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

MichaelB's picture

Norm - no one denies that same language is borrowed in type / anti-type.

EXAMPLE: There are literal Locusts in Exodus and in Revelation there are Locusts that are actually Romans. According to your hermeneutic using the same "word search" hermeneutic you do for Genesis - The Locusts in Exodus MUST be the same nature as the Locusts in Revelation. THAT IS A RIDICULOUS HERMENEUTIC.

Jesus' body being the "temple" doesn't mean that there was not a real temple Norm. Your word search hermeneutic DOES NOT work. It is not considered a legit way to do hermeneutics.

Exegete Genesis please. Are you saying that Noah carried Gentiles on his ship and not real animals? If they are animals then your whole view falls apart AND YOU KKNOW IT because the exact same language is used in Genesis 1-3 as 6-9. Noah is told to make a burnt offering (totally consistent with OT commands) as well as being able to eat the animals.

21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

BTW - there is NO WAY to make the animals in GENESIS be PEOPLE (SEE BELOW)the text tells us that people will be destroyed along with animals.

23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; MEN AND ANIMALS and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.

Islamaphobe's picture

Tami,

I just want to throw in a quick positive comment. I find this article to be a very useful one that merits being saved an properly filed. Thanks!

John S. Evans

flannery0's picture

Thanks, John. I appreciate that feedback. :)

MichaelB's picture

ANYONE trying to make the animals = people in Genesis 1-9 is wrong. Exegete the passage rather than "word search hermeneutics" from other passages and you will find that the text tells of Genesis tells us Noah was to sacrifice and eat animals and that people will be destroyed along with animals. THEREFORE the animals are not people.

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and ALL MANKIND. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; MEN AND ANIMALS and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.

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

3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

So you agree with me then that animals in Acts 10, Hosea 2, Dan 4 & 5, Ezek 31 and 47 represent Gentile peoples? Do we have agreement there?

I realized you are obsessed with the animals in Genesis so let me provide a little background again for your contemplation for who knows how many times.

I’ll repeat again for you something I have pointed out more than once. Question: how did the ancient Hebrew priest hood read the flood story? Let’s look at the book of Enoch which Jude calls prophecy and so did other early AD70 Christians as it was the second most collected fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls circa AD70. Even though it’s not part of the cannon it provides a view into the manner in which the Jews from about 200 BC to AD70 viewed the flood story as it is a priestly collection and highly regarded by early Christians. Here is an excerpt which shows that the Hebrew Priest was perfectly comfortable in recognizing the animals on the Ark as people contrary to your observations.

Notice their use of animals below identified as “BEAST OF THE FIELD AND BIRDS” straight out of Genesis and then these animals disperse off the Ark and become the Gentile peoples. Abraham and his offspring arise and then eventually the twelve tribes are called sheep and encounter the wolves which would be Egypt. Notice how Isaiah picks up on the wolf and sheep metaphor coming together at the New Heavens and Earth. I think Isaiah was comfortable with people as animals as well.

Enoch … “9. But that white bull which had become a man came out of that vessel, and the three bulls with him, and one of those three was white like that bull, and one of them was red as blood, and one black: and that white bull departed from them.
10. And THEY BEGAN TO BRING FORTH BEASTS OF THE FIELD AND BIRDS, so that there arose different genera: lions, tigers, wolves, dogs, hyenas, wild boars, foxes, squirrels, swine, falcons, vultures, kites, eagles, and ravens; and among them was born a white bull.
11. And they began to bite one another; but that white bull which was born amongst them begat a wild ass and a white bull with it, and the wild asses multiplied. 12. But that bull which was born from him begat a black wild boar and a white sheep; and the former begat many boars, but that sheep begat TWELVE SHEEP. 13. And when those twelve sheep had grown, they gave up one of them to the asses, and those asses again GAVE UP THAT SHEEP TO THE WOLVES, and that sheep grew up among the wolves. 14. And the Lord brought the eleven sheep to live with it and to pasture with it among the wolves: and they multiplied and became many flocks of sheep. 15. And the wolves began to fear them,”
Isa 11:6 And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb

Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,

Let’s humor you for a moment though about the animals at the flood even though James Jordan draws much of the same analogy as I do and I don’t hear you chastising Jordan’s’ expert opinion. Plus Jordan delves deeply in much of his work on the symbolic use of animals in the sacrificial system as a typology concerning the Gentiles.

Jordan quote from his book “Through New Eyes”
“The Bible presumes an analogy between men and animals from the beginning. Animals image human life more closely than do any other of the other aspects of the creation. “

“It is well known that the Bible draws comparisons between human beings and animals, and in particular regards. g There is one special way in which some animals represented human beings, and that was in the sacrificial system.”

End quotes.

Michael the historic Jews were much more comfortable with analogy and metaphor than you are. You simply haven’t ever taken the time to “honestly” research all these issues that bother you. There are answers to each and every one of them but if you don’t have eyes and ears to hear then it’s futile to even tell you or direct you to such things. You have dug your literal heels in so deep that no one is going to budge you. Your amateurish proof texting of scripture is nothing but a white washed farce when you fail to consider that full Preterism offers you answers that you fail to respond and listen to.

You complain vehemently about doing word searches. I have never heard anyone disparage the idea of searching the scriptures for the contextual meaning of words and phrases before. This is a fundamental aspect and tool of biblical research and your disparaging of it is laughable at best and disingenuous at worst as you come across as trying to limit folks searching the scriptures to see if these things are true. It’s like you don’t want folks to study the scripture as you are afraid of what they may uncover. How silly can that be?

Norm

MichaelB's picture

You are REALLY trying to avoid just flat out talking about Genesis arent you? Norm you were already proven wrong. There should be no humans mentioned along with animals in the destruction of the flood if they are the same thing.

