You are hereScientists tour Creation Museum

Scientists tour Creation Museum

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

By Virgil - Posted on 26 June 2009

For the 80 paleontologists, taking a break from their convention at the University of Cincinnati to tour the museum, some were skeptical, some were amused, some were offended. But they all seemed interested to see the museum, built to tell a Creationist view of the origins of man and to rebut the theory of evolution that many of the scientists hold dear.“I think it’s a very professional outfit and they put on a good show,” said Jason Rosenhouse, a math professor at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., and manager of a blog on evolution. “If you can sort of suspend disbelief, you can see why people get caught up in it.

“I hate the fact that this exists,” he added. “But given that it exists, I can see why people would find it compelling.”

Compelling it is. The museum hosted 1,200 people Tuesday and has hosted nearly 750,000 since it opened in May 2007. By the time the doors opened Wednesday, the line stretched out the door with people waiting in the 90-degree heat.

Read the entire story

Spartan-117's picture

Thanks for posting it Virgil.

It shows how the establishment doesn't even want to hear views that are contrary to their own. And I'd almost bet the museum doesn't say if you believe in evolution than you are responsible for the social ills but that sin/the fall was.

Are we getting more and more like Nazi Germany? Ban the books, push bills through Congress and vote on it before it is even all written, don't say anything against those in power...

Ed's picture

Spartan, interestingly enough, it's many 6-day creationists as much as anyone who want to ban books, and suspend debate.

I know very few scientists who have attempted to ban books that posit a non-evolutionary viewpoint. School teachers, yes; but few scientists.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Starlight's picture

The Bible is based upon the proposition that the Creator of the Universe brought forth the means for faithful God fearing men to have a meaningful relationship with Him. It presents the story of that journey in the realm of a Covenant Kingdom which He created for men that they may find refuge and peace. It is not a story of a physical material creation account of the literal Heavens and Earth but uses those terms found in ancient culture to describe the covenant world of God for his people of faith.

The Creation Museum is built upon misunderstanding that story and is closer akin to the museum that is to be found in Roswell, New Mexico touting space aliens. Men still have vibrant imaginations when they are faced with things they do not understand for whatever reason.

Scientist are rightly amused and disturbed by its presence just as they should be about a portion of society that still thinks and harbors the idea of Alien visitors. However if scientist use it as a decoy to resist the God and Creator of our Universe as revealed in scripture then they are just as misguided in their thinking as well.

Norm

coop's picture

I probably shouldn't respond but here goes. Creation science is not a science because it begins with a statement of faith. So does evolutionary thought. It goes something like this;
Back in the unknown past, there was a very dense mass which exploded(Big Bang) and formed the universe as we know it. And here on the blue planet, millions of years ago, some chemicals of unknown origin combined in ways that cannot be demonstrated in a lab today brought forth simple life that, through processes not observed in nature today, evolved into everything that flies, swims, walks, and creeps upon the earth.

If you can accept that nonsense without a good measure of faith your a better man than I. When I was a boy, I was taught that science was demonstrable, observable and repeatable. You can't meet one of those criteria with origins. Evolution is not science, and while scientists may be rightly amused and disturbed by the creation museum, we should be amused and disturbed at that which passes for science these days.
Let's get creation "science" and evolution "science" out of the science classroom and send them over to the philosophy department where they belong.
Was the earth created in six days or six billion days? I don't know, and I'm really not that interested because it doesn't change the spiritual truth that is stated in Genesis. If people want to think the world is millions of years old, fine, but it will never be proved just as the creationist will never prove it was created in six days. The creationists I know believe if they can demonstrate the earth was created in six days, people will come running to God. It won't happen.

