You are hereThe Language of Creation from Genesis to Revelation

The Language of Creation from Genesis to Revelation

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

By Virgil - Posted on 08 June 2009

by Tami Jelinek

There is much disagreement within fulfilled eschatology regarding the Genesis creation story. What is it about? Those who are futurist in their eschatology, and take a literal, cosmological view of “the end,” understandably view Genesis as the beginning of the same. In other words, if Revelation and other “last days” prophecies describe the end of the physical universe, then Genesis describes the beginning of that same universe. This is logical, and a consistent approach to the Bible as a whole. But what about preterists, who hold to a fulfilled view of eschatology? We see Revelation and other “last days” prophecies as pointing to the end of the Old Covenant age, and not the end of the physical universe. We recognize the language of the prophets, appreciate its metaphorical and symbolic elements and understand the covenant context of this language as it is employed consistently throughout the Bible. Furthermore, we submit our interpretation of this language to Jesus and the apostles, who quote extensively from those prophetic contexts. And if we are to be consistent, as consistent as those who are futurist in their eschatology and view the beginning and the end as the beginning and the end of the same universe; then we will likewise view the beginning and the end as the beginning and the end of the same covenant world. Or, we might say that they are covenantal counterparts. In other words, we will understand that Genesis’ creation is the same in nature as Revelation’s new creation. We will naturally conclude that it is a covenantal, rather than a cosmological creation. Click to read Tami's entire article

Starlight's picture

Tami,

That was an excellent and well done article in which there are many excellent points presented.

The question must be asked; do Preterist believe that what is being created in the New Heavens and Earth bear actually physical implications? (Isa 55:13) This idea that the bible is switching from the physical story to the spiritual or back to the physical again is one of the main problems with reading the scriptures properly and so I keep repeating to folks that the Bible is consistent and its language is consistent. That is also why we can go back to Genesis 1-3 with confidence and pick up the story line when we recognize these self evident defining truths about scriptures. The language about plants, animals and heavenly luminaries are defined just as they are in the rest of scripture.

Ezekiel says in 34:37 “And the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase, and they shall be secure in their land.”

If we take this language literal above concerning the “land” we are no more illuminated than our dispensational brothers who are still looking for a physical land in Israel to this very day. This is what drives futurism pure and simple.

Isaiah says in 65:20 “ No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.

Do Preterist really think that the languages above are physical ramifications from believing in our Lord post AD70? Well if they do they shouldn’t as it is the same type of language used from the beginning to the end of scriptures. It is the biblical signature of how the Hebrew’s were simply telling the story of redemption. What Preterist need to do in moving from partial Preterism to Full Preterism is to acquaint themselves with this consistent language otherwise they present a very confused picture of full Preterism and the futurist will see the duplicity in our hermeneutical approach.

Mat 7:17-19 ESV So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. (18) A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. (19) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

The Tree and fruit metaphor that Christ utilizes is one of the major Icons of the scripture and it starts at the beginning.

Gen 1:11-12 ESV And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. (12) The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

And it ends with the fruit tree metaphor of Christ.

Rev 22:2 ESV through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

There is nothing complex about this metaphorical realization of the Holy Scriptures, what is complex is removing the Traditionalist futurist vestiges that prevails in peoples minds and continues to cover their eyes with a veil of darkness not allowing them to grasp fully God’s intended message.

Norm

orton1227's picture

I cannot deny the incredible links presented in the article. The extent of parallelism is very convincing.

But Norm, I have trouble with the tree metaphor in Gen 1. Do you say that the birds, beasts and water animals on the 5th and 6th days of creation are metaphorical too? If so, what is the metaphor?

Also, how to distinguish Gen 1 and Gen 2 then?

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

It seems that you're arguing that the trees in Gen 1 are metaphors for human lives? If I'm correct in my interpretation of your point, then what does the Lord mean by 'you may surely eat of every tree of the garden?'.

Really good stuff being talked about on the subject...fascinating. I feel it just needs to be fleshed out a bit more.

flannery0's picture

Hi Orton,

We also have a podcast series posted called, "Exploring the Garden Scene":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newcreationministries/

It's a pretty raw (very casual, yet substantial) discussion in which we attempt to "flesh out" some of the metaphors in the Genesis creation account, and make links to the rest of Scripture. I believe it is in part 2 that we discuss the "trees" at length. Based on your comments here, I think you may enjoy the discussion.

Tami

flannery0's picture

that was the wrong link to the podcast, sorry:

http://www.newcreationministries.tv/Audio/gardenscene.htm

Starlight's picture

Orton,

Thanks for the good questions.

Let me give you some background on how the tree metaphor is fleshed out in scripture specifically. Let’s start with Daniel and the Tree Dream. It is a good illustration because Daniel provides commentary on how to interpret it’s figures.

Dan 4:20-22 THE TREE that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; (21) whose leaves were fair, AND THE FRUIT thereof much, and in IT WAS FOOD for all; under which THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD dwelt, and upon whose branches THE BIRDS OF THE HEAVENS had their habitation: (22) IT IS THOU, O KING, that art grown and become strong; for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and THY DOMINION to the end of the earth.

You see that The Tree metaphor is used to denote a KINGDOM under which animals live. These animals are metaphors for the Gentile peoples of Neb’s dominion. You may also remember that in Acts 10 that Peter’s vision was of animals which denoted Gentile people. The Jews understood this and recognized by implication that the Gentiles were now included. They could do so because they were acquainted with OT metaphor’s regarding the animals. Let’s look for further verification of this from other OT writings.

