Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

This is a posting of Michael Bennetts SGP blog regarding a Quote from BCS

A Beyond Creation Science Contradiction - The Garden
• Posted by Michael Bennett on July 19, 2009 at 6:00pm
* A Beyond Creation Science Contradiction

So I a am re-reading the section called "A Biblical Defense of death Before the Fall" page 220. I get to page 221 (the bottom) and look at their argument that is used.

==============================

BCS Page 221

"An overlooked passage in Genesis also reveals how the idea of a radical change in the physical world at the time of the fall and the flood is foreign to the author of Genesis. Note the intriguing reference to the original garden:

Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, toward Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) (Gen.13:10 NIV)

This text compares the physical condition of the Jordan Valley and Egypt to the physical condition of the original garden. Just as the well watered garden caused fruit trees and animals to grow and prosper so the well-watered plain produced bountiful food for man and animals. The days of Abraham and Lot were long after the fall of Adam and Noah's flood, yet Genesis tells us that the conditions Abraham and Lot experienced on the plain of Jordan were comparable to the conditions of the Garden of God.

How could the author of Genesis make this comparison (as well as a reference to the land of Egypt) if he believed planet Earth was an idyllic paradise radically different in Abraham's day from the time before the fall?"

==============================

Did you catch that folks? The garden was a real physical place in Genesis 1-3 according to Tim Martin. But how can this be? Where are we now according to Tim? Aren't we in the garden according to BCS (they compare the garden to the city of Revetaion and claim that they areof the same nature). I thought their argument was that ithe garden / city is the SAME in Revelation as in Genesis? Go figure, they just defeated their own view and supported ours.

Out view is that the Bible moves from type to anti-type etc. *As seen in previous posts found in the BCS section for example.

According to their argument (Genesis is the same nature as revelation) But Tim Martin clearly makes the garden physical here in his BCS book.

"This text compares the physical condition of the Jordan Valley and Egypt to the physical condition of the original garden. Just as the well watered garden caused fruit trees and animals to grow and prosper so the well-watered plain produced bountiful food for man and animals. The days of Abraham and Lot were long after the fall of Adam and Noah's flood, yet Genesis tells us that the conditions Abraham and Lot experienced on the plain of Jordan were comparable to the conditions of the Garden of God"

So we should be in a physical garden / city - according to their own words and reasoning since they claim that the garden and city are of the same nature and yet they argue above that the garden is physical. So much for all of the critiques of our view as the "inconsistent" one.

End of Michaels blog Post.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Folks Michael failed to read the book again thoroughly and leads his friends into a false understanding and generates many post based upon his error of application.

Let’s keep reading on page 222 of BCS

A “literal” reading of the prophet suggests that there is no substantial
physical difference between the garden of Eden and the land of Canaan
before the exile. Joel explicitly compares the promised land to the
garden of Eden.
Perhaps a better way to understand these two references to the
original garden is simply that the imagery of the garden of Eden
throughout the entire Bible is applied wherever God’s people live in
friendship and covenant with God.

End quote:

Joel is not the only one to take the Genesis Garden literally. Ezekiel clearly sees Eden imagery as constituting physical people and Nations.

Eze 28:12-13 "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. (13) YOU WERE IN EDEN, THE GARDEN OF GOD; … On the day that you were created they were prepared. 14 You were an anointed guardian cherub. …



Eze 31:2 "Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his multitude: "Whom are you like in your greatness? … 9 THE CEDARS IN THE GARDEN of God could not rival it, nor the fir trees equal its boughs; neither were the plane trees like its branches; NO TREE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD was its equal in beauty. (9) I made it beautiful in the mass of its branches, and ALL THE TREES OF EDEN ENVIED IT, THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD.

Eze 36:35 And they will say, 'This land that was desolate has become LIKE THE GARDEN OF EDEN, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.'

Now Michael is clearly confused by this as he thinks that Eden represents a mystical garden. He doesn’t realize that Tim and Jeff put forth that the Garden is used as Imagery language to denote where God’s people dwell in “friendship and covenant with God”. Michael chose not to read or quote their explanation and now he has sent his friends off on a wild goose chase after some imagined misapplication that would have been clarified if he would simply pay attention and not be so quick to pull the trigger to play the gotcha game.

A huge problem that Michael is having is that it appears he doesn’t fully understand biblical metaphor and is constantly confused by others making spiritual application regarding it. I’m not sure how he ever got through the book of Revelation without being able to distinguish between metaphorical application to the real events that John was portraying with imagery. Sometimes Biblical imagery is just a daunting task for some folks.

