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

tom-g's picture

Thanks JL,

I think you (and Walton) would have to agree that for a thing to have a function that thing must first exist. How would it be possible for a non existent-thing to function as a thing? For a thing to have form and function (grammatical morphology) it must first exist as a thing. As in grammar a word must first exist as a word before its form and function in an expression can be understood.

I can see how his "aha moment" might have affected you since, as I recall, a question you posed several years ago was: "How could there be light on the first day when the sun was not created until the fourth day?" Although with your PhD in that very discipline I am sure either the wave or particle theory of light would have answered that question.

As to your last comment; I would think that Walton would definitely agree with my premise that the creation of Genesis 1 to be functional must necessarily have had material existence. With each term having a univocal meaning

As to your example: "My brother says he does not have a car." Any question of the truth or falsity of this universal negative proposition is solved by a material proof that he does or does not. Your example is an example of the fallacy of ambiguity in which the phrase "does not have" is questioned from the respect of two different meanings. A statement with that phrase having a univocal meaning would immediately establish its truth or falsity.

Tom

JL's picture

Tom,

I posed that question? I can't imagine why? Are you sure it was me?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

Yes Jl,

I think it was posed to a YEC.

JL's picture

Well Tom,

I still don't remember. I can not imagine asking a YEC such a question for information. If I did, you have certainly distorted the context.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MiddleKnowledge's picture

To all reading this who may be interested in the Covenant Creation view in conjunction with Covenant eschatology:

GET WALTON'S BOOK!!!!

Here is the title again. "The Lost World of Genesis One."

I will make a prediction. You will be hearing A LOT about this book over next few years. This is a ground-breaking work related to the Genesis debate.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

mazuur's picture

I would also add his book "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament". I found that book to be a huge eye opener.

I love this quote on page 88, "What does it mean to say that a god exist or comes into existence? The question of ontology (what is means for something to exist) is important for understanding both theogony and cosmogony because we cannot productively talk about how something came into existence until we define in some way what it means to exist. In the ancient world something came into existence when it was separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name".

I also love this quote on page 184 in under the chapter title "Cosmology and Cosmogony".

"These data demonstrate that there is no language for creation in the literatures of Egypt or Mesopotamia that focuses attention solely or even primarily on "things." Even on those occasions where the object of the verb in a thing, the context often indicates a functional orientation.

A function-oriented ontology/cosmology bypasses the questions that modern scholars often ask on the ancient world: Did they have a concept of "creation out of nothing?" Did they believe in the eternal existence of matter? These questions have significance only in a material ontology. Those who posit creation out of nothing want to know whether "things" were created without using preexisting materials. If creation is not viewed as concerned with the physical making of things, these questions cannot be approached through the texts.

The result of this study is the suggestion that the ancient Near East "to create" meant to assign roles and functions, rather than to give substance to the material objects that make up the universe. Something could conceivably exist materially by my definitions, yet in their view of cosmology not be created yet. An obvious case in point is that in Egypt creation took place all over again every morning."

I highly recommend this book!

I think I will have to get the book JL is reading too.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Tim & JL,

Just ordered me a copy of Walton's new book. Was checking it out on Amazon and had to get it.

-Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Rich,

You just won't believe it when you see it...

Walton's book is going to blow your mind, in more ways than one.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

davo's picture

Ah you guys are terrible... will these books never end :). I still have to get into his "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament" off the shelf from my last Amazon order - more amongst the many.

davo

mazuur's picture

davo,

Oh, you're going to love that book. EXCELLENT! All of Christendom needs to read that book and get a real perspective of Israel's ancient texts. I suspect this new book by Walton will be the same way.

-Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

It's even better...

Windpressor's picture

***************

Guys,

Thanks to JL and Walton I can now count my cars more truthfully according to operability, registration or body style. Depending on the semantics thereof, I have none, one, some or numerous in toto "cars".

So does Walton's new book -wow- or flesh out more than his "Genesis and Cosmology" presentation at a Wheaton Symposium on Scientific Cosmology and Christianity That symposium segment has been touted here in previous posts.

What would be the recommendation for a time-bound poorboy that already has an expanding gonna-do list and spontaneously generating media piles?

......................

