jubilees - which you recommened.

Tami - go take a running leap into your waterless Noah "Gentile" flood.

Norm / Tami - if these "extra" books contradict Cov. Creation or the modern Bible as we have it are you going to hold them as "truth"

That is a simple question.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

What I meant was had you read my entire post and especially at the bottom where I addressed the importance of Barnabas concerning Full Preterism and the Covenant Creation issue.

The way I approach reading extracurricular Jewish writings is to determine whether they are consistent with the scriptures and if they were written before AD70. That is why the dating of Barnabas is important IMO. Some Jewish writings are more problematic than others and I read them then as contemporary commentaries that may be helpful or not. Like Sam in his book “Misplaced Hope” there is much to be taken from some of these early writers but many start to err into futurism as we get further away from AD70. Some of the early Jewish writings were obviously well received by early Christians such as Enoch which Sam also documents in his book. Enoch may have been one of the friendliest full Preterist Jewish writings that abounded. It was problematic for the Jews after AD70 as it featured the 70 weeks messianic completion having already occurred. The Jews didn’t want anything to do with that idea anymore and discarded it. By the time of the canonization of 300AD the futurist influence had permeated Christianity and they were well on the road to a physical second return and like the Jews they left Enoch behind as it and Barnabas no longer supported their understanding. Sam documents well much of this in his book.

So Michael it is not a simple question that you pose. Each book must be examined to see if they are consistent with what we as full Preterist understand. Some books like the Maccabeus seem to come off more in a Physical Nationalistic mindset which may fall more in line with the corrupted Pharisees of the day. I have not studied some of these books well so I can’t speak too many of them.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Norm writes:
What I meant was had you read my entire post and especially at the bottom where I addressed the importance of Barnabas concerning Full Preterism

Norm - do you really have trouble teaching Full Preterism from the Bible we have, that you need extra-biblical (from our current Bible) sources that contradict Moses? I think they are fun (yes I said it) FUN to read - but that is about it. We might glimpse some truths when they dont contradict the bible but I would rather rely on the bible.

Luke 21
19By standing firm you will gain life. 20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

Matthew 5
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Revelation 20
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

I understand the reluctance to embrace extra biblical writings but embracing them does not necessarily imply that they should be canonized. Background literature is immensely helpful in understanding the contemporary times that the scriptures were compiled in. That is what good scholarship is all about. Deriding Sam Frost for examining the ancient works and writings to recognize trends and movements over the centuries and which is very helpful to many Preterist would not be appropriate I believe.

Some of these writings confirm the full Preterist application that we now embrace. I don’t think we should altogether shun some of those pieces because they didn’t pass muster with some futurist Catholics around 300AD. They may embarrass some with their cultural language and usage but we can still learn from them. Some folks are embarrassed by Hosea and its implications but because it was canonized it is read correctly for what it entails. There are a lot of embarrassing stories in the OT for some Christians but we of faith recognize the truth that these stories bring forth in their own contextual times.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Norm I would pretty much agree with this...

Norm wrote;
Some of these writings confirm the full Preterist application that we now embrace.

But I do exercise GREAT CAUTION with this because I think for example Barnabas contradicts Moses and Paul and allegorizes the law etc. as if it was never given for the Jews to do literally.

But we are gtting off the subject of my first question that I posed to Tami and no one has actually answered. I answered when PsychoMike aske me my own question with no hesitation. I would like to know Tami's and your answer Norm.

Tami wrote:

I also have a question. For those who say you can't learn any truth at all outside of the Bible. Which Bible?

I asked:

I have a question to your question. If this "bible" contradicts Cov. Creation then are you still going to hold that position? Why or why not?

To which PsychoMike asked:

What about you Mike? If it supports Cov. Creation then are you going to still be against that position? Why or why not? 8)

To which I answered:

Psycho writes:
What about you Mike? If it supports Cov. Creation then are you going to still be against that position? Why or why not?

A) I have ALREADY shown over and over with our current bible that Cov. Creation contradicts our modern bible. See my many blogs on our site of which you are a member.

