 |
|
|
The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid-90's, about '94, '95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [Round of applause] But He will not destroy it with what many minds have thought Him to be. He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed.
-- Benny Hinn, Prophecy For The 1990's, This Is Your Day, Orlando Christian Center, January 1, 1990
|
|
| |
News: Problems in the Beyond Creation Science Old Earth and Local Flood Model
Posted on Monday, April 10 @ 10:57:00 PDT by Valensname |
|
Some of these questions pertain to Tim’s and JL’s upcoming post of Chapter 8 Preterist Proposal (truthinliving.org). However, these ideas have already been mentioned in previous posts.
1. Tim has argued that Genesis is apocalyptic literature[1] and should be interpreted like Revelation. If for arguments sake we agree with this, then should not the time statements of Genesis – evening and morning, the first day be understood in their normal plain sense just as the time statements in Revelation – near and quickly need to be? Would that not be consistent?
2. If Genesis is to be understood as apocalyptic literature, then per Tim’s analysis, how could one have possibly understood the opening chapters of Genesis until Revelation was written? How would the Israelites of Moses’ day possibly understand Genesis if it were apocalyptic literature? Where had they encountered it before reading Genesis 1? Also does one not need a tangible example of what heaven – the universe and the earth – planet Earth is before it can be understood as figurative and representing something else as in Matthew 5:17-18, 2 Peter 3, Revelation 21, and Isaiah 65? Does not the Bible go from the physical to the spiritual?
3. Tim uses Milton Terry as a defense for his old Earth model. Tim has stated that he upholds Scripture as inerrant and I think he also holds to the doctrine of the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. However, Terry views the early chapters of Genesis as being a compilation of several stories put together and if I recall correctly Tim has stated this as well. Would this view not destroy the inspiration of Scripture and say that Moses just put man made stories together, not that the Holy Spirit inspired the creation account or that the finger of God wrote it?
4. Tim has tried to redefine words in Genesis based on other texts instead of first interpreting the Genesis text. Why has Tim not done the type of exegetical work that those who hold to covenant eschatology have done regarding parallel passages and words to support his view? For example, those writers have show well how the word for elements is used in other places in the NT or how 2 Peter and Jude are parallel. Why does Tim do the “passover” regarding the full text of Genesis 1 where God defines evening and morning as one day? Why not show us where evening and morning, a day is used elsewhere in Scripture and denotes a long period of time? JL has argued that if just the phrase evening and morning, not including the word day as in Genesis 1, is used anywhere else in Scripture to denote a long period of time (which it doesn’t) then it must denote a long period of time in Genesis 1. Is this not faulty exegetical work? What happened to immediate context and the context of the entire book?
5. Tim states that Genesis is apocalyptic literature and in defense of this says that Genesis like Revelation contains prophecy. But does not Genesis and other books written by Moses not state at the beginning of the prophecy passage that it is indeed prophecy to let the reader clearly understand?[2]
I see the old-earth and local flood model as the modern equivalent of the ancient pagan creation myths and a compromise to try to please both man and God, just as Israel tried to worship both God and pagan idols. Science has replaced myths of gods fighting and subduing chaos in creation. The old earth and local flood model has allowed modern theory of origins to interject that thought into how one interprets Scripture. A compromise has been made and Scripture authority has suffered.
Glenn
______
1. I disagree with calling any of the Bible apocalyptic literature. I believe that lowers it to the class of the literature of man. We read Terry and Tim comparing it to man-made literature, suggesting it be interpreted just like the man made literature instead of Holy Scripture. I prefer to call that type of genre in the Bible as “prophetic literature.”
2. And Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather together that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days (Genesis 49:1).” And in Deuteronomy 28 God says if you do obey what would happen and if you do not obey then this will happen, which ties in to Deuteronomy 31:29 with what would happen in Israel's "latter end of the days." There are not such indicators anywhere in the creation account of Genesis. John states in Revelation that he was "in [the] spirit" in Revelation 1:10 and 4:2, indicating a prophecy is following.
|
| |
|
|
Average Score: 3
Votes: 6
 |
|
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Problems in the Beyond Creation Science Old Earth and Local Flood Model (Score: 1)
 by MiddleKnowledge on Monday, April 10 @ 11:33:16 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Glenn,
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. I suppose your view that Jeff and I and Terry and other old-earth creationists are idolaters makes it important for you to stand against the idolatry presented here. I respect your zeal.
