 |
|
|
Here's how you can tell if it's a dream from God or if it's just a dream: If you awake right after that, it's a dream from God, because the Bible says whenever God spoke to His saints through dreams they awakened. They did not stay asleep, they woke up.
-- Benny Hinn, This is Your Day, Trinity Broadcasting Network, March 19, 1997
|
|
| |
A Look At Old Earth Creationism
Posted on Tuesday, September 25 @ 17:08:37 PDT by Kurt Simmons |
|
by Kurt Simmons
The web-site “About.com” lists Old Earth Creationism (“OEC”) under the heading of Agnosticism/Atheism, reflecting the apparent judgment that site that OEC belongs to a branch of skepticism, which is unwilling to accept the Biblical account of creation. Indeed, no one ever became an Old Earth Creationist (“OEC”) from reading Genesis. The sole impetus of OEC is to reconcile the Bible to the theoretical claims of atheistic science by reinterpreting it in a way that is consistent with naturalistic and evolutionary models. Atheistic evolution posits that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and that life developed slowly from simple to more complex forms over the last 100 million years. An old earth is therefore essential to naturalistic and evolutionary models. Although rejecting purely naturalistic theories of origin, OEC nevertheless accepts the claims of atheistic science regarding the age of the earth and cosmos. Confronted with the inconsistent claims
of atheistic, theoretical science and the Bible, OEC re-writes the Bible.
Traditional Interpretation of Genesis
OEC denies the creation account of Genesis as understood for four thousand years, first by the Jews, and then by the church. The Biblical account of creation is simple and straight-forward: The cosmos and all that is in it were created in the space of six days: In six days, the Lord God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. (Ex. 20:11) Numerous chronologies have been done over the centuries by men of faith: Eusebius, Julius Africanus, Ussher, et alia, and all date the creation to within about seven thousand years of our time. Demetrius and Eupolemus place the creation at 5507 B.C. Julius Africanus places the birth of Christ 5499 years from creation. Hyppolytus of Rome places the birth of Christ 5502 from creation. Hyppolytus of Thebes place it at 5500 years from creation. Eusebius reckons from creation to Christ 5199 years. Archbishop Ussher places the birth of Christ 4000 years from creation. We know of no chronologies before the modern era that date Biblical creation into the millions or billions of years.
Jewish authors and the Church fathers uniformly interpreted the creation account literally, as consisting of six, twenty-four hour days.
Philo Judaeus – “And he said that the world was made in six days, not because the creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement…And he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions of the whole.”
Flavius Josephus – “Accordingly Moses says that in just six days the world and all that is therein was made; and that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labour of such operations; - whence it is that we celebrate a rest from our labours on that day, and call it the Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.”
Epistle of Barnabas – “The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation: ‘And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.’”
Justin Martyr – “The first day which was created along with the heavens constituted the beginning of all time (for thus Moses wrote, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,’"
Theophilus – “Of this six days' work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts, not though he had ten thousand tongues and ten thousand mouths; nay, though he were to live ten thousand years, sojourning in this life, not even so could he utter anything worthy of these things, on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days' work above narrated.”
Clement of Alexandria – “For the creation of the world was concluded in six days. For the motion of the sun from solstice to solstice is completed in six months--in the course of which, at one time the leaves fall, and at another plants bud and seeds come to maturity.”
Origen – “Such is the objection which they are accustomed to make to our statement that this world had its beginning at a certain time, and that, agreeably to our belief in Scripture, we can calculate the years of its past duration. To these propositions I consider that none of the heretics can easily return an answer that will be in conformity with the nature of their opinions.”
“After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated.”
Julius Africanus – “For the Jews, deriving their origin from them as descendants of Abraham, having been taught a modest mind, and one such as becomes men, together with the truth by the spirit of Moses, have handed down to us, by their extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5500 years as the period up to the advent of the Word of salvation, that was announced to the world in the time of the sway of the Caesars.”
To this short list may be added many dozens of others, all testifying to the traditional (historical) teaching from the time of Moses until now, that the chronology of Genesis is to be read literally, and that the idea of an “old earth” is of purely modern origination. This does not prove the traditional interpretation is correct, but it does demonstrate circumstantially that the motive for reinterpreting Genesis stems from the claims of modern science, and not the scriptures themselves; for if the idea that billions of years had elapsed from the beginning was truly in the text, men would not have waited eighteen hundred years to discover it, but the idea would have been present with men from the start.
