View Full Version : Beyond Creation Science
Tim Martin wrote the book Beyond Creation Science last year. http://www.truthinliving.org This book shows how a preterist should adopt a local Genesis flood to be consistent with his belief in a physically local final judgement. He's expanding the arguments to introduce local flood adherrents (mostly old-earth creationists) to preterism.
Has anyone here read the book? Any comments?
JL
G'day JL - I haven't, but I heard he's supposed to be releasing an updated version - any idea when that might be out?
G'day JL - I haven't, but I heard he's supposed to be releasing an updated version - any idea when that might be out?
We need comments for the rewrite. What to keep, what to toss, what to improve on. No time set yet. It might take a year. You can read the book online. Or purchase a copy and support his work.
JL
JL,
The world being reserved by fire (2 Peter 3:7) imo was talking both about local and worldwide. The completion of the OC (locally) had a worldwide impact.
What do you feel the purpose of a local flood would be? If so, may I see your biblical perspective? If not, what do you think the purpose was?
Amie
Amie,
The world being reserved by fire (2 Peter 3:7) imo was talking both about local and worldwide. The completion of the OC (locally) had a worldwide impact.
But was that completion physically worldwide?
What do you feel the purpose of a local flood would be? If so, may I see your biblical perspective? If not, what do you think the purpose was?
If the flood was worldwide, that makes it physically the biggest eschatological event. It was bigger than the second coming. It makes Noah, a third Adam. We all descend from him. Where did the Nephilim in Num. 13 and Deut. 2 come from? Num. 13:33 says they came from the Nephilim in Gen. 6.
My take is, the purpose of the flood was to destroy all the covenant people, not all people.
JL
My take is, the purpose of the flood was to destroy all the covenant people, not all people.
Makes sense. I believe the "sons of God" were the covenant people and the "daughters of men" were gentiles.
But was that completion physically worldwide?
Nope, it wasn't.
After thinking about this, I see how it is consistant to see the flood as local. I do not understand the importance of proving a local flood. Are y'all suggesting that it has reverse implications?
Thanks,
Amie
Amie,
What would happen if every preterist became and old-earth creationist and every old-earth creationist became a preterist?
Do you think we'd have the consistency and the numbers to accomplish something?
I don't think there will be a fundamental change in Chrisitianity in this country unless there is a fundamental change in fundamentalism. I'm in this for world dominion.
I'm in this for world dominion.
ROFL!! Shall I call you.... The Brain (http://www.cartoondepot.com/pages/img/wb/pc/03-RC1220%20Pinky_Brain.jpg)...
Amie,
Shall I call you.... The Brain...
As my daughter the economist pointed out, laboratory mice have short lives. Therefore they have a short time preference. If they can't succeed in one night, they can't succeed.
The Psalmist said we are promised 1000 generations. Twenty-thousand years from now, we shall see how far along I am.
JL
JL,
On a related note - Do you believe that Adam was "first man" or "first covenant man"?
Amie
JL,
I only skimmed Tim's book online, did he cover any of this?:
Gen 6:7, God says he will wipe off man from the face of the earth. Realized eschatology doesn't call for a literal interpretation in Rev 20:11, and it isn't literal in Gen 4:14 either (in the "end of days" Gen 4:3).
If "all flesh"was literal, and had become corrupt (Gen 6:12) and God was about to put an end literally to "all flesh" (Gen 6:13), then how is it that Noah (who is literal flesh and bone) lived?
Was Noah symbolic "flesh" if God had yet to establish his covenant with Noah (Gen 6:18)?
"Flesh" being a covenantal language begins early in Genesis - in the garden. It is relevant to nakedness and the skin covering given them after they knew that they were naked.
Amie
JL,
On a related note - Do you believe that Adam was "first man" or "first covenant man"?
Amie
BTW,
I feel that he was "first covenant man" and that death passed to "all" through him..
Amie
Amie,
I only skimmed Tim's book online, did he cover any of this?:
Gen 6:7, God says he will wipe off man from the face of the earth. Realized eschatology doesn't call for a literal interpretation in Rev 20:11, and it isn't literal in Gen 4:14 either (in the "end of days" Gen 4:3).
This is pretty much Tim's thesis. Milton Terry actually defined literal interpretation well over 100 years ago. What dispies call literal is something different. By Terry's definition, it's all literal. Tim essentially agrees with Terry (a few minor points of difference).