Views: 80

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

standard operating procedure
How about pages 222-223:

-----------------------------------

"Perhaps a better way to understand these two references [Gen. 13:10 & Joel 2:3] to the original garden is simply that the imagery of the garden of Eden throughout the entire Bible is applied wherever God's people live in friendship and covenant with God [emphasis in original]...

--->>> {see quotes of David Chilton at this point in the book for further discussion... would Sam Frost agree with Chilton here?}

".... Eden as a place of God's presence and blessing is confirmed by other texts such as Lamentations 2:6; Isaiah 51:3; and Ezekiel 31:8-9, 16-18 c.f. Matthew 13:31-32..."

------------------------------------------

I trust that looks like Covenant Creation to our critics? I hope so. If only they would actually read the book... It gets a bit tiresome watching this foolishness. It was entertaining for awhile, but it is getting pretty sad.

I mean, really, is this the best that they can come up with? Quote a page of discussion, (written mainly to a futurist audience who is stuck in literalism la-la land) and yell "GOTCHA!" No comment about THE VERY NEXT PAGE which brings the whole discussion to our target conclusion.

This is pathetic. If this is the preterist version of "scholarship" please let me off at the next stop! There is a reason why Covenant Creation continues to catch on. The critics have been some of the most effective aids to the growth of Covenant Creation.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com
Norm,
Michale's confusion or is it just plain trying to misrepresent ? Mixed with Jason's constant spinning things to make themselves look like victims is sad to see day in and day out...I'm sorry but even Sam seems confused!

Sam say's July 18th "I am glad, too, that somehow, everyone seems to know of how our "debate" came about. I mean, the Pretbloggers were apparently "behind the scenes", and now, John S. knows a little something, too. How do they know? Eavesdropping on my phone?

LOL..I'm not sure how the pretbloggers got the secret information.But i just copied and pasted it on the 16th from their site a day after they posted it on the 15th and i will just assume they got it from Sam's post on the Dr. Talbot - S. Frost Debate 13th!

In all fairness to Sam i know he has been under medical care :)
I have to ask the question. I am on both of these sites a lot, SGP more than this one. I have the book BCS and have read parts of it but not all of it. I am an OEC, like yourself so I have not qualms with this.

My question is this. It seems that at some level CC is presented as an allegorical or metaphorical interpretation of Genesis (and by this I mean that there was not necessarily a physical Adam or Eden or Eve...at any point in History). But perusing the book it seems that in fact CC does argue for a physical Adam and Eden, just that this Adam (a) was not the first and only human on earth at the time and (b) this Adam did not necessarily live 6000-10,000 years ago.

Am I wrong in this? The views of a local flood seem to support this. There was a literal Noah and literal ark and a literal flood. But it was local in geography. The same with the Great Tribulation. An actual event occured (the physical), but had a global spiritual impact. The same, I assume (????) with Adam. There was a real Adam (the physical), but the events that occured in Eden had a global spiritual impact.

Personally I believe a version of the two Adams theory (Gen 1 - ancient "man", Gen 2 & 3 - ancient "man" and recent Adam stories combined, Gen 4... - recent Adam only) first proposed about 1656 AD, but I am still curious whether or not CC accepts that there was at some point in time a literal and physical Adam.

Thanks,
Patrick Stone
I have never once heard anyone argue against a physical Adam and Eve. Certainly nowhere on this site.
Patrick… all the proponents of CC that I have talked with accept and acknowledge "a physical Adam". Where some confusion seems to lie is in the degree of consistency this position takes after that, in that it dogmatically maintains that "any sort of physical creation requires a physical fulfillment of Rev. 21:1" – a "covenantal" understanding of Rev 21:1 then rightly argued etc, even though such an outworking involves this physical realm.

The problem as I see it with the language of this approach is this – on what basis or grounds is "any sort" or degree of "physical creation" precluded from Gen1 WHEN TOTAL "physicality" is then claimed and maintained for Adam alone – a vital and key part of this said creation? IOW, how is this arbitrary line drawn that excludes all of physicality from creation except Adam? – and thus how consistent is this?

Tim, Jeff et al… maybe you guys need to modify or work on the language of this premise of yours??
Davo,

At the time we wrote BCS, Tim was not ready to accept other men living concurrently with Adam. He still might not be.

And since there is some ambiguity in the text, there is no absolute reason why he should. Adam was the first to be in covenant with God. A federal head, as it were. Adam could fulfill that role as either the first literal man, as the biological head of the clan, or as the first high priest.

