1. Starting Assumptions,
2. The Scientific case,
3. The Biblical Case I: Animal Death,
4. The Biblical Case II: The Balance Theme in Scripture,
5. The Biblical Case III: The Sabbath,
6. Concordantist Science,
7. Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2,
8. The Flood of Noah,
9. Implications for Theology.

He also includes in an Appendix a literal translation of early Genesis which I find intriguing.

David states in his preface that he is associated with the Presbyterian Church of America. Theologically he appears to be typical on many positions, unless you are a Young Earth Creationist who might beg to differ. He also is determined to position himself on the side of what he terms “Covenantal Theology” page 176, it appears we should also place David in the camp of what would be classified as “Partial Preterism” as he states in his opening chapter “I believe that Jesus was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD when he referred to his “coming with power”; the judgment ready to fall on Jerusalem is a constant theme in the Gospels.”

It is apparent to me that throughout David’s writings there is a need for growth in some of his theological understandings, especially in the “Covenantal Theological” matters. I don’t say this to be disrespectful of David but just as an observation from a theological point of view that David has a limited scope of Biblical covenants. Covenantal Theology in the broader sense is a more complete understanding which embodies the consideration that specific descriptive language within the Bible such as “Heavens and Earth” are covenant language and not descriptions of the physical world. The author appears to recognize this point in his last chapter but in earlier chapters he looses sight of that aspect. But moving forward, I find this book has been a refreshing read in many respects. I have followed OEC over the last 10 years, having read extensively some of Hugh Ross’s materials years ago and I’m seeing a definite theological maturity in reading this work. It’s especially pleasing to see a more balanced view of utilizing Scriptures instead of relying on science to make Genesis conform to stated positions. David is appearing to be making a concerted effort to attempt to utilize “Scripture” and not as much science in his approach for which he is to be commended.

But I’m afraid I can’t let him off the hook completely as his book still manifest a residual desire to conform the Scriptures to science. This obviously makes sense, since he is a scientist and would find it improbable to give that pursuit up completely. But the tension that I perceive from David’s work is the desire to match science and biblical approaches in a manner of some kind of scientific formula which I suggest is not called for. As we delve into each chapter this theme will obviously resurface and will be dealt with again, but now let’s begin.

Chapter 1

The author attempts in chapter one to set the stage for recognizing ones prejudices and assumptions in reading Scripture. He is outlining what any serious student of the Bible must come to grips with, that we are not void of preconceived positions and outright ignorance when we study. We all are affected by peer pressure such as the author encounters and even PC within our own established religious groups that we associate with. He then delves into recognizing the Poetic nature of Scripture such as Psalm 93:1 which states that the earth doesn’t move or cannot be moved. He rightly discerns that no one takes that verse literally anymore for obvious scientific knowledge but they used to cite it in opposition to Copernicus and Galileo. That is just one episode where science has been useful as a signal to indicate that we have been errant in reading the Scriptures totally literal. Another interesting analysis comes from his discussion that there are no longer any apostles, he points this out by referring to Daniel 9:24 that the Messiah will seal up vision and prophecy. He says many Christians date the passing away of the apostolic age to 70AD. He then states that “Other Christians including myself just are not convinced by the evidence for real miracles done by these people”. The author also deals with interpreting the Bible in which he makes an important statement concerning avoiding concession to worldly views due to societal pressure. He states “In order to avoid the first pitfall, any argument for a new interpretation of Scripture should present a positive case; that is, it should not simply “explain away” apparently obvious meanings of Scripture. It should show THEMATIC CONSISTECY (my emphasis) with all of Scripture, a truly biblical worldview.” This is an important concept for all of us to keep in mind especially if we want to be true to the language of the Scriptures and not default to our natural tendency to literalize it in a modernistic manner by excluding its original historical intention.