B) Even if the extra books supported Cov. Creation, I don't believe it is "the bible". So I don't have that issue to deal with.

C) I have read many of the extra books and guess what, they contradict Cov. Creation (as well as the modern bible itself).

So, what say ye "Psycho" one, Tami, Norm? =)

Norm, Tami said "which bible" so does she think that this is the "bible" - yes or no? Sounds like a yes to me she said "which bible". If it is a yes what if one of the extra books TOTALLY contradicts Cov. Creation? Then what?

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Thanks for the agreement. However isn’t it interesting that an author that writes close to 70AD should be accused of over spiritualizing the spiritual word of God. What would have been his motive and where would he have appropriated these ideas, surely it didn’t come from science as it hadn’t been invented yet. :) Sam Frost seems to think that Barnabas got quite a bit correct even though he disagreed with some things. Look at the following excerpt from Barnabas and notice that he essentially understood that “the Death” was what Christ was defeating. This IMO is a spiritual application that many still have not gotten their minds around (even Preterist). So was Barnabas behind the times or was he with the times? Now some may think Barnabas was actually speaking literally about physical death but that would be to subject him to a futurist presupposition that is not confirmed from his writings especially if he was seeing much as you have noticed in a spiritual sense.

Barn 5: 6 Learn: -- The Prophets who received grace from him prophesied of him, and he, in order that he "MIGHT DESTROY DEATH," and SHOW FORTH The RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, because he needs must be made "manifest in the flesh," endured 7 in order to fulfil the promise made to the fathers, and himself prepare for himself the new people and show WHILE HE WAS ON EARTH THAT HE HIMSELF WILL RAISE THE DEAD AND JUDGE THE RISEN.

Since Barnabas believes Christ accomplished this raising of the Dead while He was on the Earth it will be hard to project futurism onto him.

I realize that you believe you have proven what you say but it may all lie in the eye of the beholder. ;-)

The futurists believe they have disproved Preterism using similar arguments against metaphors and allegories that you do. Many of us full Prets realize that they are not applying the metaphors in the same manner that Preterist do and thus justify their analysis. What you read often times as contradictory appears to be because you are reading it in a literal mindset when it wasn’t intended that way and you simply misapply something that you don’t understand. When someone argues with us on Revelation they will not accept our symbolic understanding often even though we demonstrate the biblical consistency to them.

Here is what I will give you Michael. I’m exploring Genesis 1-11 and have come to some preliminary conclusions concerning those chapters. I am open to further developments that may change some of my positions as I see something that makes better sense. So far I have been reinforced in my explorations that I’m on the correct path.

Your answer to Mike was just your opinion that you have demonstrated what you believe to be true. Your stated confirmation not withstanding I don’t accept that as a strong validation of correctness.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Norm what does getting Preterism right have to do with the rest of Barnabas? After all - all of us "actual" Genesis creationists still get preterism right too =)

BTW - many argue that Enoch "got preterism right" too (ie 70 generations from Adam etc). Hey - he agrees with my creation account MUCH more than yours =)

Enoch 31
2...In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.3Their fragrance was agreeable and powerful, and their appearance both varied and elegant. The tree of knowledge also was there, of which if any one eats, he becomes endowed with great wisdom. 4It was like a species of the tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance! 5Then holy Raphael, an angel who was with me, answered and said, This is the tree of knowledge, of which your ancient father and your aged mother ate, who were before you; and who, obtaining knowledge, their eyes being opened, and knowing themselves to be naked, were expelled from the garden.

Norm - it is pretty hard to argue against an allegory when you can make it mean whatever the heck you want - so fire away I guess =)

Everything is an allegory per JL...To which I like to respond...even that?

Norm - is there ANY one of these writings that say that Adam was not the first man created? Rather he was the first COVENANTAL man?

What is your position on the "table of nations" out of curiousity, and Acts 17:26?

Is your official position about Noah's Ark that the animals are people?

Did you see that "dust" can not mean "from humanity" like some have said - or Adam's curse was for less than 1 day.

You said 1000 years = a day is legit to apply to Genesis so did it take God 6000 years to make a covenant?

