Post by Allyn on Feb 11, 2011 8:59:10 GMT -5
Note By Board Owner:
this modification to the text is not the same at Roo's original posting area by his request.
REBUTTAL# 1:
Jeff Vaughn said:
My opponent had promised to show that the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1 was the physical universe.
The debate just started!
Regardless, as my opponent has not produced an argument for a physical creation in Genesis 1....
The debate has just started!
Regarding my opponent's resolve, "I will be negating the Covenant Creationist premise that heaven and earth is Israel," I must admit I was surprised by this tactic. Such a tactic requires one to be intimately familiar with his opponents arguments. Good enough, that one could effectively argue the affirmative on his opponent's behalf. Those who start with a negative are prone to erecting a straw man.
Unfortunately, that is what my opponent has done. His stated premise was not my premise when I coined the term Covenant Creation back in the fall of 2006.
Unfortunately, that is what my opponent has done. His stated premise was not my premise when I coined the term Covenant Creation back in the fall of 2006.
Is Jeff reading my posts carefully? Jeff's article which I cited is dated 13 April 2009. It says,
Moses addressed Israel as heavens and earth:
Listen, O heavens, and I will speak; hear, O earth, the words of my mouth . . . . (Deut. 32:1 NIV)
If Moses calls Israel “heavens” and “earth,” why then would Genesis 1:1 be a description of the physical universe? Moses knew that “heavens and earth” is God’s people, formed through God’s special covenant creation.
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1
Listen, O heavens, and I will speak; hear, O earth, the words of my mouth . . . . (Deut. 32:1 NIV)
If Moses calls Israel “heavens” and “earth,” why then would Genesis 1:1 be a description of the physical universe? Moses knew that “heavens and earth” is God’s people, formed through God’s special covenant creation.
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1
Yet Jeff is still in denial.
The premise my opponent has presented is not the premise of Covenant Creation or of any Covenant Creationists.
I give it again:
Moses addressed Israel as heavens and earth:
Listen, O heavens, and I will speak; hear, O earth, the words of my mouth . . . . (Deut. 32:1 NIV)
If Moses calls Israel “heavens” and “earth,” why then would Genesis 1:1 be a description of the physical universe? Moses knew that “heavens and earth” is God’s people, formed through God’s special covenant creation.
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1
Listen, O heavens, and I will speak; hear, O earth, the words of my mouth . . . . (Deut. 32:1 NIV)
If Moses calls Israel “heavens” and “earth,” why then would Genesis 1:1 be a description of the physical universe? Moses knew that “heavens and earth” is God’s people, formed through God’s special covenant creation.
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1
This is self-explanatory! The Covenantal Creationists say that in Deuteronomy 32:1 Moses addressed Israel as "heaven and earth"? And I indeed showed that they overlook 30:19 where God invoked heaven and earth against Israel saying,
19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;
How can Jeff say that heaven and earth is Israel when God invoked heaven and earth as WITNESSES AGAINST Israel?
My opponent is all over the place here. He has not carefully read the article he is using nor the Scripture we used, nor the Scripture he is using to refute Covenant Creation.
I made it clear in my resolve that I was negating the Covenant Creation premise that heaven and earth is Israel. If I prove that heaven and earth is not Israel, then CC fails to prove that the creation of Genesis 1 is not about the physical universe. It must be remembered that CC says that Moses called Israel "heaven and earth." Jeff makes the inference himself that if Israel is heaven and earth, then the Genesis 1 account cannot be about the physical universe.
He denies it even again,
The premise my opponent has presented is not the premise of Covenant Creation or of any Covenant Creationists. If he succeeds in negating this premise, he will have proven nothing regarding Covenant Creation.
For the umteenth time, Jeff said that Moses addressed Israel as "heaven and earth." Jeff himself infers that this means that the creation account of Genesis 1 canot be about the physical universe. Why the constant denial?
The article again,
Moses addressed Israel as heavens and earth:
If Moses calls Israel “heavens” and “earth,” why then would Genesis 1:1 be a description of the physical universe?
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1
If Moses calls Israel “heavens” and “earth,” why then would Genesis 1:1 be a description of the physical universe?
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1
Then Jeff flip flops. In the beginning of his rebuttal 1 he REPEATEDLY denied that the "heaven and earth is Israel" premise is his premise referring us back to articles written up to 2006. After I showed that it was his premise in a later article he co-authored in April 2009 he flip flops and admits that it is true:
True. On page 12 of the article. Deut. 31:30-32:1, "Then Moses spoke in the hearing of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song until they were ended: 'Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.'" This passage is called the song of Moses. As it is a song or poem, a little poetic license might need to be given. Moses was addressing the the people of Israel. The "O heavens" and "O earth" had God as a father, human fathers and elders, Adam as a father, and ancestors. This heavens and earth were God's Covenant people.