You quote Enoch (extra biblical) you realize the things in blue below are INSERTED by the author right?

http://www.moseshand.com/holidays/holidays2a.htm

"Perhaps reading very old prophesies that have come to pass will help us understand newer prophesies that have not yet been fulfilled. The words in blue below were added by the author of this web site. They are his opinion and interpretation"

You also love to quote Barnabas - (Barnabas quotes Enoch) how about this Norm? LOOK AT THE AGE OF THE EARTH.

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

Norm writes:
I’ll repeat again for you something I have pointed out more than once. Question: how did the ancient Hebrew priest hood read the flood story?

From Tim's first book:

“Preterists love to quote Josephus on the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. When will they learn to quote Josephus on the flood?”

1. Josephus taught 6 day creation. Also that the seventh day ended.

"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 labor of such operations; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue" Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 1

2. Josephus taught Adam first man and from literal dust.

"That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living" Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 2

"Now Adam, who was the first man, and made out of the earth, (for our discourse must now be about him,)" Antiquities of the Jews: Concerning The Posterity Of Adam Book I, Chapter 2, Section 3

3. Josephus taught long ages of people.

"after Abel was slain, and Cain fled away, on account of his murder, was solicitous for posterity, and had a vehement desire of children, he being two hundred and thirty years old; after which time he lived other seven hundred, and then died. He had indeed many other children, but Seth in particular" Antiquities of the Jews: Concerning The Posterity Of Adam Book I, Chapter 2, Section 3

"Now when Noah had lived three hundred and fifty years after the Flood, and that all that time happily, he died, having lived the number of nine hundred and fifty years. But let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the shortness of our lives at present an argument, that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life, for those ancients were beloved of God, and [lately] made by God himself; and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years: and besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 9

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

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

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

5. Josephus taught a literal garden.

And when God had appointed these penalties for them, he removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into another place. Josephus - "Antiquities of the Jews" FROM THE CREATION TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC. CHAPTER 1.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ELEMENTS. Section 4

6. The one controversial quote below does not actually say that it was a local flood...

Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus:"There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 6

The many who fled could be those on the Ark. Also Noah was quoting an account that someone else gave. Not his own account. Josephus goes on to say...

"Now God loved this man for his righteousness: yet he not only condemned those other men for their wickedness, but determined to destroy the whole race of mankind, and to make another race that should be pure from wickedness; and cutting short their lives, and making their years not so many as they formerly lived, but one hundred and twenty only, he turned the dry land into sea; and thus were all these men destroyed: but Noah alone was saved" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 2

"When God gave the signal, and it began to rain, the water poured down forty entire days, till it became fifteen cubits higher than the earth; which was the reason why there was no greater number preserved, since they had no place to fly to" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 5

Josephus goes on to say that Noah was not even in the "land".

"But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land" Antiquity of the Jews, Flavius Josephus, Book I, Chapter 3 Concerning The Flood; Section 1

7. Josephus taught Adam had 50 + kids.

“The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.” William Whiston, translator, The Complete Works of Josephus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1981), p. 27. Answers in Genesis article link: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=740

8. Josephus taught that the temple was a "type" of the world / creation.

"Now the room within those pillars was the most holy place; but the rest of the room was the tabernacle, which was open for the priests. However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world; for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a heaven peculiar to God." Of the veil at the holy of holies, he said, "This veil was very ornamental, and embroidered with all sorts of flowers which the earth produces; and there were interwoven into it all sorts of variety that might be an ornament, excepting the forms of animals" Antiquities of the Jews: Josephus: Book III, chap.6, section 4

Starlight's picture

Michael,

I have no idea what you are trying to prove with Josephus. I consider him just another secular writer who is all over the place in his writings and has little clue on many subjects. His worth is in presenting a hybrid secular/Jewish historical perspective and he more accurately represents the type of mentality that permeated the physical minded Jews of his age who rejected the Messiah.

Michael I presented you a good amount of background on Genesis and you have the nerve to tell me I don’t want to talk about it (I’m not going to write you a book). Of course I refuse to follow your pattern of copying copious amounts of scripture or quotes to overwhelm readers who are trying to discern what you are actually saying. Why don’t I make a suggestion to you to start cutting way back on the cut and paste jobs and start writing out and presenting in a coherent manner your points backed up by some rudimentary logic thrown in and pare down the scriptural reference significantly.

Also what in the world are you talking about with the “things underlined in blue” found in your online Enoch manuscript. Michael I’m very aware that some presenters of Enoch like to insert a description of who the animals represented as far as the nationalities are concerned. It’s really very simple to follow the story line with Enoch text which do not include those added comments as it’s obvious to any student of Genesis who the animals are portraying. Besides what does that point have to do with the price of tea in China for goodness sakes?

I’m not surprised that you are reading Barnabas literally concerning the 1000 years Michael as that is your futurist default manner of reading symbolic Hebrew literature. Did you not happen to notice that Barnabas makes a quote almost identical to 2 Pet 3:8 concerning “a day as a 1000 years”. Do you not understand as a full Preterist that Peter was not speaking of a literal 1000 years but that he was using it in the metaphorical sense just as Barnabas who was a close contemporary is also doing. Do you not understand the metaphorical usage of John in Revelation concerning the 1000 year reign as metaphorically depicting the 40 year time frame from Pentecost to the Parousia. Do you not know where this quote derives from? Namely the book of Jubilees which had been in circulation for over 200 years and was another contemporary priestly writing that early Christians were intimately familiar with.

Do you want to see the quote Michael?

Jubilees 4: thereof, Adam died, and all his sons buried him in the land of his creation, 8 and he was the first to be buried 9 in the earth. 30. 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 will die." 1 For this reason HE DID NOT COMPLETE THE YEARS OF THIS DAY; FOR HE DIED DURING IT.

