You are herePreterism...2000 Years in the Making.

Preterism...2000 Years in the Making.

  • 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 30 July 2009

Preterism...A strange and almost scary sounding word for someone that has never heard it before. What is preterism? "Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days or End Times as referring to events which already happened in the first century after Christ's birth...The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past". Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists." Source: "Preterism" at http://www.en.wikipedia.comExample...A preterist would understand the events described in the book of Revelation to be an oracle against Jerusalem that was delivered to the apostle John through an apocalyptic vision while he was in exile on the island of Patmos during the reign of Caeser Nero, shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For a detailed and historical account of this event consider reading Flavius Josephus' "Wars of the Jews." Similar oracles can also be found throughout the Hebrew Bibles prophets relating to judgments of God where He uses one nations armies as His divine instrument of wrath upon another nation.

Read the entire story @

http://preteristchurch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=...

RiversOfEden4's picture

This article should be entitled "Preterism - 2000 Years Over." As the author notes, the word "preterism" means "past". It does not mean that there is on-going fulfillment or relevance to Bible prophecies in the present or future. The resurrection and the kingdom/church all came to their "end" at the "past" parousia (1 Corinthians 15:23-28).

All the covenants and prophecies belonged only to the fleshly Israelites (Romans 9:3-5) whom God exclusively chose out of the ancient world (Amos 3:1-2). Christ himself was "born under the Law" in order to redeem those who were "under the Law" (Galatians 4:4-5) and all of that came it its end at the parousia (Matthew 5:17-20).

God only named the 12 tribes of Israel in the "new covenant" promise (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:1-13), as well as the "new heaven and new earth" (Revelation 21:12). There were "12 thrones" (Matthew 19:28) and "12 apostles" (Matthew 10:2) because there were only 12 nations in David's house (Acts 15:16-18).

Even Jesus himself stated emphatically that God sent him "only" to save the Israelites (Matthew 15:24). Paul later reiterated that the "all Israel" was saved at the parousia, including both the circumcised Israelites of the house of Judah (i.e. Jews) along with the other uncircumcised Israelite "gentiles" that were the "fulness of gentles" promised to be come from Abraham (Genesis 17:5-8) through Jacob and Joseph (Genesis 48:19-20). Thus, the church was "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:15-16).

davo's picture

If anyone can stomach the time, you can click HERE and do some lengthy reading where over a number of posts I methodically dismantle this 'Rivers of Error', providing biblical evidence that completely answers and refutes these afore mentioned baseless propositions.

davo

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Rivers has drunk some strange Kool-Aid, which I've also shown to be ridiculous non-sense, as if God somehow coveted Jewish DNA, and only Jewish DNA that existed between 30-70 AD.

I mean, consider how Rivers is trying to cast God...

But at least, after a couple of years now, Rivers has finally come out of the closet of the Forum area.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

plymouthrock's picture

"But at least, after a couple of years now, Rivers has finally come out of the closet of the Forum area."

Hear Hear!
Here Here!

plymouthrock!

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Poor Rivers, his carnal-minded interpretations have led him to a ridiculous position, which demands that he redefine terms like "the Gentiles" to mean "uncircumcised Israelites".

He should study the words of John the Baptist carefully (i.e, God about to put the so-called Ax to the so-called Jewish Root), which were the preface to the Gospel for all Humanity. Christ said similar things about Jewish DNA, that He knew that the Pharisees had a fine genetic pedigree going back to Abraham, but, like John, He said that their genetics were worthless, that they had not the works of Abraham (Faith), and were, in God's eyes, children of, not Abraham, but actually children of the Devil.

And that's the way it played out, too, for those ancient leaders of Judea.

But, according to Rivers' theology, if somebody in all of human history was lucky enough to have a pure enough strand of Jewish DNA and lived between that narrow span of time between 30-70 AD, which allowed them to potentially partake in a new and transient covenant, they would logically fall out of that same covenant (with the rest of potential Humanity) if they lived beyond Jerusalem's 70 AD destruction/Parousia.

I mean, this has already been argued within the pages of the NT writings itself. And it was the Holy Spirit and Apostle Paul versus James and Peter that took the two sides. And we know that the Holy Spirit finally convinced Peter, after Peter was put into a Trance, as recorded in Acts 10: "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."

