Milton Terry on Creation

[kangaroojack]

To All,

I am giving up posting altogether. I have wanted to start a non-emergency Medical Transport business as a ministry to the elderly. I feel I have wasted too much of my time arguing theology online. It's gotten old arguing all the time.

I have have been debating all day as to whether or not to post Terry's real view of creation as opposed to Jeff's representation of Terry from a fragment quote. I am not saying that Jeff was being dishonest. Je just fell into the trap.

Creation:

Terry did not believe that Genesis 1 was about the creation of the Universe. However, Terry would not have been a friend of Covenantal Creationism either for he taught that Genesis 1 was about the creation of the physical land and sky out of pre-existing material. This would mean that the apostle Peter was referring to the destruction of the land and sky as it then existed and not the destruction of the physical Universe.

It may be that the six days of creative procedure here narrated are typical of corresponding ages of cosmological development, and a wider and more complete induction of facts may yet confirm this supposition. But even if now confirmed, it would not add essetnially to the great lessons of order and progress furnished by the literal interpreation of the biblical record. For it does not follow that God must have created or developed each part of the whole universe in the same manner. There were doubtless other beginnings, and there are probably innumerable forms of life and ranks and orders of living creatures in other spheres which no descendant of Adam has ever been able to discover, and which has no purpose of the Bible to reveal. LET IT BE ONCE CONCEDED THAT GOD LITERALLY AND MIRACULOUSLY FORMED THE EDEN-LAND AND SKY, AND THAT THEY CONTAINED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED IN GENESIS, AND IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT HE ALSO MUST BE THE ABSOLUTE AND UNIVERSAL CREATOR.

And if the noble lessons above indicated are taught, as Mr. Rorison thinks, in a grand cosmological poem, whose artistic periods mean anything and everything inn general, and nothing in particular, HOW MUCH MORE FORCIBLY ARE THEY TAUGHT IN A HISTORICAL RECORD OF LITERAL FACT.

Rightly to interpret the Mosaic narrative, therefore, it is necessary to disabuse our minds of the assumption that it is a revelation of primordial origin of the universe. HOW AND WHEN GOD ORIGINATED MATTER, AND WHAT WERE THE FIRST FORMS AND MODES OF LIFE-WHETHER OF PLANTS, INSECTS, REPTILES, FISH, FOWLS, BEASTS, CATTLE OR ANGELS-IT APPEARS NOT THE PURPOSE OF REVELATION TO INFORM US; BUT THIS BEGINNING OF THE BIBLE DOES INFORM US OF THE MIRACULOUS CREATION OF MAN IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.

Biblical Hermeneutics, pages 551-552

Grammatico-historical method:

Jeff's citation of Terry on the geammatico-historical method was also a misrepresentation. Terry would have disagreed with the CC approach to Genesis 1 because the grammitico-historical method means that we must interpret words as they were used by the particular author and to not read the definition of another biblical author into it. This is what CC does when it reads the term "heaven and earth" as used by the apostle John in Revelation 21 into Moses' use of the term in Genesis 1. The time of Moses was different from the time of John and therefore their use of terms differ. This is also the basic Preterist principle called "audience relevance."

The grammatico-historical sense of a writer is such an interpretation as is required by the laws of grammar and the facts of history....The Grammatical sense is the same as the literal, the one being derived from the Greek, the other from the Latin.

By the historical sense we designate, rather, that meaning of an author's words which is required by by historical considerations. It DEMANDS that we consider carefully the time of the author, and the circumstances under which he wrote.

page 203

Now I'm done here

Love,

Roo

[mellontes]

If I understand correctly (and I do because I just checked every post on the debate), Jeff quoted Milton Terry as follows:

"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."

I happen to agree with what Milton Terry said, and I dare say so does every preterist on this forum, including you.

Jeff did not at anytime imply, claim, point to, or regard Mr. Terry's views on Genesis were that of covenant creation, but that's no surprise since our buddy Milton wasn't even a preterist...

Roo said, "Jeff's citation of Terry on the geammatico-historical [sic] method was also a misrepresentation."

No, it was NOT a misrepresentation. It is an exact quote. It is you who went on to misrepresent Mr. Terry. You said, "Terry would have disagreed with the CC approach to Genesis 1 because the grammitico-historical method means that we must interpret words as they were used by the particular author and to not read the definition of another biblical author into it."

Jeff never once said that Milton Terry agreed with covenant creation. Because if he had, he would have quoted him saying such a thing! I also find it odd that you would rephrase what Milton Terry said. Look at the important difference here.

Terry: "the Old Testament cannot be fully apprehended without the help of the New." This implies that OTHER biblical NT authors MUST be called upon.

Roo: "...the grammitico-historical method means that we must interpret words as they were used by the particular author and to not read the definition of another biblical author into it." This implies that you are NOT to use OTHER biblical authors - the exact opposite of Milton Terry.

Your last quote from Milton Terry was not only priceless but informative as well. Terry said, "By the historical sense we designate, rather, that meaning of an author's words which is required by by historical considerations. It DEMANDS that we consider carefully the time of the author, and the circumstances under which he wrote."

And as you will see, scratch that, would have seen (had you stuck around to finish a debate that you initiated), that Jeff will bring into the equation the time of the writing, the circumstances, and the existing culture of that time to PROVE that we ought NOT to interpret Genesis 1 using a Western cultural wooden literalistic scientific hermeneutic. The Bible begins with covenant and ends with covenant. It is a book of redemption - it is not a science book on physical creation. Our particular planet did not even get its name until hundreds of years past the first century. The OT is a development of the old covenant. The NT is the transition over into the new covenant. It has nothing to do with physical redemption, physical resurrection, or physical creation.

Now, I'm done, but still here. I believe truth matters. A lot.