Adam – The Biological Parent of all Mankind - A Theological Essential of the Christian Faith
I Corinthians 15:45 states, "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." This verse plainly names Adam as the “first man.” Gen. 3:20 calls Eve “the mother of all living.” There is no room for postulating the creation of other men based upon the Biblical record. The obvious and irrefutable teaching of scripture is that all men derive their ancestry from the common parentage of Adam and Eve. This is the basis of Paul’s argument in Romans that the whole race of mankind is descended from Adam, and made heir of his fallen nature. “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” (Rom. 5:19) If all men do not trace their ancestry to the common parentage of Adam and Eve, there is no way to account for the inherent fallenness of the race, and Paul is guilty of teaching error, for he has said that through one man’s disobedience all men were brought to ruin, not by the transgression of unnamed others. Indeed, the notion that God created other men than Adam and that Adam was merely the first man with whom God entered a covenant of works would mean that other asserted men were exempt from the possibility of the fall; for the fall applied only where there was law, but if other men were not under law and covenant, then they could not be chargeable with transgression. This would seem to open the door to Universalism via antinomianism. However, these considerations aside, the historical position of the church has always taught that Adam and Eve were the common parents of all mankind.
Having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....WE, however, are all FROM him.
Tertullian - "Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection" [1 Cor 15:21]. Here, by the word MAN, who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect.
Origen - EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22].
St. Athanasius - Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world....When Adam transgressed, SIN reached out TO ALL MEN.
Augustine - But why does St Matthew reckon in a descending, and Luke in an ascending order?...Matthew descends through his generations, to signify our Lord Jesus Christ descending to bear our sins, that in the seed of Abraham all nations might be blessed. Wherefore, he does not begin with Adam, for from him is the whole race of mankind. Nor with Noe, because from his family again, after the flood, descended the whole human race. Nor could the man Christ Jesus, as descended from Adam, from whom all men are descended, bear upon the fulfillment of prophecy; nor, again, as descended from Noe, from whom also all men are descended; but only as descended from Abraham, who at that time was chosen, that all nations should be blessed in his seed, when the earth was now full of nations.
These are but a few of the many citations that could be produced demonstrating that the church has historically upheld the common parentage of Adam and Eve to all men, and that this is an essential tenant of the Christian faith inasmuch Paul teaches it to be the source of mankind’s inherent fallenness.
Re-writing Genesis
The Gap Theory
OCE has two ways by which it seeks to avoid the simple language of Genesis: the “gap” theory and the “day-age” theory. For hundreds of years, science had operated on the premise of a six thousand year old earth, based upon the chronology of Genesis. However, beginning in the early nineteenth century, naturalistic theories about the origin and age of the earth began to grow in popularity. Theologians, pressured by the alleged “scientific” evidence of an old earth, re-interpreted the scriptures to accommodate scientific theory. Thus was born the “gap” theory. Originally formulated in the early 19th century by Scottish theologian, Thomas Chalmers, the theory was conceived as a way to reconcile the Bible to naturalistic theories about the geologic age of the earth. The gap or “ruin-reconstruction” theory asserts that there is a time-gap between the first two verses of Genesis. It is based on the supposition that earth was already here (but in a ruined state) before the creative process of the seven days began. According to the gap-theory, II Pet. 3:5-7 refers not to Noah’s flood, asserting instead that it refers to the world before the beginning of creation:
“If 2 Peter 3:5-7 is a cross-reference to Genesis 1:2, then the Holy Spirit is calling your attention to something very significant that millions of 'Young Earth' Creationists are blindly overlooking. Specifically, that a glorious ancient world that God created in the distant past (Genesis 1:1), had long since been utterly destroyed, plunged into deep darkness, and overflowed by a raging flood of great waters on a universal scale at the time of Genesis 1:2.”
By removing these verses from Noah’s flood (which they admit was universal) and applying them instead to an imaginary world of which the Bible is silent, they hope to extend indefinitely earth’s existence to conform with atheistic notions about its geologic age:
The geologic and fossil records are the surviving evidence that God preserved for us to testify to the truth that the Earth is very old and was inhabited for a long period before the seven days of Genesis chapter one. Those records, written in stone, also provide evidence of a long reign of Death upon the old Earth and the sudden end of the old world order by a universal destructive event.
Proponents of the gap theory admit that the Genesis creation occurred about six thousand years ago:
“The Earth is "without form and void" at Genesis 1:2 and in darkness. There is no indication of anything being alive on the surface of the Earth, at this time, and that time is roughly about 6,000 years ago...Clearly, if we believe the literal wording of the Bible, there was indeed a universal creative event during the seven days of Genesis, about 6,000 literal years ago.”