But Peter was still two-faced about what the Holy Spirit had taught him, and he kept a double standard when it came to James and the Jerusalem Christians, until Paul confronted him about it, and hopefully beyond that time:

Gal. 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

Gal. 2:14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

RiversOfEden4's picture

Livingston,

John the Baptizer plainly stated that he was pouring water on people so that "the Christ would be manifested TO ISRAEL" (John 1:31). This is consistent with Jesus' own declaration that he was sent "ONLY to save the lost sheep OF ISRAEL" (Matthew 15:24).

My view has nothing to do with DNA. I simply see in scripture that God loved only the Isrealites who were the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

"For ISRAEL is an holy people TO THE LORD THEIR GOD ... THE LORD GOD HAS CHOSEN ISRAEL to be a people for His own possession out of all the other peoples who live in the Land" (Deuteronomy 7:6)

" ... SONS OF ISRAEL ... you ONLY have I CHOSEN from among all the other people of the earth" (Amos 3:1-2)

"Jesus said ... I was sent ONLY to save the lost sheep of ISRAEL" (Matthew 15:24)

"Therefore, since the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL share in FLESH AND BLOOD, Jesus himself partook of the SAME FLESH AND BLOOD ... for he surely doesn't help the angels, but he helps THE DESCENDANT OF ABRAHAM" (Hebrews 2:14-16).

chrisliv's picture

OK,

I'll open up some new space in the area below so we can cover this so-called old ground, yet another time.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

RiversOfEden4's picture

Livingston,

That would be good. Perhaps it needs to be covered here on the home page.

RiversOfEden4's picture

Jesus said:

"I WAS SENT ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL" (Matthew 15:24).

amie's picture

Yeah,

By rolling away the stone for a single flock, even a single sheep, the world would receive the living water.

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

RiversOfEden4's picture

According to scripture, only the Israelites were the "sheep" of the "world":

"For thus says the Lord, I will search for MY SHEEP and seek THEM out ... I will bring THEM OUT FROM THE GENTILES and GATHER THEM from the countries TO THEIR OWN LAND ... I will seek THE LOST SHEEP, bring back THE SCATTERED SHEEP ... I will make a COVENANT WITH THEM ... then THEY will know that I, the Lord THEIR GOD, am with THEM, and that THEY, THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, ARE MY PEOPLE ..." (Ezekiel 34:11-30).

"Jesus said ... I CAME ONLY TO SAVE THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL" (Matthew 15:24).

mazuur's picture

You know what gets me is, if what you say is true (which it isn't as the NT & OT foretell of the "mystery", that both Jew and Gentile were to be brought together into one body [Jesus)] why do you even care to engage in anything related to the Bible? After all, you are lost and will always be lost with no chance of ever being delivered. So, why don't you just abandon the Bible and live life as if there were no "tomorrow"? As if there were no God because he doesn't want anything to do with you (not being a Jew).

-Rich

-Rich

Ed's picture

Rich don't you know he does it for OUR good. He feels bad that we are so misled, we can't possibly be living fulfilled and contented existences. We need to be miserable without a god rather than miserable with a god.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

mazuur's picture

Well, then he should at least let us live what little time we have here with the belief that we are in God's presence. At least we'll have joy for that short period of time. It's better than nothing...right?

-Rich

-Rich

Ed's picture

No, like I said, he wants us to be miserable without a god - like he is.

Although he won't admit that he is a functional atheist. Funny, eh?

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

RiversOfEden4's picture

Rich,

I'm doing this for the sake of helping people to understand scriptural truth. I don't have anything to gain or lose from it. Maybe I'm just interested in the forensics of biblical exegesis. Why would you find any fault with that?

Reformer's picture

Rich,

Well, I took your advice and got and read Walton's book.

But I see no support for CC in it. So help me here.

Also, you say that "he presented a very compelling case for Genesis chapter one having nothing to do with the physical creation at all." With all due respect, that is not accurate. His whole position is focused on Gen. 1 being the creation of the functions of the physical creation not its material substance.

So where I'm I wrong on this or missing out on something here?

John

MiddleKnowledge's picture

John,

For someone with your scholarly credentials, your statement above completely baffles me. Very disappointing.

With all due respect, you really need to read Walton's book again or you need to investigate the material from the 2009 Covenant Creation Conference. If Walton isn't suggesting something similar (and complementary) to Covenant Creation, then I don't know anything about Covenant Creation.

Perhaps you could look at Walton's Proposition 10 titled:

"The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins"

Isn't that what Rich pointed out? Does that chapter not suggest anything along the same lines as Covenant Creation?

Get real.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

Reformer's picture

Tim,

With all due respect, I don't see how you can use Walton's premise or anything in his book to support your Gen. 1 covenantal creation theory. He's totally looking at this as the physical creation -- although from a "functions" angle and not material origins angle.