Eze 31:3-9 Behold, ASSYRIA WAS A CEDAR in Lebanon, with beautiful branches and forest shade, and of towering height, its top among the clouds. (4) The waters nourished it; the deep made it grow tall, making its rivers flow around the place of its planting, SENDING FORTH ITS STREAMS TO ALL THE TREES OF THE FIELD. (5) So it towered high above all the trees of the field; its boughs grew large and its branches long from abundant water in its shoots. (6) All the BIRDS OF THE HEAVENS MADE THEIR NESTS in its boughs; under its branches all THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD GAVE BIRTH TO THEIR YOUNG, and under its shadow LIVED ALL GREAT NATIONS. (7) It was beautiful in its greatness, in the length of its branches; for its roots went down to abundant waters. (8) THE CEDARS IN THE GARDEN OF GOD COULD NOT RIVAL IT, nor the fir trees equal its boughs; neither were the plane trees like its branches; NO TREE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD was its equal in beauty. (9) I made it beautiful in the mass of its branches, and ALL THE TREES OF EDEN ENVIED IT, THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD.

If you noticed, Assyria is depicted as a great Tree as well towering above the other nations called Trees and then Ezekiel compares it to the Trees in the Garden of Eden. Notice just as Babylon under King Neb is a great Tree so are these powerful nation Kingdoms and under these Gentile Tree Kingdoms there are the animals, beast and birds (Gentile peoples). Notice below the comparison to the Trees continues regarding the Garden of Eden. Ezekiel is giving us commentary again on whom the Tree metaphor is representing and at the end he is speaking this time about Egypt as the great Tree Nation which will fall.

Eze 31:15-16 "Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day the cedar went down to Sheol I caused mourning; I closed the deep over it, and restrained its rivers, and many waters were stopped. I clothed Lebanon in gloom for it, and all THE TREES OF THE FIELD FAINTED because of it. (16) I made the nations quake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to Sheol with those who go down to the pit. And all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the world below. … 18 "Whom are you thus like in glory and in greatness AMONG THE TREES OF EDEN? You shall be BROUGHT DOWN WITH THE TREES OF EDEN to the world below. You shall lie among the uncircumcised, with those who are slain by the sword. "THIS IS PHARAOH AND ALL HIS MULTITUDE, declares the Lord GOD."

The OT story is much about the Nations acting as a beguiling force in tempting Israel away from God, sometimes they act righteously such as Babylon when Neb came to his senses and was restored. God raises and lowers the Nations according to the scriptures. But the Nations Trees influence as a beguiling force will be coming to an end at the time of the Messiah. In fact Ezekiel prophecies about Christ as a Great Tree Dominion as well.

Eze 17:22-24 Thus says the Lord GOD: "I myself will take a sprig from the lofty top of the cedar and will set it out. I will break off from the topmost of its young twigs a tender one, and I MYSELF WILL PLANT IT on a high and lofty mountain. (23) On the mountain height of Israel will I plant it, that IT MAY BEAR BRANCHES AND PRODUCE FRUIT AND BECOME A NOBLE CEDAR. And UNDER IT WILL DWELL EVERY KIND OF BIRD; IN THE SHADE OF ITS BRANCHES BIRDS OF EVERY SORT WILL NEST. (24) And ALL THE TREES OF THE FIELD shall know that I am the LORD; I BRING LOW THE HIGH TREE, AND MAKE HIGH THE LOW TREE, dry up the green tree, and make the dry tree flourish. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it."

If you noticed there are no land dwelling animals under this Great Tree but only the Birds of the AIR. What is the significance of this? Well let’s look at Jesus use of the Tree metaphor in describing His Kingdom and notice the reference to the Garden Plants.

Mat 13:31-32 He put another parable before them, saying, "THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. (32) It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown IT IS LARGER THAN ALL THE GARDEN PLANTS and BECOMES A TREE, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and make nests in its branches."

Yes Jesus Kingdom only has the Birds of the Air and the question is why. It’s all about our relationship in this new Kingdom which is spiritual and it resides in the Heavens or in the Air and not on the land as under the Old Covenant of the Jews. Notice what Paul says about AIR.

1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds TO MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR, and so we will always be with the Lord.

So now I hope that this gives just a quickie overview of the development of the Tree Metaphors as they are used in scripture to tell the story. Genesis 1 introduces these Icons and provides what would be called an overview of the Old Covenant realities measured out in six days representing the epochs from beginning to end and culminating in the Sabbath Rest that Christ brings us into called the New Heavens and Earth.

Blessings

Norm

Barry's picture

Quote:
If you noticed there are no land dwelling animals under this Great Tree but only the Birds of the AIR. What is the significance of this? Well let’s look at Jesus use of the Tree metaphor in describing His Kingdom and notice the reference to the Garden Plants.

Mat 13:31-32 He put another parable before them, saying, "THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. (32) It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown IT IS LARGER THAN ALL THE GARDEN PLANTS and BECOMES A TREE, so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR come and make nests in its branches."

Yes Jesus Kingdom only has the Birds of the Air and the question is why. It’s all about our relationship in this new Kingdom which is spiritual and it resides in the Heavens or in the Air and not on the land as under the Old Covenant of the Jews. Notice what Paul says about AIR.

1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds TO MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR, and so we will always be with the Lord.
End quote.

Mat 13:32 Which 3739 indeed 3303 is 2076 the least 3398 of all 3956 seeds 4690: but 1161 when 3752 it is grown 837 , it is 2076 the greatest 3187 among herbs 3001, and 2532 becometh 1096 a tree 1186, so that 5620 the birds 4071 of the AIR 3772 come 2064 and 2532 lodge 2681 in 1722 the branches 2798 thereof 846.