Your other points then are antithetical to Tim's view or are not discussed.
JL
PS. Fischer (The Origins Solution) teaches Adam was a separate creation from the rest of mankind (essentially the first covenant man). Adam and his descendants were blotted out. We are not descendants of Adam. Terry has a different solution to the problem. I liked Fischer's solution, but now that I'm starting to understand Terry's, I'm starting to abandon Fischer's solution as too dispy-literal. Somebody needs to work on this.
Paige
02-27-2006, 06:32 PM
JL,
Does Terry's interpretation require us to believe that Cain married his sister? I have never read Milton Terry and I'm kind of curious as to how he saw things.
Paige
JL,
First: Who's "Terry"? B: (hahaha) I think that since "flesh" in the flood story is more than likely covenantal, that it supports Tim's theory rather than being some sort of antithesis; but hey, it's okay to disagree :).
I feel that Adam was first covenant man and "of" the mankind created in Genesis 1. Death entered into the world through Adam because the OC first entered the world through him. If by "a little work" you mean that someone needs to study on it, I've done some digging with some of the folks around here.
Amie
Paige,
Does Terry's interpretation require us to believe that Cain married his sister? I have never read Milton Terry and I'm kind of curious as to how he saw things.
I don't know, but Fischer's version requires Seth to marry his sister.
JL
First: Who's "Terry"? B: (hahaha) I think that since "flesh" in the flood story is more than likely covenantal, that it supports Tim's theory rather than being some sort of antithesis; but hey, it's okay to disagree :).
Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Apocalyptics.
I feel that Adam was first covenant man and "of" the mankind created in Genesis 1. Death entered into the world through Adam because the OC first entered the world through him. If by "a little work" you mean that someone needs to study on it, I've done some digging with some of the folks around here.
That's what I mean. Glad you've started it.
JL
Paige
03-21-2006, 11:01 AM
I have been closely following all of the posts and comments concerning Tim Martin's series, "Beyond Creation Science." What I'm noticing concerning the reaction that occurs over the covenantal application of the flood and the book of Genesis is that there seems to be some fear involved in the thought that this concerned only a covenant people. My question is this:
Does the covenantal view cause some people to feel that God is unconcerned with them personally?
Paige
Infinite Grace
03-21-2006, 11:14 AM
I don't think so Paige. I think that it is that they see the unfolding of all their religious safety net in front of their very eyes. We have all experienced it a time or two. I remember arguing with Barry at first about Comprehensive Grace. I seem to remember that the first time you and I met, you disagreed with my take on God's sovereign plan of the Fall, followed by redemption. Even now, we seem to have some disagreements in our fellowship here about things like homosexuality, marriage, schooling of children, etc. These things occur when one opens himself up to rethinking one's theology. It is scary.
backtothefuture
03-21-2006, 02:38 PM
Paige,
I have asked that same question. Ed, I have felt my Religious safety net drop me lately. I do wonder, if so much has been fulfilled and so much of what was written in the Bible was for only a certain people or certain time, I would like to know what is left for me. I find my self wondering if God even answers prayer now. Those kinds of things. I would like some kind of assurance on some things. Scripture still comforts me at times, and yet, is it really for me? AGHHHHHHHHH
Nancy
Paige
03-21-2006, 02:55 PM
Nancy,
I would say it most definitely is "for" you. All of scripture is there "for" us. The bible is Israelcentric (ha, I may have made up a new word!). What I mean is it centers on Israel, and it does so because God chose to work redemption through those covenant people. I think some people read this and get an idea that God only cared for them. I disagree with that thinking. What did God tell Jonah when he was pouting over the "salvation" of Nineveh? "And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left - and much livestock?"
God shows right here that even while dealing specifically through one people group, He has always had the "whole" in view. The canon of scripture is closed, but that does not imply God's withdrawl from us or silence from Him either. In all circumstances He is present with us. He is living in you as He lives in others. I like what Mother Theresa had to say. She said that every time she touched the lepers and those she ministered to, she was touching Jesus. That is where I want my perspective to go. I think it would change so much of the way I see things. How about you?
Paige
backtothefuture
03-21-2006, 07:39 PM
Paige,
That was a great answer and comforting to me also. Sometimes I get worried that just because somethings have been fulfilled that that means the end of everything.