Sorry. So, where am I wrong on this ???

John

MiddleKnowledge's picture

John,

There is nothing physical about Walton's view of creation. Let me quote that chapter title (Proposition 10) again for you to ponder:

"The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins"

If you are at all interested, I quoted from Walton's material numerous times at the Covenant Creation Conference back in May. This was weeks if not months before that new book was released.

In one of my presentations I discussed how Walton's ANE perspective dovetails with Covenant Creation at many, many points. I also mentioned a few weak points that are completely resolved with Covenant Creation.

The other problem Walton has, as a futurist, is that he does not apply the same principles to the new creation. He goes from a functional view of the original creation to a material view of the new creation!?!? How can he be consistent? He is a futurist!!

Now consider this point I drove home at the Covenant Creation Conference. Covenant Eschatology is a functional view of the new creation, just as Covenant Creation is a functional view of original creation.

Covenant Creation matches Covenant Eschatology.

It's not my fault that Walton doesn't appear to have a clue about the logical implications of his view. In the long run, that won't matter one bit.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

tom-g's picture

As I see it what you are saying is that Walton is not consistent in his error while your CC is consistent.

If you recall, anyone who was inconsistent in just breaking the least of the law was judged as guilty as those who consistently broke all.

Tom

Reformer's picture

I'm sorry, Tim. Walton's focus is solely upon the physical creation. He knows nothing of a covenantal creation -- past or future. Therefore, I see nothing here of value, or at least of direct value, to your theory.

Furthermore, and as I've stated elsewhere on this site, I'm not convinced of the validity of your equating (based on a consistency appeal) the heaven and earth in Gen.1 with that in Revelation, etc. Rather, I see Scripture documenting three different entities called "heaven and earth." And, I agree, one of those was the OT covenantal creation as I have publicly written. And it was the one made new.

MiddleKnowledge's picture

John,

Of course you don't see it. However, I do suspect that others reading this will see it very clearly. Let me post the title to that chapter in Walton's book (Proposition 10) one more time for your consideration:

"The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins"

Now, how about if we apply a similar method to the other end of the Bible:

"The Seven De-Creation Days of Revelation and the Fiery Description in 2 Peter 3 Do Not Concern Material Eschatology"

Does that help at all?

Tim Martin

Reformer's picture

Dear Tim,

Not at all. As I mentioned, I don't buy your equating premise. And, once again, I don't see how you can utilize Walton to help your cause.

Sorry.

mazuur's picture

Tim,

Well stated. I too am blown away how anyone can read John's book and still walk away thinking he is making any reference to the physical, other than to repeat himself over and over and over throughout the book that what he is presenting has nothing to do with the physical cosmos.

Statements such as, "Previous chapters proposed that Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins but an account of functional origins, specifically focusing on the functioning of the cosmos as God's temple." p. 93.

How can he state it any clearer?

He even addresses the question (among many that material orientated people like Noe, Sam, Jason, and Michael are stuck in) and the very one that Jason keeps trying to push as he tries every to cling to and find justification for YEC), "One of the most common questions about this view comes from those who are struggling with the worldview shift from material orientation to functional orientation (a difficult jump for all of us). In a last effort to cling to a material perspective, they ask, why can't it be both? It is easy to see the functional orientation of the account, but does the material aspect have to be eliminated altogether?" page 93.

I recall Walton presenting example after example throughout the book to drive his point home. For example, a college could have been materially constructed over a very long time, yet it does not exist until function is given to it, which is long afterthe physical part was formed. Page 98. It isn't until the functional aspect is given that the college exist. Genesis 1 is an account of when the college (cosmos) is given functionality. Physically it existed billions of years ago.

On page 97-98 after dealing with the question asked above he states, "Finally we need to address the question of what actually happened in the seven days. What would a comparison of the "before" and "after" look like? What would an observer see if able to observe the process of these seven days? On these we can only speculate, but I will try to explore the implications of this view.

The functional view understands the functions to be decreed of God to serve the purposes of humanity, who has been made in his image. The main elements lacking in the "before" picture are therefore humanity in God's image and God's presence in his cosmic temple. Without those two ingredients the cosmos would be considered nonfunctional and therefore nonexistent. The material phase nonetheless could have been under development for long eras and could in that case correspond with the descriptions of the prehistoric ages as science has uncovered them for us. There would be no reason to think the sun had not been shining, plants had not been growing, or animals had not been present. These were like the rehearsals leading up to a performance of a play. The rehearsals are preparatory and necessary, but they are not the play. They find their meaning only when the audience is present. It is then that the play exist, and it is for them that the play exist."