This admission notwithstanding, they argue there is a gap preceding the instant creation consisting in hundreds of millions of years:
The Bible gives no specific time when God first created the heaven and the Earth (Genesis 1:1), but it does give the time when the Earth is found in this desolate condition and for the start of the seven, literal, 24 hour days. That time was, indeed, geologically very recently [sic]. In this respect, only, is the Young Earth Creationist fully correct. This is the context for the "gap" on which Ruin-Reconstruction doctrine is based. Exactly how long that time gap represents nobody can say for sure, but it most certainly could accommodate hundreds of millions of years, or less, but a gap is most certainly there.
Advocates of this view attempt to strengthen their position by arguing that the Hebrew word “tohu” is mistranslated, and should read, not that the heavens and earth “were without form and void”, but “became” void. They also point to the use of the plural in Gen. 2:4, "These are the generations [plural] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," inferring from this evidence of two creations:
“The Creation account contains the story of two creative events. Only the latter event, the seven days, is outlined in great detail.”
According to gap-theorists, this pre-Adamic world was filled with “Mammoths, Mastodons, giant ground sloth, woolly rhinos, and even a “pre-Adamic race of hominoids” whose remains are found in the fossil record.
Most gap-theorists believe that the physical universe was committed to the charge of a cherub named Lucifer, who was the heavenly choir master:
“Lucifer was second only to the throne of God and was the choir leader of the universe in the day when the Lord God first made all things…The whole of the physical universe was under the direction of Lucifer: Physical matter and spirit were one under the stewardship of Lucifer, this anointed cherub. He was second only to the Lord God in power and authority over the realm of the whole Kingdom.”
Proponents of the gap-theory assert that, about 750 million years ago, Lucifer rebelled and transgressed against God, thus becoming the first created being to sin. Lucifer’s sin caused death to pass upon all things, bringing the “pre-Adamic” world to destruction:
“With his initial act of sin and rebellion, Death and corruption, like leaven, began to permeate the physical cosmos that was under Lucifer's stewardship to rule. It started in Eden, the Garden of God on the Earth, and spread like a cancer. Because Lucifer was the steward of the whole creation under heaven when he fell, all things under his rule were also subjected to corruption.”
One can only comment at this point how much gap-theorists presume upon the silence of the scripture, finding lost worlds, species of animals, and races of men all in the silent space between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2! If all this is possible from silence, then truly “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” (Gen. 11:6) The whole theory is loosely strung together upon fantastic and highly improbable interpretation of scripture. Suffice it to say, that no one ever found the gap in scripture before the false assertions of science required they find one. The assertion that II Pet. 3:5, 6 refer to a pre-Adamic world cannot be proved. Peter refers twice before to Noah’s flood specifically. (I Pet. 3:20; II Pet. 2:5) It is therefore natural that we understand him as speaking to this well known event, and not as alluding to a pre-Adamic flood about which the Bible is silent. Men could not be “willingly ignorant” about this flood, for it is nowhere so much as once described. Hence, the only Biblically defensible view is that it is Noah’s flood Peter’s has in mind.
The Day-Age Theory
As already seen, the Biblical account of creation indicates that God called the universe into existence and arranged it into orderly parts over the space of six days. Lest these be misconstrued as something other than twenty-four hour days, they are expressly defined as consisting of “an evening and a morning,” or one revolution of the earth upon its axis. “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Gen. 1:4, 5) According to Genesis, God rested the seventh day from his work of creation. In testimony of the creation week, God established the seventh day as a ceremonial rest for the Jewish nation in token of their redemption from slavery. They were to remember that they were once servants and looked for weekly rest from their labors, but were given none by the Egyptian masters. Therefore, they were to give their servants and handmaids rest one day each week throughout their generations. (Ex. 20:10, 11) The literalness of the creation week is affirmed by the writer of Hebrews, who saw in the weekly Sabbath the promise of heavenly rest: As God rested in heaven from his work of creation upon earth, so he has promised a heavenly rest to those that believe and obey him. (Heb. 4:3-9) The creation week thus became the basic standard of measure underlying the calendar year. Fifty-two cycles of seven fulfill one solar year.
Notwithstanding the obvious intention of Genesis to communicate the idea of six literal days, “day-age” advocates argue that the days of creation should be interpreted as long eons of geologic time, reaching into the millions of years. Arguments in favor of the day-age theory include:
1 – Use of the term “generations” in Gen. 2:4 implies long ages in earth’s history and creation. However, this is wrong. There are two Hebrew words rendered generations: Dowr (Strong’s 1755) and toldah (Strong’s #8435). Only the former carries the sense of time, the latter carries the sense of source. Dowr: A revolution of time, i.e., and age or generation. Toldah: Descent, i.e., family; (fig.) history: - birth. It is this latter word that occurs in Gen. 2:4. It is used to show the origins or sources of the heavens and earth, not the time in which they were made.
2 - The Hebrew word yowm (day) can mean long period of time.