There you have it! I made the claim that CCism teaches that heaven and earth is Israel. Jeff repeatedly denies it in his rebuttal and then finally admits that my claim is TRUE in the same rebuttal. Just like that! I have never seen anything like it!
I pointed out that he and his co-author overlooked Deuteronomy 30:19 which says that God invoked heaven and earth AGAINST Israel. Note the unintelligible explanation he gives:
False. We have not overlooked that passage. We have looked at every single verse of Scripture that uses both the word heaven and the word earth. My opponent has not said what invoking this passage is supposed to prove. God invoked Adam and Eve as witnesses against themselves.
This is absurd! This is the best he's got? By this statement Jeff infers that Israel is both the second and third parties. But there are clearly three parties in view which are:
*God
*heaven and earth
*and Israel
God the first party invoked heaven and earth the third party as WITNESSES AGAINST Israel the second party.
Jeff fails to see that after Sinai the expression "heaven and earth" by metonymy was used to refer to the angels (heaven) who directed the law at Sinai and Moses (earth) who received the law. In other words, it was the Sinatic law which God invoked as a witness against Israel and it is called "heaven and earth" because it was directed by residents of heaven and received by Moses the mediator. Together they were LEGAL WITNESSES against Israel. But Jeff wants us to buy his absurd inference that God invoked Israel against Israel. COME ON!
My opponent believes Israel became Israel at Sinai. That they became God's people at Sinai. So who were they when God said, "Let my people go?"
Wrong! I did NOT say that they became Israel at Sinai. I said that God fathered them IN the exodus from Egypt. God said, "I am the ROCK which fathered you." God had not revealed Himself to them as "ROCK" until their exodus. It was THEN that God fathered them.
Jack's Claim: Does the book of Hebrews "explicitly" connect the beginning of Genesis 1 with the end? It certainly does not because the Greek does not say, "in the beginning...." It actually reads, "long ago you laid the foundations of the earth.
False. The Greek word Arche is used in Heb. 1:10 and in the Greek Septuagint in Genesis 1:1 for beginning. Compare "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands, they will perish, but you remain" with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In the Greek, both beginnings are the same word. Both heavens are the same word. Both earths are the same word. By what principle of exegesis can my opponent say they are different?
False. The Greek word Arche is used in Heb. 1:10 and in the Greek Septuagint in Genesis 1:1 for beginning. Compare "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands, they will perish, but you remain" with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In the Greek, both beginnings are the same word. Both heavens are the same word. Both earths are the same word. By what principle of exegesis can my opponent say they are different?
Reply:
1. That the same Greek word is used in the Septuagint in Genesis 1:1 does not prove their meaning is equal because they are written differently. The Septuagint in Genesis 1:1 says, "en arche" while the Greek in Hebrews 1:10 says "kat archas."
2.. Verse 2 says that there is more than one age (aion) which implies that there is more than one "beginning" (arche). It says, "through whom He also made the ages" (plural). Nineteenth century Preterist J. Stuart Russell notes that at that time the Jews recognized only two ages. Those ages were the present age and the age to come (The Parousia, p. 265).
So which "age" began in verse 10? Was it the "present age" which was the Mosaic economy? Or was it the "age to come" which is the new covenant age? I submit that the "beginning" in verse 10 must be the beginning of the "present age" which was the Mosaic economy.
3. I have already shown in context that the "beginning" in verse 10 does not require us to go all the way back to Genesis. The context is about the contrast between the authority and ministry of the Son with that of the angels. Jeff has no more basis to insert Israel into the text than the Futurists have to insert the physical universe into it. It's not about Israel at this point. It's about the contrast between the Son and the angels! The Son is not being contrasted to Israel. He is being contrasted to the angels, that is, those who directed the law at Sinai. The "heaven and earth" in Hebrews 1 was the Mosaic economy and the Sinatic ministry of the angels in particular. Their ministry passed away.
4. That it was the ministry of the angels which was to pass away is the apostle's conclusion in chapter 2,
1 Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which in the beginning was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
Hebrews 2:1-2
Hebrews 2:1-2
There are the angels again. The Son was to fold up the heavens and the earth as an old garment and we are told, "For if the word spoken through angels was steadfast...." Note that the term "the beginning" also appears again, "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which IN THE BEGINNING (arche) was spoken by the Lord."