Then on page 99 he states, "What would the observer have seen in these seven days of Genesis 1? At one level this could simply be dismissed as the wrong question. It continues to focus on the eyewitness account of material acts."

So many points could be addressed from his small portion of his book. Something that is related to CC and his view is his statement, only when the "audience is present". Code for when God brings man into covenant relationship with himself. It isn't about and has nothing to do with the physicality of Adam being created, it is about him coming in a functional relationship with God. Adam physically exist prior to the relationship coming into existence. The Bible just doesn't address when Adam physically came to exist. He started to exist when function was given to him. That is what Genesis 1 is addressing.

When Walton talks about "those who are struggling with the worldview shift from material orientation to functional orientation", he was even talking to me. Many times as I was reading his book, I found myself projecting materiality into his words, when in fact he was far from talking physically. I had to go back and re-read many sections and force myself to abandoned that mindset. Once I did that I was finally seeing what he was saying. I feel this is what others who have read the book have done. John Noe's words make it very clear to me he read the book projecting a materiality into his words as well. It is not surprising though. We have from birth thought about everything in those terms. Why wouldn't we not be able to let them go?

I also think this is Sam's problem. After reading his review, I walked about completely dumb-founded. He as such a desire to make YEC work, he went into that book with such tunnel vision he missed probably 80% of what Walton was presenting. I think he spent all his time merely looking for words he would use to make Walton appear to address the plausibility of his YEC. For example, re-read the section Sam entitled "Walton on Science". Then consider the statement Walton made in just this small section I quoted above. There is stated, "as science has uncovered them for us" Yeah, "Spoken like a true Clarkian." :)

To understand Walton's true position here his words found on page 115-116.

"If we want to adopt a more biblical view, we have to switch desserts. We need to think in terms of a layer cake. In this view the realm of scientific investigation world be represented in the lower layer. This layer represents the whole realm of materialistic or naturalistic causation or processes. It is subject to scientific observation, investigation and explanation. Discovery in this layer does not subtract from God or his works. This is the layer in which science has chosen to operate and where it is most useful.

In contrast, the top layer represents the work of God. It covers the entire bottom layer because everything that science discovers is another step in understanding how God as worked or continues to work through the material world and its naturalistic processes. In this way, the bottom layer might be identified as the layer of secondary natural causation while the top layer is identified as ultimate divine causations.

Science, by current definition, cannot explore the top layer. By definition it concerns itself with only that which is physical and material. By restricting itself to those things that are demonstrable, and more importantly, those things that are falsifiable, science is removed from the realm of divine activity. Though scientist have their beliefs, those must be seen as distinct from their scientific work. It is unconvincing for a scientist to claim that he or she finds no empirical evidence of God. Science as currently defined and practiced is ill-equipped to find evidence of God. The bottom layer may continue to have area of which science cannot offer explanation, but that is only evidence of science's limitations, not evidence of God. A believers faith holds that there is a top-layer, even though science cannot explore it.

That top layer addresses ultimate causation, but it also addresses purpose, which in the end, is arguably more important. God is always the ultimate cause---that is our belief whatever secondary causes and processes that can be identified through scientific investigation. But we also believe that God works with a purpose. Neither ultimate cause nor purpose can be proven or falsified by empirical science. Empirical science is not designed to be able to define or detect a purpose, though is may theoretically be able to deduce rationally that purpose is logically the best explanation. As the result of an empirical discipline, biological evolution can acknowledge no purpose, but likewise it cannot contend that there is no purpose outside of a metaphysical conclusion that there is no God. It must remain neutral on that count since either contention requires moving to the top layer, which would mean leaving the realm of scientific inquiry. Science cannot offer access to God and can neither establish his existence beyond reasonable doubt nor falsify his existence. Therefore science can only deal with causation sequence---it cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that a purpose governs or does not govern that which they observe."

Now, notice that Walton puts the material universe in the bottom layer, which is the realm of science. Science can and does operate in this realm. The age of the physical universe resides where? Inside this bottom layer! Sam tried to made a big deal about "purpose". Well, I agree science can not operate in the top layer, where purpose operates, but the age of something, which can be determined by science, is not in that layer. Science can not prove God or a purpose behind the physical universe, or the ultimate causation of the Universe, no CC person has argued differently. But it can operate in the realm of the physical universe and its properties (its age).