The Hebrew word yowm (Strong’s #3517) is defined as derived from an unused root meaning “to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term).” As with all words, the meaning intended must be taken from the context. As we have already shown, the context of Genesis one clearly contemplates a literal day, and even defines it as consisting of a period of time marked by the presence of light between morning and evening.
3 – There are explicit statements of the Earth's antiquity found in scripture.
Habakkuk 3:6 (NIV) - "He stood, and shook the earth; he looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed. His ways are eternal."
However, this verse bears its own refutation, for the shaking of the earth, and the “everlasting mountains” (AV) are poetic expressions for God’s shaking of the world’s kingdoms and nations by his providential presence, as the context plainly shows. The passage says nothing about the age of the earth. It is God whose ways are everlasting, not the earth.
The exegetical hurdles one must clear in order to maintain the view that the days of creation are actually geologic ages are, perhaps, it own best repudiation. The word “day” occurs through Genesis chapter one. In Gen. 1:3-5, God called into existence the light of the sun to shine upon the face of the unformed earth. The light he called “day” and the darkness he called “night.” And the evening and an morning was “one day.” Here we have two occurrences of the word “day.” Are both figurative? If not, what is to distinguish them? In Gen. 1:14-18, God arranged the lights of the firmament so as to provide for the orderly arrangement of days, weeks, months, and years, saying, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” (v. 14) OEC’s like to argue that since God made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, the evenings and mornings of the first three days cannot be taken literally. However, this is mistaken. The fourth day did not bring these lights into existence, but merely established their relationship to the earth and each other so as to provide for the revolution of the seasons, and enable man to mark the regular passage of time, etc. But the point remains, if “day” means geologic age in other places, what does it mean here? What is there in the context here that signifies a literal day that is not present elsewhere, which allows us to make one literal and other figurative? The sort of exegetical gymnastics necessary to obviate these objections has caused many day-age advocates to abandon their theories and return to the simple Bible. Dr Davis Young a former day-ager commented to a science symposium at Wheaton College:
Genius as all these schemes may be, one is struck by the forced nature of them all. While the exegetical gymnastic maneuvers have displayed remarkable flexibility, I suspect that they have resulted in temporary damage to the theological musculature.
Hermeneutically Unsound
The exegetical difficulties facing OEC lead to another, more basic problem: OEC violates the most fundamental rule of hermeneutics, which requires that a writing be interpreted according to the intent of its author. No interpretation is valid merely because it is made to sound plausible; to be valid it must be the meaning the author intends. Imagine the horror of a last will and testament that was interpreted according to the court’s desires, rather than honoring the intent of the decedent. That is precisely the case with OEC; it completely disregards the obvious and intended meaning of the text in an attempt to accommodate the assertions of naturalistic science. This causes OEC not to be taken seriously by world class scholars. The April 23, 1984, letter of then Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University makes the point:
I have thought about your question, and would say that probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.
Professor Barr states that OEC is not taken seriously. Why? Because the writer of Genesis intended to convey to the reader the idea of six literal, twenty-four hour days. This is the more telling in that Professor Barr reportedly does not himself accept the Genesis account of creation, yet does not attempt to wrest the text to accommodate his belief in naturalistic models. OEC’s should follow his example in honoring the intent of the author and stop pretending that the gap or day-age theories are hermeneutically acceptable and sound. They should either openly reject the Bible in favor of an old earth, or accept the Bible as it was intended to be read.
The Unsubstantiated and Discredited Scientific Basis of an Old Earth
We now come to the scientific claims for an old earth. It is indeed unfortunate that OEC’s feel the need to reinterpret the Bible to accommodate science, for even naturalistic scientists affirm that the dating methods are unsound. There is an abundance of material available demonstrating the unscientific basis for claims of an old earth, but these few will make the point.
Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'.
Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:
The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.
With these sorts of statements coming out of the atheistic scientific community, one wonders what motivates Christians to jettison their Bibles in favor of and old earth. Geologist Andrew Snelling thus states:
"It is special pleading on the part of geochronologists and physicists to say that the radioactive decay rates have been carefully measured in laboratories for the past 80 or 90 years and that no significant variation of these rates has been measured. The 'bottom line' is really that 80 or 90 years of measurements are being extrapolated backwards in time to the origin of the earth, believed by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years ago. That is an enormous extrapolation. In any other field of scientific research, if scientists or mathematicians were to extrapolate results over that many orders of magnitude, thereby assuming continuity of results over such enormous spans of unobserved time, they would be literally 'laughed out of court' by fellow scientists and mathematicians. Yet geochronologists are allowed to do this with impunity, primarily because it gives the desired millions and billions of years that evolutionists require, and because it makes these radioactive 'clocks' work!"