IE "the birds of the heavens"

Act 10:12 Wherein 1722 3739 were 5225 ALL MANNER 3956 of fourfooted beasts 5074 OF THE EARTH 1093, and 2532 wild beasts 2342, and 2532 creeping things 2062, and 2532 fowls 4071 OF THE AIR (THE HEAVENS) 3772.
Act 10:13 And 2532 there came 1096 a voice 5456 to 4314 him 846, Rise 450 , Peter 4074; kill 2380 , and 2532 eat 5315 .

Eph 2:2 Wherein 1722 3739 in time past 4218 ye walked 4043 according to 2596 the course 165 of this 5127 world 2889, according to 2596 the prince 758 of the power 1849 OF THE AIR 109, the spirit 4151 that now 3568 worketh 1754 in 1722 the children 5207 of disobedience 543:
1Th 4:17 Then 1899 we 2249 which 3588 are alive 2198 [and] remain 4035 shall be caught up 726 together 260 with 4862 them 846 in 1722 the clouds 3507, to 1519 meet 529 the Lord 2962 in 1519 THE AIR 109: and 2532 so 3779 shall we 2071 0 ever 3842 be 2071 with 4862 the Lord 2962.

109 is not 3772.

Quote:
new Kingdom which is spiritual and it resides in the Heavens or in the Air and not on the land as under the Old Covenant of the Jews.
End quote.

Then why did it "come down"?
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.

Act 10:12 Wherein 1722 3739 were 5225 ALL MANNER 3956 of fourfooted beasts 5074 OF THE EARTH 1093, and 2532 wild beasts 2342, and 2532 creeping things 2062, and 2532 fowls 4071 OF THE AIR (THE HEAVENS) 3772.
Act 10:13 And 2532 there came 1096 a voice 5456 to 4314 him 846, Rise 450 , Peter 4074; kill 2380 , and 2532 eat 5315.

Norm I would disagree with your assessment on several levels.
Blessings to you.
Barry

we are all in this together

Barry's picture

Sorry Norm I missed this one:
1Th 4:17 Then 1899 we 2249 which 3588 are alive 2198 [and] remain 4035 shall be caught up 726 together 260 with 4862 them 846 in 1722 the clouds 3507, to 1519 meet 529 the Lord 2962 in 1519 THE AIR 109: and 2532 so 3779 shall we 2071 0 ever 3842 be 2071 with 4862 the Lord 2962.

The birds of the heavens are not the birds of the air around us but the birds of the sky.
Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

Yes Barry the Greek word is not the same and in fact the YLT makes a better case for the Spiritual nature calling it the dwelling of the “Birds of the HEAVEN”. Also the word “Air” is used in the spiritual realm as well as the physical. The definition is set by the context which I understand 1 Th 4:17 to be speaking of us dwelling with Christ in the Spiritual realm and not the physical atmosphere at the consummation at AD70.

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the POWER OF THE AIR, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Mat 13:32 which less, indeed, is than all the seeds, but when it may be grown, is greatest of the herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the BIRDS OF THE HEAVEN do come and rest in its branches.'

Barry said … “Then why did it "come down"?
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.

My question to you Barry; why is the Tree metaphor speaking of dwelling in the Heavens which comes from Christ quoting the implications of Ezekiel 17:23? This is not high theology in my estimation but simply different metaphorical ways that scripture speaks of the new Spiritual realm of which I have detailed some. If one gets trapped in literalizing the language then they will never work their way out of that maze. The scriptures have many metaphors to describe the Spiritual realm of the New Heavens and Earth.

Blessings to you also Barry

Norm

Barry's picture

Norm, you have some great points.

You have imo laid down some valid theological roots. It also looks like this has helped you branch out in your understanding and subsequently turn over a new leaf in your way of approaching bible study.

It's just that you went out on a bit of a limb with your "air" connections between Matt and Paul. :)
Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

I should have been more careful as I was simply a little sloppy.

Norm

Barry's picture

You are supposed to be laughing at my silly puns about your tree findings!
Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

That is hillarious that I didn't catch it.

What makes it so fitting is that I'm teaching an adult bible class this week on how the Bible uses the metaphorical application of the Trees in the OT and NT.

Went right over my head. Sorry you had to explain it. :)

Norm

mazuur's picture

Tami,

Excellent article! How people (especially Preterist) can refuse what is so clear just continues to boggle my mind. While many details may still need to be worked out, it is clear that Genesis is NOT about the physical creation of the Universe, and doesn't even begin to support some young earth position. I loved the table showing the comparisons. Surely any open minded person could see the parallels. Reminds me of Don Preston's works. He often, in his book, presents the same type of format showing the similarities between certain passages.

Thanks again for your work.

-Rich

-Rich

flannery0's picture

You're welcome. :)

I am glad you enjoyed it. (And of course it's always a pleasure to hear from someone who actually reads before commenting.)

mazuur's picture

Tami,

To tell you the truth I am reading it a second time right now. There is so much to think about. I do have a question concerning a couple of passages that are directly connected to the curse of the ground I would like to run by you; part of the details still to be worked out (in my mind anyway).

I will post the question later, as I don't have the time at the moment.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Tami,

Oh, I did want to especially acknowledge your section on "we are released from our old “husband” and married to Christ…"

That was brilliant! I had never seen or considered the connection between Genesis 3:16 and Romans 7:1-4. Brilliant, just brilliant! Did you come up with that? Man, that was on the level of Max King's brilliant insights.

-Rich

-Rich

flannery0's picture

Rich, I don't know if you've had a chance to listen to "The Garden Scene" podcasts that Ward and I did, but one thing we bring out a lot in those discussions is the importance of bringing Paul's theology into the garden scene. And yes, Romans 7 is a huge part of that. We really can't even begin to understand what is being taught there until we consult Paul. And we have really only scratched the surface of that in my estimation.