Thanks,
Nancy
Paige
06-15-2006, 03:36 PM
How goes the book, JL? Very interested in its release, and how it will impact us all :) Any updates?
Paige
How goes the book, JL? Very interested in its release, and how it will impact us all :) Any updates?
Paige
Very slow. It's primarily a book to introduce Old Earth Creationists to Preterism. Very difficult for Tim to think that direction and to many pieces for me to keep track of.
Plus, Tim has a seasonal job and the season started early.
JL
Paige,
Tim will be speaking at the New Creations Conference in Page AZ in July. I'll be there to help with the Q&A session.
http://www.newcreationministries.tv/
JL
Paige
06-19-2006, 09:54 AM
So many conferences going on this year, and I can't be at any of them (whine, sniff). Oh well, make sure you give us an update on how it went there :)
Paige
Paige,
Tim Martin's church in Whitehall is having a conference in October. Is that one close enough? It looks like a 4 hour drive each way.
JL
Paige
06-20-2006, 12:03 PM
Hmmm...I didn't know about that. I'll have to check it out...Thanks for the info.
Paige
JL,
How would a local flood have impacted the world as a whole, in your opinion? (If at all)
Amie
Amie,
I'm not sure what you are asking? By "whole world" do you mean the "whole world" of the flood account in Genesis? Or do you mean the literal "whole world."
The Hebrew "eretz" is equivalent to the Greek "ge." Both are often translated "land" but are translated "world" or "earth" in the flood and end-times accounts. In that sense, the flood only destroyed the land where it occurred, just as the destruction of Jerusalem was limited primarily to Judea.
If you mean the latter, I can only answer with questions.
How did the flood that destroyed Ninevah impact the whole world?
How did the flood that destroyed Jerusalem at the time of Jeramiah impact the whole world?
How did the flood that destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 impact the whole world?
How did all the other floods in Scripture impact the whole world?
How did the crucifixtion of one man in Jerusalem 1973 yeas ago impact the whole world?
JL
JL,
I meant the literal whole world, and your questions are actually great answers :).
I read that someone said that Tim Martin's view of the local flood discredits what is perjoratively called "preterist universalism".
Firstly, I want to say that I have nothing against "universalists" or "universalism", or "preterists".
The definition of "preterist" is largely unclear (it varies so doggon much), but they seem to have in common the belief that there was a coming of Christ in AD 70.
The definition of "universalism" is "The belief that all humans will be saved from eternal damnation or annihilation in hell."
So it would seem that "preterist universalist" could be summed up in meaning that the person believes that there was a coming in AD 70 and that someday everyone will be "saved" and won't get cooked in hell.
I'm still not sure how the local flood would discredit the "Preterist Universalist" view. That just doesn't accurately represent my own view.
I think that it is safe to say that "Pantelists" and those having the "Transmillennial" view agree that there was a coming in AD 70. As well, I think that it is safe to say that neither look forward to any more comings in the future.
They believe in both accomplished salvation and that not everyone is saved. Salvation is not limited to a single definition in these views, therefore these groups cannot concur with the Christian "Universalist" view.
#1 salvation = coming into the awareness of redemption. This I would venture to call "personal salvation". It is also this, by my understanding, that Davo would say leads to the blessings of service.
#2 salvation = redemption in that there is no more death.
#3 salvation = from out of the wrath. This one is Israel specific.
What we do have in common with Christian Universalists is the "universal" or "comprehensive" scope of the grace of God.
I'm sure that we could dedicate a thread to clarification, but I shared that for the sake of sharing my thoughts on the "local flood". I believe that the resurrection of Christ impacted the world (the literal entire world) in such a way that all were redeemed. I see it as a localized event, impacting the entirety of humanity. If Noah's flood were localized, it does not diminish the impact of it.
Amie
Amie,
It is not our intent to destroy universalism with this book. We are trying to follow Scripture as best we can, settling some important origins and endtimes issues.
The book is a demonstration of a consistent preterist hermeneutic on both ends of Scripture. It will impact the way you think about Scripture.
A local flood will not destroy universalism. Some of our detractors claim a local flood supports universalism.
We have not discussed universalism directly in the book. But some of the issues we develop directly touch some of the issues that universalists are concerned with.
The covenant creation view is completly incompatible with the reformed version of universalism. And the covenant view of the fall and it's agreement with Rev. 21-22 is completely incompatible with a few other types of universalism. This will be obvious to most readers who are thinking about universalism as they read it, but not to readers who don't.