Just like the dispensationalist and futurist you are reading into the 1000 years your own modern literal interpretation in lieu of the fact that it was not the contemporary biblical understandings when Barnabas, 2 Peter and Revelation were written. You see the audience understood that Barnabas was not speaking literally but unfortunately you don’t and that is why you skew the understanding that accompanied it.

Michael you need to do your home work better.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Norm the simple fact is that you can not deal with this AT ALL. Men AND animals are destroyed Therefore the animals in Genesis are real animals. Therefore Noah really sacrificed and really ate animals. I don't need ANYTHING extra-biblical. Scripture is the only infallible source and face the fact that you can not exegete Genesis with your interpretation - IT DOES NOT WORK.

BTW - can you please tell me who else in the Covenantal Creation view takes your view of the animals = people. I would really like to know.

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and ALL MANKIND. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; MEN AND ANIMALS and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth.

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

3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

So with all of the responses containing scriptures that depict animals as people in scripture you still can’t get your head around the metaphorical depiction of their purpose in OT scriptures such as Ezekiel and Genesis.

Michael you have never given us a good reason why animals can be used symbolically in the rest of scripture but they somehow can’t be used that way in Genesis. You are concerned with their being used as sacrifices in Gen but you don’t seem to have a problem with Peter being told to “eat” them in Acts 10. I guess God was telling Peter to cannibalize the Gentiles.

Dude you are missing the picture of biblical symbolism because you hold on to your partial Preterist hermeneutic for Gen 1-11 and refuse to broaden your understanding when presented with information that you should consider.

Genesis 1-11 is simply utilizing literature in much the same manner that Ezekiel does which is a Hebrew genre form and that is why you find similar themes and languages within both of them. That is also why Ezekiel speaks about the Garden of Eden and is comfortable examining what the trees and the Land represented in the Garden. Ezekiel knew the purpose of early Genesis but it seems you reject his inspired commentary.

Honest scholars know that Genesis is not pure historical narrative literature as that can be determined from its intricate construction alone and a multitude of other factors. Genesis 1-11 is essentially historic prophetic literature which serves multiple purposes including its latter usage concerning the last days at the time of the Messiah.

You simply want to divorce it from its Biblical reality and consign it to some kind of history and science book instead of its true Biblical purpose. I can make a case through scripture for what Genesis is about while you go outside of scripture to try to find your answers to Genesis 1’s creation account. The Bible tells us how to interpret Genesis not science.

Norm

flannery0's picture

Paul didn't seem to have a problem with seeing animal sacrifices as representing Gentiles:

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

And where is he getting this?

Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

and get ready for this one:

Isa 60:7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

As James Jordan says in "Through New Eyes":

"The symbolic meanings and associations of earth, sea, rocks, stars, plants, animals, serpents, trees, fruit, and all else are set out in theses chapters. The rest of the Bible simply unpacks their meanings."

orton1227's picture

Are you saying the flood and the ark was metaphorical?

orton1227's picture

I mean, do you mean to say the flood didn't really happen? That would seem to fly in the face of the many core samples we have proving a vast rise in the water levels about then.

flannery0's picture

No, not at all.

I am saying that whole section of the Bible is prophetic, while containing historical narrative--not according to our conditioned expectation however--and is a style of literature that is completely foreign to our cultural mindset. And we need to try (hard as it is) to remove the blinders imposed by that cultural mindset. I'll copy something here, that I posted on another forum, in response to something Norm said. Hopefully it will answer your question (which I am assuming is sincere, as this is a sincere statement about my current view):

*****

Norm, I think what you wrote here is poignant and of paramount importance:

"Genesis is a very difficult nut to crack and especially with much of our contemporary thinking pervading its discussion. There is plenty of room for my growth in this subject but I do believe we can start to develop a basic outline of Gen 1-11 which helps us consider its nature and purpose more accurately."

People can get so focused on literalizing every little detail, and insisting that the literature be read concretely, according to presuppositions dictated by our cultural mindset, that they can forget the purpose of it altogether.

There are a few things I try to keep in focus as I read these difficult contexts (and yes, they are difficult, and yes, there are many things about them that I do not understand):

1. Genesis 1-11 is God's word, and it is truth.

2. Genesis 1-11 is primarily speaking of Christ, and a proper understanding of it will lead to a clearer view of *Him*. (I believe that while it contains a historical chronology, it is primarily prophecy, and needs to be appreciated as such.)

3. Genesis 1-11 is a style of literature that is *completely foreign* to my cultural mindset, and so to the degree that I remain bound and trapped by my cultural mindset, I will fail to discern its meaning.

And we see that happening, in various arguments over this text: at the end of the discussion, Christ is at best a dimly lit figure in the farthest corner of the room.

"Search the Scriptures...they testify of Me."

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search it out."

"We are kings and priests unto our God."

No, I am not a traditionalist. But it was in abandoning traditionalism that I discovered an awe and reverence for the Word of God that I never knew.

MichaelB's picture

A) No one called it a heresy. But you are still FLAT out wrong. Tami insists that we diminish the cross by beliving in a literal creation. Really - Saying Acts 17 is about "mitochondiral Adam and Eve" though is just spectacular and glorifying to the Lord. ROFL.

The simple fact is that you can not deal with this AT ALL. Men AND animals are destroyed Therefore the animals in Genesis are real animals. Therefore Noah really sacrificed and really ate animals. I don't need ANYTHING extra-biblical I PROVED THAT YOU ARE WRONG with the bible.