Also - you are an evolutionist - so did Adam evolve from Ape?

Your early writers (Jubilees) apply day = 1000 years to Genesis = physical death. Is that your official position?

You new favorite writer (Walton) I have listend to some audios from him. Does he ANYWHERE say that Genesis is not about actual creation (I know he says it is when it comes into use) but does he EVER say that it is not about the actual earth etc. What is his position on Noah and the animals? etc?

Feel free to email me - I know this is alot + it is more fun and cordial between just us usually =)

psychohmike's picture

Hey Mike...You said: "Also - you are an evolutionist - so did Adam evolve from Ape? "

Evolutionist's do not believe that man evolved from apes.

However some evolutionist's do believe that both man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Does this make sense?

Mike

MichaelB's picture

Does it make sense biblically - no =)

But yes it makes sense - thanks for correcting me Mr. Psycho-Mike.

PS - we will be starting the study again soon in Vista - hope you can make it from time to time still - enjoy your input. MB

psychohmike's picture

Oh man...I'll do everything I can to make it down. Do wish we were all a little closer though. I'll probably just make a day out of it with the family and go down to the beach first.

Fellowship sweet fellowship. 8)

chrisliv's picture

Hey,

Great summation, Norm.

Peace,
Christian

Starlight's picture

Chris

Thanks.

By the way I was very impressed with your article and work on the Mini Mac conversion.

I own and run a computer and networking service company and can appreciate what you did and your presentation.

Alas I only deal in PC's: I would starve working on Macs. LOL

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Throughout his interpretation of the Old Testament he takes a radically anti-Jewish attitude that was unique in primitive Christian literature. In a sustained attack upon Judaism, the writer declares that the distinctive enactments of the Mosaic Law, including animal sacrifices and the material temple, are mistakes arising from Jewish blindness. By means of allegorical interpretation he imposes upon the Old Testament, including even the dietary laws in Leviticus, a meaning totally foreign to the intention of the original authors. It is generally agreed that the author was from Alexandria, in view of his fondness of the allegorical approach for which Alexandria was well-known and the fact that all the earliest evidence for the existence of the document derives from there.

Barnabas 10:1
But forasmuch as Moses said; Ye shall not eat seine nor eagle nor falcon nor crow nor any fish which hath no scale upon it, he received in his understanding three ordinances.

Barnabas 10:2
Yea and further He saith unto them in Deuteronomy; And I will lay as a covenant upon this people My ordinances. So then it is not a
commandment of God that they should not bite with their teeth, but Moses spake it in spirit.

Barnabas 10:9
Concerning meats then Moses received three decrees to this effect and uttered them in a spiritual sense; but they accepted them according
to the lust of the flesh, as though they referred to eating.

REALLY - MOSES WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT REAL FOOD WHEN HE TOLD ISRAEL THIS?

Leviticus 11
9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you. 13 " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. 20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest. 24 " 'You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening. 25 Whoever picks up one of their carcasses must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

Deuteronomy 14
9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that has fins and scales. 10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat; for you it is unclean. 11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, 14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. 19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them. 20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.

Jer's picture
Starlight's picture

Michael,

What Barnabas is saying is the same thing that Paul alludes to in 1 Cor 9:9-10. James Jordan lays it out in his book “Through New Eyes” on page 98. Barnabas is saying that Moses is speaking more directly to spiritual things in his use of clean and unclean animals. We know that this is true in how Peter understood the animal concepts of being able to now eat unclean animals in Acts 10. That is also a reaffirmation that these OT issues pointed toward the greater spiritual truth. That is why Barnabas says that “Moses spoke it in spirit”.

Here is Jordan’s take on this subject.

“The Mosaic revelation contains numerous laws concerning animals, such as that ox and ass are not to be yoked together, and that the ox is not to be muzzled while it treads. Commenting on such laws, Paul writes, “God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for
our sake it was written” (1 Corinthians 9:9-10). In other words, all the animal laws are really concerned with human life. Not muzzling the laboring ox (Deuteronomy 25:4), in context (25:5-10), means that the levir (brother-in-law) is entitled to benefit from the property of the child he rears for his deceased brother, during the years of the child’s minority. Paul applies this to pastors who care for the Church while Christ is in heaven (1 Corinthians 9:10; 1 Timothy 5:18).