My personal view, at this time, is the Sea in Genesis 1 are numerous nations. About 6000 years ago, God brought some tribe out of that Sea and made a covenant with them. Adam was the priest of that tribe, or possibly, an archetype (to use Walton's language) of the men of that tribe.

Genesis describes a physical reality. It does not describe the creation of the physical universe.
Jeff… thanks for your reasoned and reasonable response – I appreciate your non-reactionary replies.

This to me makes some sense, as opposed to what I've heard previously in comparison to the quote I mentioned above. I have no problem in general with a 'covenant creation' model as a derived or applied meaning of the creation account – I don't buy into a "scientific" approach of either OEC or YEC.

Where I find have found it difficult to buy with any credibility the "any sort of physical creation requires a physical fulfillment of Rev. 21:1" rationale is that IF I legitimately reframe this in terms of "the flood" it makes a nonsense of it regardless of whether it be local or universal [my preference is local], and would read thus:

"Any sort of physical creation requires a physical fulfillment of Gen 7:24 et al" – and I'd say, yeah absolutely! And this would be consistent and doesn't deny covenant implications inherent within the story. IOW, if the "the creation account" is said to be consistent metaphor of the covenant, with little regard for "the physical", then so too must "the flood account" be consistent metaphor the covenant, with little regard for "the physical" – the problem then comes, how far are you prepared to take metaphor?

So, that said – IF the "beasts" of the creation account are said to be "collective natural man" then why cannot "Adam" be said to be "collective covenant man" without the need to hold to an individual man, as up till this point has been rigorously argued. [I have no real issue with an individual man either as such can be accommodated as you've now suggested].

Now what you've said here is somewhat where I'd be treading with a "local creation" i.e., "physical realities" that I've outlined previously that you said was somewhere near Sailhammer's approach etc.

Again thanks for this.
Davo,

Well Thank-you.

Walton's archetype Adam would be an individual who represents the collective. This is in the sense of, "If you've seen one Adam, you've seen them all." I have problems with this, but I've got to go through it and see if his point has merit.

The point of the flood was not that it was local, but that it is part of Seth's family history and not part of Cain's. It is part of Seth's the genealogy. A judgment against Seth's line is necessarily a physically local judgment. The physical land involved is defined in covenantal terms. It is the land occupied by Seth's descendants.

With Creation though, we don't have this necessity. And with the Consummation, I have a hard time seeing what land was destroyed. The land isn't the main point in either case.

You are welcome
JL: And with the Consummation, I have a hard time seeing what land was destroyed.

Jeff what if taking a prêteristic approach we understand "the land" being laid waste as indicative of the heart of Israel – Jerusalem and in particular her Temple as Daniel writes of under Divine deluge [judgement]: "And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined. … Even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate."

The prophesied carnage of the Consummation was witnessed as Israel's AD66-70 'lake of fire' and was a conflagration poured out like a flood. And not only that, it wasn't just restricted to Jerusalem alone for all Palestine and somewhat beyond was affected in those last days, though Jerusalem and her Temple was where for all covenantal intents and purposes it ultimately ended.

And so in a prêteristic sense I'm seeing apocalyptic language descriptive of the physical land very much destroyed in covenantal terms – that which was tangible being the outward sign of a greater spiritual reality. At least this is how I'm presently understanding it.
Davo,

Are you seeing the land in Genesis 1 "created" in the same manner it was "destroyed?" The physical land still existed after the destruction, in a material sense. The land itself was only destroyed in a functional sense, the land became "without form and void."

I'm not denying physical creation in a functional sense. Only in a material sense. I'm having trouble finding words to make this distinction. It is not a common distinction to make in modern English.

Does that help?
JL: Are you seeing the land in Genesis 1 "created" in the same manner it was "destroyed?" The physical land still existed after the destruction, in a material sense. The land itself was only destroyed in a functional sense, the land became "without form and void."

Yes Jeff this is how I'm presently seeing it. By its very nature there would be material or visual evidence reflecting such functionality, but the afore mentioned are but the props and backdrop to the real story being played out on the covenantal stage.

Thus I would see John's apocalyptic 'lake of fire' in terms of a covenantal "recapitulation of judgement" relative to the covenant land [world] of Israel alone, and NOT something ethereally perpetual extending beyond that end-of-the-age period wherein it the 'lake of fire' fulfilled its role.

I might also note Jeff how this 'second death' is relative wholly and solely to the covenant people alone in that ONLY "Death" and "Hades" [idiomatic or euphemisms of old covenant Israel] were cast into this lake of fire and NOT "the sea" i.e., the gentiles, as per Rev 20:13-14.

RSS

Events

Forum

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 26. 6 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 22, 2016. 9 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service