|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 0:07:08 GMT -5
As some know, I have problems with "Covenant Creationism," including "Beyond Creation Science." Here are the last two paragraphs of "Beyond Creation Science" chapter 6 from their website: beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Read_Chapter_6Isn't that strange. I have believed in fulfilled prophecy, also known as preterism, for over 20 years. In all those years I have believed in the "three pillars of modern young-earth creationism." In all my studies into fulfilled prophecy, I have yet to see those "pillars" questioned, until now. I. THE GENESIS FLOOD WAS GLOBALGenesis 7.17-24 states, - NKJV, Biblegateway.com 1. The ark "rose high above the earth." 2. The "waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth." 3. "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth." 4. All "the high hills under the whole heaven were covered." 5. "The waters prevailed fifteen cubits [21.25 - 27.5 feet] upward." 6. And "the mountains were covered." 7. "And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days." Seven points that one would have to overcome to prove that the Genesis flood was local. And that's just the Biblical description of the flood. There are also statements made by God that also have to be overcome. 1. There is Genesis 6.7, "So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'"2. Genesis 6.17, "And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die."To show that the Genesis flood was local, one would have to prove that creation was also local. II. NO BIOLOGICAL DEATH BEFORE THE FALLNow, I am sitting here thinking, this one is easy. Adam was the first man created, and he was still alive at the fall. Eve was the first man created, and she was alive at the fall. From the creation of man till the fall, there is no record of any biological death. Of course, maybe Eve killed a chicken to make Adam a fried chicken dinner. Or maybe they stepped on a roach, and just didn't think it was important to give the details to anyone. III. GENESIS 1 IS A LITERAL RECORD OF GOD'S CREATION IN SIX TWENTY-FOUR HOUR
DAYSAgain, I am sitting here thinking, this is easy too. If you simply accept by faith what is written in Genesis 1, it should be easy. But in this day of Advanced Theological Studies, there ain't nothing that easy. There is one phrase, that is used 6 times, that I just can't imagine how you can get to say anything different than what it says. "And the evening and the morning were the first day... second day... third day... fourth day... fifth day...sixth day." It does not say, "evenings and mornings." To suggest that God did not create the heavens and earth in six 24-hour days, could suggest that He could not have created the heavens and the earth in six 24-hour days. This is the beginning of my problems. More to come, I'm sure, as I read more of it.  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 10:54:07 GMT -5
Isn't that strange. I have believed in fulfilled prophecy, also known as preterism, for over 20 years. In all those years I have believed in the "three pillars of modern young-earth creationism." In all my studies into fulfilled prophecy, I have yet to see those "pillars" questioned, until now. Where have you been Tom? This is the 3rd edition of BCS. All of your points concerning the flood were disassembled in the first edition 10 years ago. No one has ever demonstrated Tim was in error in that edition. The case has been improved in the subsequent editions. Can you find a preterist author who will support no biological death before the fall? Adam's death has ended. If that death was biological, then Jesus failed. You will still die a biological death for your sins. You are not saved Tom. You will die. Your assertions on these issues cause problems for your eschatology that you can not imagine. Dispensationalism in Genesis does not match with preterism in Revelation. All of your favorite YEC authors are short-timers on this planet waiting for their rapture. You, Roo, and Gary North all deny the connection. You won't even seriously investigate it. Oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 14:36:39 GMT -5
Isn't that strange. I have believed in fulfilled prophecy, also known as preterism, for over 20 years. In all those years I have believed in the "three pillars of modern young-earth creationism." In all my studies into fulfilled prophecy, I have yet to see those "pillars" questioned, until now. Where have you been Tom? This is the 3rd edition of BCS. All of your points concerning the flood were disassembled in the first edition 10 years ago. No one has ever demonstrated Tim was in error in that edition. The case has been improved in the subsequent editions. Believe it or not, your books are not on any "best seller" lists I am aware off. I never heard of it before I got a computer. That was in February 2009. And then it took a little while to find preterist sites. I think my first contact with BCS was on AD70.net. And that was within the last