Sincerely,
Mark

Starlight's picture

Mark,

Even though I’m an evolutionist I’m more specifically a “Creation Evolutionist”. Not much difference is there between a God who created 6000 years ago and any time before then as He could do it any way He wanted. God’s handiwork of physical Creation is affirmed by believing evolutionist just not 6000 years ago. We think it took longer for evolution to play out than the YEC do with their evolutionary models. The last I checked they would say all the variety of species evolved after getting off the ark around 2500 BC. I’m not about to get into a discussion of evolutionary principles and how many of us see the hand of God in its intricate work. Could it be that there is a guiding hand within biological life that testifies to the God of Creation through the evolutionary process? Could God be behind orchestrating what we now have on planet earth through natural physical and biological processes? Maybe a little like Adam Smith’s invisible hand of economics. Naturalistic evolution devoid of God is the realm of the atheist and not the believing scientist.

Now here is the kicker. Genesis 1 is not about material creation and does not describe such. Genesis 1 is Covenant language describing a Covenant Creation that ends with God finishing the work of the sixth Day with the resurrection of Christ bringing faithful man fully into His Spiritual Image and thus pronouncing His work as now “Very Good”. God then has finished fully the work of Creation and now sits enthroned having provided all good things for His creation to embrace fully His Sabbath Rest (The Seventh Day).

Mark there is nothing about philosophy involved in a “good evolutionary biological investigation”. What atheist try to weasel into science concerning evolution is outside the realm of pure biological science and has no more place in the science classroom than does teaching misguided biblical principles about Genesis. The idea that we can’t teach the exploration of evolutionary biological principles is about the same as not being able to teach students how to explore any other realm of science. It is not a problem when you recognize that it is a separate issue altogether from an exploration of biblical theology. Now when they start teaching philosophy along with evolution principles together then that is out of bounds as well for a pure science class.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Interesting Norm.

Is that the official position of Cov. Creation?

Who else holds that view of evolution, that man (and animals) evolved prior to Adam, millions of years ago?

Do you believe Adam was made by God or did he come about naturally (i.e. evolved / had parents etc.) and animals too (or are animals in Genesis Covenantal believers as Tim says or outside of the covenan (gentiles) etc.?

JL's picture

Michael,

I don't know how many Covenant Creationists are theistic evolutionists, how many are strict creationists, and how many are in between. We don't ask. It is irrelevant to how we view Genesis.

I feel evolution is not referenced in Scripture, for or against, that it is a science issue.

For the record, I'm far closer to being a strict creationist than any YEC who tries to answer the science questions. A YEC global flood requires The Origin of Species. Hyper-speciation or hyper-evolution is required by the modern YEC model.

We've not seen an empirical model from you or your Clarkian buddies. Nor do we expect to. At least two of you have gone on record claiming, "Science is useful only for making better refrigerators." I'm still waiting for a definition of "better" that fits the absolutist mold of Clarkian dogmatics which can be used to test which of two refrigerators is "better." It seems to me that your hyper-logical friends have an inherent contradiction, and they've ignored my request for years.

No, I really don't expect much out of any of you. You still harp about our apparent contradiction between local creation and covenant creation. We have spelled it out time and again, yet you ignore our responses. We have no contradiction on this subject. Local creation is physical creation. Tim stated quite plainly in his 2005, 2nd edition of BCS that the 4 known alternatives to YEC, all physical creation views, failed. Local creation was one of those physical creation views.

Covenant Creation is not creation of a physical entity. It is not the creation of the land, planet, or universe. It is creation of the covenant, specifically the Old Covenant.

You and your compadres continue to misrepresent Covenant Creation at the most fundamental level. You repeat ad nauseum the arguments some former preterist invented and you ignore our responses. A month or few later, you repeat again.

If I answer and you ignore, who's fault is it that I don't feel obliged to answer the umpteenth time?

You want to be an honest, informed critic? Then get the view right. Don't spew endless quotes and conjectures from people who can't tell the difference between physical and covenantal. It's false, fraudulent, and generally unbecoming. I have no interest in dealing with such people.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

mazuur's picture

JL,

Not to change the subject too much, but I have read the first 70 or so pages of Walton's new book (something "they" all need to read to help free their minds of their "material" minded ontology and move to a more "functional ontology"). I see what you mean about him presenting Covenant Creation (although he doesn't realize it) on page 50, and then in the very next chapter start working in the "material" aspects he worked so hard to leave behind, and thus contradict himself. Seems he isn't as free from his past material ontology as he thinks. I wonder what "aha" moment(s) he would have if he were to read your book and have somewhere to go with his new functional understanding?