Most of the issues you raise in this post relate to material that has not even been posted to Planet Preterist yet. There is a lot of confusion evident in your assertions/questions that I hope future posts will help clear up.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by valensname on Monday, April 10 @ 17:59:13 PDT
- by paul on Tuesday, April 11 @ 03:09:01 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 12:26:36 PDT
- by MiddleKnowledge on Tuesday, April 11 @ 06:18:21 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 10:20:42 PDT
- by psychohmike on Tuesday, April 11 @ 22:03:52 PDT
- by valensname on Wednesday, April 12 @ 12:15:05 PDT
- by valensname on Thursday, April 13 @ 18:57:47 PDT
- by psychohmike on Thursday, April 13 @ 20:54:25 PDT
Re: Problems in the Beyond Creation Science Old Earth and Local Flood Model (Score: 1)
by Barry on Monday, April 10 @ 12:07:53 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I think that Planet Preterist has been flooded with articles. LOL, LOL!
I'm sorry folks, I just had to, LOL
Blessings Barry
Really, though enjoying them all.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Problems in the Beyond Creation Science Old Earth and Local Flood Model (Score: 1)
by paul (freebird@comcast.net) on Monday, April 10 @ 13:04:23 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Textually, I think a strong argument for a figurative view of the word "day" is found in the fact that the mechanisms for measuring "signs and seasons, days and years" was not put into place until the 4th Creation Day. >>>???>>> doesn't that make sense to anyone else? That has nothing to do with what any scientist says or denies, although it obviously leads the faithful student of Scripture to see geologists as not opposing revelation!
Paul Richard Strange, SR.
dadprs@hotmail.com |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by leo724 on Monday, April 10 @ 19:55:34 PDT
- by paul on Monday, April 10 @ 22:16:45 PDT
- by leo724 on Tuesday, April 11 @ 03:29:14 PDT
- by paul on Wednesday, April 12 @ 11:07:18 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 06:26:08 PDT
- by leo724 on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:27:43 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 21:00:32 PDT
- by leo724 on Tuesday, April 11 @ 21:42:11 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 21:44:31 PDT
- by leo724 on Tuesday, April 11 @ 21:56:50 PDT
- by JL on Wednesday, April 12 @ 06:36:23 PDT
Re: Problems in the Beyond Creation Science Old Earth and Local Flood Model (Score: 1)
 by Ransom on Monday, April 10 @ 13:05:53 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I have seldom if ever seen so clear a statement even among dispensationalist futurists that denied the Bible's position as literature. This is tremendously troubling. What a conundrum: you have Paul saying "not the Lord, but I" and yet his words are authoritative and so it is the Lord saying it after all meaning that Paul is wrong and thus the Bible is wrong...
Every book of the Bible is imprinted with its author's distinctive touch. Does anyone deny this? Then why would anyone deny the use of literary forms in the Bible's production? |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Problems ... (Score: 1)
 by JL (jlv@planetpreterist.com) on Monday, April 10 @ 13:42:21 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Glenn,
Regarding #4. "Why not show us where evening and morning, a day is used elsewhere in Scripture and denotes a long period of time?"
Please show us a list of all the times "evening and morning, a day" is used in Scripture outside of Genesis 1.
I couldn't find any. Unless you can find one, your "request" is a cheap attempt to throw off the scent.
After you are done with that list, please follow it with a list of all the times "evening and morning" is used in Scripture outside of Genesis 1.
I showed you the only two I could find. Both mean a long period of time. You've not given any other examples.
I gave you Scripture to interpret Scripture. You denied the applicability of that Scripture, but you never gave a counter-example.
You complain that I haven't done a complete exegesis. Neither have you. From what you've shown, you haven't even started.
We've demonstrated that "the old-earth and local flood model" is as old as the Church. You claim that it's modern but provide no evidence. You call us compromisers, yet you refuse to do the work necessary to put forth a coherent model.
You have no idea what sort of compromises you are effectively advocating. Universalism. Hyper-evolution. That God created very little during creation week, but that natural forces after the flood created all the diversity we see today. That the other 19 significant creation passages contradict Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. (That's in addition to how your claims elsewhere about fiat creation in Genesis 1 contradict God's handiwork in Genesis 2.)
Don't bother responding to this last part. I want to see those lists of verses you want me to respond to. Pretend all you want, I still can't find them and I don't believe they exist.
JL |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Reply to JL's comments (Score: 1)
by valensname on Monday, April 10 @ 20:15:58 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | JL,
Thank you for responding to my post.
Why did you only respond to the fourth point? What about the first one regarding the time indicators in both Genesis and Revelation?