Chapter 2

The author then picks up The Scientific Case here and begins by stating “My goal is to build a biblical case, not primarily a scientific one,” he then wants to review some of the scientific facts. His purpose is to examine the consequences of adhering to conflicting explanations by YEC of their science dogma. He investigates the dimension of time by the measurement of light traveling from distant stars to earth. Those not versed in the examination of time measurement utilizing light distances may find this section interesting and enlightening. Those that discard science would probably care less about this discussion. The author does broach on the possibility though that God created light to appear to have been traveling for billions of years an (“apparent age”) concept which brings up an interesting argument against utilizing any science at all as it would then be unreliable to know with any certainty whether God just created something to look that way. This portends a serious ethical discussion on the credibility of any science being useful for purposes of verification of anything as it may have arisen just for deceptive purposes so that we might believe in a billion year old earth while in effect it was only a 6000 year old earth. It also seems to present the dilemma of a God who deceives his creation which is another whole ball of wax to deal with and one that I find especially abhorrent to contemplate. The author also tries to lump the creation account and the second coming together and comes up with a somewhat contorted explanation about dispensationalist utilizing sensational projections for recognizing the second coming. Of course he’s not aware that both he and dispensationalist are confused concerning the second coming and are arguing over Alice in wonderland events.

This is where his “Covenantal Theology” needs some straightening out so that he doesn’t get off the mark in recognizing that the end of the Old Israel covenant was actually the “end of the age” being addressed in Scriptures and not the end of global earth. This is one area where his science fails him.

Next the author examines other means by which we measure the age of the earth such as geological layers and “magnetic orientations” in the earths crust. This again is good information to be aware of and readily helpful to those who are not fearful of science. This chapter is designed to confront YEC creation science primarily but I would also suggest that it is useful when presented to counter those who describe themselves as scriptural literalist as they may not include themselves in the YEC camp theologically. This latter group usually can be caricatured similar to the picture of the monkey who has his hands over his eyes and ears but in this case not their mouths as they have plenty to say about Genesis. When it comes to science they are absolutely clueless, and to top it off they are happy to be that way. This also brings up a pet peeve of mine, as I perceive that our religious establishments are heavily populated by both of these groups. One is a lover of bizarre science and the other is a hater of science, this really cuts the legs out from under our nation in the competition of science with other countries. This can be strongly attributed to the “withdraw from the world” mentality of the end of the world futurist positions propagated by so many in the religious community today. I could continue to expound more just about the projection of China in this century as they start to embrace religion and develop competitive advantage over us and as they mesh their new found religion with out the baggage of an anti science mentality in their country. Our own country will need to get their act together in regards to this issue hopefully sooner rather than later.

Chapter 3

This chapter is one of my favorites, primarily because the author attempts to utilize Scriptures in his discussion concerning the concept of death before the fall. He confronts the peculiar idea in my estimation that animals did not die before the fall of Adam and Eve. My favorite quote is from question #3 at the end of the chapter. “If the one act of disobedience of Adam led to death for all animals, did the one act of righteousness of Christ lead to life for all animals?” That question is worth the price of the book in itself. Although I do not agree with everything in the chapter there are quality discussions of the Curse, the meaning of Death through Adam, and a discussion of Bondage to Decay. Most importantly in the author’s writings he continues to recognize that the Scriptures are not to be taken literally in Genesis as many times they represent what he refers to as a type. He recognizes the similarities of Genesis with Revelation types such as the New Heaven and Earth. And he delves into the Tree of Life and its implications although he may somewhat overstate this issue. His discussion of Romans 5 and 8 concerning their application to sin death and bondage and decay are useful and he ties them in appropriately with Ecclesiastes and Job portraying how sin rendered us with emptiness and futility. He misses in his comparison of Genesis with Revelation 21-22 as most Partial Preterist do. His lack of an adequate understanding of those chapters representing the current covenant (New Heavens and Earth) that Christ has instituted here among men of course leads to some misapplications although he does a pretty good job otherwise.

Chapter 4

The Balance Theme in Scripture as the author explains is that there are balance contrast repeated in Scripture continually such as light and darkness, male and female, seed and harvest, land and sea. He utilizes this balance theme to introduce that God created a world of good and bad forces. Among these topics is what he describes as dangerous forces in Creation. He implies that some conclude that these forces were only products of the fall but the author declares that these forces are good. This discussion moves into an interesting observation about the “Leviathan” he highlights that this “Sea Monster” which first appears in Genesis 1:21 (tannin) is found also in many other locations in Scripture. This discussion again is mostly for the benefit of those who deny death before the fall as it is obvious that the creation of the “great sea monster” in Genesis 1:21 implies that death did occur before the fall as from all practical purposes “Great Sea Monsters” don’t live on “milk”.

