Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

Wow, that pretty much went right over the top of my head lol

There is the idea out there that space is like a piece of fabric or netting with invisible grids - a many dimensional grid at that. This is how they come up with worm holes. That's about as much as I know on the subject except for what I watched on Star Trek

I guess I am going to have to wait and see what our Father has to say about this to us once we realize eternity.

[Guest]

Were the six days of Creation periods of 24-hour days or something else? IMO, they were six literal 24-hour days. Why? Because they consisted of evening and morning. But that doesn't mean I believe the earth to be only 6000 years old, because I don't. I believe that a long period of time elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. (The reasons why are technical.) That also doesn't mean that the events of those six days don't parallel events which occurred as the universe was forming, either. There may indeed be such parallels.

I would be curious to here some of your reasons or views as to why there is a gap but I don’t want to cause you anymore “ugh’s” so please don’t feel like you have to respond. Or if you have responded on a previous thread would you be willing to post the link?
I have heard typically that people who hold this view see possibly another civilization that God had judge (like the flood) or that it was during this time that Satan fell with the angels. If there are different reasons (from anyone) I would be curious to hear what they are; it’s not to often that I can dialogue with people who have different views like this who can give good grounds for believing them. I will say in opposition to the Gap theory though that Steve G. makes some interesting points in his Genesis studies about how the word “was” (Gen 1:2) would be very unlikely to mean “became” as those who hold this view assume. I could go into the gory details but Steve G. explains it a lot better than I in his study. He also discusses, using additional passages, what the meaning of “formless void” would most likely mean. There is also the issue of Ex 20:11 were God seems to not mention any gap. Also if there is a gap the Bible doesn’t seem to mention it anywhere or what may have taken place in that gap. In other words what would cause us to think there was a gap?

The whole of the six days of Creation follow a very intricate, symbolic progression which doesn't necessarily reflect the literal history of Creation. Like I mentioned in another recent post, God does things on certain days because those days have special meanings to Him.

I agree that there is a very intricate, symbolic progression to creation which if this is true what would the symbolic meaning of a gap in the beginning be?
Also (this may be for Steve7150) if this symbolism is true than it would seem that God may willing and possibly deliberately override a possible natural progression of creation just so that the symbol he is trying to convey to us would be as he wanted it.


Erich <><

[Guest]

If you look at my recent posts here you'll see i said that i believe each day of creation on earth is 7,000 years and the 7th day is still open and that after the 49,000th year period is over a great jubilee will occur and everything goes back to God. Just a theory but i think the OT jubilees were a "type."

I’m sorry I misunderstood you about your view of creation days. It would seem though that your 7,000 year theory would put you in an even more precarious position because it definitely doesn’t give enough room for evolution to take place and yet if the things created in each “day” existed separately from each other in spaces of 7,000 years it doesn’t seem IMO to be physically possible. I mean if the plants had 14,000 years to grow before there were animals to eat them and if for 7,000 years there were animals in the sky and sea before land animals it would seem that there would be a very big imbalance in what we know today is a dependent eco system. Also if you are saying there is an additional 7,000 years added to the sixth day when Adam was created there is no record of that in the genealogical record.

Erich <><

[Guest]

I would be curious to here some of your reasons or views as to why there is a gap but I don’t want to cause you anymore “ugh’s” so please don’t feel like you have to respond. Or if you have responded on a previous thread would you be willing to post the link?

The reason I said "ugh" was because, first of all, I've been getting into discussions about the universe and Creation with people recently (but not on this forum) ad nauseum. Secondly, I myself am more interested in the why's than the how's.

As far as the "gap" theory goes, I'm open to other explanations but at present I've settled on this one.

I will say in opposition to the Gap theory though that Steve G. makes some interesting points in his Genesis studies about how the word “was” (Gen 1:2) would be very unlikely to mean “became” as those who hold this view assume.

Steve is correct. There is no implied "became" in this verse.

I could go into the gory details but Steve G. explains it a lot better than I in his study. He also discusses, using additional passages, what the meaning of “formless void” would most likely mean.

I haven't read Steve G.'s study yet. As far as the meaning of "formless void," though, this phrase has more than one shade of meaning, from what I've researched. I've devoted a lot of time to studying the cultural context of the bible in order to understand things like this, and what I've found is that it means the following:

1. The phrase does not imply "nothingness", but rather formlessness. It's as if all of Creation is awaiting the tending and shaping hand of God to make it into something. This phrase can apply to the world before God shaped it, but it can also apply to Jerusalem after the city was destroyed (Jer. 4:19-28 ), simply because that wasn't the final state of the city. It awaited God's forming and shaping hand to rebuild it.

2. The phrase not only implies the potential to be shaped, but also the judgment of God in a negative sense. But that would beg the question, who or what is being judged here in Genesis 1:2?