Conclusion
OEC is an unhappy attempt to reconcile the Bible to the discredited claims of naturalistic and evolutionary science. Let Christians stand courageously by their Bibles; all else is sinking sand.
Kurt Simmons
www.preteristcentral.com
------
Kurt Simmons is a columnist for PlanetPreterist.com.
View Kurt Simmons archives
Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: A Look At Old Earth Creationism (Score: 1)
 by Dana_Nathan_Salsbury on Monday, October 22 @ 08:24:17 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | For preterist and fairly well-versed new-earth creationist who is entirely too busy, what are the top arguments that preterism necessitates old earth creationism. I'm sceptical, although I was also sceptical of Calvinism once.
-Dana
legacyhdv.com |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Starlight on Monday, October 22 @ 11:03:58 PDT
- by Dana_Nathan_Salsbury on Tuesday, October 23 @ 09:59:07 PDT
- by Starlight on Tuesday, October 23 @ 12:12:38 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, October 23 @ 14:53:10 PDT
- by Dana_Nathan_Salsbury on Tuesday, October 23 @ 22:43:41 PDT
- by Starlight on Wednesday, October 24 @ 05:31:02 PDT
- by Dana_Nathan_Salsbury on Wednesday, October 24 @ 21:13:30 PDT
- by JL on Wednesday, October 24 @ 21:27:57 PDT
- by JL on Monday, October 22 @ 12:58:47 PDT
- by JL on Monday, October 22 @ 13:06:24 PDT
- by Dana_Nathan_Salsbury on Tuesday, October 23 @ 09:51:24 PDT
- by valensname on Monday, October 22 @ 15:36:32 PDT
Re: A Look At Old Earth Creationism (Score: 1)
by tom-g on Wednesday, October 10 @ 08:35:57 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hey Norm.
I hope I am not too late for you to view this comment. I have delayed posting this since it is a painful thing to point out the inconsistent, invalid concepts so deeply held by another person.
Unfortunately I felt compelled to do this concerning the concept you have expressed involving the Genesis account of the creation of the heaven and the earth in relation to the new heaven and earth in Revelation. Your comment here states:
"Now that we have cleared up that little issue the question remains what to do with six days of creation. From my reading of scripture in the NT the correct understanding would be that they are metaphorical and prophetic and this was evident in the above writings that I listed. Since we know that the creation of the Heavens and Earth in Genesis 1 is the one that passed away in Rev 21:1 we have verification of that viewpoint. If we choose to ignore the plain literal reading of the ending of the First Heaven and Earth we are simply closing our eyes to what scripture is teaching us about the Heavens and Earth."
In the above comment you very clearly say that the Genesis heaven and earth creation is the one that passed away in Rev. 21:1
I know you are intimately familiar with the third chapter of Peter's second letter since another invalid concept of yours concerning a 1000/day is in this passage, so I won't print the chapter at this time.
However I call your attention to 3:4-13 where Peter is here directly stating that the Genesis, or first, heaven and earth passed away with a flood. The heaven and earth that existed at the time Peter wrote his letter was the second of the heavens and earth creations that came into existence after the flood. The third heaven and earth creation is the NEW HEAVENS AND EARTH of Rev. 21:1 that comes into existence after the heavens and earth, that existed at the time of Peter, are destroyed with fire.
So. as you can see Norm, the Genesis creation could not be the heavens and earth that passed away in Rev., as you state, since that heavens and earth passed away with Noah's flood.
I am sorry if it will be painful for you to give up this false concept but as honest seekers of truth we cannot hold onto a concept that is directly contradicted by a clear passage of scripture.
Regards,
Tom |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by tom-g on Wednesday, October 10 @ 08:55:24 PDT
- by Starlight on Thursday, October 11 @ 14:56:51 PDT
- by tom-g on Friday, October 12 @ 13:36:46 PDT
- by Starlight on Saturday, October 13 @ 19:50:37 PDT
- by tom-g on Sunday, October 14 @ 16:04:31 PDT
- by Starlight on Sunday, October 14 @ 18:27:45 PDT
- by tom-g on Sunday, October 14 @ 20:37:36 PDT
Genesis 1 revisited (Score: 1)
by Starlight on Tuesday, October 02 @ 14:18:46 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I want to do a follow up discussion from a post I made last week. In one of my post I responded to Kurt on his understanding of the word “day” within the context of scripture. Kurt referenced the Epistle to Barnabas which some consider should have been considered for canonization due to its date of writing around 70AD. Setting that aside though it was considered by the early Christians of the first century to be highly esteemed. What I want to point out today is something that may have been overlooked in my reference last week.