It boils down that the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan and the lion that catches its prey are all good things for which God is praised” This discussion leads up to the conclusion that “God is dangerous and powerful in which the author quotes Romans 1:20 “for his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” This according to the author includes the dangerous forces also. He states “The entire Gospel revolves around the idea of avoiding God’s wrath: in fact, God pours out his wrath on his Son so that we may avoid it.” As I mentioned earlier, this chapter was another excursion into confronting the misguided belief that evil or biological death did not exist before the fall. He has some interesting discussion in this chapter which I have not touched on which many would find enlightening.

Chapter 5

Sabbath is the biblical discussion for this chapter and there are definitely some interesting tidbits in this section. The author attempts to bring the Sabbath issue to bear on the Genesis 1 debate in respect to the six days of creating and then the seventh day of Sabbath rest. He attempts to correlate that Sabbath usage in biblical terms does not always employ the meaning of days. He reminds us of the Sabbath rest for the land and also points to Hebrew 4:4 which declares that “God rested on the seventh day from all his works” which would indicate that the seventh day is not to be considered a 24 hour day. This is a strong point which I would encourage those who still want to consider Genesis as literal to strongly consider the implications of Hebrews 4:4. The author I believe correctly states that “there is no “eighth day” when God goes back to work.” Next the author implies from his discernment of the seventh day rest that all of the days were in like manner consisting of an age. This is where I believe he may have overstated his case, especially from the consideration of covenantal language which is used in the previous Hebrews sections leading up to the seventh day statement. I believe the Day age view that he prefers along with such notables as Hugh Ross is not called for as he intends. The author next will then correctly lay out the noticeable organization of the 6 days and how days 1, 2 and 3 correspond to 4, 5 and 6 in certain attributes but blows that off with barely a discussion, except to declare that for some reason that position is “problematic” without a reasonable clarification of why.

He next probes the book of Revelation and recognizes that this writing continually utilizes the cycle of seven to denote completion or perfection. He then denounces the framework approach attempting to associate it with Augustine’s contrived thinking on the subject of creation. Where that came from I’m not sure, it seems to be just an add-on catchall to wrap things up at the end of the chapter. The bottom line of his day age approach is an attempt in my estimation to incorporate science back into the subject as he attempts to wrap the chapter up by declaring that “why not suppose that seven miraculous events marked the beginnings of the ages?” This is in effect a typical modernized desire to insert physical implications into a covenantal paradigm where they may not be properly called for.

Chapter 6

Concordantist science is the author’s view of what is called the day age view. This basically means he is attempting to consign the six days of creation to mesh with an old earth paradigm. This is a common approach of many striving to reconcile science with the Bible. This approach is similar in many ways to YEC in that there is this overwhelming devotion to working what I like to call a formula approach to Scripture and science. It makes sense doesn’t it since both YEC and OEC are “science” driven in their approach. This is also where they both exhibit their Achilles heel in regard to reconciling Scripture. The author recognizes “that some argue that it is unwarranted to see any scientific information in Genesis because it is a religious book, not a scientific one” But he goes on ahead and ignores his warning by disregarding it as an “unnatural division … that the Bible itself does not make”. The author then rationalizes his need to utilize science with this declaration “although the main purpose is not to teach science, science is involved in everything we do, since science is nothing but a way to organize and analyze the things of the world around us. His assumptions stated here do not fully take into consideration that the Genesis story may not be as inclined to support sciences formulas as he would desire it to.

He attempts to explain that those who want to keep science and the Bible separate are doing so out of a “defensive posture”. This assumption does not take into consideration that there may be scriptural hermeneutical reasons that preclude a scientific formula approach being applied to Genesis. The author fails to understand that there may be a new fresher approach to Genesis that he has not considered due to his limited exposure and paradigm expectations.

This chapter is really an example of twentieth century scientific enlightment mentality not yet having died out. As we move forward in this century this process will hopefully continue to dissipate along with the similar YEC approach, as Covenantal hermeneutical theology replaces the age of reason more completely when it comes to biblical interpretation.

Again I appreciate the author’s discussion of science and his recognition of its proper place as truth in a revealed world, as it rightly portrays Gods handiwork profoundly. But utilizing science to explain Genesis may not be what God intended and we should recognize that this indeed is not the case as we observe the language of the Old and New Testament writers. As an example of this we now recognize that the language of the Olivet Discourse is filled with similar language to Genesis.