As an aside, Jewish commentators have noticed that the biblical text uses the various names (or titles) of God only in certain senses. In other words, the title "Elohim" conveys the sense of "judgment" or "justice" whereas Yehovah conveys the sense of "mercy." It's true that the use of "Elohim" in Genesis 1 conveys the sense of "righteous judgment" (compare Ps. 82:5, which implies that the earth was founded upon the principle of righteous judgment and righteous decrees of law), but is that the only kind of judgment in view here?

There is also the issue of Ex 20:11 were God seems to not mention any gap. Also if there is a gap the Bible doesn’t seem to mention it anywhere or what may have taken place in that gap. In other words what would cause us to think there was a gap?

Different things, including a study I once did concerning the angels. (Yes, I noticed that you mentioned them too.)

Anyway, Exodus 20:11 doesn't need to allow for a "gap". In Genesis 1, we see that God "created" - Hebrew bara - the heavens, the earth, the living creatures, etc. The sense of the word in this context is to bring something into being from the primordial "formless void", and this is something that only God can do. This isn't limited to the very beginning of history though, since as we've seen, the destroyed city of Jerusalem can be described as a "formless void." In other words, God can bring things into being from this "formless void", and subsequent events can return those things back to the state of being a "formless void." God certainly did "create" the heavens and the earth in six days out of the formless void, but that doesn't mean that nothing ever existed prior to those six days. Whatever did exist would have had to have been completely destroyed - a-la Jerusalem - though. And in my opinion, that's exactly what happened.

I agree that there is a very intricate, symbolic progression to creation which if this is true what would the symbolic meaning of a gap in the beginning be?

Well, we aren't told about a gap in Genesis 1-3, so any gap that might have existed didn't have any symbolic meaning that pertained to the Creation story. However, there are other passages which imply that the gap's symbolic meaning would have been akin to the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan after the wickedness of the then-present inhabitants of the land merited their destruction. (See Gen. 15:7-16) The gap (which, I believe, consisted of the angelic rule over the earth, prior to the time of man) would be parallel to the period of time that the land of Israel was in the possession of its wicked inhabitants, prior to its possession by the Israelites themselves.

Damon

[Guest]

I agree that there is a very intricate, symbolic progression to creation which if this is true what would the symbolic meaning of a gap in the beginning be?

Well, we aren't told about a gap in Genesis 1-3, so any gap that might have existed didn't have any symbolic meaning that pertained to the Creation story. However, there are other passages which imply that the gap's symbolic meaning would have been akin to the Israelites taking possession of the land of Canaan after the wickedness of the then-present inhabitants of the land merited their destruction. (See Gen. 15:7-16) The gap (which, I believe, consisted of the angelic rule over the earth, prior to the time of man) would be parallel to the period of time that the land of Israel was in the possession of its wicked inhabitants, prior to its possession by the Israelites themselves.

Unfortunately I don’t have much time to respond to all you have written right now (which may make some glad ) but I do appreciate your comments. I would like to comment real quickly though on your last point here. If this angelic rule over the earth occurred and the Cainanites in the Promised Land are a picture of this I don’t know that I see a very accurate picture. First the Cainanites in the Promised land seem to be pictured as always being wicked (Gen 15:13-16) yet we know that the angels were not (except possibly Satan depending on your view) and only a supposed minority fell with Satan where as with the Cainanites they were all condemned. Also God used Israel to destroy the Cainanites yet if your theory is correct it was God alone who judged those angels prior to our creation. I don’t see us (pictured as Israel) being able to fight in God’s judgment against the angels if we haven’t been created yet. Personally I see the promised land as a picture of us (Christians) coming into the full promise of God yet there are still enemies (Cainanites) I see pictured as our flesh that we still have as Christians (Romans 7) and we must war with continually striving to kill them/the flesh completely.

Erich <><

[Guest]

Unfortunately I don’t have much time to respond to all you have written right now (which may make some glad ) but I do appreciate your comments. I would like to comment real quickly though on your last point here.

[snip]

Well, as far as I'm concerned it's not a perfect analogy anyway. Then again, neither was Christ a perfect analogy for being the son who was brought out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1 vs. Mat. 2:15). Israel was being brought out of slavery, whereas Christ had fled into Egypt for a short period but was never enslaved.

Biblical parallels aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist at all.

As far as the analogy you gave, it sort of works, yes. Your first sentence about coming into the Promised Land is a good analogy. The second isn't quite as good. A better concept is found in Genesis 3:15 where we find the "seed" of Eve crushing the head of the Serpent. Although the sense of this passage is a singular descendant of Eve - the Messiah - crushing the head of the Serpent, it can also be understood in a collective sense.