G-Juan Wind

JL's picture

The Lost World of Genesis One is heavy duty philosophy in the form of a quick, easy read. Walton lays out 19(?) propositions and explains them and how they will completely turn around your understanding of Genesis. The book might be a bit much for a non-preterist interested in Genesis, but it explains the basic issues. As a preterist, most of these propositions will be obvious to you, though possibly not thought out as well as he presents them.

I think this will prove the most important book on Genesis and hermeneutics published in 2009.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

MiddleKnowledge's picture

I agree with that last statement.

You get a double-whammy effect if you attended the 2009 Covenant Creation Conference.

The similarities are uncanny.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

JL's picture

Rich,

Norm and I will both be in Ardmore in 3 weeks. We should both have the book finished by then and will be discussing it.

Hope you can make it.

When you get into it, take careful not of the discussion starting at the bottom of page 50. Walton essentially defined Covenant Creation and is on board there.

In the next Chapter, he contradicts himself. Oh well. He's a "partial preterist" in Genesis. Like Gentry on the other end, it's a ery useful book.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

mazuur's picture

JL,

No I can't make it. The cost is too much for me to attend. When you have two little girls in private school, money is hard to come by.

Definitely can't wait to get Walton's new book. I've actually been reading his other one again. All this talk got me interested in the topic again.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

"Somehow, when King has explained that the salvation that occurs to "All Israel" when the deliverer comes out of Sion is the same salvation that comes to the fullness of the gentiles also, Rich expects me to deny by ignoring what King has already taught about gentiles because a specific statement does not speak about gentiles but only speaks of "all Israel"."

I never said this. And, I suppose by "All Israel" you mean every single Jew, and "fullness of the gentiles" means every single Gentile? Both of which King and I do not agree with.

Tom, it is clear to me engaging with you was a mistake as Ed warned me. I will let you have the last word. Attribute to me what you wish.

Blessings,
Rich

-Rich

amie's picture

Genesis 1 is the ancient Hebrew story of creation. It is written from their perspective and it is written in poetic form (their style). Much metaphor is drawn from it later.

As I see it, pitting a literal creation against a covenantal one is moot. The change that was to take place was qualitative. Iow, the reception of the new covenant by those to whom it was promised had an effect on the entire literal world and is still having effects on the entire literal world.

And, it does appear per the argument over the article "All Israel Will Be Saved" that Tom has a firmer grasp on understanding it. "The Cross and the Parousia" was written in the 70's, it is not reflective of his point of view now - - in year 2009.

As for the label "universalism", would you still call it such if it were viewed that the biblical issues never had anything to do with the afterlife at all?

Just curious,

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

mazuur's picture

I assume you are talking to me.

"And, it does appear per the argument over the article "All Israel Will Be Saved" that Tom has a firmer grasp on understanding it".

How do you figure? I would think if there were anyone who understood King's position it would be King himself. And King himself in his book (CP) explicitly states and then explains why he is not presenting universalism; when I get home tonight, I will tell you the exact page number.

"The Cross and the Parousia" was written in the 70's, it is not reflective of his point of view now - - in year 2009."

I never said what he held to now wasn't universalism. I said what he has presented in his three books, Cross Parousia, Spirit of Prophecy, and "OT Israel and NT Salvation" were not. And "Cross and Parousia" was published in 1987, not the 70's. "Spirit of Prophecy" was published in 1971. "OT Israel and NT Salvatio n" was published in 1990.

I also still fail to see how Corporate Body is universalism. Maybe you can enlighten us all.

-Rich

-Rich

amie's picture

Rich,

I was commenting on Tom's take on the "article", that is "how I figure". I don't need the page number since it has nothing to do with the "article" (which is reflective of his current thinking).

I had also written: "As for the label "universalism", would you still call it such if it were viewed that the biblical issues never had anything to do with the afterlife at all?"

No sense in moving forward and discussing it as if it were "universalism", if it is not.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

mazuur's picture

Amie,

You have me confused. You stated:

"since it has nothing to do with the 'article'"

and

"And, it does appear per the argument over the article "All Israel Will Be Saved" that Tom has a firmer grasp on understanding it". (bold mine)

The topic was King's presentation in his article, not Tami's above. Tom insist King presents Universalism in his article "All Israel Will be Saved", I insist he does not. By you stating that Tom has a "firmer grasp on understanding it", were you not agreeing with Tom that King in his article presents Universalism? He may now with his current position (as you stated), but what is under discussion is King's article (and books) as it is written.