I have been postulating that Genesis Chapter 1 should be considered as a short prophetic overview of the historical covenant of Israel’s designation of “Heavens and Earth”. That is exactly what Genesis 2:4 states if we are aware of its ramifications.
Gen 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Barnabas actually provides us the Jewish Christian commentary upon Genesis 1 and I believe we need to recognize how they understood its meaning and most probably under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
The bottom line is that Barnabas declares that the six day creation described in Gen 1was coming to an end with the arrival of Christ which correlates perfectly with scripture declaring an end to the Old Heavens and Earth.
This understanding was quickly lost during the formative years of Christianity especially when letters like the Barnabas Epistle were disallowed and therefore could not be utilized to help render the historical Jewish and Christian viewpoint.
Let’s look at Barnabas again.
Barnabas 15:3
Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.
Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days.
HE MEANETH THIS, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; FOR THE DAY WITH HIM SIGNIFYETH A THOUSAND YEARS; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years.
THEREFORE, CHILDREN, IN SIX DAYS, THAT IS IN SIX THOUSAND YEARS, EVERYTHING SHALL COME TO AN END.
Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and SHALL CHANGE THE SUN AND THE MOON AND THE STARS, THEN SHALL HE TRULY REST ON THE SEVENTH DAY.
The Barnabas Epistle could not spell it out any more clear to us than it has above. It clearly points out that the Six Days of Genesis were about to end which is what 2 Peter 3 and Rev 21 also point out. But it does not stand alone with this understanding of Genesis as the Jewish Book of Enoch reveals the same segmented time frame. All of this matches up perfectly with the OT and NT scriptures designating that Heaven and Earth will pass away.
Enoch 93
8 And after that in the sixth week all who live in it shall be blinded,
And the hearts of all of them shall godlessly forsake wisdom.
And in it a man shall ascend;
And at its close the house of dominion shall be burnt with fire,
And the whole race of the chosen root shall be dispersed.
9 And after that in the seventh week shall an apostate generation arise,
And many shall be its deeds,
And all its deeds shall be apostate.
10 And at its close shall be elected
The elect righteous of the eternal plant of righteousness,
To receive sevenfold instruction concerning all His creation.
Until on starts reading the scriptures the way that they were intended to be understood we will be susceptible to the same misconceptions that the Pharisaical Jews were encumbered with. There is a mistak
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: A Look At Old Earth Creationism (Score: 1)
by Starlight on Wednesday, September 26 @ 14:06:30 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I want to make some additional comments concerning Kurt’s article. There may be an inclination to categorize all folks who believe the Earth is older than 10,000 years old as falling within the domain of Old Earth Creationist. This premise is false when dealing with many Preterist who recognize the lengthy age of the Earth. OEC implies that we look to our support for Biblical exegesis as deriving from an Old Earth scientific method. Comparing us to that category is similar to regarding all young earth adherents under the mantra of Young Earth Creationism ala Henry Morris and Ellen White.
The fact of the matter is that many of us assert from a study of Preterist hermeneutics that Genesis like its ending counterpart Revelation has been seriously misunderstood due to a faulty over literalizing of the language. A careful examination similar to what has happened in the past 35 years with Revelation reveals that the language utilized in Genesis is inherently similar to much of prophetic scripture found throughout the Bible.
Kurt referenced the Epistle of Barnabas in confirmation of the meaning of the word day. I thought it might be interesting to see a more contextual understanding derived from this Epistle and gain a glimpse of how the Jewish Christians understood the meaning of the word “Day” in their age.
Barnabas 15:3
Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.
Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. HE MEANETH THIS, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to an end; FOR THE DAY WITH HIM SIGNIFYETH A THOUSAND YEARS; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. THEREFORE, CHILDREN, IN SIX DAYS, THAT IS IN SIX THOUSAND YEARS, EVERYTHING SHALL COME TO AN END.
Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall judge the ungodly, and SHALL CHANGE THE SUN AND THE MOON AND THE STARS, THEN SHALL HE TRULY REST ON THE SEVENTH DAY.
While we are looking at contemporary Jewish literature lets look at how the Jews around 200BC understood the word day and 1000 years. Here is an excerpt from the Jewish book of Jubilees chp 4 shedding light on the meaning of “Day” and 1000 years again.
And at the close of the nineteenth jubilee, in the seventh week in the sixth year [930 A.M.] thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, and he was the first to be buried in the earth. And he lacked seventy years of one thousand years; FOR ONE THOUSAND YEARS ARE AS ONE DAY IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE HEAVENS and therefore was it written concerning the tree of knowledge: 'On the day that ye eat thereof ye shall die.' For this reason HE DID NOT COMPLETE THE YEARS OF THIS DAY; FOR HE DIED DURING IT.