Over all, so far, this book is excellent! Should have it finished soon. 70 pages in the first day, so I should be done in about 2 or 3 more days.

-Rich

-Rich

JL's picture

Rich,

If Michael to read it, how would we convince him that "functional ontology" was not "local ontology?"

Look at page 100 when you get there.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MiddleKnowledge's picture

The whole book is just beautiful. Let me spell it out again:

"The Lost World of Genesis One" by John H. Walton.

If you are interested in Genesis studies, then get this book. Read it.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

mazuur's picture

Tim,

Agreed. The whole Christian world needs to read it.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Tim,

Well, I finished the book. Fantastic! I hope this book spreads quickly. The whole of Christendom needs this book, even the futurist. Talk about tearing down some walls.

Later,
Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Rich,

It is an amazing book.

It is very encouraging to see someone else tearing into the issue from an entirely different angle, and yet end up (essentially) with a Covenant Creation view of Genesis.

Do you see how the only thing he is missing is Covenant Eschatology? The sad thing is that I doubt if he even knows about preterism... He certainly doesn't understand the full implications of what he just did with that book. Or at least I doubt very seriously that he could possibly understand the ramifications for eschatology.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

davo's picture

mazuur: I see what you mean about him presenting Covenant Creation (although he doesn't realize it) on page 50, and then in the very next chapter start working in the "material" aspects he worked so hard to leave behind, and thus contradict himself.

Could it be then Rich that the "the truth" actually lies somewhere in a synthesis of the two, both "local" and "covenantal" – that's my present position. I have NO issue with allegory when held to its definition…

Allegory: a story, poem, or picture with an underlying meaning as well as the literal one [Greek allēgorein to speak figuratively]; an extended metaphor.

Thus I would understand the "literal" of Gen1 as local; this being the underlying basis of the deeper covenantal account of Israel's inception that follows – much as I laid out HERE.

davo

mazuur's picture

Davo,

No. It isn't that he intended to try to present an "allegory". One can just see the physical sneaking through his words unintendedly as he presented the subject of a particular chapter.

You really need to get this book. I would suggest you get and read it first before you tackle his bigger book "ANE thought and the OT". This book is much shorter, and a much easier and non technical read. It's a great little introduction.

-Rich

-Rich

davo's picture

Ok thanks mate :)

flannery0's picture

JL wrote:

"I don't know how many Covenant Creationists are theistic evolutionists, how many are strict creationists, and how many are in between. We don't ask.

******It is irrelevant to how we view Genesis****"

THANK YOU!

Good grief.

MichaelB's picture

It's irrelevant how you view Genesis? Where did Adam come from people? Even in Cov. Creation you have to say he (Adam) came from somewhere? If it is all "metaphor" then did he have an ape dad? After all, Ward Fenely speaks of "fossil records" etc. Or did God actually form him out of dust? Which is it? GOOD GRIEF - right back at ya.

Acts 17
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Ed's picture

So Mike, you want a scientific answer or a biblical answer? If you want a biblical answer, which is usually what is demanded, Adam came "from the dust of the ground," i.e., humanity.

If you want a scientific answer, then you are an empiricist. Find out for yourself.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

flannery0's picture

"Adam came "from the dust of the ground," i.e., humanity."

Exactly. And it is very important that we appreciate the nature of this reference. As all (I assume?) would agree, 1 Corinthians 15 is referring to this same "dust" when it describes the "man from the dust" who "was made a living soul," and is "earthy," "corruptible" and "mortal." Resurrection is defined as that mortal ("man from the dust") putting on immortality.