Mk 13:19 “because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now- and never to be equaled again. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

Recognizing the apocalyptic covenant language equips us now to recognize that this was covenantal language and not scientific literal. The author accurately recognized this aspect in his first chapter discussion but may not have fully accepted similar language in Genesis and Revelation. But it obviously made an important impact on his proper discernment of the Scripture in Matthew as he correctly identifies the language is about Covenantal Old Israel and not the physical End of the Cosmos. Finally there are points of science which the writer brings up I share in agreement with such as the fine tuning of the universe and Gods handiwork confirming his power and Deity.

Chapter 7

The author highlights in chapter 7 that trying to apply time frames to the Genesis 1 story brings about impossible scenarios for a literal interpretation but this doesn’t preclude him explaining these items in a scientific approach. One of the important features recognized by the author in chapter 7 is the problem of accurate translations which we as English readers not versed in the Hebrew language are saddled with. He especially notates the usage of the word “eretz” which is often translated earth. He rightly brings this to the attention of the reader and helps identify the correct orientation of land. He also begins to recognize the Poetic aspects of Genesis and seems inclined to go that direction but pulls back in preference of a science approach page145 “to say it is Poetic does not mean it is not true”, words are some time used symbolically and generically. The author takes a local view of Genesis as his answer to some of the problem explanations of Genesis. It’s interesting that he came up with this local view of Israel using land instead of earth. page 147 “We must not fall into thinking that everything must happen for natural causes.” The author recognizes that it is important to see the cultural context that an ancient Hebrew would have understood Genesis from a local perspective which is an important aspect that the author highlights. He states “I conclude that in Genesis 1:2 the point of view is that of a person on the earth in the land of the Hebrews.” It’s interesting though that he eventually loses track of this perspective by the time he gets to Revelation.

Chapter 8

The author begins chapter 8 The Flood of Noah by making an interesting observation concerning the impact of miraculous events. He states that we should be able to see the results of miracles as those who were witness’s to those events were able to verify the truthfulness of the miracle as in the case of Jesus producing fish and bread to feed the hungry. Not only were they filled but there was remnants left over from the two feedings filling baskets with the leftovers. He then draws the inference from those miraculous incidents to state that we should see the remnants and indications of a global flood. Of course the spiritual implications of 7 baskets for the crowd of gentiles from the Decapolis region and 12 baskets gathered from those of Jewish descent are apparent and are significant for that purpose as well. I typically shy away from incorporating old earth science into theology but this event would have been recent enough chronologically to indeed be a verifiable residual which we should be able to observe if the flood was worldwide. The problem is as he points out is that we do not see any physical evidence whatsoever of a global flood impacting the earth notwithstanding so called Flood Geologist. The author then appropriately points out the myriad of physical impossibilities that Noah would have encountered in handling all the multitudes of species and variations to save everything. This is where his science is useful and plainly exhibits the problems one would encounter with a global flood. He even mentions the special climate needs of Polar bears and Penguins something that Tim Martin pointed out a few years ago in his book “Beyond Creation Science” on the problems of the global flood. The author list 15 different miraculous issues that would need to occur for the flood to be global. He next examines the language which he says the literal reading is “the water rose twenty feet, and all the high hills were covered” but translators often juxtapose and change this reading to say “the water rose to twenty feet higher than the highest mountains.” The author seems to have picked up from other writers perhaps in this identification as this dialogue appears similar as that seen by some of our own writers.

Also he correctly identifies something we here at PP are aware of through Tim Martins writings, is the misuse of the word “earth”. Instead he demonstrates as Tim has previously of properly inserting the word “land” for a more correct contextual usage which helps readers discern more accurately. By inserting “land” one can easily recognize the language as dealing with a local flood.

I do believe the author overstates his case though when he states that the flood killed all people in existence. I do not believe Scripture supports this proclamation and I would refer you to the recent article I posted here at PP titled “East of Eden Revisited” (under Preterism topics) where I attempt to develop a case for the destruction of only the lineage of Seth due to their special relationship which God ascribed to them for bearing the “covenantal seed line.” Israel was constantly referred to by the prophets, Jesus and the apostles as “Heavens and Earth” and as I have mentioned earlier Jesus prophesied the removal of those “heavens and earth” which indicates strongly for Genesis being primarily the origination story of these peoples for Gods plan of rescue for mankind.