As for whether I came up with that? Well...of course not...it was Paul. Again, it's about looking at connections. I don't remember seeing it laid out quite that way before, though. I think what got my attention on that one point was when I realized that "the husband's rule" was part of the curse! That's huge, if we believe we've been redeemed....and then when I looked at Paul's analogy of dying to the law being like dying to a husband so we can be married to another--and he even spells it out: married to Christ!--it lined up perfectly. Miraculously, I tend to think. The Bible just becomes more amazing to me all the time.

But those who literalize the story there in Genesis are going to severely cripple their ability to see these things.

Tami

mazuur's picture

Tami,

No, I have not listen to "The Garden Scene", but I guess I had better.

Concerning coming up with "that", I was referring to the connection between Paul's husband in Romans 7:1-4 and "the husbands rule" being part of the curse and Genesis. I understand it's Paul analogy.

I had already understood the "husband" in Romans 7 as a reference to the law, to whom Israel had to die to (King), but the connection to Genesis I had never seen or considered before. That was excellent.

One thing that jumps out at me now though is the entire context of Romans 7:1-4 is Israel (Jews) having to die to their husband, not the Gentiles, as they were never married to that husband (King brings all those truths out). So, now with the connection going back to Genesis, consider how that sets the context of Genesis and who it relates to. hmmmmm...

-Rich

-Rich

flannery0's picture

Indeed.

It almost makes it sound as though the Bible is about the covenants and not the cosmos. :)

mazuur's picture

"I had already understood the "husband" in Romans 7 as a reference to the law"

I mis-spoke here. The Law is not the husband. The husband is "the flesh", which is a reference to the body of Adam.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

I think you must have forgotten that you and I had an extensive discussion about Adam dying as the Husband several months ago. If you remember I quoted extensively from Max King’s book on this very subject of Rom 7:1-4. Here is the link to our dialogue that we had on this subject. I realize though that my exploration is never presented as eloguently as Tami's and maybe that's the reason it's forgetable. ;-)

http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showre...

Norm

mazuur's picture

Norm,

I remember that, but King's (and Paul's) point is the husband was "the Law".

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

Yes, I remeber you and I not being able to sort out the nuance of that particular as I was attributing Rom 7:1-4 to being in Adam as the husband and under the curse of the Death in which the Law resided. My point also was that Max would not go as far as Tami and I in attributing the Husband to Adam specifically. He just would not go completly beyond Israel and the Law although many of his statements that I quoted would infer one doing so.

I made the point that it would have helped Max to have been more familar with an understanding of CC so that he could have made the connection that Tami has.

Norm

mazuur's picture

Norm,

I take that back (not sure what I was thinking). Paul (and King) equate the husband not with "the Law", but to "the flesh". Paul's point is Israel was freed from the Law by dying to their husband. The "husband" is equated to "the flesh", which is a reference to being "in Adam".

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

There is a partial ;) Preterist web site where there have been 8 or 9 articles released attempting to refute Tami’s article since it came out just a few days ago. The gist of their articles is that the curse of Gen 3 was removed at the flood and that the flood destroyed the first Heavens and Earth. Now somehow they posit that the curse of “the Death” was not a manifestation of the First Heavens and Earth but the curse of the Ground which accompanied the curse of “the Death” was removed and also that the physical tree of life was also destroyed in the flood as well. This idea turns OT prophetic writings on their head as there is a multitude of scriptures that refute this idea that Genesis 3 was primarily a physical story concerning the Ground.

It’s difficult to just jettison our past belief system but there comes a time that the intellectual needs to override our emotional attachments. Our friends that are striving to disprove the thesis of God’s Covenant Creation realities really have to ignore some very countervailing scriptures to do so. When I read Ezekiel 34 and 36 I see many of the constituent elements concerning the ground productivity from Genesis 2 & 3 being reversed at the coming of Christ. But they are not physical but spiritual reversals. For one to ignore these essential OT teachings that are found throughout the OT scriptures is incredulous when they posit and proof text that a poetic and prophetic verse or two can seemingly override these straight forward prophetic realities.

Ezekiel 34 & 36 is about the time of the Messiah there can be no doubt and he uses language that speaks of undoing what happened to Adam that led to his expulsion from the Garden. He says now (speaking in spiritual metaphors) that the trees shall yield their fruit and the Land shall yield its increase contrary to the curse when it would not yield its bounty. He will break the bondage of their yoke and there will be no more hunger in the land (spiritual metaphors again) due to the curse upon its spiritual fruitfulness.

Eze 34:23-31 And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he SHALL FEED THEM: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. (24) And I, THE LORD, WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND MY SERVANT DAVID SHALL BE PRINCE AMONG THEM. I am the LORD; I have spoken. (25) "I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild beasts from the land, so that they may dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. (26) And I will make them and the places all around my hill a blessing, and I will send down the showers in their season; they shall be showers of blessing. (27) And the trees of the field shall yield their fruit, and THE EARTH SHALL YIELD ITS INCREASE, and they shall be secure in their land. And they shall know that I am the LORD, WHEN I BREAK THE BARS OF THEIR YOKE, and deliver them from the hand of those who enslaved them. (28) They shall no more be a prey to the nations, nor shall the beasts of the land devour them. They shall dwell securely, and none shall make them afraid. (29) And I WILL PROVIDE FOR THEM RENOWNED PLANTATIONS SO THAT THEY SHALL NO MORE BE CONSUMED WITH HUNGER IN THE LAND, and no longer suffer the reproach of the nations. (30) And they shall know that I am the LORD their God with them, and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, declares the Lord GOD. (31) And you are my sheep, human sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, declares the Lord GOD."