Now, within this bottom layer where science operates, it does continue to improve itself through time ("state of flux" that Sam mentions). As any person educated in the sciences knows, one can not account for all variation. Thus, the reason we have a confidence factor. I can calculate if a bullet is moving XX speed at a certain angle how far it will travel before it hits the ground. I can only be so accurate, due to not being able to account for all sources of variation. Energy lost through heat from friction of the air (although this can be calculated too, just have to run a thermal FEA model first) with the bullet, or density of the air in one place as compared to the air further on down the path etc.. But I can be pretty accurate to within a tolerance. And guess what, because of the flux of scientific knowledge, the accuracy of our tolerance is only getting smaller. Not worse.

I have see Sam pose the question to those who say the universe is X billions of years old, "are you sure its not X.XXX years old?" No were not sure, as there is a tolerance on the value and it might even be billions of years old, but so what? One thing we do know for sure is science is accurate enough to say its not a mere 6000 years old.

Science may not be able to prove how old Sam is exactly (X years, X months, X days, X hours, X minutes, X seconds, X tenths of a second, X hundreds of a second, X thousands of a second...), but it can prove scientifically that he is not 1 year old. And it can do it in a 100 different scientific ways. Why? Because Sam's age is in the bottom layer. The purpose behind Sam's existence science can't determine, but it never attempts to. It can only answer what it is capable. Science can never answer the purpose behind the Universe, or the ultimate cause, but it can determine what is "subject to scientific observation, investigation and explanation" as Walton puts it, its age.

-Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Yep, Walton is a Clarkian... from the (last?) bastion of Clarkian studies, no less!!

I was going to say something like you posted, but I was kind of hoping others would come to those conclusions on their own...

That is funny you mentioned the quote on p. 93. I was thinking of citing it for John, but I figured it wouldn't do any good.

But if you quote his statement on p. 93, then you need to give his full answer:

"One of the most common questions about this view [Walton's ANE] comes from those who are struggling with the worldview shift from material orientation to functional orientation (a difficult jump for all of us.) In a last effort to cling to a material perspective, they ask, why can't it be both? It is easy to see the functional orientation of the account, but does the material aspect have to be eliminated altogether?

In answer to this question, if we say that the text includes a material element alongside the functional, this view has to be demonstrated, not just retained because it is the perspective most familiar to us. The comfort of our traditional worldview is an insufficient basis for such a conclusion. We must be led by the text. A material interest cannot be assumed by default, it must be demonstrated, and we must ask ourselves why we are so interested in seeing the account in material terms..."

(The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John H. Walton. p. 93)

Amen. Now let's do an experiment. Let me restate that citation while substituting some slightly different terms. See if this looks at all familiar to you:

"One of the most common questions about [full-preterism] comes from those who are struggling with the worldview shift from material [eschatological] orientation to functional [eschatological] orientation (a difficult jump for all of us.) In a last effort to cling to a material perspective [of eschatology], they ask, why can't it be both? It is easy to see the [covenant] orientation of [prophecy], but does the material [universe] aspect [of eschatology] have to be eliminated altogether?

In answer to this question, if we say that the [prophetic] text includes a material [eschatology] alongside the functional [or covenantal], this view has to be demonstrated, not just retained because it is the perspective most familiar to us. The comfort of our traditional [material-universe eschatology] is an insufficient basis for such a conclusion. We must be led by the text. A material [universe eschatology] cannot be assumed by default, it must be demonstrated, and we must ask ourselves why we are so interested in seeing [eschatology] in material terms..."

end quote

What is most remarkable is that this little experiment can be done on virtually every page of Walton's book. It is astonishing.

I doubt very seriously that Walton fully understands the end result of his approach if it were ever applied consistently.

I don't think it matters. Walton has already uncorked the genie. Back into the bottle it will not go.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

mazuur's picture

Tim,

Good thoughts.

I'll tell ya, I was so tempted to write a full response to Sam's "review" (if you want to call it that). There was so much deception going on I couldn't hardly stomach it.

I really loved this statement, "Walton is not in any way motivated, so he says, by this: His conclusions are “not…designed to accommodate science” (95). He explains what he means: “The point is not that the biblical tex…supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth. If it were to turn out that the earth is young, so be it” (95). If one wants to adopt this framework, so be it. Science has nothing to say about it, since it has no corner on truth, and the Bible is silent on the age of the universe and earth."