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and ALL MANKIND. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; MEN AND ANIMALS and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.3Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

B) All I asked about was who else takes this view Norm and John H. My guess is not many would go that far and there is good reason as OBVIOUSLY shown above. But I was curious just to see how many people are seriously off of their proverbial rocker, though I am sure God is forgiving. BTW John - to say that I am implying heresy is to be rather rude since I called Cov. Creationists still "brothers and sisters" in many of my blogs - even if I disagree.

C) Norm insists that the book of Enoch is the proper understanding.

Hey - a literal tree and garden - coolio.

2From there I passed on above the summits of those mountains to some distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the garden of righteousness. In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there. It was like a species of the tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance!5Then holy Raphael, an angel who was with me, answered and said, This is the tree of knowledge, of which your ancient father and your aged mother ate, who were before you; and who, obtaining knowledge, their eyes being opened, and knowing themselves to be naked, were expelled from the garden.

ADAM FIRST MAN
9His name was Dendayen in the east of the garden, where the elect and the righteous will dwell; where he received it from my ancestor, who was man, from Adam the first of men,whom the Lord of spirits made.

Now I have to ask (since you believe in the "scientific fossil record" where do you think that all of the men before Adam came from? Did God create them or did they just evolve. Whatever the answer - I am certain it doesn't "diminish" God's glory (right Tami - wink wink).

NOW WHAT DOES IT TELL US ABOUT THE SECTION REGARDING NOAH THAT YOU LIKE TO QUOTE. IT'S A DREAM / A VISION / SLEEP

1After this I saw another dream, and explained it all to you, my son. Enoch arose and said to his son Mathusala, To you, my son, will I speak. Hear my word; and incline your ear to the visionary dream of your father...13In my sleep also I perceived a white bull, which in like manner grew, and became a large white bull...1Again I looked attentively, while sleeping, and surveyed heaven above...9Again I looked in the vision until those cataracts from that lofty roof were removed, and the fountains of the earth became equalized, while other depths were opened;

BTW - Noah is described as a COW - and here I thought Noah was a covenantal man and the animals were Gentiles.

Norm this whole section is a VISION a DREAM while SLEEPING.

Not only that but it goes on to describe the ENTIRE bible this way and not just the flood.

PLEASE show me in Genesis 1-9 where it is called a VISON or DREAM or while SLEEPING? PLEASE - exegete the passage above. Just be honest. You can not make the animls = men when God says he is destroying animals and men (both). That makes NO SENSE.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

You are verging on the border of being dishonest in your interfacing with us and I would hope you would pull in your “horns” somewhat and quit exaggerating what Tami and I have stated. Until you show respect in that regard I will continue to treat your comments as I would an immature child. The use of an ad hominem approach in your discussions here and in the enclave of your protected website does nothing to bolster your case to be taken seriously.

Michael I presented the book of Enoch as a serious piece of literature that was used extensively by the early church and Jews in the first century. It was background info for you and the readers to realize that there was contemporary thinking about the animals on the Ark as peoples just as there is in other sections of scriptures. If you have a beef with them using Enoch then take it up with Jude who called it “prophecy”. I noticed that you quoted a piece of Enoch and got all lathered up and excited that it uses language that is a little foreign to your mindset. That’s because Michael the Jewish priesthood were used to this type of language and literature and understood it. Just like they understood the writings of Revelation and Ezekiel that blows people’s minds today, however it takes a little skill and education to recapture that literatures essence which is typically difficult for most moderns. There is absolutely no comparison though of Enoch with Josephus as one was written and studied by the Priest and faithful while Josephus is simply a secular account from his perspective of history. They are apples and oranges in their entirety.

Michael, God created the entire physical Universe including mankind but that is not what the story is all about in Genesis 1. It is Just as Barnabas circa 70AD states that the six days represent six epochs of Biblical time from Adam to the Messiah and then the 7th Day Sabbath Rest is entered into in which all work is finished. Sounds a lot like the full Preterist understanding of AD70 doesn’t it especially since Day 6 was then occurring when the full Image of God was fulfilled by Christ imparting the Spirit of God upon faithful men but not mankind at large.

Yes Enoch is presented as Vision, so what? Remember was Hosea speaking from a vision when he stated the animals would enter into covenant in Hosea 2:18? You really never did address how Hosea could use such language while not in a vision did you Michael.

One other thing Michael that I will bring to your attention. The quote that you take from Gen 7:21,23 does not provide a good reading of the Hebrew. Let me explain. Your translation says every living thing while the YLT and most translations speak of “flesh”. Big difference as we know from the NT that being in the flesh has more than one connotation and one of them is the “works of the flesh” which is counter to the Spirit of God.

Gen 7:21-23 and expire doth all flesh that is moving on the earth, among fowl, and among cattle, and among beasts, and among all the teeming things which are teeming on the earth, and all mankind;

Next it says all or every “mankind” which is the word “aw-dawm” which James Jordan has pointed out that it means not mankind at large but more precisely mankind as denoting Israel in a Leviticus article he wrote. What Jordan is implying is that aw-dawm is a covenantal designation for those in Covenant with God which excludes gentile peoples. An examination of OT scripture verifies this application across the board as universally it does not carry a generic mankind meaning behind it. The point being is that as Tim and Jeff have pointed out the flood story is a local event dealing with God’s Covenant people and there is a cleansing of the various “flesh” that have permeated his called people thus polluting their relationship with God. That is the reason for the flood if you recall from Gen 6 where they intermarried and became wicked taking on the attributes of the ungodly “flesh”.

Looking at verse 23 we see again that the connotation is far removed from saying that all people on planet earth is removed. Again the better understanding may be that the SUBSTANCE that was removed from the face of the ground was the contamination of the various “flesh” polluting the Covenant people that brought on Gods determination to cleanse them (this is an ongoing problem for the Covenant people throughout the OT). Again we know from Tim and Jeff ‘s book that being wiped away from the “erets” or land does not mean planet earth in the Hebrew Biblical context. Also again man (aw-dawm) is a key word here as it is specifying God’s covenant people and does not biblically denote mankind at large.