"I had also written: "As for the label "universalism", would you still call it such if it were viewed that the biblical issues never had anything to do with the afterlife at all?"

But it does. I have read various arguments for this position at Davo's site (he hold this same view), and have not begun to be convinced; unless I am not understanding your position with the limit info I have to go on. But, your statement "the biblical issues never had anything to do with the afterlife at all?" is exactly the same as Davo's.

But, if, for arguments sake, "the biblical issues never had anything to do with the afterlife at all" would I still call it universalism? The answer would be yes. Whether it be universally saved from "the death" after physical death, or to be universally saved from physical death itself, it is still universal in nature, and thus universalism. Is it not?

Now, of course, Tom also insist Tami's article presents same universalism. I asked how? And I'm still waiting? Instead of answering he took a tangent off onto King.

Thanks,
Rich

-Rich

amie's picture

"The topic was King's presentation in his article, not Tami's above."

I know that. I thought that because of my previous post that it would be understood that by "the article", I was talking about "All Israel Will be Saved" by Max. That article is much more recent than the books. Max openly says that he is of the mind that "all really means all".

"But, if, for arguments sake, "the biblical issues never had anything to do with the afterlife at all" would I still call it universalism? The answer would be yes. Whether it be universally saved from "the death" after physical death, or to be universally saved from physical death itself, it is still universal in nature, and thus universalism. Is it not?

I would say yes, a 'form' of it.

"Corporate" means "belonging to a corporation". If "corporate resurrection" is referring to "humanity inc", then it would be universal. If it meant that only a certain few belonging to a specific corporation were resurrected, then it would not. However, it could also be seen like when that certain few belonging to a specific corporation were resurrected, it resulted in life to the rest -- therefore a localized happening would have a universal effect.

If the resurrection were relegated to a select few in an elite corporation having no effect on the world, then there are some not being risen. I would be interested in how the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" would be explained.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

mazuur's picture

Amie,

I agree King (today) has taken the "all" to really mean "all". Someone close to King recently told me this. I disagree though with King on that. I think he has it correct in his book CP.

Maybe I need to re-read the article "All Israel Will be Saved". Because I sure don't remember King at that time, in that article, presenting his new "all" understanding. In fact, I thought I remembered him making reference to the act of "faith" (and belief) throughout the article, both in reference to Jew and Gentile. I believe he was referring to Paul's "righteous of God through faith" (and like statements), which fleshly Israel stumbled on, but the Gentile did not. Paul specifically points out the Gentiles came by faith, and thus were receiving what Israel sought all along. I think King specially points this out too in that article.

I will go re-read the article.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

at last it seems there is some progress between us on this question.

You now say that you agree with me since you have heard that King's current position on Romans 11:26-27 is universalism but you disagree with him on that point. This is what I have been saying from the beginning that you denied but actually agreed with? I made the observation that it was possible you were imposing your own personal view on King causing him to say something different than he actually wrote. It now seems that this is actually what you were doing.

It seems Rich that you become greatly stressed when I ask you a biblical question about what you believe concerning your own doctrine. But I will again ask you: "The Israel that the Spirit describes as the rest who were blinded and were enemies of the gospel, are they included in the "All Israel" that will be saved when the deliverer comes out of Sion?" Are they a part of the old covenant with whom the promises were made? What I am asking you is to define the corporate body of "all Israel" that will be saved.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

"You now say that you agree with me since you have heard that King's current position on Romans 11:26-27 is universalism but you disagree with him on that point. This is what I have been saying from the beginning that you denied but actually agreed with? I made the observation that it was possible you were imposing your own personal view on King causing him to say something different than he actually wrote. It now seems that this is actually what you were doing."

Stop your crap. I said according to King's books (and the article you were referring to) that King does not present universalism. What he holds to now, is a different thing, which I am sure will be presented in his new book (whenever it comes out). Go back are re-read out posts. Every one was in the context of King's books! Corporate Body has nothing to do with universalism.

This is why I am done with you Tom.

-Rich

-Rich

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