Let Jeff tell us what "the beginning" (arche) is in 2:3. I will tell you myself. It is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the new heaven and earth which was to replace the oc ministry of the angels! We must remember that 1:2 says that ages plural were made through the Son. According to Russell the Jews at that time recognized two ages. This means that there were two beginnings. We have two "beginnings" in 1:10 and in 2:3. The first "beginning" was the beginning of the word of the angels which Christ folded up as an old garment. This was the first heaven and earth. The second "beginning" is the beginning of the everlasting gospel of Christ which replaced the word of the angels. This is the new heaven and earth.
Jeff asks by what principle of exegesis I base my commentary. I have given my exegesis. I now turn the table on Jeff: On what CONTEXTUAL basis does Jeff insert Israel into the text? Christ is not being contrasted with Israel in this context. He is being contrasted with the angelic authority and ministry.
My opponent botched his Greek exercise. I suspect he went quote mining from different translations rather than actually looking at any Greek. Hebrews 1:10-11 refers to Genesis 1:1 as the article quoted claimed. And Hebrews 1:10-11 is covenantally defined as both my opponent and I agree. Therefore, the author of Hebrews understood the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1 to also be covenantally defined.
Verse 1 says that it was through the Son that the ages (plural) were made. At that time there were only two ages in Jewish thought which I have already shown from Russell. The first was the Mosaic age which in Hebrews 1 indicates the old covenant ministry of the angels in particular. The second is the new covenant age of the word of the gospel. This means that there were two beginnings. Each age had to have a begining. So Jeff's appeal to the Septuagint out of context is therefore unwarranted.
II Claim: Please note that the Covenant Creationists connect the Abrahamic covenant with the law:
My opponent's division of the one over-arching old covenant into separate covenants (e.g. Abrahamic covenant) demonstrates that he has no understanding of covenant creation. The one old covenant. The covenant that ended in AD 70 is the covenant under discussion. Cain and Abel were born under the law of sin and death, as were Abraham and Moses.
Guilty as charged. Paul makes the same connection. "And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect." My opponent nullifies the "Abrahamic covenant" with his previous claim that Israel came into existence at Sinai.
My opponent's division of the one over-arching old covenant into separate covenants (e.g. Abrahamic covenant) demonstrates that he has no understanding of covenant creation. The one old covenant. The covenant that ended in AD 70 is the covenant under discussion. Cain and Abel were born under the law of sin and death, as were Abraham and Moses.
Guilty as charged. Paul makes the same connection. "And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect." My opponent nullifies the "Abrahamic covenant" with his previous claim that Israel came into existence at Sinai.
Now pay attention to this friends. Paul said that the promise was made TO Christ. He did not say that the promise was made in Christ. When did Paul say that the promise was made TO Christ? He said that it was made TO Christ when it was made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years BEFORE the law came. The promise was made TO Christ when it was made TO Abraham.
In Exodus 18, Moses judged the people and taught law. Where did Moses get that law? The Ten Commandments were given in Exodus 20. The rest of the law follows. What law was Moses judging with and teaching before he even received the law?
Jeff hastily jumps to conclusions. Verse 15 says that the people came to Moses to "inquire of God." If they had the law, then why did they need to come to Moses to inquire of God? Before Sinai Moses received the law by the internal promptings of the Spirit and by that he was God's oracle and the people sought him. At Sinai he received the law as the written code. It was then that the people entered into legal covenant with God.
Law predates Sinai. Law was given before Sinai. Adam was the first to transgress the law.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Rom. 5:12-14
"For until the law sin was in the world." Sin existed before the law. Men sinned before the law was given.
"Sin is not imputed when there is no law." No one was held guilty of sin, before the law was given.
"Death reigned from Adam to Moses (and beyond aorist tense)."
Isn't death an imputation of sin?
Therefore Adam had the law.
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Rom. 5:12-14
"For until the law sin was in the world." Sin existed before the law. Men sinned before the law was given.
"Sin is not imputed when there is no law." No one was held guilty of sin, before the law was given.
"Death reigned from Adam to Moses (and beyond aorist tense)."
Isn't death an imputation of sin?
Therefore Adam had the law.
Jeff seems to be implying that if a person had law, then he was automatically under promise. Paul dispels this in Galatians 4 when he says that Ishmael was born of Hagar who represented Sinai. Ishmael was not under a covenant of promise.