Universalists will read our new book and will like some things and dislike others. Some universalists will reject universalism because of the book. Some universalists will reject the book because of their universalism. Some universalists will accept the book and keep their universalism, possibly adopting a different basis from what they had before.
Regardless, those who read the book will be changed.
JL
JL,
I guess that you can't get into specifics at this time :). I honestly didn't think it your intent to destroy universalism with the book. What I kinda like though, is that even if you did I'd know that it wouldn't be personal. You strike me as one who is much more interested in the issues than whether or not I wash my hands before I eat :D.
I hope that you know that it wasn't my intent to try and destroy any view in what I was sharing. I just see some consistency in the local flood idea. I'm still on the fence, but nowadays I'm teetering ever more closely to the local flood side.
Amie
dwhochner
05-07-2007, 03:37 PM
Hello,
May I jump in? I would like to say I am impressed with Tim Martin's "Beyond Creation Science" in regard with the flood of Noah which was a local. In his book on chapter 7, he seems he need to look more on Genesis creation account. I would agree with him.
Here's what Chris Camillo wrote:
"I'm inclined to think that Gen 1-3 is the story of the "creation" of the "land of Israel" and the first descendant of Abraham (Adam) that was placed by Yahweh into the "land."
For one thing, the geographic borders of the "garden" and the "land" promised to Abraham are about the same. Also, throughout the Law and Prophets, the "heavens and earth" are used to speak of the people of Israel and their land/Law.
Moreover, all of the "de-creation" language (apocalyptic language) in the Prophets and Revelation (which concerns the rise and fall of Israel and the "nations") seems to harken back to the original "creation" language in Gen 1. Afterall, Genesis is the "beginning" of the history of chosen people and the Law of Moses. Of course, when you study the rest of the Law and Prophets, and the occasional references to "Eden" you realize that these remarks concern the nation Israel, and not the universe. This is all very consistent with "preterism," too, because we understand that the "heavens and earth" language in the prophets refers to "nations" and not to the destruction of the physical universe."
I have seen some discussion in this forum that Adam was the first covenant man, not the mankind. The Bible seems doesn't say much about before the Genesis account and post parousia of Christ. Remember when God says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." What did He mean "the end"? Something to ponder.
Donald
Barry
05-07-2007, 10:10 PM
Remember when God says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." What did He mean "the end"? Something to ponder.
Donald
Jam 5:11 Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.
He is looking to the end of the age. Christ is the end of that age.
The "end of the Lord" is the visible attribute of mercy which God consummated visibly in that end.
Hope that make sense.
Barry
dwhochner
05-08-2007, 10:00 AM
Barry,
I understand that and I would agree with you but my point is that "the end" means all done for God's covenant people and nothing more after that.
Re 21:6
Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.
This context was during the first century.
Donald
Praizdrummer
05-09-2007, 01:29 PM
Tim Martin wrote the book Beyond Creation Science last year. Has anyone here read the book? Any comments?
JL
Hello. I've read both the original book and the recent revisions. I think it's a useful, albeit simplistic, presentation of the basic arguments in favor of a local flood. However, I don't think the author does an adequate job of developing his view that Genesis is an apocalyptic creation story.
In the revision, he tries to show that Genesis 1-2 has all the literary elements of apocalyptic liturature found in the later prophets, but his argumentation is severely weakened by a complete dependence upon spurious quotes from Milton Terry and David Chilton, as well as a very selective presentation of only the supposed evidence that could support his own view.
I don't feel that the author makes an adequate defense of his novel apocalyptic view of Genesis 1-2, nor does he deal at all with any potential objections. I had an opportunity to correspond with the author briefly and tried to encourage him to delay publishing the revised edition until he can work out a more logically substantial presentation of his views.
PD
dwhochner
05-09-2007, 02:13 PM
Welcome Praizdrummer, :clap2:
Yeah, I agree with you about Tim Martin's book that need to work on Gen. 1-2, or maybe 1-3. ;)
Is his revisied edition already come out? If not, I am not sure if he's done and ready to publish. I am hoping we can discuss more about Gen. 1-3 and tackle some issues "in the beginning" like we did in the "end time" (preterist/pantelist view, of course).
Donald :biggrinbounce:
PD and Donald,
Tim and I are working on a new edition. When I started this thread, we still had no idea what to do with The Creation. The book you read was about the Flood and had only speculations as to what that means for the Fall and Creation. We now have 5 long chapters on those 2 subjects.