In Chapter 36 again Ezekiel makes it plain that he is speaking of the time of the Messiah and will sprinkle them with clean water and new hearts not of stone but of His Spirit. He fully establishes again that at this time that the grain will again be abundant and there will be no famine and hunger (Spiritual famine). Again he speaks of the fruitfulness of the trees and the increase of the field and is by no means inferring that at the Cross and AD70 that these are physical realities.

Eze 36:23-36 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. (24) I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and BRING YOU INTO YOUR OWN LAND. (25) I will sprinkle clean water on you, and YOU SHALL BE CLEAN FROM ALL YOUR UNCLEANNESSES, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. (26) And I WILL GIVE YOU A NEW HEART, AND A NEW SPIRIT I WILL PUT WITHIN YOU. AND I WILL REMOVE THE HEART OF STONE FROM YOUR FLESH AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH. (27) AND I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (28) You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. (29) And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I WILL SUMMON THE GRAIN AND MAKE IT ABUNDANT AND LAY NO FAMINE UPON YOU. (30) I WILL MAKE THE FRUIT OF THE TREE AND THE INCREASE OF THE FIELD ABUNDANT, that you may NEVER AGAIN SUFFER THE DISGRACE OF FAMINE among the nations. (31) Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. (32) It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel. (33) "Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt. (34) And THE LAND THAT WAS DESOLATE SHALL BE TILLED, INSTEAD OF BEING THE DESOLATION THAT IT WAS in the sight of all who passed by. (35) And they will say, 'THIS LAND THAT WAS DESOLATE HAS BECOME LIKE THE GARDEN OF EDEN, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.' (36) Then the nations that are left all around you shall know that I am the LORD; I have rebuilt the ruined places AND REPLANTED THAT WHICH WAS DESOLATE. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it.

Finally Ezekiel summarizes everything by saying that the desolate land will be tilled and he says that when that occurs THE LAND WILL THEN BECOME LIKE THE GARDEN OF EDEN. Any unbiased theologian and especially a full Preterist one would notice immediately that Ezekiel is speaking of undoing what transpired at Adam’s fall from the Garden. The idea that the flood rendered the Gen 3 curses null and void is clearly refuted by Ezekiel. Proof texting or not there is absolutely no way to get around OT scriptures such as this which are also found in Isaiah and other locales which Tami has identified can be ignored. Doing so puts one in the realm of the literal dispensationalist that we Preterist shake our head at. It’s amazing when supposed full Preterist cannot grasp the spiritual language of the scripture and instead hang on for dear life to a physical reading to soothe their anxieties caused in their attempt to embrace Full Preterism. Many of our supposed full Preterist brethren are still having just as difficult a time accepting the hermeneutic understandings that full Preterism requires as our futurist brethren do.

Norm

mazuur's picture

what sights?

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

I believe the site goes by SGP but I must warn you that they don’t allow many full Preterist to interface on it unless you are vetted by the Site Administrator who is satisfied that you will not challenge their partial Preterism . ;-)

It’s a locked down partial Preterist site.

Norm

mazuur's picture

oh, that site. I don't have much interest with them anymore. I did visit in time past to read Sam's blog, to which at TV he convinced me to join, since Jason locked it down, so I could continue to read it, but that got rejected. Oh well, life goes on. Who needs it anyway? The open minded people who can actually consider alternate understandings without feeling the need to write endless attacks just to feel more secure in their position come here anyway. Tami's article case in point.

"their partial Preterism", I like that. I guess you have a good (valid) point. heh heh heh

-Rich

-Rich

MichaelB's picture

There is a partial ;) Preterist web site where there have been 8 or 9 articles released attempting to refute Tami’s article"

"their partial Preterism", I like that"

Ah - so we are partial preterists because we believe in an actual creation - huh. Cool beans.

More REALLY Awesome Covenant Creation Hermeneutics

According to Covenantal Creation this is not about the first man (there are many men before this) this is about first COVENANTAL man.

Genesis 2
7then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

man / formed / the ground / A living creature

Uh huh - so these must be the first COVENANTAL beasts and birds right? <= WHATEVER THE HECK THAT MEANS Please note that it is the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE that we see regarding man above as we do below regarding the animals.

Beasts and birds / formed / the ground / living creature

Genesis 2
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Hey and this is about Mitochondrial Adam and Eve right Norm !!! YEAH !!!

Form Norm regarding Acts 17
Mitochondrial Eve, She is believed to have lived about 140,000 years ago
Y-chromosomal Adam, is the patrilineal human most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all Y chromosomes in living men are descended. Y-chromosomal Adam is thus the male counterpart of Mitochondrial Eve. Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker studies. Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by at least 30,000 years, or possibly a thousand generations. This is due to the differences found in male and female reproductive strategies

Oh and let's not forget...

"This demonstrates that, while the language of "heavens and earth’ often can and should be read in reference to covenant, there are many examples of "heavens and earth" which are primarily creational based in the physical "heavens and earth." A Local Creation interpretation is possible once we understand the covenant use of "heavens and earth" but it is not textually required in Genesis 1 by the covenantal reading of "heavens and earth" language elsewhere in Scripture" - Tim Martin

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Here is how Wikipedia describes the difference between the two camps of Preterism.