(23) And wiped away is all the substance that is on the face of the ground, from man unto beast, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the heavens; yea, they are wiped away from the earth (Land), and only Noah is left, and those who are with him in the ark;

The bottom line is that what you think is a simple literal rendering of these two scriptures in reality is far from what you might suppose. This is the essence of full Preterism which is exploring the context of the language and its biblical implications that we find recurring throughout scripture. I realize that you do not like folks to do word and phrase searches but that is what helps students of the word sort out the simple minded reading from the reality and helps break the bonds of futurism and partial Preterism.

Norm

JL's picture

Yes and no.

There was a real Noah, a real flood, a real ark.

However, Scripture says Jerusalem and Nineveh would be destroyed by a flood, a direct comparison to Noah's. Yet both were destroyed by other means.

What was saved and what was destroyed in Nineveh and Jerusalem? Animals? Maybe. Animals as metaphors for people? Certainly.

The question here is, does Genesis use animals as metaphors for people (Norm)? Or are the animals in Genesis always animals? This is the idea behind Sam Frost's and Roderick Edward's frequent comment, "First the physical, then the spiritual." They along with Jason and Michael deny that Genesis can have metaphor.

I'm going to get flack for this. "That's a lie. We never said any such thing." But that is the heart of the matter. Scripture uses, by our standards, excessive metaphor. We (that is 21st century moderns) have a problem with it. We like literal. We certainly like to require it of Scripture.

Scripture uses metaphor to describe actual physical events. I almost wrote frequently, but it is far more common than merely frequently. Maybe it's always. That is, maybe Scripture always uses metaphor to describe actual physical events.

Norm is rightly exploring this possibility. John Walton wrote an excellent new book on this possibility. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

The SGP crowd is split over this possibility. Ward and Tami are exploring it, while the "names" on the SGP ning site are continually screaming against it.

I find it interesting that you mention "core samples" demonstrating rising water levels at the time Genesis says the flood occurred. Yes that is true. And sea levels have continued to rise ever since. This means what?

The "names" on the SGP ning site deny that it means anything. They are followers of Gordon Clark. "Empiricsm proves nothing." "The purpose of science is to make better refrigerators." In a strict logical sense, they are right, empiricism proves nothing. In the practical sense of the world we live in, they are dead wrong. We don't live by absolute logical proof. We live by reasonable expectations. (I'm still wondering though how they can make the refrigerator statement. "Better" is defined in terms of empiricism, not Clarkian absolutes.)

You "core sample" point is noted. But what does it mean? I have my thoughts, but Sam, Jason, and Michael will deny that it has any meaning.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

orton1227's picture

The core samples show an abnormal rise and a significant fall during and after the flood. But yes, you are correct that the levels have consistently risen since around 10,000 years ago.

JL's picture

Orton,

I'm interested in what cores. Any more info?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

orton1227's picture

We had some samples at Texas A&M. As well as a number of photos of the 'better' samples.

JL's picture

Can you get any info on them?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

orton1227's picture

Like what? They're in the basement of the Halbouty building. I don't carry permission to go down there anymore since I graduated.

JL's picture

Where are the samples from?

How do they show the water depth at the time the layers were formed?

How can you track water depth changes over time in these core samples?

What do you mean by at the time of the flood? Do these core samples actually show a sharp one year increase in water depth, a spike in the overall trend?

Sea level has nominally increased 120 cubits since the end of the Ice Age, which you placed at about 10,000 years ago (which corresponds to the standard geologic column dating).

Genesis 7 gives the total depth of the flood of 15 cubits. The flood is typically dated at around 4500 years ago.

Is there a spike at around that time, halfway between the Ice Age and present? Or is the spike earlier, during or before the Ice Age? Which implies either a much earlier Flood or a much more recent Ice Age.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

orton1227's picture

The samples are from Turkey I believe. You measure the sediment layers and the trends of moving from certain minerals to others to analyze them for depth changes or natural disasters, or whatever data you're looking for (polarity even). The fun thing is that you have to look at them as a story, rather than a simple quantitative formula.

Time of the flood as in the generally accepted date. The spike occurred at that time. Don't picture a major layer of limestone sediment that's clear to any observer...it's much more intricate than that and takes experience...a trained eye.

But it's tons of fun. Especially when you can match up science with historical writings.

JL's picture

Am I understanding you correctly, these core samples show low sea levels at the time of the Ice Age (before 10,000 years ago), a typically fairly steady increase in sea level since that time, but a sudden spike deeper then shallower around 5000 to 4500 years ago?

Interesting.

If you could get anything more (old notes, journal articles, anything), I'm interested.

Thanks.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

orton1227's picture

We also analyzed samples from about the time Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. There was a huge (HUGE) deposit of sulphur. Pretty cool stuff.

flannery0's picture

Jeff,

I really appreciate this post. And you are accurately describing what we are doing in our ongoing conversation at NCMI by saying:

"Ward and Tami are exploring it,"

As you know, we prefer the word "exploring." :)

I particularly like your wording here:

"Scripture uses metaphor to describe actual physical events."

EXACTLY. That is what I am seeing in the flood account. And you guys did point to this in your book. There is something undeniably "apocalyptic" in the language which tells the story of Noah. And of course we should expect this, the more we understand Noah as a type of Christ and the events of his life as prophetic of the new covenant.

Tami

vento's picture

Hi Norm,

I've not posted on here in quite some time! I just want to tell you as a guy that has known and studied with Michael personally for close to 10 years now, he DOES understand that animals are used to depict people throughout the Bible. I remember learning this with great amazement many years ago. Michael was there with me. I know he understands the "the wolf will dwell with the lamb..." isn't talking about peace in the animal kingdom!