Jack said:
Yet the Covenant Creationists have every bit of it backwards.
Paul's model:
1. Stars preached the gospel (Gal. 3:8)
2. The "seed" is Christ (Gal. 3:16)
3. Law comes four hundred and thirty years after Abrahamic covenant (Gal. 3:17)
Covenant Creationists model:
1. Stars preach the law
2. The "seed" is Israel
3. Law precedes Abrahamic covenant
Paul's model:
1. Stars preached the gospel (Gal. 3:8)
2. The "seed" is Christ (Gal. 3:16)
3. Law comes four hundred and thirty years after Abrahamic covenant (Gal. 3:17)
Covenant Creationists model:
1. Stars preach the law
2. The "seed" is Israel
3. Law precedes Abrahamic covenant
Jeff answers:
I can't find any mention of stars preaching anything in Gal. 3:8.
God told Abraham to enumerate the stars and then said, "So shall your Seed be." The stars were a sign to Abraham.
My opponent has no reference for his false claim that Covenant Creationists believe "Stars preach the law" or "The 'seed' is Israel."
What! Jeff's article puts the Abrahamic covenant under the classification of "law" and says that the stars are Israel. This means that the seed would be Israel.
The “Heavens and Earth” of THE LAW
Describing people with the symbolic imagery of “heaven and earth and sea” continues throughout Genesis. We see the association of all three symbolic elements of creation in the promise given to Abraham (Gen. 13:16; 15:4-6; 22:17). Joseph had a dream about the sun, moon and eleven stars (heavens) as well as another dream of shocks of wheat (earth) bowing down to him (Gen. 37:6-11; cf. Matt. 13:30, 41-43). The heavens and earth constituted the entire family of Israel.[2]
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1
Describing people with the symbolic imagery of “heaven and earth and sea” continues throughout Genesis. We see the association of all three symbolic elements of creation in the promise given to Abraham (Gen. 13:16; 15:4-6; 22:17). Joseph had a dream about the sun, moon and eleven stars (heavens) as well as another dream of shocks of wheat (earth) bowing down to him (Gen. 37:6-11; cf. Matt. 13:30, 41-43). The heavens and earth constituted the entire family of Israel.[2]
planetpreterist.com/news-5611.html#_ftn1
Note that Jeff and his co author Tim Martin classify the Abrahamic Covenant as the "Heavens and Earth of THE LAW." Then they give the scripture passages in Genesis when God made certain promises to Abraham. They misapply the Genesis 13:16 passage. It says that Abraham's descendants shall be as the dust of the earth. The Genesis 22:17 promise says that God will multiply Abraham's descendants as the stars of heaven. Abraham's descendants were not to be identified with the stars of heaven. They were to be great in number as the stars of heaven. But in Genesis 15:4-6 God told Abraham to look at the stars and then said, "So shall your Seed be." According to Paul the Seed is Christ. It is Christ who is by metaphor is identified with the stars of heaven.
Some problems Jeff's resolve:
Contrast this to the Gramatico-Historical Hermeneutic, which suggests we should first consider changing our understanding of Genesis 1. As Milton Terry wrote, "It is of the first importance to observe that, from a Christian point of view, the Old Testament cannot be fully apprehended without the help of the New." (Biblical Hermeneutics, New Edition, pg 18) The new understanding of Rev. 21:1 should be applied as widely as possible to test that understanding. Our understanding of one passage is assumed to potentially impact the understanding of all others.
Yet Terry comes to conclusions on Genesis 1 that are different from Jeff's. On the word "create" in Genesis 1:1 Terry said:
We may, therefore, properly understand it, in Genesis 1, 1, as denoting the forming or construction, out of preexisting material, of the heavens and the land contemplated in the biblical narrative of "the beginning."
The natural meaning of these words, then should suggest to the interpreter that in the opening chapters of Genesis he is not to look for a universal cosmonogy. The heavens and land of these chapters are the visible sky and country where the first human pair were created. The various species of vegetable and animal life which were brought forth on that land, or to multiply in those heavens and waters, were such as were there to serve some interest of man, and he was to have dominion over them.
Biblical Hermeneutics, page 549
The natural meaning of these words, then should suggest to the interpreter that in the opening chapters of Genesis he is not to look for a universal cosmonogy. The heavens and land of these chapters are the visible sky and country where the first human pair were created. The various species of vegetable and animal life which were brought forth on that land, or to multiply in those heavens and waters, were such as were there to serve some interest of man, and he was to have dominion over them.