Therefore, if Adam being formed from the "dust of the ground" in Genesis is a reference to the creation of his physical body, then 1 Corinthians 15 is absolutely teaching a physical, bodily resurrection.

MichaelB's picture

Tami wrote:
Therefore, if Adam being formed from the "dust of the ground" in Genesis is a reference to the creation of his physical body, then 1 Corinthians 15 is absolutely teaching a physical, bodily resurrection.

What are you talking about Tami? Adam was NATURAL Christ was SPIRITUAL. It is contrasting NATURAL LIVING BEING with HEAVENLY SPIRITUAL.

1 Corinthians 15
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Want me to quote you and Ward, Tami?

The question came up on thier email list - [SGPList] "the first man Adam was created a living soul" - what odes that mean?

Ward wrote:
But I sort of see the soul as simply a person's ability to die...When the Spirit (Gospel) came, it was the power of God unto salvation(immortality) and changed the soul (natural or mortal) to spirit (spiritual or immortal).

Tami wrote:
When you ask, "Is the soul eternal?" I am understanding you to mean, "Was the soul created eternal?" If that is what you are asking, I would say no, based upon this passage: 1 Corinthians 15: 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. First, when we see "so it is written" we should immediately ask ourselves, where is this written? Paul is quoting from Genesis: Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (The first man Adam was made a living soul) Adam, in his original, *pre-fallen* state, was made a living soul. Then Paul goes on to contrast the living soul with the quickening (life-giving) spirit: ... "the living soul" = corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal and here it is: the living soul in not eternal. "the living soul" = mortal

PS - PLEASE NOTE - you are all still VERY SHY to talk about the animals and vegetables and Noah EATING ANIMALS etc. Red herrings don't answer questions.

JL's picture

Where did Adam come from people? Even in Cov. Creation you have to say he (Adam) came from somewhere?
I accept Walton's statements on "functional ontology." Genesis 1 says nothing about material existence. By Walton's demonstration, your question does not pass muster on "audience relevance."

I've written elsewhere several times on Acts 17. I do not believe it is the problem you imagine.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

mazuur's picture

JL,

oh man, I loved Walton's dealing on the "dust of the earth" phrase.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Michael,

No it is not. It is my position and mine alone.
But I blame everyone that infuenced me. ;-)

Yes I believe God created Adam just like you and me.
Of course the scriptures are teaching a Covenant Creation and not the physical dynamics.

Norm

mazuur's picture

Yet, I'm sure it will now be presented all over the internet all those who hold to CC are evolutionist. Seen it before many times, so I'm sure will continue to see it.

-Rich

-Rich

MichaelB's picture

Norm wrote:
Yes I believe God created Adam just like you and me. Of course the scriptures are teaching a Covenant Creation and not the physical dynamics.

Ok God created Adam just like you and me...

Genesis 1
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

He made Covenantal animals too (PEOPLE ???)...

Geneis 1
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

And some Covenantal seeds and vegetation (MORE PEOPLE I GUESS ???)...

Genesis 1
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

Then of course Noah came around and God destroyed BOTH man and animal (in the same scripture - but these weren't real animals) and Noah ate and sacrificed animals - but these were not real animals either...

Genesis 7
21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

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

Genesis 9
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Oh ya - then Paul used this "Covenant Creation" model - knowing that Adam was not the first ACTUAL human - but then said this to UNBELIEVERS...

Acts 17
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

You quoted ... " Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,

When does the NT scripture say that man was fully finished and created in God's Image?

Col 1:15 He is THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, the firstborn of all creation.

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON,

1Co 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR THE IMAGE of the MAN OF HEAVEN.

2Co 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit, … And WE ALL, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, ARE BEING TRANSFORMED INTO THE SAME IMAGE

2Co 4:4 …. of the glory of Christ, WHO IS THE IMAGE OF GOD.

Col 3:10 and have put on THE NEW SELF, which is being renewed in knowledge AFTER THE IMAGE OF ITS CREATOR.