JL wrote regarding the language of Genesis 1, “I couldn't find any. Unless you can find one, your "request" is a cheap attempt to throw off the scent.”
Thank you JL for admitting that the “evening and morning were the first day” phrase/construct is not found anywhere else in Scripture. Thus you have no basis to compare it with except the immediate context, unless we do let Scripture interpret Scripture when it gives an inspired commentary on Genesis 1. And we have two such places in Scripture.
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between Me and the sons of Israel; for in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.
God said that He made the heavens and all that are in them in six days. He didn’t say six thousands years or six thousands of thousands of years. He said plainly six days.
We have already discussed the use of “evening and morning” in Psalms 55 and Daniel 8. I must admit you are being consistent in how you interpret Scripture. You consistently employ a hermeneutic where you find words and phrases in other contexts and then interject them without cause back into a different context and say, “If it is this way in this other context it must mean the same thing in this one [1]." You employ a hermeneutic that is like saying, “The sky is blue.” But in another context it says, “He feels blue.” Then you say, since blue in context two means how one is feeling then context one must mean how the sky is feeling. As Kurt has continued to point out, “To my mind, your flawed hermeneutical methods are the best argument against the regional flood theory.” This can be applied to your method of interpreting the creation account as well.
The only “full preterist” commentary on Daniel by Jessie Mills doesn’t say anything about the Daniel 8 passage being a long period of time. The other upcoming Daniel commentary by Kurt probably won’t agree with you there either. Maybe Kurt will respond to your Daniel 8 interpretation and how you apply it to Genesis 1? :-)
JL stated, “You complain that I haven't done a complete exegesis. Neither have you. From what you've shown, you haven't even started.”
Is this a challenge? Do we need to begin with an exegesis of the text of Genesis 1?
JL stated, “We've demonstrated that "the old-earth and local flood model" is as old as the Church. You claim that it's modern but provide no evidence. You call us compromisers, yet you refuse to do the work necessary to put forth a coherent model.”
You and Tim from what I have read and listened to don’t have a coherent model that is based on Scripture. All you have stated about the flood is that according to you it is local or regional. You’ve hinted at defining it’s extent is all. And all you have really said about Genesis 1 is that the earth and universe is billions of years old. I see no model. If you want a detailed flood model, read the book by Marion Fox, that’s a comprehensive flood model.
I wonder why you and Tim continue to use this history argument with those who believe in accomplished salvation or the fulfillment of all prophecy in Scripture. You might as well try to convince those with a futurist eschatology that since the “full preterist” view or Covenant Eschatology didn’t arrive in printed published format until Max King published The Spirit of Prophecy in 1971 then it can’t be correct since it isn’t that old. And I’m sure the people who first heard or read Genesis sat around and discussed that the heavens and the ear
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by leo724 on Tuesday, April 11 @ 05:37:51 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 06:57:08 PDT
- by leo724 on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:49:13 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 10:30:45 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 10:34:03 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 13:04:05 PDT
- by leo724 on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:59:40 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 21:41:34 PDT
- by leo724 on Tuesday, April 11 @ 21:44:12 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 19:23:13 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:07:57 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:35:52 PDT
- by MiddleKnowledge on Wednesday, April 12 @ 06:43:31 PDT
- by valensname on Wednesday, April 12 @ 10:20:48 PDT
Re: Problems in the Beyond Creation Science Old Earth and Local Flood Model (Score: 1)
by Waidmann on Tuesday, April 11 @ 07:54:58 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Glenn,
"3. Tim uses Milton Terry as a defense for his old Earth model. Tim has stated that he upholds Scripture as inerrant and I think he also holds to the doctrine of the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. However, Terry views the early chapters of Genesis as being a compilation of several stories put together and if I recall correctly Tim has stated this as well. Would this view not destroy the inspiration of Scripture and say that Moses just put man made stories together, not that the Holy Spirit inspired the creation account or that the finger of God wrote it?"
Not necessarily. If we knew that man-made stories were repeated verbatim, we would then need to deal with the fact that either the account as Moses wrote it down was not inspired, or that the earlier "man-made" were equally inspired. We would probably conclude that the earlier accounts were "inspired".
However, we don't need to make that assumption. We don't know what the early myths looked like. For all we know, Moses (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) changed the stories from their un-inspired versions to the God-desired, edited and corrected, inspired versions we have today.
Inerrancy merely tells us that the authors of what we have today were inspired of God, not that whatever sources they were drawing from were inspired as well. Luke is inspired, his sources were not.