Hopefully, this Fall it will be out.
JL
dwhochner
06-07-2007, 11:12 AM
Hello all,
Here is what I would interpret from the Genesis creation accounts:
Gen 1:1 A beginning of Elohim (the plural form to indicate that the angels (gods) are involved in the creation along with Yahweh) created the sky (heavens) and the land (earth) (covenant people/land, within Abraham’s inheritance, Gen. 15:18; 2 Peter 3:4-6; Rev.22:16, not the universe, the planet earth, and the mankind/pre-Adamites/non-Adamites),
2 the land was waste and without form; and it was dark on the face of the deep, and the spirit (breath) of God was moving on the face of the waters.
3 And Elohim commanded, “Let there be dawn,” and there was the dawn.
4 And Elohim, observed the dawn, saw it was beautiful. And Elohim made a distinction between dawn and dusk.
5 Then God made a proclamation, declaring the dawn to begin the day and dusk to begin the night, so there was sunset and sunrise, a single day.
6 And Elohim commanded, “Let there be a fog to lift up from upon the waters to form the clouds over the land.
7 And Elohim filled the sky over the land with the clouds.
8 And Elohim gave the name the “skies”, where the clouds floated overhead. And there was sunset and there was sunrise, another (second) day.
9 And Elohim commanded, “Let the waters (lakes, rivers, and streams) under the sky come together in one place, and let the dry area be seen.” And it was so.
10 And Elohim named the dry area the “land”, and the waters gathered in their place were named the “seas.”
11 And Elohim commanded, “Let grass come up on the earth, and plants producing seed, and fruit-trees giving fruit, in which is their seed, after their sort." And it was so.
12 And grass came up on the land, and every plant producing seed of its sort, and every tree producing fruit, in which is its seed, of its sort, and Elohim saw that it was beautiful.
13 And there was sunset and there was sunrise, another (third) day.
14 And Elohim commanded, “Let there be lights (sun and moon) in the heavenly bodies, for a division between the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for marking the changes of the year, and for days and for years. (these were the calendar for the great feasts days when His people were to worship Him in the land).
15 And let them be for lights in the heavenly bodies to give light on the land”, and it was so.
16 And Elohim made the two great lights: the greater light (sun) to be the ruler of the day, and the smaller light (moon) to be the ruler of the night: and he made the stars.
17 And Elohim put them in the heavenly bodies, to give light on the land;
18 To have rule over the day and the night, and for a division between the light and the dark: and Elohim saw that it was beautiful.
19 And there was sunset and there was sunrise, another (fourth) day.
20 And Elohim commanded, “Let the waters be full of living things, and let birds be in flight over the land under the heavenly bodies.”
21 And Elohim made great sea-beasts, and every kind of living and moving thing with which the waters were full, and every kind of winged bird: and Elohim saw that it was beautiful.
22 And Elohim gave them his blessing, saying, “Be fertile and have increase, making all the waters of the seas full, and let the birds be increased in the land.”
23 And there was sunset and there was sunrise, another (fifth) day.
24 And Elohim commanded, “Let the land give birth to all kinds of living things, cattle and all things moving on the land, and beasts of the land after their kind”. And it was so.
25 And Elohim made the beast of the land after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything moving on the face of the land after its kind. And Elohim saw that it was beautiful.
26 And Elohim commanded, “Let us (as we seen in verse one, angels were involved) make man (Adamic covenant) in our image, like us (remember God is a spirit and no man can see Yahweh. The angels’ appearance is like the humans, I’ll explain a little bit later): and let him have rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the land (not planet earth) and over every living thing which goes flat on the land.”
27 And Elohim made man (Adamite) in his image, in the image of Elohim he made him: male (Adam) and female (Eve) he made them.
28 And Elohim gave them his blessing and said to them, “Be fertile and have increase, and make the land full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the land.”
29 And Elohim commanded, “See, I have given you every plant producing seed, on the face of all the land, and every tree which has fruit producing seed, they will be for your food.
30 And to every beast of the land and to every bird of the air and every living thing moving on the face of the land I have given every green plant for food”. And it was so.
31 And Elohim saw everything which he had made and it was very beautiful. And there was sunset and there was sunrise, another (sixth) day.