The author doesn’t speculate upon how a local flood could occur but it doesn’t take too much imagination to observe how the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates river basin could easily have been the setting of a monstrous flood in that area which would fit nicely with the region and the peoples described within Genesis, and it also provides a large flat area that could become a monstrous sea along with the perfect “Godly” storm and melting mountain streams all converging for “His” purpose thus wiping out the Line of Seth. This could also tie in with the historical Josephus account of the remnants of the Ark found in the foothills of that area. When you start to think “covenant people” things start to fall into place and make a lot of sense biblically, archeologically and scientifically.

Chapter 9

The author states “A change in interpretation of the Bible always has implications for theology. When we adopt a new model it means we must change those presuppositions that made us resist the new interpretation in the first place.”

I think most of us here at PP could amen that statement. The difficulty arises though in properly identifying whether those “presuppositions” that we all hold are indeed valid. The author in my estimation correctly observes with the following statement.

“Is the church now the New Israel or do the promises of the Old Testament apply only to physical Jews?” Answering that the church is the new Israel leads to “Covenantal” theology, which sees the church as God’s triumphant kingdom, while rejecting leads to “dispensational” theology, which views the present Church as a “Parenthesis” in God’s Plan of history which centers on the Jews”.

He then renders a comparison with accepting an Old Earth view as a similar paradigm change with important consequences.

Once David recognizes Chapters 21 and 22 in Revelation is the completion and fulfillment of “Covenantal theology “the better his work will become. He hasn’t realized that Chapters 21 and 22 are not a picture of Heaven but one of the present covenant that Christ established here on earth.

(Isa 65:17 NIV) "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.)

Former things were the old covenant.

(Rev 22:2 And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.)

It’s obvious to most that the true Heaven requires no healing, yet he just hasn’t noticed the covenantal language here as he had previously in Matt 16. He gets close to it in an earlier chapter when he compares Genesis and Revelation but it’s similar to the guy that gets right up to the door and fails to open it and see inside.

In fact the author makes an intriguing observation on page 174 in which he states “The earth appears to be able to last for millions of years, but on faith we believe that Christ could return and destroy it at any moment.” He then proceeds to refer to 2 Peter 3:4, 6, 7 but obviously doesn’t have a clue to the correct bearing of these verses. He misses the all important description “the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire” indicating the present covenant of the Jews which is about to be brought to an end in 70AD. It is being compared to the previous covenant of Noah’s. “2 Pet 3:5 by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water” and destroyed as indicated in the next verse. (2 Pet 3:6 NIV) By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.)

He has just missed the big picture because of an adherence to an archaic approach to covenantal language. It might be helpful for the author to keep in mind a statement he made on page 108. “I am not saying that Genesis 1 is written in the same apocalyptic style as Revelation.” Maybe he should reconsider that denial.

He again discuses animal death which I personally have never figured out how such a bizarre belief can be perpetuated and to top it off if you don’t buy into it you are looked at with an incredulous concern that you don’t understand the basics of Christianity. I think he spends too much time on the subject but he has most likely run into major issues or encounters with the YEC on this point. He also touches again on the wrath of God attempting to put forth what he discerns would be a balance in understanding Gods wrath. It just seems like a discussion for another book in my estimation but it is probably again pertinent to the YEC crowd whom he is addressing heavily in this book.

David eventually comes off as a science guy attempting to make science and theology mix. He does a much better job than most and again I would not want to discourage this kind of attempt at theology by outside theologians. It’s much more preferable than that by YEC. This book has been given good effort by the author but when it comes to theology there are so many influences upon ones analysis that it would be impracticable and unreasonable to expect an analysis that is completely pure without presuppositions. David illustrates occasional remnants of an outdated theology that still influence many theologians today whether from academia or as amateur sleuths rising up from the grassroots of American religion. But I applaud his desire to honor the Lord with his God given talent and with his present understanding that he brings to this work.

The final point that I wish to state is that I would highly recommend David Snoke’s book “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth”. Again it is not a difficult read and David touches upon some important and interesting positions within his work. Although I have questioned some of his conclusions, overall I find his work stimulating and informative. He’s to be highly commended for producing a useful examination that really does attempt a sincere biblical approach to Scripture.