Or am I missing something here?
Waidmann |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Ransom on Tuesday, April 11 @ 10:16:52 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 10:48:50 PDT
- by Waidmann on Tuesday, April 11 @ 11:58:09 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 12:13:52 PDT
- by MiddleKnowledge on Tuesday, April 11 @ 13:06:49 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 13:23:12 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 19:17:01 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:10:29 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:20:55 PDT
- by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:51:18 PDT
Regarding calling me a damned liar (Score: 1)
by valensname on Tuesday, April 11 @ 20:09:31 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Regarding calling me a "damned liar"
JL and Tim have stated that the universal flood view is “an absurdity” and a “lie.” Tim also yelled this at me in a post (it was in all caps). They have continued to say that if one holds to a fulfilled eschatology view then they must agree with them that the Genesis flood was local and in an old Earth (billions/millions) view.
Obviously the conclusion is that per JL and Tim the view that God created the heavens and the Earth about 6,000 years ago and the Genesis flood was universal is a false doctrine. I am only stating that I believe that their view is false doctrine, but have not resorted to demeaning those who hold to it.
I believe JL and Tim sincerely believe what they are teaching is true and are not purposely teaching error. Although I leave judging who or who is not in the Kingdom to the Lord, I’d say they are in the Kingdom just in error in their understanding. Who of us ever is 100% free of error in their beliefs and teachings? I don’t see being completely right about everything as a requirement to being in the Kingdom.
I believe the Bible teaches that we as Christians are suppose to defend our faith and point out when we believe a brother is teaching error. Creation and the Flood are not teachings that lie in the area of opinion. Thus mature Christians who should be eating of the meat and not still on the milk, should be able to defend their faith regarding these teachings. I have been attempting to do this. JL and Tim have made their teachings public, thus inviting public examination. I believe I am merely pressing points and raising questions.
If Tim or JL were speaking in an assembly of saints and I was present regarding their old earth and local flood doctrine or teaching a Bible class as if their teachings were truth and not for examination/discussion, then I’d oppose them. I’d do so in an orderly fashion. But if they were teaching my children or in a Bible class at the assembly I’m a member of that God really didn’t make the heavens and earth in six normal length days, then I’d stand up and attempt to strongly refute it, but again in a decent and orderly fashion. I don’t follow the PC moderate mentality that it is okay to sit on the fence and say I don’t have an opinion.
Regarding JL’s accusing me of not addressing Daniel 8, I have. Even if for arguments sake I allow that the phrase “evening and morning” (He still is leaving out the qualifier in Genesis that the phrase includes the word “day.”) in that passage of Daniel 8 means a long period of time, it in no way is good hermeneutics to import that meaning back into Genesis 1. Proper hermeneutics is not saying one word or phrase used in one passage must dictate what it means in another. Immediate context, overall context, parallel passages, that determines if a word of phrase can have meaning in another context. The clearest parallel passages to Genesis 1, which I continue to quote and receive no response to are:
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between Me and the sons of Israel; for in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.
This is divine commentary that God meant that the days of creation were ordinary days.
Will Tim or JL address the overall language of just evening and morning, first day, second day, etc… and the Exodus passages?
Will they answer my first question about the consistency of the time statements in Genesis and Revelation? Tim continues to say that it will be address later but he has already come on record of stating that Genesis is apocalyptic language and Genesis needs to be interpreted in light of Revelation. Why then does he not address such a simple question now?
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Problems in the Beyond Creation Science Old Earth and Local Flood Model (Score: 1)
 by psychohmike (spamproof@gmail.com) on Tuesday, April 11 @ 22:54:35 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hey all and Glenn in particular,
Glenn said,
"Your comparison with Luke I don't believe is valid. Luke himself was an eyewitness and there were others alive that were as well. Plus the outpouring of the Spirit was around then. When Moses wrote Genesis, he only had what God wrote or inspired him to write. No one was alive that had witnessed Creation nor the Flood."
Luke said,
"Since many people have attempted to write an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were passed down to us by those who had been eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning, I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Luke 1:1-4
Glenn, I think, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong but I don't think scripture says anywhere that Luke was an eye-witness to the things that he was writing about. Matter of fact he said that he investigated these things and clearly differentiates himself from "those who had been eye-witnesses."
Once again please feel free to correct me. I'm only going off memory as I write this.