year. Sorry to say, but my life does not revolve around strange doctrines that may come out from time to time. You should be honored that I am giving BCS any time at all. I usually ignore things like this. BCS is not real big in Eastern US preterism as it is in Westcoast US preterism. So there may be a geographical reason I never heard of it too. Up until a year or so ago the only preterist authors I knew anything about were those associated with Ed Stevens. Some of them are real wackoes. How can you prove the Bible when you use deception to do so? So, I had a falling away from Ed Stevens and his following. From that point on, the only other preterist I had anything to do with was Luke Martin in Pots Dam, New York. So, for most of the past 20 years, I have had very little contact with other preterists. "Dispensationalism in Genesis does not match with preterism in Revelation." Does it have to? "You, Roo, and Gary North all deny the connection. You won't even seriously investigate it." Maybe it's because we know better. I suggest you read, "The Two Realms of Existence," if you haven't already. You can see it here: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=any&action=display&thread=712Tom  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 15:32:19 GMT -5
Tom, Ed Steven's has spoken and written about BCS for 10 years. Nothing good, mind you, but when you are a preterist, almost all press is good press. I read your post weeks ago. It seems to me that there is a misunderstanding about existence. There are two realms of existence. A physical realm, and a non-physical (spiritual) realm. You have equated the biblical word "natural" with "physical" and defined "spiritual" as "not physical." Would explain 1 Cor. 15:44-46 using your understanding? The contrast is the body of Adam (natural) vs. the body of Christ (spiritual). Do you really mean to tell us that the body of Adam was "physical" and the body of Christ is/was "not physical?" |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 16:30:39 GMT -5
Tom, Ed Steven's has spoken and written about BCS for 10 years. Nothing good, mind you, but when you are a preterist, almost all press is good press. As I stated above, "for most of the past 20 years, I have had very little contact with other preterists." Ed Stevens may have written about BCS. That doesn't mean I read it. And, I didn't. The only preterist I had any contact with for most of the past 20 years was Luke Martin, which I also stated above. So I had no contacts that the BCS topic would have come up. Let's face, in the realm of total Christiendom, BCS is not all that important. The answer to your last question is answered in verse 45. Christ has been made a "life-giving spirit." So my answer to your last question is, as of the writing of the passage you cite, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 16:39:05 GMT -5
The answer to your last question is answered in verse 45. Christ has been made a "life-giving spirit." So my answer to your last question is, as of the writing of the passage you cite, yes. Therefore, Christ is not-physical? |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 18:59:43 GMT -5
Therefore, Christ is not-physical? Certainly, not since the accension.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 21, 2011 19:53:04 GMT -5
Therefore, Christ is not-physical? Certainly, not since the accension. And Adam has not been physical since his bones rotted away thousands of years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 21, 2011 21:05:30 GMT -5
Therefore, Christ is not-physical? Certainly, not since the accension. And Adam has not been physical since his bones rotted away thousands of years ago. And your point is? |
|
|
|
Post by sonofdavid on Feb 22, 2011 18:32:23 GMT -5
Therefore, Christ is not-physical? Certainly, not since the accension. And Adam has not been physical since his bones rotted away thousands of years ago. Well, I am waiting. What does Adam's rotted bones have to do with the current topic? By the way, why don't you ask your partner to join here? Maybe he can explain Adam's bones to me. Although, I doubt it.  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Feb 22, 2011 19:24:47 GMT -5
And Adam has not been physical since his bones rotted away thousands of years ago. Well, I am waiting. What does Adam's rotted bones have to do with the current topic? By the way, why don't you ask your partner to join here? Maybe he can explain Adam's bones to me. Although, I doubt it. Tom, I'm still waiting for you to apologize for pushing the vapor canopy "theory." Even Answers in Genesis is against it. I gave you the math. Look up one number in a table and do some multiplication. But that's too difficult for you. Is it really too difficult? Or are you afraid of learning that you are wrong? You spread 100-year-old Seventh Day Adventists doctrines as if they were scientific fact. They are not. Henry Morris knew what he was doing. He knew he was not spreading the truth. He duped you. You told us you were a "simple man." You told us that all who disagree with you are wrong. There is no further point to us interacting. You believe everything I say is wrong and I know everything you say is wrong. So go your way and I'll go mine. Again, Take care. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 22, 2011 20:20:12 GMT -5