“ The two principal schools of Preterist thought are commonly called Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. Preterists disagree significantly about the exact meaning of the terms used to denote these divisions of Preterist thought. … On the other hand, some Full Preterists prefer to call their position Consistent Preterism, reflecting their extension of Preterism to all biblical prophecy and thus claiming an inconsistency in the Partial Preterist hermeneutic”

I am positing that a Consistent reading and or hermeneutic from Genesis to Revelation fully defines Full Preterism. Off shoot variations that disregard the consistency of scripture leads to partial Preterism whether it’s futurism on the Revelation end or YEC on the Genesis end. Any hermeneutic approach that discards this consistent Preterist hermeneutic is by definition a partial variation. This goes for the multitude of variations such as the AD70 rapture adherents and those who still see 1 Cor 15 as a physical body understanding. All of these variations and off shoots have this one common denominator and that is a literal reading and application of certain sections of scripture.

It does not mean that we aren’t brothers in Christ like some Preterist variants espouse whom we will not name. But it is a distinction for clarification of a hermeneutical approach for rightly ascertaining biblical intent by the authors.

Blessings

Norm

davo's picture

Starlight: All of these variations and off shoots have this one common denominator and that is a literal reading and application of certain sections of scripture.

Norm… I know we agree on some aspects of this and are at variance on others, and it's all good – but this statement above pretty much reflects what you often say, and IMO is fairly inconsistent and therefore lacking credibility in itself; here's how…

When you readily confess belief in a "literal" Adam as you do i.e., you do not hold him to be a metaphor for some other thing, but rather see him as a real individual, THEN this makes a nonsense of your charge above, or at least that's how it logically comes across.

Certainly there ARE "variations and off shoots" regarding the balance and measure of metaphoric application of things literal. IOW as I understand it, it seems less than consistent to on the one hand charge that the holding of any degree of "physicality" of the Gen1 story to be shonky hermeneutics WHEN an "all metaphoric" approach actually doesn't do this either.

IOW, is it reliable to hold to a "local flood" – "literal Noah" account AND understanding such to be somewhat of a recapitulation of a "local creation" – "literal Adam" account; acknowledging that BOTH are valid aspects and realities of the "material" AND "covenantal" creation AS THEY RELATE TO ISRAEL'S STORY? I believe YES it is reliable and valid as previously enunciated HERE. This is not a "globalised" YEC or scientific approach; it is the story of Israel…

Isa 43:27 Your first father [Adam] sinned, and your mediators have transgressed against Me.

Hos 6:7 But they [Israel] like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against Me.

MichaelB… at the end of the post linked above, which was actually to you, I posed another option to consider regarding your approach to the Acts 17 "one blood" issue – you never got around to responding – did you see it?

davo

Starlight's picture

Davo,

Yes I agree with certain points you make but there is much more to say. We are all partial Preterist to an extent as all of us need to get rid of some physical leaning baggage. Some things are obviously more esaily discernable than others. Some of the issues that we are dealing with now in Genesis though are not as difficult to discern as other issues and so I will leave it at that for now.

Typically we need though to get rid of more physical leanings and not less.

Blessings Davo

Norm

KingNeb's picture

You know, i keep telling my self i'm going to ignore you guys and then i come over here and find you talking badly about me again.

But, i guess that's to be expected considering what Tami wrote above. i mean, according to her, even though i embrace much of the symbolism, metaphors, and such but don't start Ge 1 off with all that, I:

- Have to deny inspiration
- Diminish the cross
- Deny a victorious cross
- Seek a ‘sensualized’ kingdom that Christ rebuked and lead many to apostasy

So really...what did i expect? Hell, if SGP is ran by people who deny inspiration, diminish the cross, deny salvation victory, and teach a kingdom that would lead people away from faith in Christ, then it only makes sense that Rich would say:

"Who needs it anyway?"

and for Norm to say elsewhere:

"If Sam continues to associates with friends who continue to perpetuate such a counter full Preterist theology concerning the nature of the curse then he is going to discredit himself and his scholarly credentials concerning anything to do with Gen 2 & 3."

Sam, seriously, you choose to associate with people who diminish the glory of Christ? What are you thinking?!

------------------------

Concerning SGP - neither Rich nor Norm tell folks the whole story.

What Rich doesn't tell you is that when he requested to join, instead of immediately approving his account, i emailed him to ask him why he wanted to join CONSIDERING that he has said some really nasty things about me and mike in the past - the very two that started the site to begin with. Even Virgil had to step in the last time Rich blasted Mike. So, seems like a reasonable question, doesn't it? I mean, why would Rich want to join a site that isn't ran by "open-minded" people who do nothing but write endless attacks to feel more secure?

Instead of conversing with me, he told me to just forget it and HE left the conversation.

As for Norm bad-mouthing me concerning who we let join, what Norm doesn't tell folks is that there are Covenant Creation members on the site. In fact, Tami is a member. (Yet, for some strange reason she doesn't converse with us there.)

In fact, my good friend Jim Kessler just posted his new artwork on the site and provided a link to a summary on "Covenant Creation", a link which by the way, leads to a site that i helped Jim create and just recently spent an entire weekend updating.

So why do i let Jim on and not Norm? Simple. I don't see Jim going around to different websites talking crap about me. I didn't see Jim joining in on the RCMLive slander fest the week after Ward's appearance. I don't see Jim telling people that i diminish the cross and am nothing more than some sensuous kingdom rejector. I don't see Jim going around speculating and slandering me about what goes on at SGP.

See, Jim actually acts like an adult. Jim actually does what friends are suppose to do and actually calls me...asks me what's going on, etc. You know...adult stuff.

Sam can't even avoid the net for the past couple of days in order to take care of his janitorial business before Norm and others immediately start in with their bullcrap about Sam not being a "serious" player.

Y'all are starting to sound a lot like Roderick Edwards. We either accept your conclusions or we "diminish the cross". And now, look's like Sam needs to decide who he's going to "associate" with.