8) Mike |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by valensname on Wednesday, April 12 @ 03:34:38 PDT
- by psychohmike on Wednesday, April 12 @ 04:22:57 PDT
- by valensname on Wednesday, April 12 @ 10:53:48 PDT
- by psychohmike on Wednesday, April 12 @ 20:03:05 PDT
- by valensname on Wednesday, April 12 @ 20:09:29 PDT
JL’s desperate redefining of words and phrases hermeneutic (Score: 1)
by valensname on Wednesday, April 12 @ 03:30:17 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | It appears to me that JL is admitting that the clear time statements in Genesis 1 of “And there was evening, and there was morning the first day” mean that God took one ordinary day’s time to create. How is he doing this? He has to go to Psalms and Daniel in a desperate attempt to redefine the words evening and morning. One he is attempting to import poetic and prophetic language into a historical narrative text and two he has to wait hundreds of years until the Psalm is written for the “clue” how to understand the plain time statements in Genesis don’t mean an ordinary day’s time. I guess then according to JL, Moses and the Jews couldn’t understand the time statements in Genesis until the Psalm and/or Daniel helped them define it. This is clear desperate poor hermeneutics and needs to be rejected.
Glenn |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Windpressor on Thursday, April 13 @ 03:03:42 PDT
- by Englishman on Thursday, April 13 @ 12:49:07 PDT
- by Windpressor on Friday, April 14 @ 02:25:57 PDT
- by Englishman on Friday, April 14 @ 09:51:34 PDT
- by Paige on Friday, April 14 @ 10:24:16 PDT
- by Paige on Friday, April 14 @ 10:25:17 PDT
- by Englishman on Friday, April 14 @ 14:57:47 PDT
- by Paige on Friday, April 14 @ 15:13:22 PDT
- by Windpressor on Thursday, April 13 @ 10:14:01 PDT
- by valensname on Thursday, April 13 @ 11:01:59 PDT
- by Windpressor on Friday, April 14 @ 02:33:36 PDT
- by Windpressor on Saturday, April 15 @ 01:41:25 PDT
Seeking the Truth and My Last Word in This Public Debate (Score: 1)
by valensname on Thursday, April 13 @ 19:39:14 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | This is going to be my last day and last hour of engaging in the public discussion of the posts of Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Genesis Debate here at Planet Preterist. My part in this debate has come to a close. I have asked the questions and made the points I have felt needed to be made. I have purchased several books and material and will continue in private study. I just ordered Sam’s book on the resurrection that I’ve been meaning to read. I also have other studies and things that I need to devote my time to.
Last Word About Days in Genesis 1:
I affirm that the days of creation in Genesis chapter 1 were normal ordinary days.
I believe it is clear from the text that God clearly showed that it was a normal day through not only the used of the word day and numerical succession but also through evening and morning.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.
Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse, Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning the second day.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning the third day.
Gen 1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning the fourth day.
Gen 1:23 And there was evening, and there was morning the fifth day.
Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that He had made and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning the sixth day.
And again, God commented in Exodus that He made the heavens and everything
in them in six normal days.
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between Me and the sons of Israel; for in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.
One point I have not made yet that God even “built in” more evidence that He meant a normal ordinary days time in Genesis chapter 1. Read verse 14,
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to divide between the day and the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.
If the days in Genesis 1 mean a long period of time as JL wants us to believe because of the how the phrase “evening and morning” is used in Psalms 55 and Daniel 8 then what are the “years” here mean in the same context of Genesis 1? If a day is a long period of time, then what is a night? The whole creation account is made to be meaningless if the word day doesn’t mean an ordinary day.
Regarding Tim’s and JL’s Methodology:
What has always striked me as strange when I have read Tim and JL’s explanations and method of interpretation is that it reminds me so much of what the detractors of covenant eschatology have been saying for years. Also their level of depth of writing also is comparable to the short books against covenant eschatology.
What I mean is I have repeated heard the argument against all the time indicators in the NT regarding when the parousia was to occur that if they find just one case where “about to be” doesn’t mean about to occur soon then covenant eschatology is destroyed. JL repeatedly employs the same technique is his hunt to redefine the word day and evening and morning in Genesis 1.
And when JL ignores the full terminology in Genesis 1 of day with the qualifier of evening and morning but only mentions evening and morning. This reminds me so much of the method of cutting Matthew 24 into two parts or trying to make a point about Mark 8:38 but ignoring Mark 9:1.
Since I’ve been labeled a damned liar over and over again I’ll go ahead and make another comparison. T
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MiddleKnowledge on Friday, April 14 @ 06:58:23 PDT
| 
|