Gen. 2:1 And the sky (heavens) and the land (earth) and all things in them were complete.
2 And on the seventh day Elohim came to the end of all his work; and on the seventh day he took his rest from all the work which he had done.
3 And Elohim gave his blessing to the seventh day and made it holy (Sabbath): because on that day he took his rest from all the work which he had made and done.
4 These are the births (each day?) of the heaven and the earth when they were made.
Here is where I see "Elohim" and "Yahweh" and "men" and "angels" all used to speak of the three who came to Abraham. The following verses all see to refer to the same incident. In Gen 18:1-2, it says that "the Lord (Yahweh) appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mare." Gen 18:13 also says that "the Lord (Yahweh)" asked "Why did Sarah laugh." The visitors are called "men" in 18:20-22. Then, in 19:1, they are called "angels" when they came to Sodom. And, then, in 19:12-13 the "angels" say that "Yahweh" sent them to destroy Sodom. Finally, in 19:29, it says that "elohim destroyed the cities of the plain."
Also, in Amos 4:11, it is "Yahweh" who says that "I have overthrown some of you (Israelites) just as elohim (angels) overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah."
What do you think?
I may comment more after the conference next week, but...
"Elohim" has a plural form, and a single meaning. It means "majesty of majesties" or "judge of judges". The plurality is in quality and not quantity. Other Hebrew words are the same such as, water (myim), heaven (shamyim), life (chaiim), and face (panim).
God made "male" (translated from "zakar" meaning "to be sharp") and "female" (translated from "naqebah" meaning "to be pierced; hole"). Those words are pointing to biology alone and are the words used in that text - "Eve" is surely not mentioned until Genesis 2, and "adam" simply means "mankind" in Genesis 1.
"Angel" is a "transliterated" word. That means that it was untranslated. It is a Hebrew word. It means "messenger" and the word "messenger" can be used in place of "angel" anywhere it exists biblically.
In Genesis 1 there is no mention of "angels" at all, just like there is no mention of covenant/promise, and no mention of "Eve" or "Adam" the individual.
Amie
dwhochner
06-07-2007, 01:58 PM
Amie,
I want to add something. Some think in Genesis 1 and 2 are separate events but there is a problem. Read Gen. 5:1-2:
1 This [is] an account of the births (generations) of Adam: In the day of God's preparing man, in the likeness of God He hath made him; 2 a male and a female He hath prepared them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man (Gen. 1:26-27), in the day of their being prepared. (YLT)
I want to ask you, to whom it was "us" and "our"? What is the "image of Elohim" even no one can see Yahweh God at any time?
Actually, "Eve" was first mentioned in Gen 3, not in Gen 2. ;)
In Hosea 6:7 says And they (Israelites), as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me.
Yes, Adam did transgress covenant, I agree.
Eve is "born" in Genesis 2, she is the "woman" ("ishah") presented to "man" ("iysh"). She isn't mentioned by name until Genesis 3, you're right.
I do not think that Genesis 1 and 2 are different accounts, I think that they are in order though and not at the same time, or 'same thing, different words'. I'll explain more after the conference. I'm going into that in my presentation.
Amie
dwhochner
06-07-2007, 05:16 PM
Amie,
Ok, let me know when you get back from the conference fwith your presentation.
I'm gonna to ask you, to whom it was "us" and "our"? What is the "image of Elohim" even no one can see Yahweh God at any time? Remember the cherubim was guardin the way to the tree of life. Also some people in the OT saw "God" and spoke with Him but it was the angel (Acts 7:30, 35, 38, 58; Judges 13:21-23; and some others).
Donald,
"Elohim" means "majesty of majesties" or "judge of judges", therefore "us" is the proper choice by the recorder of pronoun without there having to be quantity. The plural is a plural of quality. This is also why "Elohim" is also called "Most High".
The word translated "image" is "tselem" and it literally means "shadow". This is like the shadow that we cast over the crib when we watch over our babies. It suggests that we were made in God's care. "Likeness" ("damut") literally means "similitude" or "of the same blood".
Wings were symbols of the act of guarding, protecting, and position. Mother birds gather their chicks under their wings. Eagles nested the highest and were seen as the swiftest flyer and most sure. God is often compare to them all as well.
Ezekiel speaks of winged creatures later found in carvings (http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=megiddo%20ivories). If the symbolism is missed, then it must be concluded that they actually existed - and one might begin to suspect an actual seven-headed beast rising out of the ocean some day.