I am sorry to see this again but Tom has once more deleted his account because of his stress over the subject of Covenant Creation. Its too bad this continues to happen. Tom had asked me to prohibit the topic from PV but I could not find sound reason for doing so nor do I wish to prohibit any biblical style discussion from our board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 22, 2011 21:26:22 GMT -5
I am sorry to see this again but Tom has once more deleted his account because of his stress over the subject of Covenant Creation. Its too bad this continues to happen. Tom had asked me to prohibit the topic from PV but I could not find sound reason for doing so nor do I wish to prohibit any biblical style discussion from our board. At least when he leaves, he continues to return. We all need time away now and then. I pray that through this process of coming and going he will eventually come to a place within himself where he can accept the presence and discussion of that with which he doesn't agree. I think I understand his feelings. There are doctrines I feel strongly against and have even thrown books in the trash out of disgust because they promoted something I disagreed with. Similarly, there have been several times in the past where I had gotten so fed up with the discussions, and what was being promoted through them, at a certain popular Christian discussion site that I would force myself to not visit the site for several weeks. I never deleted my account, but we all cope in different ways. |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Feb 25, 2013 21:03:36 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for you to apologize for pushing the vapor canopy "theory."; Even Answers in Genesis is against it. I gave you the math. Look up one number in a table and do some multiplication. But that's too difficult for you. Is it really too difficult? Or are you afraid of learning that you are wrong? You spread 100-year-old Seventh Day Adventists doctrines as if they were scientific fact. They are not. Henry Morris knew what he was doing. He knew he was not spreading the truth. He duped you. You told us you were a "simple man." You told us that all who disagree with you are wrong. There is no further point to us interacting. You believe everything I say is wrong and I know everything you say is wrong. So go your way and I'll go mine. Again, Take care. In this particular post JL Vaughn wanted me to apologize "for pushing the vapor canopy theory." Where did I do that? I've been looking for it. I find it interesting that the International Standard Version of the Bible uses the word "canopy" in Genesis 1.6-8... - isv.scripturetext.com/I know I used the word "canopy," I just know where. Now, here's a translation that uses the same word. If you can help me find the post that I did indeed push the vapor canopy theory I would appreciate. And, no. I am not going to apologize. It is my opinion that there was indeed a canopy that separated the "waters above" and the "waters below." That protected the atmosphere of the earth, and made the entire surface of the earth a paradise. Thank you for your time. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 28, 2013 10:44:43 GMT -5
Tom, I'm not certain where JL is getting the conversation from concerning water vapor. Maybe in another thread? I don't remember any conversation though. One time about 2 years ago, Jeff tried to convince me on a local flood scenerio by saying that if you took all the water above earth and below earth and spread it on the whole earth that the depth would only be 4 inches. I said prove it. I asked him to demonstrate with certainty that he knows where all the water is and how much there is. Its pointless when we have the Scriptures, but, oh lets not use the Bible when it doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 1, 2013 11:41:53 GMT -5
I found the same thing, Allyn. I asked many questions that were not even attempted to be answered, and instead he tried to go on the offensive by questioning me or other topics.
I made an extensive effort to understand the view (without having to fund it by purchasing the book) and I have to say to was a difficult process. My personal opinion is that it came off as a kind of bait and switch - a convincing argument would be made based on philosophical reasons (i.e. it sounds plausible) and then support would be given by re-defining concepts, words and phrases.
The 'proof' was often these redefinitions themselves, that were in turn done to fit the beginning premise (which is denied, obviously). When I asked why they redefined something, the answer was generally, "because that usage fits". Well of course it does - it was 'designed' to fit.
