Deathisdefeated

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

All,

The 3rd edition of Beyond Creation Science is almost 5 years old.  It's past time to start on a new edition.

Tim and I plan to start on the new edition this winter and post the chapters one at a time as they are finished.

The basic structure of the first four chapters of the book will remain unchanged, but these chapters do have things we need to fix.  Beyond that, we will wait and see.

Any comments, the more specific the better, please email to me.  I'd appreciate reference to either page number or Chapter number and section title.  Please focus on Chapter 1 first, which can also be found at http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Read_Chapter_1 .

Thanks and Blessings,

Jeff Vaughn
Coauthor BeyondCreationScience

JeffreyLVaughn@gmail.com

Views: 835

Comment by thomas greenlee on September 18, 2012 at 5:23pm

Hey Jeff,

Has it really been 5 years since you and I sat talking that evening in Dayton and you sold me your own personal copy of the book because I wanted to study it that night and your first shipment from the printer had not yet arrived? I guess it's true, time really does fly when you're having fun.

As far as any suggestions, I have always thought your local flood argument was not as strong as it should be in that it doesn't jell with the reality of the physical action of water not rising above the lowest point. Perhaps you could flesh that concept out a little more with some physical description of the square mile area and the diameter and topography of the flooded area i.e., was there any point of land lower than 22 feet, above which a local flood water could not rise? Was there any point, actually there was a great deal of the land mass within the square area that  was much higher than 22 feet, that would have easily been utilized by animals and people to survive the flood? 

 Also it is hard to place any credibility on the relationship of a boat the size of the ark being lifted high off of the land and yet the heighth of the flood only reached 22 feet. I don't know what the draft of a boat that size, loaded to the rafters with all those animals would be, but it just seems 22 feet doesn't jell with the requirement that its bottom was lifted high off the land. Heck, there must have been many places where the water was only 3 or 4 feet deep or less, Noah could have jumped off and gone wading in those spots, better yet the people whose houses were in those places wouldn't have even been completely under water and the people wouldn't have necessarily drowned. I think these concepts lend themselves to the credibility of your whole argument and ought to be fleshed out more.

It is your book and you are entitled to say what ever you want, these are just some of my immediate observations that I think could greatly strengthen your new edition. If you want any more, you know me, I'm not reluctant to give them.

 

Regards to you and your lovely wife,

Tom

P.S., I still think either you or Tim could whip Jason/Sam's butt in a debate.

Comment by JL Vaughn on September 18, 2012 at 6:16pm

Tom, Thank-you for your confidence.

The possible physics of the flood is beyond the scope of our book.  We are trying to limit our discussion to biblical arguments for a local flood and responding to biblical arguments for a global flood.  However, it might be appropriate to add a new appendix to discuss these issues.

I personally believe the Genesis Flood was the Shuruppak Flood which has been dated from 3300 BC to 2400 BC, depending on who did the dating.  This flood covered about 30,000 sq. miles of lower Mesopotamia, was about 20-30 feet deep, and required about a year to drain and dry up.

The high "har" might have been the irrigation berms that had been dug all over Mesopotamia from the time of Adam.  Mesopotamia is so flat, those irrigation berms and the mounds covering old cities are the only things that stick up above the plain/plane.  In more recent times in hilly regions of the US and Europe, storms have dumped 2 feet or more of water over a few hours, killing everyone including those on the high ground.  In Mesopotamia, only the ziggaurats and the government buildings were more than 15 cubits high, and they were built of unfired clay.  They would have all washed away.

The tower of Babel, after the flood, was constructed to be waterproof.  Why go to that trouble unless they thought it would survive another judgment?

I don't know how familiar you are with the details of river floods on major rivers.  I suspect you have more personal experience with them than I do, but from my understanding, the primary mechanism is not water rushing down the river channel, rather, it is the water table itself rising higher than the banks of the river.  The Tigris and Euphrates share a common river basin and water table the spreads not just between the two rivers, but also typically more than a hundred miles to each side.  I have read that the hundred year floods in 1965 and 1968 mostly came out of the ground, but that the Iraq heat caused much of this ground water to evaporate (especially on the edges) and rain back in the middle for over a week straight.

A few years ago, a technique was developed that could measured how long it had been since a patch of desert had been watered by either rain of flood.  They found numerous areas covered by the Shuruppak Flood but not covered by the 1968 flood, that had been dry since the Shuruppak Flood.  Some areas outside the Shuruppak Flood had not been watered since the Ice Age.

Karen and I just got back from an Alaska Cruise.  The top deck of that ship towered some 150 above the water, yet only had a draft of 28 feet.  A flat bottomed barge made of heavy timber, 30 cubits high, would likely have a draft of 2 to 5 cubits, plus whatever loading the ballast would give it.  Hugh Ross suggests that the ark was ballasted to 15 cubits and the passage in question simply means that it never scrapped bottom.  A ballasted box with the dimensions of the ark would ride stably ballasted anywhere from 20% to 80% of its height, or from 6 to 24 cubits.

Regards to you.  Please provide more.  At this time, I'm especially interested in things that will help improve Chapters 1-4, but the Flood Chapters, 7-9, are also important.

Jeff

Comment by Doug Wilkinson on September 18, 2012 at 10:40pm

I'm confused about your position on a couple of points.  First, it seems that you are basically connecting the Mosaic Covenant with the events of the first three chapters of Genesis.  I think one of the things you should focus on is describing exactly what that relationship is (is the Genesis creation a metaphor for Sinai as it sounds like the Ezra OT theory implies, or is the Genesis story a retelling of an actual prehistoric event that is typologically similar to Sinai, or are we seeing the initial relationship with Adam as not really different than the Mosaic Covenant?).