As we understand this, do you not agree that the scriptures talk about "actual" animals? Do you not agree with the scripture Michael referenced about Noah sacrificing animals, they were really animals? Like all the sacrificing in Leviticus? Man, just read Lev. 1, all that blood and entrails and cutting into pieces! Is there another way to understand these passages?

When Hebrews says it is "impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" it speaks of real bulls and goats, not "gentiles" wouldn't you agree?

Thank you Norm. I'm just hoping to clear this up a little, as I know you are misunderstanding Michael if you think he doesn't understand the animal as symbolic sometimes. Perhaps we are misunderstanding you as well, as we seem to have the impression that you believe animals always represent people. Or, at least that if they do in Gen. why not everywhere?

Sorry I don't have a lot of time to get into this, but I thought I might be able to give a little input and get a little back from you.

Thanks,

Scott

Starlight's picture

Scott,

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I know that Michael recognizes the metaphorical usage of animals in some parts of scripture. Part of what you are seeing in this debate Scott is that Michael and I are talking past each other to a large extent as you rightly suppose. I feel that I must push the edge with Michael to counter what I believe is a one dimensional portrayal of the purpose of the Flood story. There is heavy prophecy concerning the last days in the Flood account and a full Preterist reading of it helps shed light upon that purpose and its covenant nature. Michael seems so dead set though against us even supposing that there is major typology involved in the flood accounts that he ends up over simplifying this whole discussion.

I know Michael is a good guy and a sharp one at that but all of us at times get a little too strong headed and we miss the trees for the forest in some cases. I do have the same problem myself but I do believe in this case Michael is in need of some revaluation.

The animals are a side show feature though when it comes to the original problem concerning the nature of the curse from Adam’s fall in Gen 3. Michael has taken us off on a tangent concerning the animals while the essence of our debate is whether the curse on the “land” was removed at the flood. Michael insist its removal happened but Tami and I posit that it was not removed and still existed and that is why Ezekiel and Isaiah and many others speak of the “land” needing to be restored (Ezk 34 & 36). This is really the major gist of the debate and the animals are just a rabbit trail in my estimation although they are an interesting study.

Scott have you read Tami’s article fully yet and if you have what are your observations.

Blessings

Norm

Jhedges's picture

Preterism

Millenium = 40 years

Ressurection=Spiritual

600 million=a lot of romans

Animals=perhaps something else...

Heresy!!!!

flannery0's picture

I tried to tell you that you were in dangerous territory with that animal business but you would not listen.

MichaelB's picture

John that is lame man - we have talked on the phone and you know I said that I just disagree I don't say it is heresy.

No one called it a heresy. Tami insists that we diminish the cross by beliving in a literal creation. Really - Saying Acts 17 is about "mitochondiral Adam and Eve" though is just spectacular and glorifying to the Lord. Do you get on Tami's case? Nope. I never called it heresy. She says we diminicsh the cross and Norm calls us "partials" but you come after me for something I didnt even say.

Men AND animals are destroyed Therefore the animals in Genesis are real animals. Therefore Noah really sacrificed and really ate animals. EXEGETICALLY there is no way around this John.

21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and ALL MANKIND. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; MEN AND ANIMALS and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.3Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

All I asked about was who else takes this view that animals in Genesis = people. John - to say that I am implying heresy is to be rather rude since I called Cov. Creationists still "brothers and sisters" in many of my blogs - even if I disagree.

I just want to know, so that if I write against that idea, I am not implicating everyone as beliving this. That's all. i just want to know which of the "main players" in Cov. Creation take that view.

flannery0's picture

This will be my only reply to Michael, and is really not so much for Michael's benefit, but for those who might be misled by his comment here (but I will not be responding to this again):

"Tami insists that we diminish the cross by beliving in a literal creation"

I have never said this. And you repeating it over and over doesn't change that. This is the type of misrepresentation that occurs when a single statement is yanked from its context, a context which I strongly suspect was not even read. I have said that a physical, future, and unfulfilled view of kingdom and salvation prophecies diminishes the cross. Of course I stand by that. To the degree that someone would physicalize these--for example, the removal of "the curse on the ground"--then yes, that view diminishes the cross. To the degree that anyone would sensualize Isaiah 65 and say that it predicts a future return to "pre-flood physical life spans," as the fulfillent of our redemption in Christ, then yes, that view diminishes the cross. And of course I would agree with Norm that someone who teaches that interpretation of prophecy is not a full preterist.

I have yet to see an exegetical rebuttal to that conclusion; instead all I have seen are emotional rants against it, with name calling thrown in.

But I have never said that a belief in a literal creation, or YEC, in and of itself, diminishes the cross. I made a case in the article for the cause and effect relationship between a cosmological reading of Genesis creation and futurism (partial or otherwise)--ie, a physcial view of the curse mandates a physical view of its removal (redemption from the curse). And I invite people to thoughtfully consider the implications of this. It is available here to read. (with thanks to Virgil)

MichaelB's picture

the removal of "the curse on the ground"--then yes, that view diminishes the cross.

The "ground curse" is used 4 times (exact same language throughout). It is really not solid exegesis to say that the subject matter changed.

* Why "never again curse the ground" is not a reference to the flood but to the ground curse in Genesis (Adam)

Genesis 3
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

First of all, please note that Noah is being referenced as the comforter of the ground curse above. This is PRE-FLOOD so it can't be talking about Noah having something to do with being a comforter from the flood. It has to be referencing Adam in Genesis Chapter 3. It uses the exact same language regarding painful toil and "ground curse" in Genesis 3 and 5.

Genesis 5
29 He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."