In fact, if we press Paul’s language, these laws did not concern animals at all, but were “altogether”G concerned with human beings. Does this mean that the Jews never needed to keep these laws as they pertained to animals, but only as they pertained to people?7 Or does Paul’s “for our sake” refer to the
New Covenant believers and mean that while the Jews were to keep the “letter,” Christians only need to be concerned with the human dimension? Or is Paul’s “altogether for our sake” only a hyperbole of comparison? It is hard to know. ONE THING IS CLEAR: THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE ANIMAL LAWS IN THE MOSAIC REVELATION IS THE SYMBOLIC AND HUMAN DIMENSION. According to Paul, God is not particularly concerned with whether or not we yoke oxen with asses, but He is concerned with whether or not Christians marry unbelievers.”

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Barnabas 10:9
Concerning meats then Moses received three decrees to this effect and uttered them in a spiritual sense; but they accepted them according
to the lust of the flesh, as though they referred to eating.

Norm - Barnabas CLEARLY states that the Jews misinterpreterd the laws that they were given. The laws in fact DID refer to actual eating.

This is CLASSIC misinterpretation found in the Alexandrian over allegorizing school.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

You might recall that Paul recognizes the same principle in effect concerning the eating of meats and their spiritual freedom from those restrictions. However it was hard for the Jews to turn loose of that. Jesus said that the Jews read and heard the message in such a physical manner that they couldn’t understand it.

Mat 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. … "Hear then the parable of the sower: (19) When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.

Barnabas clearly is delineating between the rebellious physical Jews and the spirit lead Christians to demonstrate that the Jews have had a problem from the very beginning and were misunderstanding the spiritual word all along. They didn’t begin to understand Jesus when He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. They wanted to stone Him.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Just re-posted from above - since it all is connected. In case you didnt see.

Norm what does getting Preterism right have to do with the rest of Barnabas? After all - all of us "actual" Genesis creationists still get preterism right too =)

BTW - many argue that Enoch "got preterism right" too (ie 70 generations from Adam etc). Hey - he agrees with my creation account MUCH more than yours =)

Enoch 31
2...In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.3Their fragrance was agreeable and powerful, and their appearance both varied and elegant. The tree of knowledge also was there, of which if any one eats, he becomes endowed with great wisdom. 4It was like a species of the tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance! 5Then holy Raphael, an angel who was with me, answered and said, This is the tree of knowledge, of which your ancient father and your aged mother ate, who were before you; and who, obtaining knowledge, their eyes being opened, and knowing themselves to be naked, were expelled from the garden.

Norm - it is pretty hard to argue against an allegory when you can make it mean whatever the heck you want - so fire away I guess =)

Everything is an allegory per JL...To which I like to respond...even that?

Norm - is there ANY one of these writings that say that Adam was not the first man created? Rather he was the first COVENANTAL man?

What is your position on the "table of nations" out of curiousity, and Acts 17:26?

Is your official position about Noah's Ark that the animals are people?

Did you see that "dust" can not mean "from humanity" like some have said - or Adam's curse was for less than 1 day.

You said 1000 years = a day is legit to apply to Genesis so did it take God 6000 years to make a covenant?

Also - you are an evolutionist - so did Adam evolve from Ape?

Your early writers (Jubilees) apply day = 1000 years to Genesis = physical death. Is that your official position?

Your new favorite writer (Walton) I have listend to some audios from him. Does he ANYWHERE say that Genesis is not about actual creation (I know he says it is when it comes into use) but does he EVER say that it is not about the actual earth etc. What is his position on Noah and the animals? etc?

Feel free to email me - I know this is alot + it is more fun and cordial between just us usually =)

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Man you unloaded a lot on me there. I may need to give up my day job to stay up with you. ;)

If I get out of line Michael just email me and let me know. I’m trying my best to just stick to the facts like Joe Friday but you know passions run deep and I may let a barb slip every now and then. You have permission to straighten me out when I do.