Second, I think you will need to come up with some sort of explanation for how the physical creation was done.  I know this isn't the point of the book, but silence on what you think created the world leaves people dedicated to YEC in a bit of a vacuum.

I'm looking forward to what you come up with.

DougW

Comment by JL Vaughn on September 18, 2012 at 11:02pm

Doug,

I originally defined Covenant Creation in terms of Covenant Eschatology.  The first H&E that passed away in Rev. 21:1 was the H&E of Gen. 1.

In my mind (but not required for CC, as defined above), the H&E of Gen. 1 is not "prehistoric" and not a retelling.  It was recorded history, when the event occurred, some 6000 years ago.

As to "physical creation," Scripture doesn't address a physical eschatology.  Why does it need to address a "physical creation?"  Why not let science figure out the things science does best?

Jeff

Comment by davo on September 19, 2012 at 10:22am

Doug W: ...is the Genesis creation a metaphor for Sinai as it sounds like the Ezra OT theory implies...

Doug have you considered THIS in light of your question above?

Comment by Doug Wilkinson on September 19, 2012 at 11:12am

I read Enns' book on Adam, so I am somewhat familiar with his take linked above.  The reason I brought it up was because I think I heard John and Tim refute this as their basic argument.  I was wondering if I understood them wrong, or if they were interested in recalculating their position given Enns and others who are going down that road.  I don't have any strong feelings about protology, so I'm sort of sitting in the general admission seats waiting to see what happens next.

Doug W

Comment by JL Vaughn on September 19, 2012 at 11:19am

Doug, Enns teaches Genesis 1 is a metaphorical account of Sinai.  Yet he also teaches Genesis 1 as a mythical account of the creation of the universe.  Confused?

I believe Genesis 1 is an historical account (in the strict sense) of a event that occurred some 2000 years or so before Sinai.  God made a covenant with His people, of which He made Adam priest and king as God's son and in God's image.  The law was given to Adam long before the law was given to the people at Sinai.

Does that help?

Jeff

Comment by thomas greenlee on September 19, 2012 at 1:14pm

Thanks Jeff.

 

As you know I am a full preterist. Full preterism is not a hermeneutical system as some claim. Full preterism is arrived at as the necessary logical conclusion that every one of the promises of God in his word, when exegeted according to the hermeneutical system of grammatico-historical interpretation logically explained, have already come to pass.

 

With that explanation I do not recall having any serious problem with your setting forth the preterist understanding in your first four chapters. Certainly there are some minor problems from my understanding, but this is your book and not mine and your style is not my style. I am more concerned with proving or disproving what you have written, not with presenting my own view in opposition to what you have written. My concern is with the truth of what is written in the scripture and since your book makes no such claim, trying to challenge its, "what if or could it be" concept, on the basis of being the truth of scripture would be fruitless.

 

Thus, my suggestions are made to strengthen the credibility of your arguments not to refute them. As such, I would not like to see any possible internal contradictions in your book such as the possibility of such in your section in chapter four of "The Heavens and the Earth". You particularly include there a quotation from Don Preston as a definition of "Heaven and Earth", the concern I think you should be aware of is the possible contradiction you create in this section with a future CC explanation of the "First Heaven and Earth" described in Revelation chapter 21.

 

Just a quick observation.

Tom 

Comment by JL Vaughn on September 19, 2012 at 2:24pm

Thank-you Tom, keep them coming.

Comment by Doug Wilkinson on September 19, 2012 at 5:17pm

Jeff,

I had trouble following his position, and that's probably why.  It's been a while since I read your book but I distinctly remember being confused about the exact relationship between Adam and Sinai, so I guess I'm saying that you might be more explicit about what you're trying to say on that.  As far as Adam's role, one of the things that I think needs to be broken out is what the implication for his mission is for unbelievers and those prior to his creation: 

1)  Why did God wait until an individual ~6,000 years ago to make a covenant with man (The implication is that man wasn't evolved enough, which creates a distinct problem because then only Adam's physical line would have been evolved enough to maintain a relationship with God.  This is begging to turn into a Christian Identity message)?

2)  If final judgement has to do with people who engage the covenant in some way, so that those who don't ever hear of the covenant simply die an animal type death (I think I remember this as Jerel's conclusion in the CC Conference lesson of his, and which was in line with an interpretation of the Shepherd of Hermas as I pointed out in another thread) then what does this do to our understanding of murder in humans that have never heard of the covenant (wouldn't this just be the moral equivalent of shooting a dog?)?

3)  What is the potential for salvation for the offspring of a covenant capable man who'd mated with a woman who was not evolved enough to be a covenant capable woman (with obvious racial questions included)?  It might be that the offspring is not capable of being in covenant with God, which sounds suspiciously like the YEC take on the "Sons of God"/Angels argument of the human bloodline in pre-Noah Genesis.

4)  What do you do with evidence that has come out lately that a large percentage of men, specifically Central Asians, have distinguishable Neanderthal blood in them?  Would those evolved far enough to have a relationship with God not include those people, with all of the implications above?

I doubt we want to go down the road of physical evolution as the reason for holding off on covenant with man until recent times.  So, I suggest you come up with a detailed alternate theory so that CC doesn't suffer from all of the implications cited above.

Doug W

Comment

You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Events

Forum

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Boyardee in Eschatology. Last reply by Dustin Curlee on Monday. 15 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 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 Boyardee 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 Boyardee in Eschatology. Last reply by Boyardee Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

The Day of Atonement

Started by K1 in Eschatology. Last reply by K1 Apr 25, 2015. 9 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service