Notice that "curse the ground" in Genesis 8 is the exact same language we find in Genesis 3 and 5. Are we to believe that Genesis 8 is using the EXACT SAME language as Genesis 3 and 5 but not talking about the same thing? That is just silly hermeneutics.

Genesis 8
21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

NOW TO REALLY PROVE MY POINT: Some have said that the "curse the ground" above is in reference to the flood and not Genesis 3. But notice there are 2 things promised above. He promises to never again "curse the ground" and no longer "destroy every living thing". It makes no sense to say that both of those are referencing the flood. 1 is referencing the ground curse and 1 the flood as seen by the words "NOR WILL I" above. He is making 2 promises to man as indicated by the word "NOR". It makes no sense to say that both are referencing the flood. Genesis 8 is making 2 promises as seen by the words "NOR WILL I" above.

Now - to top it off - see how things were pre-ground curse.

PRE GROUND CURSE

Genesis 1
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Below is post flood and is certainly referring back to the time prior to the ground curse as see by the term "JUST AS I" below.

GROUND CURSE REMOVAL

Genesis 9
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

MichaelB's picture

* Has 2 Peter 3 REALLY been answered by Covenantal Creationists?

Cov. Creationist John Scargy wrote:
I will paste Tim and JL's answer dealing with 2 Peter but before I do let me point out the obvious. #1.There is no mention of "heavens and earth" being destroyed in 2 Peter! It reads "the world of that time was deluged and destroyed".

Cov. Creationist Tami wrote:
A pretty basic question to ask is, why would Peter use two different words, "ge" and "kosmos." in the same statement, if he didn't mean to make a distinction between the two?

THANKS COV. CREATIONISTS, YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT.

First of all let me point out that "kosmos" and "heaven and earth" are used together in other places and are parallels. Compare these 2 verses. Remember alos that I have quoted Tim Martin numerous times where he admits Acts 14 is not about a covenant and I showed that Acts 17 is about the thing as Acts 14. Therefore the language explanation falls short in Tami's explanation because kosmos is used in conjunction with heaven and earth which Tim admits can not be about covenants in Acts 14 (and Acts 17 by extension).

Acts 17
24 God that made the world Same word above is translated below as heaven and sky throughout Genesis 1-9.

Ge 1:8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Ge 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
Ge 1:14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
Ge 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
Ge 1:17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Ge 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
Ge 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Ge 1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Ge 1:30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.
Ge 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
Ge 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.
Ge 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Ge 2:20 And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
Ge 6:7 And the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
Ge 6:17 "And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
Ge 7:3 also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.
Ge 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
Ge 7:19 And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
Ge 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
Ge 8:2 Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;
Ge 9:2 "And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.

MichaelB's picture

For some reason my article got cut weird. Here is my article link.

Has 2 Peter 3 REALLY been answered by Covenantal Creationists?

http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blogs/has-2-peter-3-really-been

JL's picture

Why are you posting a link to a closed site? Norm and Tami are not allowed on that site. They can't see it. You mentioned Tim and I in your post, yet we can't see it?

Clearly, you don't want an answer.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Starlight's picture

Tami,

I agree that misunderstanding by people of the facts related to the curse such as “the Death” and the “curse on the Land” have no bearing upon what was actually accomplished by Christ on the Cross. People have always had misunderstandings concerning the scripture. What is important to realize though is that misapplications that many Preterist have uncovered and still are uncovering need to be recognized so that the robustness and power of the story may be fully embraced and not diluted in the minds of the faithful.

What better example do we have than of futurist and dispensationalist who hold onto those physical land promises and a physical demise of planet earth and a casket Resurrection?

Norm

flannery0's picture

"What is important to realize though is that misapplications that many Preterist have uncovered and still are uncovering need to be recognized so that the robustness and power of the story may be fully embraced and not diluted in the minds of the faithful."

Amen, Norm. That was one of my main motivations for writing the article.

MichaelB's picture

Norm writes:
What is important to realize though is that misapplications that many Preterist have uncovered and still are uncovering need to be recognized so that the robustness and power of the story may be fully embraced and not diluted in the minds of the faithful.

This is the SAME Norm that says that Acts 17 is about Mitochondrial Adam and Eve is lecturing me on "diluting" the bible. So - you say the flood is "local" and that the "ground curse" in Gen 8 was the flood(even though the same term is used in prior chapters regarding Adam and Noah. OK - so a promise to "no longer destroy with a local flood" (even though that has happened numerous times)is not "diminishing"? And how come that curse is allowed to be lifted no more flood" and that does not diminish the cross?

Hey -it says "like a flood" in Daniel 9 right? So maybe the flood curse was not removed either !!! (rolls eyes)

Daniel 9
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

SEE JASON'S COMMENTARY AND POINT ON TAMI'S ARTICLE

http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jasons-comment-to-me-regarding

Jer's picture

SEE JASON'S COMMENTARY AND POINT ON TAMI'S ARTICLE

http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jasons-comment-to-me-regarding

No one here is able to read anything on your site; it's "locals only."

MichaelB's picture

Oh sorry about that Jeremy. Didnt know. We have gone back and forth on that. if you shoot me an email I will cut and paste it to you steel_saint@yahoo.com

MiddleKnowledge's picture

"locals only"

Now THAT is pretty funny!!

Tim

Starlight's picture

Michael,

You have heard of "copy and paste" haven't you?

Since none of us are privy to peek behind the stockade of "Fort Apache" the SGP Quasi-Preterist site, and you are so enamored with the the power of that argument why don't you sneek it out and give us a looksie.

It must be a humdinger argument to be so well protected from the restless natives. ;-)

Norm

scargy's picture

Norm said.."Michael,You have heard of "copy and paste" haven't you"?

ROFLOL!!!!