I agree Walton states there is no Biblical position on the age of the earth!!! I say AMEN. So what evidence can any YEC base their belief on??? As Walton stated, "...most people who seek to defend a young-earth view do so because they believe the Bible obligates them to such a defense. I admire the fact that believers are willing to take unpopular positions and investigate all sorts of alternatives in an attempt to defend the reputation of the biblical test. But if the biblical text does not demand a young earth there would be little impetus or evidence to offer such a suggestion."[p.95].

Notice also the statement by Sam, "If one wants to adopt this framework, so be it. Science has nothing to say about it". That is not what Walton was saying. Science does have a lot to say about it. Walton is pointing out that the Bible doesn't have anything to say concerning the age of the earth.

Walton does say that OEC have no Biblical support. But his point is that YEC don't either, which is the point Walton makes if you continue on from where Sam quoted from on page 95 (convenient for him to stop short of that part). That leaves only science, and I already showed in my previous post how the age of the material resides in the lower layer of the cake where Science can operate, just as Walton stated. Science gives no support to YEC, so basically they have nothing whatsoever to base a YEC position on, yet Sam states, Walton offers a unique challenge, and many things he says are quite adoptable in a YEC view.

What exactly is adoptable to YEC??? Walton leaves no Biblical support for YEC. He removed every possible scriptural reference to support either position (OEC & YEC), and science doesn't even begin to point that way. He even stated that YEC base their entire belief on the Bible. But if that is gone, what do they have left????

Sam also stated, "To illustrate what I mean, Walton takes the word “day” as a 24 hour period (109). This is the best way to understand the Hebrew text (91). But, since this is not a text on origins from the materialistic standpoint, but on an ordering of the purpose (teleology), “day” is not saying God created these things from scratch on the particular days, but that he ordered their function in a “temple-inauguration ceremony.” The universe is God’s Temple, and the earth is his footstool. To teach mankind that this is the case, God demonstrates his power over the cosmos by ordering its raw, pre-existing (though created at some point in the unknown past – the Bible is silent here, so Walton says) material to be arranged in such a way, to “function” in such a way that will reflect this fact."

Notice the way Sam interjects the material into Walton's words. He makes it seem that Walton is saying that God was ordering ( physically moving) the physical matter of the Universe into position and that is how God was making it "functional", and he did that in six days (24 hour periods). This is not what Walton was saying at all! Sam is so stuck on the material aspects, he forces it into Walton's words everywhere. And he did this very thing throughout his entire "review".

To get a grasp on the concept of Walton think about this. Today there is probably a people (some tribe in Africa) who don't use the stars "for signs and for seasons and for days and years" Gen. 1:14. Let's assume they don't pay them any attention. Suppose I were to go over there and proceed to teach them to use them to track seasons. To which they from then one started using them for that purpose. To them the stars now exist. They have been there in their place for billions of years, but for them they just came into existence. Walton isn't saying anything about God moving matter into position in six days. The matter had been there already, the Bible just doesn't say for how long.

In the responses to his "review" Sam stated, "Walton does not advocate a YEC or OEC view, per se, but, Jason, we have read too much Clark, Cheung, Byl and Reymond to see that he definitely "hints" in that direction.

Amazing!!!! I can not believe he stated such as thing. Where exactly does he do that???? Not is this new book! Walton clearly throughout the entire book "hints" in the direction of OEC. Walton even hinted to it in the very statement that Sam quoted from on page 95. There Walton stated, "If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth. This is not a conclusion designed to accommodate science---it was drawn from an analysis and interpretation of the biblical text of Genesis in the ancient environment".

Why does Walton need to state, "This is not a conclusion designed to accommodate science"???? Because he knows the conclusion does accommodate science, but he wanted to make sure the reader understood that his view wasn't based on Science, but on the text. So again, the Bible doesn't support YEC, and science points to OEC.

Maybe I should have taken the time to "review" the "review". But what would be the point? People will hopefully get the book for themselves see what Walton has to really say.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

I did a quickie review of Sam’s review of sorts on the Deathisdefeated site making similar points that you do but not as extensively. Sam responded once. Also Jim Kessler posted a blog in which he also addresses some of Sam’s problems. Here are the links.

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/forum/topics/review-of-john-waltons-genesis

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-waltons-mountian-of

Norm

mazuur's picture

Norm,

Hmmm...thanks for the link. I was just reading your post (excellent BTW) and then Sam's response. This statement by Sam immediately jumped out: "science has no corner on truth".

True, science doesn't hold a corner on truth. But it holds part of it. In fact, inside the lower layer of Walton's cake, it (science) does holds it all!