A prime example is their use of 'covenant'. A presentation of how it was (supposedly) used in ancient times was put forth. Being a history buff I questioned it, asking for any sources, since it differed from anything I had read before. It died silently. No apology was given.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Mar 2, 2013 8:13:37 GMT -5
Morris, one time when in this discussion with JL Vaughn, I presented some arguments to which he said that they had not yet worked out all of the problems. I told him that maybe the problem was that they had left the right story and have created a new one. And I think for sure that is what they have done. Its an interesting story that they have developed, but it has become dangerous for many in the fulfilled eschatological view because it has either diminished or has totally done away with the Gospel of Christ. That is reason enough for me to not accept it, but textually, its just not there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 2, 2013 10:36:08 GMT -5
Its an interesting story that they have developed, but it has become dangerous for many in the fulfilled eschatological view because it has either diminished or has totally done away with the Gospel of Christ. That is reason enough for me to not accept it, but textually, its just not there. You hit it dead on, Allyn. With BCS, the scripture no longer deals with me at all - I am an outside observer. |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Mar 2, 2013 16:53:15 GMT -5
Morris, one time when in this discussion with JL Vaughn, I presented some arguments to which he said that they had not yet worked out all of the problems. I told him that maybe the problem was that they had left the right story and have created a new one. And I think for sure that is what they have done. Its an interesting story that they have developed, but it has become dangerous for many in the fulfilled eschatological view because it has either diminished or has totally done away with the Gospel of Christ. That is reason enough for me to not accept it, but textually, its just not there. I remember that. |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Mar 2, 2013 16:55:24 GMT -5
Its an interesting story that they have developed, but it has become dangerous for many in the fulfilled eschatological view because it has either diminished or has totally done away with the Gospel of Christ. That is reason enough for me to not accept it, but textually, its just not there. You hit it dead on, Allyn. With BCS, the scripture no longer deals with me at all - I am an outside observer. The problem, it seems to me, is they ignore Scripture completely. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever to accept Covenant Creation as valid. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 4, 2013 10:26:01 GMT -5
The problem, it seems to me, is they ignore Scripture completely. From what I've observed, it isn't that they ignore Scripture, but rather they play a dangerous game of word-play. You can alter what Scripture says by changing the definitions of the words it uses, and then prove it correct by saying "it fits". I see it as a similar type of thing that the futurists do with the "he" of Daniel 9:27. They redefine "he" to be the anti-christ, and then say it works with how they view of passages of the Bible. The problem is that the changing of that "he" came first and other passages viewed in light of that. When that is done, you can't use those other passages to 'prove' the validity of 'he' being the anti-christ. Covenant Creation uses a similar approach; redefine the usage of select words and phrases, interpret scripture using those newly created definitions, then use those interpretations as proofs that the re-definitions are correct. As an excel spreadsheet would say, "circular reference". The problem is that the message they bring sounds so intriguing. |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Mar 4, 2013 23:08:59 GMT -5
From what I've observed, it isn't that they ignore Scripture, but rather they play a dangerous game of word-play. You can alter what Scripture says by changing the definitions of the words it uses, and then prove it correct by saying "it fits". I see it as a similar type of thing that the futurists do with the "he" of Daniel 9:27. They redefine "he" to be the anti-christ, and then say it works with how they view of passages of the Bible. The problem is that the changing of that "he" came first and other passages viewed in light of that. When that is done, you can't use those other passages to 'prove' the validity of 'he' being the anti-christ. Covenant Creation uses a similar approach; redefine the usage of select words and phrases, interpret scripture using those newly created definitions, then use those interpretations as proofs that the re-definitions are correct. As an excel spreadsheet would say, "circular reference". The problem is that the message they bring sounds so intriguing. I stand corrected. Thanks Morris. But, they do ignore what Scripture actually says. |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Mar 29, 2014 15:39:51 GMT -5
I just read about this "BCS" on another board and the argument was made that you can't be a consistent preterist if you don't accept the covenant creation interpretation of Genesis 1. The argument is that in order to keep the Bible a consistent, unified whole, you have to treat Genesis 1 as symbolically as you treat Revelation 21-22.
While I can see how CC would address some issues, it raises a whole lot more. For instance, if the creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1 is a metaphor for the creation of the Old Covenant, what does Adam naming the animals symbolize? What does the creation of Eve symbolize? If evening and morning represent the twice daily sacrifices of the Temple (as they do in the book of Daniel), why would such sacrifices exist before the Fall?
But my biggest problem with CC is that while the CC'ers try to harmonize Genesis with Revelation, they utterly destroy the harmony of every chapter of Genesis before the introduction of the Abraham!
Israel was created in the covenant between God and Abraham, yet CC appears to represent the creation of the Mosaic Covenant, which came hundreds of years after Abraham.
I don't have an issue with a literal 6 day creation as outlined in Genesis 1 and don't see a disharmony between Genesis and Revelation, because Genesis tells the story of the fall of mankind and Revelation tells us of mankind's ultimate redemption. I don't see any inconsistency with believing in both YEC and FP (full preterism.)
I will have a chance to meet Ed Stevens in the next few months and will express these same views to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 31, 2014 17:47:47 GMT -5
Excellent comments!
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Apr 13, 2014 16:42:19 GMT -5
I will have a chance to meet Ed Stevens in the next few months and will express these same views to him. It would be very interesting to hear what they've come up with to address your questions. |
|