It appears to me that the work of creating man in God’s full Image was not finished until Christ. That would fit in nicely with the six days of Creation being a Covenant Creation in which God finished His work and then entered the Temple of His Sabbath Rest on Day 7.

It’s interesting that the some of the Church fathers read it exactly that way as well. They had no science axe to grind either but came up with the same understanding nearly 2000 years ago.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Norm - the Animals CAN NOT BE GENTILES.

Flood event says BOTH man and animals destroyed. Animals must be different then men.

Flood event says Noah SACRIFICED animals. Perfectly consitent with above and with the OT.

Noah sacrificed CLEAN animals. What are Clean Gentiles?

Noah instructed to EAT animals. But not the life-blood in it. PERFECTLY consistent with the OT.

Genesis 7
21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

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

Genesis 9
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

MichaelB's picture

Norm writes:
You quoted ... " Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, When does the NT scripture say that man was fully finished and created in God's Image?

Norm even after the fall they were still in God's image. You are mixing terms simply again by a word search hermeneutic for image.

Genesis 9
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Then why did earthy man need God's spritual Image if he already possed it?

Norm

Starlight's picture

Michael,

My friend you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I’ve presented my case and answered many of these questions before but they simply do not resonate with your understanding based upon your hermeneutic principle.

By the way what did you think about the NT scriptures bearing upon the Image of God coming through Christ that I presented?

Blessings

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Norm - I appreciate your personal emails earlier. We will have to chat more that way - one on one. When we do this here - everyone else chimes in and we get a bit off course. Should have come straight to you via email bro. Next time I will email first =) MB

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Yes I think some of these discussions go better when they are between each other.

As I pointed out I believe a lot of our differences are related to where each of us are in regards to our hermeneutic application. What many of us are seeing is obvious not what you and some others are seeing.

I can handle that but I also feel an obligation to promote what I believe is a better view IMO. CC is simply the natural outcome of exploring the scriptures through a full Preterist understanding. I consider it to use the same principles as how we explore the escatalogical end.

Many of us have written extensively on the subject and some see it our way and some do not. Many of us are passionate about CC just as we were about our Revelation discoveries.

The details behind all of this is immense and does not translate easily into quickie postings.

Blessings

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Sure Norm - it never is easy to explain for you guys. It is always 'you need to read this or that" and all these qyestions are left unanswered. Evolution is a "better" / wonderful God honoring view...sigh.

MichaelB's picture

Ed wrote:
So Mike, you want a scientific answer or a biblical answer? If you want a biblical answer, which is usually what is demanded, Adam came "from the dust of the ground," i.e., humanity."Adam came "from the dust of the ground," i.e., humanity."

Tami wrote:
Exactly. And it is very important that we appreciate the nature of this reference. As all (I assume?) would agree, 1 Corinthians 15 is referring to this same "dust" when it describes the "man from the dust" who "was made a living soul," and is "earthy," "corruptible" and "mortal." Resurrection is defined as that mortal ("man from the dust") putting on immortality. Therefore, if Adam being formed from the "dust of the ground" in Genesis is a reference to the creation of his physical body, then 1 Corinthians 15 is absolutely teaching a physical, bodily resurrection.

So your position is that Adam simply came from humanity? That is what it means by "dust"

Genesis 2
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Yet look just a chapter later. It can not be Adam returning to "humanity" it says return to the "ground" in reference to the "dust". Or did Adam's curse only last (whatever you think of the nature of it Tami and all) till he was sent to the ground (humanity)? The curse would have been till he left Eden. Boy - that was not long.

Dust and ground are parallels. It is CLEARLY referencing the Lord making Adam out of the dust and Adam returning to dust at physical death.

Genesis 3
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Tami - the reference in 1 Cor 15 is not about death it is about being a "living being" verses the "life giving spirit"

Ed - I don't demand any scientific answer. Only sound hermeneutic answers. No one is doubting that metaphors are used in the bible. But when we try to apply this theory to Genesis it falls apart. Animals in Gen 1-3 and Animals in Gen 6-9. Dust in Genesis 2 and Dust in Genesis 3 etc. don't allow us to make metaphors out of it when we test it within it's own CONTEXT.