I do like to keep these issues public as much as we can though as I think they are sometimes instructive for some to see a diversity of opinions and its kind of what PP was designed for.

Well some full Preterist still have difficulty with things that you and I may agree upon such as the death and the Body discussion. Some literalize the Rapture and the millennium so even in the NT there is a diversity of opinion usually over a literal reading. It is an ongoing work in the NT and IMO also in Genesis.

I noticed that you still think Enoch is off base. Well just for you and our reader’s information I’m going to include with this last response the final episode of what Enoch calls the Heavenly vision. It starts out with Adam and some background but it is a vision using the animals as people. Every once in a while you will get a statement that the bull became a man. The bull is a picture of the lineage of Adam and when they become a man is when there is a major prophetic event occurring. The Heavenly vision is a very interesting read which is a summary if you will of the whole Creation account from Adam to Christ. Keep in mind this story was circulating for 200 years before Christ perhaps and once you read it from beginning to end you will see why the Jews didn’t want anything to do with it as this concluding part will illustrate. This though is just the ending and you may remember the flood account where all the beast and Birds become different animals representing different nations and peoples.

Enoch XC. 28-38. The New Jerusalem, the Conversion of the surviving Gentiles, the Resurrection of the Righteous, the Messiah.

28. And I stood up to see till THEY FOLDED UP THAT OLD HOUSE; and carried off all the pillars, and all the beams and ornaments of the house were at the same time folded up with it, and they carried it off and laid it in a place in the south of the land. 29. And I saw till the Lord of the sheep BROUGHT A NEW HOUSE GREATER AND LOFTIER than that first, and set it up in the place of the first which had beer folded up: all its pillars were new, and its ornaments were new and larger than those of the first, the old one which He had taken away, and all the sheep were within it.

30. And I saw ALL THE SHEEP WHICH HAD BEEN LEFT, AND ALL THE BEASTS ON THE EARTH, AND ALL THE BIRDS OF THE HEAVEN, falling down and doing homage to those sheep and making petition to and obeying them in every thing. 31. And thereafter those three who were clothed in white and had seized me by my hand [who had taken me up before], and the hand of that ram also seizing hold of me, they took me up and set me down in the midst of those sheep BEFORE THE JUDGEMENT TOOK PLACE†. 32. And those SHEEP WERE ALL WHITE, AND THEIR WOOL WAS ABUNDANT AND CLEAN. 33. And all that had been destroyed and dispersed, AND ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD, AND ALL THE BIRDS OF THE HEAVEN, ASSEMBLED IN THAT HOUSE, and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy because they were all good and had returned to His house. 34. And I saw till they laid down that sword, which had been given to the sheep, and they brought it back into the house, and it was sealed before the presence of the Lord, and all the sheep were invited into that house, but it held them not. 35. And THE EYES OF THEM ALL WERE OPENED, and they saw the good, AND THERE WAS NOT ONE AMONG THEM THAT DID NOT SEE. 36. And I saw that THAT HOUSE WAS LARGE and broad and very full.

37. And I saw that a white bull was born, with large horns and all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air feared him and made petition to him all the time. 38. And I SAW TILL ALL THEIR GENERATIONS WERE TRANSFORMED, AND THEY ALL BECAME WHITE BULLS; and THE FIRST AMONG THEM BECAME A LAMB, and that lamb became a great animal and had great black horns on its head; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced over it and over all the oxen. 39. And I slept in their midst: and I awoke and saw everything. 40. This is the vision which I saw while I slept, and I awoke and blessed the Lord of righteousness and gave Him glory. 41. Then I wept with a great weeping and my tears stayed not till I could no longer endure it: when I saw, they flowed on account of what I had seen; FOR EVERYTHING SHALL COME AND BE FULFILLED, AND ALL THE DEEDS OF MEN IN THEIR ORDER WERE SHOWN TO ME. 42. On that night I remembered the first dream, and because of it I wept and was troubled--because I had seen that vision.'

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Norm this section in Enoch says that it is a DREAM AND VISION. Is that your position? That Adam-Noah event were dreams / visions?