Notice what that statement "doesn't hold a corner on truth" (I keep looking on page 63 BTW and find no reference to that phrase-not saying it isn't in the book, I remember it being there, it's just not on page 63 as Sam states), is really saying as apposed to what Sam is trying to make it say. Walton didn't say Science doesn't hold any truth. It just doesn't hold all truth (thus the phrase doesn't have a corner on it!). But, again, in the lower level, it does hold all truth. Remember Walton showed the Bible's truth resides in the top layer of the cake, which is the layer dealing with "purpose" and "ultimate cause". The lower layer is for the material and natural, to which science is able to determine.

-Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

"Notice the way Sam interjects the material into Walton's words. He makes it seem that Walton is saying that God was ordering ( physically moving) the physical matter of the Universe into position and that is how God was making it "functional", and he did that in six days (24 hour periods). This is not what Walton was saying at all! Sam is so stuck on the material aspects, he forces it into Walton's words everywhere. And he did this very thing throughout his entire "review".

To get a grasp on the concept of Walton think about this. Today there is probably a people (some tribe in Africa) who don't use the stars "for signs and for seasons and for days and years" Gen. 1:14. Let's assume they don't pay them any attention. Suppose I were to go over there and proceed to teach them to use them to track seasons. To which they from then one started using them for that purpose. To them the stars now exist. They have been there in their place for billions of years, but for them they just came into existence. Walton isn't saying anything about God moving matter into position in six days. The matter had been there already, the Bible just doesn't say for how long.

In the responses to his "review" Sam stated, "Walton does not advocate a YEC or OEC view, per se, but, Jason, we have read too much Clark, Cheung, Byl and Reymond to see that he definitely "hints" in that direction."

Rich,

I know, I know. That was too funny when I saw it.

I think that John has the same conception of Walton as Sam. As if the "functions" are material modifications that make the universe work. That is how blinded they are by their physical universe preconceptions.

Unfortunately, that misrepresentation of Walton is going to be a big problem.

I hope many more people who have read the book find that review from the RCM site. It is a perfect representation of the kind of job they like to do.

If people want to understand Walton, they should honestly read him directly.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

Reformer's picture

Dear Rich and Tim,

Yes, I am somewhat amazed not only by the logic you two are employing here, but also your rhetoric ??? All Walton talks about in his book is the "creation" of the functions of the PHYSICAL CREATION. This is his sole premise.

How you can possible conclude the following defies my ability to grasp: "I too am blown away how anyone [i.e., me, for one] can read John's [Walton's] book and still walk away thinking he is making any reference to the physical, other than to repeat himself over and over and over throughout the book that what he is presenting has nothing to do with the physical cosmos" ???

MiddleKnowledge's picture

John,

You've gone loopy.

Note how you put creation in quotation marks...

... All Walton talks about in his book is the "creation" of...

Why would you put creation in quotation marks if Walton teaches the creation account in Genesis 1 is about the physical universe? Your quotation marks demonstrate your understanding that Walton's view of "creation" is not about the material origins of the physical universe, even while you insist his view of creation is about the physical universe!

One more time. Here is the title of the chapter you need to ponder a wee bit more (Proposition 10):

"The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins"

Perhaps if I keep posting this some day you'll actually figure out what Walton said.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

Reformer's picture

Okay, Tim, take the quotation marks off. But my same criticisms remain.

Question: Did we read the same John H. Walton book -- i.e., "The Lost World of Genesis One", IVP, 2009 ???

mazuur's picture

Yes, but you need to re-read it without letting your desire to read the physical into Walton's words as you read.

I don't say that with any intent to insult you John. I too, several times, caught myself doing that very thing as well. Like I said, I had to repeat much of his book (I've actually read it 2-1/2 times) forcing myself to remove the glasses.

-Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

Dear Rich,

So it's hidden and my "desires" are hindering my understanding, right ??? THAT'S REALLY TROUBLING.

If it's not literally clear that Walton is talking about the physical/cosmos creation, HOW AM I MISSING IT ???

What is more, I've read tons of theological stuff over the years -- good, bad, and otherwise -- and I've never been as FAR OFF as you say I am on this ???

Sorry, without better arguements and supportive scriptural documentation from you, I cannot have agreement ith your position here -- so far.

mazuur's picture

Well, John, when Walton himself states multiple times in the book it is NOT about the material origins of the universe, and goes as far and names a complete chapter out of said position, it can't get any clearer. So, I guess it really is that troubling, and you are off that much.

-Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

Dear Rich,

With all due respect, you and Tim, et al, are "grasping at straws." This is the weakest preterist-supposedly argument/assertion I have ever heard.