PLEASE SEE BELOW:

Creation as Miracle or Blind Fools (Article)

http://www.reformed.org/creation/blind_fools.html

Empiricism and Christianity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQpOn3HDCQ

mazuur's picture

Michael,

Oh brother. Get John Walton's new book and introduce yourself to a whole new way of comprehending concepts. Until you understand the way the ancients understood concepts and thought, you will not even be able to begin to grasp the things that others are trying to express. I know, I've been there. After reading almost two books now by Walton (a true ANE Scholar) and just now starting to really grasp the way the ancients thought, I completely understand why Christendom is in the shape it is in concerning Genesis (and the NT for that matter). I see why there are as many views as there are Christians, both scholars and laymen. Do yourself a favor and get it. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

-Rich

-Rich

MichaelB's picture

Ah - the "get the book" line =) HAHA. Rich I will look into (consider) it when I get more time. Just been very busy - moved / getting married / and bying a place - etc.

mazuur's picture

Michael,

I understand, but we are talking a completely alternate way of even thinking/understanding simple words. Unless you get some introduction to concepts that are completely foreign for us all, communication will continue to be like us speaking two different languages. I kind you not.

It is a very simple, short, and easy (non-technical) read. Believe me, once you read it you will completely understand why I'm saying what I'm saying. I'm sure you will walk away from this book blown away on just how out-of-touch we all are in relation to the ancients and the way they thought. I know I was and continue to be the more I study their culture and the way they thought about things; the temple, the cosmos. Even concepts as simple as what it even means to simply exist. It seems after every chapter I let out a "HOLY COW! No wonder we're as screwed up, and in such a state of confusion regarding Genesis as we are".

-Rich

P.S. Married? Well, congrads!

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Oh, the book is

"The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate" by John H. Walton. It's only like $10 through Amazon.

Once you read it, are completely blown away (I just know you will be), and want to gain more understanding of the Ancients, get his other more in-depth, longer, and more technical book "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible".

-Rich

-Rich

MichaelB's picture

Rich - I already know some about that book. I have seen several excerpts. It has been reviewed several times etc. on the internet.

If: Dust = humanity
And: Adam returned to humanity immediately when he had to leave the garden (that day).
Then: Not a long curse if "dust" means humanity.

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to humanity = dust (that same day) - DOESN'T WORK =)

JL's picture

Michael,

Your entire argument hinges on the translation of one word as future tense.

Hebrew has no tense. Why should we assume that word is not better translated "while?"

The word in question Strong's #5704 is the same as Strong's #5703 often translated "for ever." That comes from the primitive root #5710 (which is actually a longer word) which could be translated "as."

Traditionally it is "until you return," but I think you've got a difficult case to demonstrate that it isn't "for ever (for the age?) you return" or "as you return." Either of which implies an immediate return to the ground to start the curse.

Do you really want to continue to give us grief over the reasonably questionable translation of the tense of a single word?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Barry's picture

Is it that simple Michael?
Did snakes use to have legs too?

Did Israel return to the dust of the earth as simply one nation as all other nations from which it was taken?
No more special "in the flesh" anymore!

Barry

we are all in this together

MichaelB's picture

Barry wrote:
Is it that simple Michael? Did snakes use to have legs too?

Well if I take Tim's advice...

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

Then I should quote Josephus about the creation too right?