A) First off it is described as a "dream" and a "vision" while "sleeping" in this section of Enoch.

B) Only the gentiles are supposed to be the "animals" and those in Covenant with God are supposed to not be animal images. Yet Noah is a bull.

C) Enoch, while "dreaming" and having a "vision" doesn't just describe that section regarding Noah with animals but describes the entire bible story that way. Yet no Cov. Creationist one would say that the rest of the just an "allegory" would they?

Funny how you just ignor the literal tree and garden in the section that is not called a dream and vision.

Enoch 31
2...In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.3Their fragrance was agreeable and powerful, and their appearance both varied and elegant. The tree of knowledge also was there, of which if any one eats, he becomes endowed with great wisdom. 4It was like a species of the tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance! 5Then holy Raphael, an angel who was with me, answered and said, This is the tree of knowledge, of which your ancient father and your aged mother ate, who were before you; and who, obtaining knowledge, their eyes being opened, and knowing themselves to be naked, were expelled from the garden.

This supports my view not yours...also...

Jubilees has animals talking...

28. And on that day was closed the mouth of all beasts, and of cattle, and of birds, and of whatever walketh, and of whatever moveth, so that they could no longer speak: or they had all spoken one with another with one lip and with one tongue.

Jubilees teaches Adam "death" is physical - refutes FP...

29. And at the close of the nineteenth jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, 8 and he was the first to be buried in the earth. 30. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; for one thousand years are as one day in the testimony of the heavens and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: "On the day that ye eat thereof ye will die." 1 For this reason he did not complete the years of this day; for he died during it

Jubilees teaches Noah made a literal sacrifice (guess Noah didn't understand the gospel)...

V1. And on the new moon of the third month he went forth from the ark, and built an altar on that mountain. 8 2. And he made atonement for the earth, 9 and took a kid and made atonement by its blood for all the guilt of the earth; for everything that had been on it had been destroyed, save those that were in the ark with Noah

Sam's picture

oldest doesn;t mean best.

Sam

MichaelB's picture

Amen

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.

Paige's picture

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Virgil's original post was tongue-in-cheek?

MichaelB's picture

Paige - we agree with Virgil on that - and on his point to Partial Prets that hold "tradition" as the infallible interpreter. If that is the case - then they should hold to all of this bible - is what Virgil is saying. He is holding their feet to the fire - so to speak - since they don't seem to be able to just defeat Full Pret. with scripture they always end up appealing to tradition and creeds etc.

watton's picture

Modern bible translations favor the Sinatic and equally old Vatican manuscripts (collectively known as the Alexandrian text type). This is because they use recent Nestle-Almand/United Bible Society (NU) Greek NT as the basis of their translation which are critical texts that favor the Alexandrian text type. One example is the NRSV.

That is why I prefer to read the NKJV because it uses the Received Text (RT) from the Greek Orthodox Church - the same text underlying the KJV. Still, the NKJV notes variations between the RT and the NU text in footnotes.

Today, one is hard pressed to find a modern translation that does not somehow note major variations documented in the Sinatic manuscript such as the ending of Mark that all the media articles on this topic want to trumpet.

davo's picture

Antiquity does not equal authority. What is true is true because it is true and not merely because it is old. The serpent's lie is very, very old – "thou shalt not surely die" – but it was NOT the truth.

I think some of what Tom Holland has to say on a number of these extra-biblical texts in the third chapter of his 'Contours of Pauline Theology' is worth noting:Another mistake that should never have happened relates to the Greek language of the NT. The NT documents were written in the Koiné Greek that pervaded every level of the Hellenistic world. For centuries it was considered that the appropriate preparation for the study of NT theology was a thorough grounding in the Greek classics. Thus most NT scholars of previous generations followed this well tried and little questioned route into theology. …

Few saw that there was a flaw in this method, but there was. While the vocabulary of the NT could be found throughout the Hellenistic world, it did not have the same meaning when it was used in a religious sense within the Jewish community. Here the language had imbibed its own theological meaning as a result of the translation of the Hebrew Bible some two hundred years or so before Christ. The Hebrew meaning had been poured into the text of the Greek translation to produce a language that had its own particular lexicon. It was Greek in its alphabet and vocabulary, but Hebrew in its mindset and essential meaning. It was this very language that Judaism bequeathed to the infant church as she interpreted and proclaimed the message of the prophets. …

Throughout the Christian era it has been generally known that writings, whose authorship was not known, have existed. This collection is known as the Pseudepigrapha. The name reflects their false claims of authorship. They were attributed to important historical Jewish figures who clearly did not compose them.