Kurt is relying upon men who were generally less enlightened than these authors that I am presenting. I could also quote from the Book of Jubilees where the epochs are described as a week.
3 And Enoch began to recount from the books and said: ' I was born the seventh IN THE FIRST WEEK, While judgement and righteousness still endured
Now skipping several weeks to the end.
And after this, IN THE TENTH WEEK in the seventh part, There shall be the great eternal judgement, In which He will execute vengeance amongst the angels. And the FIRST HEAVEN SHALL DEPART AND PASS AWAY, And a NEW HEAVEN SHALL APPEAR, And all the powers of the heavens shall give sevenfold light.
It becomes obvious from these highly esteemed Jewish writings that the word “Day”, “Week” and “1000 years” were not conventional modern renderings. In fact we now can better understand where Peter picked up his “1000 years as a day” me
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by mazuur on Thursday, September 27 @ 05:53:48 PDT
- by Starlight on Thursday, September 27 @ 06:15:28 PDT
Re: A Look At Old Earth Creationism (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Wednesday, September 26 @ 11:43:18 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Kurt,
I was going to post a longer response to your article about OEC, but I've decided against it. After reading your material for the second time, it's clear that you've decided to use other people's opinions to support your own, and that (to me) is not good scholarship...AT ALL!
I can't even count the number of articles written against Preterism along the same lines. Countless church fathers quoted to show that the second coming of Christ is yet future, thus concluding that Preterism could not possibly be true.
This is not the way we go about proving something wrong..or right for that matter. Christians like you and I really need to start considering opinions outside of the church and outside of our own circles of influence. Here are a few things Christians have been wrong about over the centuries as a result of putting the "Bible only," irrational horse glasses on...
- Dinosaurs never existed
- Fossils were created by the Devil to test faith
- Radioactive dating is inaccurate
- Disease is caused by sin and witchcraft
- Sun spins around the earth
- There is no such thing as evolution of any kind
- The earth is a few thousand years old
The last one defies almost every logical suggestion and conclusion made by anyone with any basic knowledge in history, science, physics and geology.
Just last year some oil drill in Norway found dinosaur bones half a mile below the bottom of the North Sea...and just like many people before, you will continue to ignore this kind of evidence and the evidence that people like Copernicus and others brought to the table to challenge your status quo. You are putting this evidence AT ODDS with the Scriptures when they are not at odds at all. The burden of proof is on you to show the earth is only a few thousand years old...since overwhelming evidence is staring everyone else in the face.
And one last thing; this is why Christianity continues to be mocked and ignored by mainstream scientists who are seriously and earnestly looking for answers. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Malachi on Wednesday, September 26 @ 14:30:35 PDT
- by JL on Wednesday, September 26 @ 15:10:36 PDT
- by Virgil on Wednesday, September 26 @ 15:29:16 PDT
- by flannery0 on Wednesday, September 26 @ 15:42:55 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, September 27 @ 08:09:52 PDT
- by Kyle Peterson on Friday, September 28 @ 08:51:30 PDT
- by flannery0 on Friday, September 28 @ 09:32:32 PDT
- by Kyle Peterson on Friday, September 28 @ 10:06:15 PDT
- by JL on Friday, September 28 @ 10:53:47 PDT
- by Kyle Peterson on Friday, September 28 @ 11:24:19 PDT
- by KingNeb on Friday, September 28 @ 12:45:51 PDT
- by JL on Friday, September 28 @ 19:02:22 PDT
- by KingNeb on Friday, September 28 @ 20:17:51 PDT
- by JL on Friday, September 28 @ 20:45:36 PDT
- by JL on Tuesday, October 16 @ 22:38:57 PDT
- by Malachi on Thursday, September 27 @ 10:49:36 PDT
- by Windpressor on Thursday, September 27 @ 10:22:15 PDT
- by Theolog on Wednesday, September 26 @ 20:52:23 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, September 27 @ 08:09:08 PDT
- by Malachi on Thursday, September 27 @ 10:39:46 PDT
- by Windpressor on Thursday, September 27 @ 10:59:20 PDT
- by Virgil on Thursday, September 27 @ 11:02:54 PDT
- by Malachi on Thursday, September 27 @ 13:40:54 PDT
- by mazuur on Thursday, September 27 @ 13:20:47 PDT
Sorry Virgil, (Score: 1)
 by JL (j.l.preterist@gmail.com) on Tuesday, September 25 @ 22:29:12 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Sorry Virgil,
but we have responded to this stuff in the past. Kurt has decided we are heretics. He has demonstrated that he does not care about the truth, but merely repeats the same demonstrably false charges over and over. Remember his debate challenge?