The people in the bible may have believed that they actually existed back then, just as they believed that strange gods existed - though they were to worship only one. They also believed that the world was flat and domed.
That doesn't mean that God would not use their own understandings and beliefs to relate to them. "Cherub" means guardian, and the wings as I said before are also very symbolic - both being especially meaningful to the people of that day.
If the ark was placed under a ladder instead, and the people then were extremely superstitious, they wouldn't venture beneath the ladder. It's a similar concept.
I realize though that usually muddied somewhere in culture and symbolism is some truth. King Arthur really existed, but he did not rise from the dead as the tales surrounding him say. Jesus really drank from a cup, and people would later call it the "Holy Grail". That doesn't make all of the stories surrounding it true.
I could never deny that God could have created more than us, in other unknown places or even dimensions. To me, God is capable of everything and free to choose as he wishes. I doubt "cherubim" and as I said before, "angel" is an untranslated word for "messenger".
Had you been alive in Paul's day, and spoken with him - he speaking for God, you could say that you spoke to God. It would be the same with true prophets.
Considering that your point is interesting - that they were a type of image of God (hope I'm understanding you correctly). Maybe they would be representative of the "father" looking over the crib, since his careful messages were delivered by them... messages that would ensure the care of humanity.
This reminds me of an older thread called, "The Face of God": http://talk-grace.com/showthread.php?t=14.
Very interesting though Donald and definately something to ponder.
Amie
dwhochner
06-08-2007, 11:21 AM
Amie,
I am not firm on "Us" and "Our" and "image of Elohim" as the angelic host but like you said, something to ponder. This also apply in Gen. 5:3, "When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth."
Like I said in other post in above, I see "Elohim" and "Yahweh" and "men" and "angels" all used to speak of the three who came to Abraham.
Donald,
Mind you, I would see their being the image of elohim as people, and not 'beings', but I've been thinking on it. What would your thoughts be about the image of the beast then? (If you've even gone in that direction)
Thanks,
Amie
dwhochner
06-08-2007, 04:04 PM
Amie,
No, I haven't look into the image of the beast but I assumed you're referring to the book of Revelation? If so, we need to keep in mind about the "serpent" which was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made (which I haven't come with it yet but it is the key to understand) and also Daniel's Beasts.
dwhochner
06-19-2007, 09:58 AM
It seems make more sense. The universe, the planet earth, and the people were already existed before the Genesis creation accounts (Gen 1-2). There was the water over the land and then there was a dawn ("light") on the 1st day, and then there was a cloudy in the sky on the 2nd day (unable to see sun, moon and stars). The land, the grass, and the planets appeared on the 3rd day. On the 4th day, the sky was cleared with the sun, the moon, and the stars (these were the calendar for the great feasts for His people) over the promised land. The birds of the air and sea creatures of the seas appeared on the 5th day. The animals of the land and finally man and woman appeared on the 6th day. Lastly, the seventh day, it was a Sabbath, a day rest.
It preserves the literal 24-hour days and avoids the need to reconcile the text with modern scientific questions. The creation story was limited to an explanation of God's preparation of the promised land for Adam's habitation, there's no need to rule out the existence of other civilizations or animal life elsewhere in the world at that time. The problems arise when people try to make the creation story explain too much.
Also preserving a literal 7-day creation, is the idea that God ordained these things in a single day - and they came forth over long periods.
Here is my perspective on Genesis 1 and 2: http://www.womenbeyond.com/?c=126&a=1153
Tim Martin wrote the book Beyond Creation Science last year. http://www.truthinliving.org This book shows how a preterist should adopt a local Genesis flood to be consistent with his belief in a physically local final judgement. He's expanding the arguments to introduce local flood adherrents (mostly old-earth creationists) to preterism.
Has anyone here read the book? Any comments?
JL
It looks like this site has changed hands. Is the book not available online anymore?
Amie
Amie,
It's still there. Just a new and improved site. One of the options on the title bar is "The Reformer." Click on it and you'll find the old book.
From the home page, or from the menu on the side when you are on Tim's church page, you can find Tim's sermons. There are 3 elders at that church and they share preaching duties. I don't know why the elder who actually runs the website doesn't put his own sermons up.
We are now working out details with a typesetter. Won't be long now until the new edition goes to press.
Blessings,
JL
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.