Biblical Hermeneutics, page 549
Jeff imposes his conclusions on Milton Terry. Terry did not connect the first heaven and earth of Revelation 21 with Genesis 1. Terry also said that the word "new" in Revelation 21:1 means "recent in opposition to that given long ago at Sinai" (ibid, p. 199). Terry takes Revelation 21:1 back to Sinai and not to Genesis 1.
It is clear that Jeff is taking fragments from Terry's hermeneutics and misapplying them. If Jeff's conclusions necessarily follow from Terry's hermeneutics, then why did Terry come to different conclusions on Genesis 1 and Revelation 21? Jeff is able to prove anything he wants from fragmented quotes.
1. The apostle John tells us that the first heaven and the first earth that he saw pass away is the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1.
A. He said it was "the first." The first heavens and earth mentioned in Scripture is mentioned in Genesis 1:1
A. He said it was "the first." The first heavens and earth mentioned in Scripture is mentioned in Genesis 1:1
Where does John say this? John did not conect Revelation 21 with Genesis 1 in the way Jeff thinks. Jeff assumes this because John used similar language which is found in both Genesis 1 and Revelation 21. Futurist Harold Camping does the same thing and comes to different conclusions!
Example of Jeff's faulty hermeneutic:
B. This heaven and earth was associated with the sea. "for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea." As was the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1.
C. The context surrounding Rev. 21:1 frequently refers to early Genesis 1-3. Some examples are
Rev. 20:2, "that serpent of old," Gen. 3:1
vs. 6, "Over such the second death has no power, " Gen. 3
Rev. 21:1, "Also there was no more sea," Gen. 1:10
vs. 4, "there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. " Gen. 3
vs. 24, "no need of the sun or of the moon to shine," Gen. 1:14ff
vs. 25," there shall be no night there," Gen. 1:4ff
Rev. 22:2, "the tree of life," Gen. 2:9
vs. 3, "And there shall be no more curse," Gen. 3
All of this demonstrates that, to the author, the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1 was what was being judged and was passing away.
C. The context surrounding Rev. 21:1 frequently refers to early Genesis 1-3. Some examples are
Rev. 20:2, "that serpent of old," Gen. 3:1
vs. 6, "Over such the second death has no power, " Gen. 3
Rev. 21:1, "Also there was no more sea," Gen. 1:10
vs. 4, "there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away. " Gen. 3
vs. 24, "no need of the sun or of the moon to shine," Gen. 1:14ff
vs. 25," there shall be no night there," Gen. 1:4ff
Rev. 22:2, "the tree of life," Gen. 2:9
vs. 3, "And there shall be no more curse," Gen. 3
All of this demonstrates that, to the author, the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1 was what was being judged and was passing away.
Jeff's conclusions are beset with many problems with the most obvious being that Peter EXPLICITLY said that the antedeluvian heavens and earth were destroyed (2 Peter 3). The antedeluvian world is that of Genesis 1! It was the material order that was flooded with water. Peter said that it was made from water and was destroyed by water. This is the material world of Genesis 1.
Again, Jeff assumes that similar language necessarily means identity.
2. The prophets and the apostles described the passing away of the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1 and the creation of a new heavens and a new earth.
For example, Is. 65:17ff, "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. ... The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying. ... They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD, And their offspring with them" This passage references Genesis 1-3, and Rev. 20-22 references this passage and Genesis 1-3, at the same time and in the same manner.
For example, Is. 65:17ff, "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. ... The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying. ... They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD, And their offspring with them" This passage references Genesis 1-3, and Rev. 20-22 references this passage and Genesis 1-3, at the same time and in the same manner.
Isaiah's prophecy is an excellent example that the use of similar language does not necessarily mean identity. Isaiah 65-66 was fulfilled after the exiles returned from the Babylonian Captivity before the temple was rebuilt. The reference to islands indicates that the sea still exists in Isaiah's prophecy (19). The Levitical priesthood is still in force (66:21).
The old covenant does not pass away in Isaiah's prophecy. Yet we observe that similar language is used both Isaiah and in the Revelation even though each prophecy pertains to a different people in a different time.
The material order as it was known to the antedeluvians was "destroyed." This was the material order of Genesis 1. Therefore, the "FIRST heaven and earth" of Revelation 21 cannot be the heaven and earth of Genesis 1 because the heaven and earth of Genesis 1 it is not to be counted since it was destroyed.
The "FIRST heaven and earth" of Revelation 21 is that which Peter said is "NOW."