IMO -- you all are not credible here, sorry. I remain unconvinced and cannot support you on this. Again, sorry.

tom-g's picture

Dr. Noe,

I have been trying to follow this thread and I agree with your analysis completely. However in an attempt to gain a clearer understanding of your position, I understand you to be saying the idea that Walton is not speaking to a material origin is misleading in the fact that it is not a complete expression of Walton's premise. As I understand what you are saying: The subject of Walton's premise is of the material cosmos, not its origin but its function. In any case his subject is the material cosmos. As such it in no way lends any credence or support to CC.

Tom

Reformer's picture

That's correct. And this "spin" of that to the contrary by Rich and Tim is, at best, baffling.

mazuur's picture

Tom,

Haven't even read the book? I think not, so how can you "agree with your [John's] analysis"??? You haven't a clue as to what Walton even presented. So how can you asses as to whom is accurately conveying what Walton presented?

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

There you are going off half cocked again. You know nothing about what I have and have not read. you are so emotionally caught up in error that you suspend all reason.

In any case my comment concerned Dr. Noe's stated opinion and as you can see he has confirmed that my understanding of his opinion was correct.

If you think that anyone following this thread could have no knowledge about the issue of Walton's analysis of the material cosmology in Genesis One being viewed as materially functional and not being viewed by its material origin, then you are more rationally crippled by your emotional blindness than I thought. To posit that viewing the material cosmos in Genesis One by function denies that the cosmos in Genesis One being viewed is material is patently absurd.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

"I have been trying to follow this thread and I agree with your analysis completely."

That is what you stated! How can you agree with Noe's analysis when you have not read the book????

"If you think that anyone following this thread could have no knowledge about the issue of Walton's analysis of the material cosmology in Genesis One being viewed as materially functional and not being viewed by its material origin, then you are more rationally crippled by your emotional blindness than I thought."

Unless you've read Walton's book how can you possibly have the knowledge of Walton's view???

"To posit that viewing the material cosmos in Genesis One by function denies that the cosmos in Genesis One being viewed is material is patently absurd."

Forget that your assessment isn't even accurate, whether one thinks it is absurd or not doesn't make any difference. The subject is how Walton in his book presents his view. And one would have to have read the book to know Tom!

So, tell us, have you read the book??? We're all waiting to know Tom. I think not! So, yet again, it is you stepping into an exchange with your big mouth announcing people as heretics as usual without knowing what the &#@$ you're even talking about.

How's that for being emotionally charged?

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

You prove my point eloquently.

It seems that it is you who has not followed this thread very closely and it is you who do not seem to be aware of Dr. Noe's stated opinion. And it is you who do not seem to be aware of your own comments and quotations from the book that Dr. Noe addressed and disagreed with. It is you who do not seem to understand that my agreement with Dr. Noe's opinion was based upon the arguments put forth on this thread by you and others. It is you who does not seem to understand that the argument on this thread is not about Walton's book, but about others attempting to impose their doctrines upon Walton. It is this that I understood Dr. Noe not to agree with, and it is his opinion with which I totally agree. My complete agreement was my understanding of Dr. Noe's position and he confirmed my understanding was correct. Possibly I could encourage you to take a beginners course in comprehensive reading.

As to your further comment, you seem to think certain shoes fit you even though you are not even the one wearing the shoes. So be it.

You really ought to try to learn to control your crippling emotionalism.

Tom

Barry's picture

Quote:
You really ought to try to learn to control your crippling emotionalism.
End quote.

LOL ROFL

Looks to me like a case of pushing people's buttons until you get something you think you can use to your own advantage.
But like I already said, if you are proud of yourself for these things what is another to really say? It's your journey not mine, right?

Barry

we are all in this together

davo's picture

hmm Barry, "crippling emotionalism" as opposed to emotional cripple... lol ;)

mazuur's picture

So you haven't read the book uh?

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

Of course he hasn't read the book. ROFL

Norm

tom-g's picture

Hey Norm,

Nice to hear from you again. Sorry you had to chime in to try to help Rich out. Thought you'd try the old tag team tactic again, right?

I just became a great grandfather again this morning, so fortunately for you both I'm still in a very joyous mood. I must say though, it would be a treat if one of these days you were on the side of arguing for the truth of scripture instead of these imaginative conjectures.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Ah! Talk about chiming in. Seems someone else I know did that very thing to try to help Noe out. lol

And from your silence, I guess we can assume you have not read the book?

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

You are very practiced at assuming, that seems to be your SOP.

Tom

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