KingNeb's picture

...folks from a site that was private up until this week, making fun of another private site...you just gotta love that.

and, hanging out over there, characterizing we who dare question covenant creationism as lazy folks who don't read and/or study in detail and whining about interaction, meanwhile Tami completely ignores me here because responding to me "is not fruitful".

okie dokie.

by the way, there's nothing new about Tami's article. She's parroting Ward's old article entitled, " Genesis: The Beginning of Time.....Or God's People?"

but then again, how would i know...according to some C.C. folks, people like me who dare question C.C. obviously don't read..right?

you know, when i first saw this type of stuff coming from Roderick, i was slow in learning the lesson, and gave him room. huge mistake. I'm going to try my darnedest not to make that mistake again.

If y'all want to demand who people should associate with in order to maintain their "scholarliness" (see Norm's comments about Sam); go around lying about what i do at SGP; paste blatant misrepresentations of people to make them say things they didn't say (see Tim's latest on David Curtis); lie about your opponents not providing any material (Mike Grace has provided more detailed linguistic, metaphor, hermeneutical stuff than any other pret i've seen online); claim exclusive rights to the "full preterist" label; etc, etc...then be my guest.

y'all have fun with that.

--------

ps. other then a few handful of people like Norm who i won't let join because of blatant lies about me; most everyone here is free to join and read SGP stuff, including you Jeremy. So i'm not sure why you're making a deal out of it.

But whatever...i'm done with this. again, not going to make that mistake again.

Alan, an old earther, just started a group on SGP calling some men together to form some commonality and help one another in local outreach, etc. After reading Norm's baloney about SGP, you'd think that was a joke. oh but wait...old earthers and young earthers actually DO get along over there. And Jim Kessler cracks covenantal animal jokes over there and we laugh it up...imagine that.

like i said, i'm done here. i just ask that others keep tab on what is being said and how many times the "administrator of SGP" and what he supposedly does comes up over here when i'm away from the conversation.

continue on....

thereignofchrist.com

davo's picture

KingNeb: ps. other then a few handful of people like Norm who i won't let join because of blatant lies about me; most everyone here is free to join and read SGP stuff, including you Jeremy. So i'm not sure why you're making a deal out of it.

Hey Jason… I know MichaelB and myself have had some robust interactions in the past, and he still hasn't replied to my last two posts to him over here at PP – but that aside – is there a major issue with me being able to "read only" on your site? Like quite a number of times I’ve "signed up" and that's as far as I get… is my "inclusiveness" persona non grata, what say ye?

davo

Starlight's picture

Jason,

You leave yourself open for ridicule dude and I’m going to keep hammering your ridiculous self righteous posturing and poking fun at it. It’s just plain good sport to watch your temper tantrums flare up because of “your” brilliant moves backfiring. I used to feel sorry for you but you are beyond feeling sorry for now.

Please don’t open up your site as I would surely miss the opportunities to poke fun at you guys.

If you were being truthful the main reason you don’t want Covenant Creation folks over there at “Fort Apache” is you have eliminated any that write and defend the subjects extensively and robustly. “You can’t handle the Truth “and so you let a token few come aboard whom present no extensive challenge to your poor theology so that you can then boast of your inclusiveness’. Give me a Break man!

It’s always about someone presenting lies about you isn’t it Jason, you never think that you bring a lot of this stuff on yourself. You are just little ole poor innocent Jason who is being mistreated out there.

Guy quit trying to fool folks. We’ve seen the ridicule that you have performed on a couple of other folks on your site whom happen to challenge your thinking. You pull the same song and dance with those folks as well by trying to intimidate them by being the “God” figure. You are just a power controlling personality Jason. You and your buddy Roderick both need some serious self introspection.

The problem is that you just aren’t used to someone standing up and having fun with your foolishness. That’s what happens with those who have the “God” complex, when they can’t control people it just drives them crazy. Your lockdown mentality simply stems from that insecurity and that is why you love to brag about keeping the infidels out of your “heavenly site”.

Norm

Ed's picture

Norm, it is interesting how Jason tries to compare those who regularly participate here, and who agree with CC to be like Roderick. Yet, what I've noticed is that anyone is free to join here, and even post articles. On Jason's site, just like Roderick's, they control who can join and who can post articles.

Also, remember when Roderick was making his case against Virgil (which then grew to the rest of us), he would flit in once in a while and make "drive by comments," and then go back to his little hideaway where he can protect himself from debate, eventually banning those who he cannot refute.

So, who is acting more like Roderick?

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Jer's picture

ps. other then a few handful of people like Norm who i won't let join because of blatant lies about me; most everyone here is free to join and read SGP stuff, including you Jeremy. So i'm not sure why you're making a deal out of it.

Jason, I wasn't making anything out of it. I just reminded Mike that no one could read the link he posted. No biggie. Don't lump me in with this boobery :)

scargy's picture

Jason said "by the way, there's nothing new about Tami's article. She's parroting Ward's old article entitled, " Genesis: The Beginning of Time.....Or God's People?"

Why the cheap shot Jason???

First thing is everyone knows Tami and Ward have a ministry together(NCMI) It shouldn't be too hard of a concept to understand that their articles would of course have overlaps considering everything they write is designed to go together with and compliment everything else that they write.Isn't that what ministries do Jason? Isn't this what you Sam and Mike Grace have done?

Second thing is any 4th grader reading the two articles could see that Tami goes into way more detail and deals with topics Ward doesn't even touch.
Come on Jason show some class.Start with rebuking Chris Winn for his ignorant remark posted about Tami on your web site.Then have him apologize or at least delete it!That stuff is uncalled for.

I have had people leave my site because i wouldn't let them trash you Sam and Mike B.

By the way i agree with you about Mr Grace i have his lectures.

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