------

Rich, if you want me to stop coming over here to "bother" you, then stop talking about me.

thereignofchrist.com

KingNeb's picture

"In fact, Tami is a member."

Correction: Tami was a member.

thereignofchrist.com

Starlight's picture

Jason,

These debates between our opposing hermeneutic approaches to scriptures are the same ones that are going on between Full Preterist and Partial Preterist continually. You need to get over your anxiety of me calling Sam out for what I consider inconsistent Preterism as it happens to everyone. I confront and will continue to do so with what I consider amounts to full Preterist inconsistencies from Sam, Michael and You. When people screw up Genesis they have great difficulty getting NT theology right when it comes to understanding the curse and what “the Death” was all about. People don’t need to wade through all that if they are taught correctly and it makes teaching Preterism much easier when the foundation is built properly.

Full Preterist write the same things about Gentry and other partial Preterist who we all recognize screw up the scriptures in the NT side of the equation. You guys are simply doing the same thing in Genesis and you want us to leave you alone and not bother you so that you can keep the bad theology going. There’s nothing more to it than that Jason and I’m not inclined to let you guys off the hook that easy while you try to siphon off folks who don’t begin to understand Genesis. If we don’t say something loud and clear then your false teaching simply becomes validated. Jason that’s how Christianity got screwed up for the past 2000 years because no one would stand up against the error of futurist teachers. The reason is that it’s easier to teach the bible literally than it is to teach it accurately.

Norm

KingNeb's picture

Actually, i don't tell people that Christians who teach amillennialism, for example, diminish the cross.

Don't project your stuff onto me. Sorry to bust your bubble Norm, but you don't speak for all of us.

Also, i actually agree with you that it is easier to teach your view than mine. heck, anyone can point out a symbol and then blindly paste it across all 66 books and ignore the contradictions it creates. It's easier to ignore it than to address it.

But i'm not going to get into all that, since that was not my complaint here; of which you conveniently ignored...again.

thereignofchrist.com

Starlight's picture

Jason,

I ignored youre response because it needed to be ignored.

Norm

KingNeb's picture

Norm, you "ignored" it because Jim Kessler's account and activity on SGP completely shatters your continual lie about what i supposedly do on SGP.

thereignofchrist.com

Starlight's picture

Jason,

I would appreciate you stopping your ranting about how mistreated you are.

If you want to rant anymore you can do so to yourself as you are simply trying to disrupt this forum as you usually do.

I'll not interface with you anymore but I will continue to point out your false teaching at oppurtune times.

Norm

KingNeb's picture

"Rich,

I believe the site goes by SGP but I must warn you that they don’t allow many full Preterist to interface on it unless you are vetted by the Site Administrator who is satisfied that you will not challenge their partial Preterism . ;-)

It’s a locked down partial Preterist site.

Norm "

YOU STARTED IT NORM!

I let this article sit for two days and didn't plan on saying anything until i came over here to find YOU running your mouth about me.

I would appreciate you to either keep your mouth quiet about me or finish what you start.

thereignofchrist.com

mazuur's picture

Jason,

Email me your phone number and a good time to call.

-Rich

-Rich

Jhedges's picture

Great article which I will have to read in again a few times im sure to absorb it all.

flannery0's picture

Cool, I am glad you like it! We should chat about it soon, I would love to hear some of your thoughts. :)

flannery0's picture

I just wanted to make a quick comment regarding this article. I posted it on my own site, and one other site that I admin, and then I also agreed to put it here because I really do welcome comments and questions. I fully expect there to be things that some might disagree with, challenge, question, etc. It's all part of our ongoing studies, and of course if you aren't willing to have something challenged, you probably shouldn't put it up.

Having said that, this was a thoughtful work. I waited three weeks after I had finished it, and ran it by several reviewers, before I put it up. Where I have drawn conclusions about the implications of various views, I feel I have supported those conclusions with sound reason. That is not to say that those conclusions won't still be questioned. Again, I welcome that. I am prepared to stand by what I wrote, until I am convinced by a sound exegetical argument that it needs to be modified.

What I don't welcome is the way my words have been misrepresented. By a minority, but a loud one. It's hard not to want to defend against those misrepresentations. But experience has taught me that responding at all to them is not fruitful. So I would just like to make a simple request to the readers here, and that is that you read and respond to the *article*, if it interests you, rather than someone else's characterization of it.

Sincerely,
Tami

KingNeb's picture

So, you really don't think then that I, as an "inconsistent preterist" who reads Ge 1 "physically", diminish the cross, have to deny inspiration, ultimately deny victory, etc, etc?

thereignofchrist.com

MichaelB's picture

I am still wondering when it suddenly became textually required to read Covenantally. No one has proven this wrong yet...

"This demonstrates that, while the language of "heavens and earth’ often can and should be read in reference to covenant, there are many examples of "heavens and earth" which are primarily creational based in the physical "heavens and earth." A Local Creation interpretation is possible once we understand the covenant use of "heavens and earth" but it is not textually required in Genesis 1 by the covenantal reading of "heavens and earth" language elsewhere in Scripture" - Tim Martin

"NOT TEXTUALLY REQUIRED" - Tim Martin

These guys view has been refuted over and over already. Hey guys have a great night, gotta go play with my "covenantal" cat. See ya =)

Starlight's picture

Michael,

You ask on your partial Preterist web site what Covenantal Animals are. Here are a couple examples for you.

Hos 2:18 ESV And I will make for them a COVENANT ON THAT DAY WITH THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD, THE BIRDS OF THE HEAVENS, AND THE CREEPING THINGS OF THE GROUND.

Peter has the vision of this fulfillment in Acts 10.