Contrary to Kurt's claim, the early church generally understood the days to be long periods of time. They routinely referred to them as 1000-years long and they understood the 7th day to be still continuing to their day. But Kurt keeps quoting the same fraudulent claims the YEC-dispies continuously spout. Simply reading the early church instead of taking some out-of-context quote verbatim will demonstrate this.
Kurt even admits his view of Adam implies Universalism which he likewise abhors.
John Sailhammer claims and James Jordan confirms that Lightfoot (one of the more famous chronologists) believed in 1) a gap theory and 2) a local creation of Palestine in Gen. 1:2ff.
The Day-Age view likewise predates modern science.
Many of these people that Kurt references were known to have been evolutionists. In fact, the number of people before Pasteur who are known to have explicitly denied evolution and spontaneous biogenesis can be counted on the fingers of one hand. All of them were very controversial figures, who were accused of denying the plain statements of the creation account.
Kurt is playing games with toledah. The word occurs numerous times in Genesis and he refuses to use it consistently.
The first half of Genesis 1:4 defines day. Kurt denies this and claims the second half of the verse defines day. His second definition is contrary to the first. Kurt has yet to address the issue that Hebrews claims the 7th day has still not ended.
Kurt has implied that Davis Young is a Young Earther. Far from. His critique of Day-Age does not benefit Young Earth but shows why Young has adopted a view that Kurt would recognize as less literal.
And the same radiodating methods that deny Kurt's view of Genesis 1-11 confirm conservative views of all of the rest of Biblical history. Why is radiocarbon dating so wrong in dating a continuous series of things from present to over 50,000 years old yet so right when it dates the destruction of Jericho to about 45 years after the Plague of Darkness?
Kurt has never faced these and numerous other issues. Given Kurt's own track record, why is he posting this now? Certainly not to foster discussion, but to end discussion. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: A Look At Old Earth Creationism (Score: 1)
by MiddleKnowledge on Tuesday, September 25 @ 17:40:50 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Kurt,
Welcome back to Planetpreterist.com!!
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Welcome Back, Welcome Back, Welll-come Ba-a-ack (Score: 1)
by JL (j.l.preterist@gmail.com) on Tuesday, September 25 @ 18:45:20 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Great satire Kurt,
Arguing for the "Traditional Interpretation of" anything on a preterist website is pure irony. Great humor.
Blessings,
JL |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: A Look At Old Earth Creationism (Score: 1)
by Virgil on Tuesday, September 25 @ 19:42:14 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Guys, let's try to address Kurt's article if we respond, instead of using sarcasm. I am trying to avoid building up resentment and continuing bad blood between folks. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: A Look At Old Earth Creationism (Score: 1)
by Starlight on Tuesday, September 25 @ 19:42:51 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Kurt,
You outlined very well why I discarded Old Earth Creationism several years before I had heard of Preterism. It tends toward the same goofy extrapolations that YEC attempt to use.
Trying to reconcile science with the scriptures is lunacy especially since the First Heavens and Earth which originated in Genesis 1:1 was rolled up and discarded in Revelation 21:1. And the First Adam of the Old Heavens and Earth was replaced by the Last Adam, Christ of the New Heavens and Earth.
(1 Cor 15:45 NIV) So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Only a Preterist understanding of Genesis will work. Science has noting to do with scripture interpretation.
Blessings
Norm
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MichaelB on Tuesday, September 25 @ 21:24:56 PDT
- by MichaelB on Tuesday, September 25 @ 21:33:34 PDT
- by Starlight on Tuesday, September 25 @ 22:15:33 PDT
- by Theolog on Wednesday, September 26 @ 20:59:58 PDT
- by Starlight on Thursday, September 27 @ 05:39:18 PDT
- by Malachi on Thursday, September 27 @ 11:03:34 PDT
- by Starlight on Thursday, September 27 @ 12:37:26 PDT
- by Malachi on Thursday, September 27 @ 13:07:49 PDT
- by Starlight on Thursday, September 27 @ 14:19:54 PDT
- by Malachi on Friday, September 28 @ 11:03:33 PDT
- by Malachi on Friday, September 28 @ 11:18:01 PDT
- by Malachi on Friday, September 28 @ 12:08:51 PDT
- by Starlight on Friday, September 28 @ 14:03:56 PDT
- by Starlight on Friday, September 28 @ 13:56:27 PDT
- by Malachi on Friday, September 28 @ 14:55:55 PDT
- by Starlight on Friday, September 28 @ 16:02:48 PDT
- by tom-g on Tuesday, October 02 @ 12:36:52 PDT
- by Starlight on Wednesday, October 03 @ 08:20:33 PDT
- by Malachi on Thursday, September 27 @ 11:49:45 PDT
| 
|