Until recently, one of the problems in using this material has been that the Christian community preserved it. While there was little doubt that it was based on a Jewish genre and indeed probably had within it genuine Jewish material, there was no certainty as to how reliable it was as a guide to Jewish thought. It was widely regarded as mostly of Christian composition and therefore not representative in any significant way of intertestamental Judaism. Indeed, G. F. Moore pointed out that it is of a totally different genre from the Rabbinical material which, though latter, was the only authentic Jewish literature of the period that existed outside of the NT. For Moore, this difference confirmed the necessity for caution in accepting the material as relevant for Jewish studies of the NT period. …

His concern was that this literature, which was increasingly available to NT scholars because of translations, was not properly understood. One of Moore’s concerns was that the material was being used by people who were ignorant of its diversity and its particular genre which required careful use as a hermeneutic tool. …

While the mistakes of previous generations of scholars are slowly being rectified, the present generation is falling into its own traps. The mushrooming of intertestamental studies as a result of the discoveries at Qumran has produced another method of training for theologians. The Pseudepigrapha have become the key for deciphering the NT message. There is no doubt that these writings give fascinating insights into this period of Judaism. They are an invaluable source for evidence of the extent to which particular theological topics were discussed throughout the different strands of Judaism. Nevertheless, the extent of their relevance for the NT message must be questioned. As we have seen, the mistake of the past was to assume that the Greek of the NT was the same as that used in secular society. This same sort of assumption is being made in another guise by many NT scholars. The assumption is that there was a strict equivalence in terminology or even themes that are found in these writings and in the NT. But this assumption cannot go unchallenged, not least because it is radically changing the message of the NT documents.

The pseudepigraphal texts are used as the key for understanding the meaning of the NT. This presupposes that they shared the same theological outlook and that their meanings are transposable. But this is to ignore a fatal flaw. There were, and still are, many theologies within Judaism. The documents represent different Jewish perspectives many of which were distinctive from, and in contradiction to, the others. …

Not until those distinctives are understood and their relationship to the NT established can they be safely used. To dump these texts mindlessly into footnotes or text of commentaries etc in order to give supporting evidence is doing the very opposite to what is intended. Instead of moving NT studies on to more scholarly methods, it is doing the very opposite. …

The method that has been adopted ignores the complexity of these sources and unwittingly reads a particular theology into the text and then in turn uses the pseudo-theological insight as the key to interpret the NT. The method is a circular one. Not recognising the differences in the meaning of the same terms within this range of literature, scholars have read their own meaning into the term, and then used that to show what the NT meant.So… leaving both our various prêterism/s and creationism/s aside for the moment – IF the "debate" is said to be still "out" on some of these extra-biblical texts in regards to our use of them in approaching the NT text then for me, I choose to err on the side of caution.

davo

Starlight's picture

Davo,

Thanks for sharing Holland's piece. I agree and disagree though with him. Being Holland is futurist inclined he may have a presupposition against writ tings that portend the Preterist position and not take them seriously.

Erring on the side of caution is ok depending on the practical ramifications that are used to determine such.

Norm

davo's picture

Well I can't really say, but I doubt "prêterism" per sē would have been a factor in his considerations, but who really knows? Anyway, I thought them interesting and pertinent enough in light of the article to post them, as in, he obviously knows his stuff…

davo

Windpressor's picture

***********

Davo,

What source quotes the serpent's claim as the singular "thou"?
The translations I have perused indicate the plural "ye" and "we"
in the conversation between the serpent and the woman.

You might find my blog interesting --

Further Observations on Gender and Genesis 3

G
...........................

G-Juan Wind

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