Act 10:11-12 ESV and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. (12) In it were ALL KINDS OF ANIMALS AND REPTILES AND BIRDS OF THE AIR.

Act 11:18 ESV When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "THEN TO THE GENTILES ALSO GOD HAS GRANTED REPENTANCE THAT LEADS TO LIFE."

By the way Michael have you decided what Ezekiel 36 is speaking about here?

(33) "Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt. (34) And THE LAND THAT WAS DESOLATE SHALL BE TILLED, INSTEAD OF BEING THE DESOLATION THAT IT WAS in the sight of all who passed by. (35) And they will say, 'THIS LAND THAT WAS DESOLATE HAS BECOME LIKE THE GARDEN OF EDEN, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.'

Do you deny that Ezekiel is speaking of the time of the Messiah in these verses? Do you deny the language speaks about renewing the land spiritually and not physically at the coming of Jesus? Do you deny that Ezekiel still perceives that the “land” has a curse upon it’s productivity well after the flood which you insist removed the “land” curse.

I would be interested in seeing your specific answer to this section of Ezekiel here on PP since I’m not privy to your discussion over on the partial Preterist locked down and restricted site.

Norm

flannery0's picture

These questions that Norm is asking are very important.

We are progressing through a study of Isaiah 65 right now, in which we are discussing these very things, including Ezekiel 36 (which parallels Isaiah 65 to a significant extent) and the implications of separating it from the curse pronounced in Genesis 3.

If anyone is interested, that study is available here:
http://www.newcreationministries.tv/Audio/isaiah65.htm

MichaelB's picture

This is gettiing hilarious. First Norm says Acts 17 is about "mitochondrial" Adam and Eve not the Genesis Adam and Eve - ROFL...

Now Norm claims that the animals in the GARDEN of Genesis 1-3 are really people.

A) So if they are in the GARDEN in Genesis 2 then what is the difference between the man Adam and these animals? They are BOTH in the garden in Genesis 2.

B) The EXACT same language is used in Genesis 1-3 regarding the animals, as the flood account and the animals. So Noah had Gentiles on the Ark and not animals. Noah sacrifices a Gentile when they landed on ground. Oh and by the way the animals are described as clean and unclean. So did Noah have clean Gentiles and unclean Gentiles on the Ark? This is getting to be a real hoot.

BTW - in Acts and Hosea what is the difference between those and Genesis. The call them PROPHESIES and VISIONS and INTERPRET the VISIONS for us. NOWHERE does GENESIS call the Genesis account a VISION.

The simple FACT is that you can not EXEGETE Genesis with your interpretation. You instead use WORD SEARCH hermeneutics. PLEASE go take a hermeneutics class this is a violation of hermeneutics 101 Norm!

Type / antitype Norm - will become "LIKE" the Garden of Eden. NOT HARD.

BTW you just refuted yourself. You gave Hosea as an example above.

Making something Israel "LIKE A DESERT" in a prophetic text does not mean that there are not REAL deserts Norm. HELLO!

"Otherwise I will strip her naked and make her as bare as on the day she was born; I will make her like a desert"

Neither should making something "LIKE" Eden mean that there was not a real Eden.

"And they will say,this land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden"

PLEASE - go to hermeneutics 101 school and come back when you can actually exegete a passage rather than using "word search" hermeneutics in prophetic texts.

Starlight's picture

Michael ,

You said a bunch of nothing while again avoiding the heart of this discussion.

So Michael are you going to refuse to answer the question whether the animals in Hosea and Acts represented Gentile peoples who were promised a part of the covenant? Were the animals representing people in Hosea the result of a vision? I figured you would try to slip out of that issue again.

So then who makes up the rules for the application of Biblical language? I assume Michael you are still reading your futurist partial Preterist Hermeneutic theology 101 books as your arguments appear to come right out the mouth of a futurist trying to discredit full Preterism.

Also Michael since Ezekiel says that at the coming and renewal of Christ that the Land would become “LIKE” the Garden of Eden. Let’s set aside for a moment the Garden of Eden comparison since it is confusing to you. What is not confusing is the language that says the

“And THE LAND THAT WAS DESOLATE SHALL BE TILLED, INSTEAD OF BEING THE DESOLATION THAT IT WAS in the sight of all who passed by.”

Tell me Michael was there physical land that needed to be tilled at the time of the Messiah? Did Christ go around plowing the physical ground? Is that what this is all about? I want to hear an intelligent answer from you instead of all of this rambling about words that you use for your typical partial Preterist smoke screen to avoid addressing the prime issue at hand.

Now let’s take a look at the YLT translation of that same verse which does not use the “confusing” word “like”. Your answer reminds me of Bill Clintons definition of “is” and the futurist parsing of “that” in Matt 24.

Eze 36:35 And they have said: This land, that was desolated, Hath been AS THE GARDEN OF EDEN,

Do you not understand Michael that “like” or “as” is simply part of the construct of this sentence which is simply saying that the land is being returned to be in the state that it was in the Garden. The theology behind this is that the curse is removed and it is returning to the Garden status before the curse. There is nothing complex about that understanding Michael but it is spiritual and not physical language unless you apply your partial Preterist literalism to these verses again.

Finally in reference to your Act’s 17 discussions you have taken my quote out of the context it was intended. You wouldn’t do such a thing on purpose now would you Michael? Never mind that I was intending that statement in half jest for those who were nuanced enough in science to understand the levity of the answer. But unfortunately it went right over the head of you YEC types who do not comprehend science past 6000 years old. It just goes to show you have to be careful in kidding around with the YEC crowd as they take you way to seriously half the time because they haven’t progressed past a 6th grade education in the sciences. ;-)

Norm

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43