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

"God therefore commanded that Adam and his wife should eat of all the rest of the plants, but to abstain from the tree of knowledge; and foretold to them, that if they touched it, it would prove their destruction. But while all the living creatures had one language, at that time the serpent, which then lived together with Adam and his wife, shewed an envious disposition, at his supposal of their living happily" Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 4

"He also deprived the serpent of speech, out of indignation at his malicious disposition towards Adam. Besides this, he inserted poison under his tongue, and made him an enemy to men; and suggested to them, that they should direct their strokes against his head, that being the place wherein lay his mischievous designs towards men, and it being easiest to take vengeance on him, that way. And when he had deprived him of the use of his feet, he made him to go rolling all along, and dragging himself upon the ground. And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place" Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 4
04/02/08 14:34:20

How about I take Norm's advice and believe ENOCH and JUBILEES? Surely they taugh the proper historical hermeneutic according to Norm.

ENOCH
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.

Enoch sure sounds like a literal garden and tree. So how about Jubilees? Hmm sounds pretty literal. Thanks for the advice Tim and Norm - ROFL - LOL.

JUBILEES
26. And He made for them coats of skin, and clothed them, and sent them forth from the Garden of Eden. 1 27. And on that day on which Adam went forth from the garden, he offered as a sweet savour an offering, frankincense, galbanum, and stacte, and spices 2 in the morning with the rising of the sun from the day when he covered his shame. 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: 3 for they had all spoken one with another with one lip and with one tongue...24. And He was wroth with the woman, because she hearkened to the voice of the serpent, and did eat;...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.

Barry's picture

Are talking to Tim, Norm or me?

My point is simple, the reason behind your "not work" may not work.

I believe that Genesis one is Universal creation from the perspective of the consciousness of man as he sees the world around him, not as to how the physicality of it was made which is a science question.

From this becomes the microcosmos of Covenant as relates to the "natural" man.

From here a "new heavens and a new earth" of consciousness emerges as we have a fulfilled revelation. Thus a new way of "seeing" the world and not a new physicality. A new consciousness.

This is why many text do not meet the either or that is imposed on them.

My model needs some work but so far IMHO it meets the problem head on as to why many texts such as Acts 17 embodies both creation in general and covenant.

Barry

we are all in this together

davo's picture

Barry: My model needs some work but so far IMHO it meets the problem head on as to why many texts such as Acts 17 embodies both creation in general and covenant.

Barry… I believe a "local creation" model also fits well with "both creation in general and covenant", but "not as to how the physicality of it was made which is a science question" but rather in allegoric terms of the birth of Israel, of which Adam was the microcosmic progenitor.

davo

mazuur's picture

So, is the a presentation of an excuse so you can avoid reading it?

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

I found one such review. Is this one you were referring to?

http://bbhchurchconnection.blogspot.com/2009/06/lost-world-of-genesis-on...

I have to say, even as good of a review as this is, one still has to read the book to really grasp and understand the concepts. :)

-Rich

-Rich

Ed's picture

Michael,
it does work. For it Adam came from the "dust of the ground," i.e., humanity; then who was "cursed" by Adam's sin? Humanity, the ground. Who produced "thorns and thistles" due to Adam's sin? Humanity, the ground. To where did Adam return upon his spiritual death? Humanity, the ground.

Adam was humanity's Federal Head. He represented humanity to God. When he fell, all fell. No choice, they just fell. Adam returned there after being kicked out of the garden. But he returned with "clothing," God's redemptive promise. It would be through his descendent, his and Eve's seed, that salvation for the entire "earth/land/ground/soil/humanity" would come. It did, through the Last Adam, the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

It fits so well that it almost seems ludicrous to think otherwise.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

MichaelB's picture

If: Dust = humanity

And: Adam returned to humanity immediately when he had to leave the garden (died that day).

Then: Not a long curse if "dust" means humanity.

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to humanity = dust (that same day) - DOESN'T WORK =)

BTW - ground is the SAME word in the Adam account, Cain and Abel, and the flood.

Insert HUMANITY in for GROUND - ROFL

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

Genesis 3
23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Genesis 4
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

Genesis 8
8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.

Genesis 8
By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry.

Genesis 8
21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

JL's picture

Michael,

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge your constant and consuming error that a local creation and a covenantal creation are the same thing. They are not.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

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