In Psalm 24, we have the Creation of the world alluded to in verses 1-2 (compare Gen. 1:1-10). Then we have a reference to someone re-entering the Garden of Eden to stand in the presence of God (verses 3-5) in contrast the Adam and Eve's exile (compare Gen. 3:22-24). But is this a single person or an entire "generation" of descendants? Just look at Psalm 24:6. The psalmist took Genesis 3:15 in the collective sense. He also took the defeat of the Serpent as not an outward battle but an inward one.

In conclusion, our battle for returning into the presence of God - the spiritual Promised Land - is both inward and outward. It's not simply the one or the other. If it were, then Christ would have only needed to come once, to defeat Satan - and sin - inwardly. But Christ will return to defeat Satan in battle as well.

Damon

[Guest]

Wow, that pretty much went right over the top of my head lol.

The concepts are certainly not easy, and I certainly do not claim to comprend it. Even so, it is possible to understand some aspects of the models. I would highly recommend reading the book I mentioned earlier.

The book is written at a laymen's level and takes pages to explain what I attempted to reduce into a paragraph. It also provides some useful analogies and pictures. The short description I made necessarily cut out a lot of helpful descriptions that were in the book.

[Guest]

As far as the analogy you gave, it sort of works, yes. Your first sentence about coming into the Promised Land is a good analogy. The second isn't quite as good. A better concept is found in Genesis 3:15 where we find the "seed" of Eve crushing the head of the Serpent. Although the sense of this passage is a singular descendant of Eve - the Messiah - crushing the head of the Serpent, it can also be understood in a collective sense.

In Psalm 24, we have the Creation of the world alluded to in verses 1-2 (compare Gen. 1:1-10). Then we have a reference to someone re-entering the Garden of Eden to stand in the presence of God (verses 3-5) in contrast the Adam and Eve's exile (compare Gen. 3:22-24). But is this a single person or an entire "generation" of descendants? Just look at Psalm 24:6. The psalmist took Genesis 3:15 in the collective sense. He also took the defeat of the Serpent as not an outward battle but an inward one.

In conclusion, our battle for returning into the presence of God - the spiritual Promised Land - is both inward and outward. It's not simply the one or the other. If it were, then Christ would have only needed to come once, to defeat Satan - and sin - inwardly. But Christ will return to defeat Satan in battle as well.

Damon

I probably didn't make myself to clear since I was in a bit of a hurry but I think we are in agreement (I have to confess though that I haven't had a chance yet to look at the passages you have mentioned) with what you have said above and is actually what I believe is what I was trying to allude to in the interpretation of those in the Promise Land. The battle the Israelites faced was of course physical but the example I see is definitely more of an inward (and possibly at times outward) struggle that all true believers still face on a daily basis. This is something Paul talks about, as I had mentioned, in Romans 7 as well as through out Galatians. Which is to say that although we have entered into the full promise of God through Christ we still have this “flesh” that we continue to war against and that we must continue to war against just as Israel was commanded to utterly destroy the Cainanites in the land.
As far as the "seed" I actually explored this concept in another thread which was as follows:

““And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.” (Genesis 3:5)
This verse seems to be the first prophecy of Christ and his overcoming of sin and Satan and I always took it to mean, that in a more literal sense, that Jesus is the one who will “bruise” Satan but then I read Romans 16:20:
“And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.” (Romans 16:20)
Here it seems that Paul says that God is using us to crush Satan. Of course this is done by what Christ has done for us and through us so that it is still in a sense Jesus who is “crushing” Satan but that he has chosen to reveal this truth by demonstrating this through those who are His.
I also realize too that the word “seed” in Genesis is singular and can be seen as pointing to one, being Christ. But the word “seed” in singular form seems to be used through out the Old Testament and in many places has to refer to more than one (Gen 13:16) even in Genesis 3:5 speaking of the serpents “seed”. Almost like how we use the word “family” which is singular but could represent many? So maybe considering what Genesis says and what Paul says it could be seen that it is us who represent Christ that are bringing this prophecy to past? Maybe I’m off or this is clear to everyone but me until now. Just thought I would throw it out there for comment or correction.”

So in my analogy of the Promised Land I see those in Christ collectively crushing Satan through the work and power of Christ by the Holy Spirit in us. And we who are in Him are still striving/fighting for perfection in the battle with our flesh daily (i.e. Israel vs. Cainanites in the Promised Land) which will only be fully realized when Christ comes for us or if we die first. To extend this analogy even further I think that it’s interesting that God had Israel implement different tactics for each battle they faced in the promised land, some victories came by God miraculously delivering the enemy to Israel with out them having to do anything and then there were other battles where God had Israel engage the enemy directly. The same seems to be true of Christians, some who come into the full promise of Christ are miraculously delivered from previous vises/sins right away while there are other sins/battle that we struggle with and must battle directly. Don’t know if that makes better sense or if I caused more confusion but please feel free to let me know either way.

Erich <><

[Guest]

You guys ever thought of a forum-meeting? I think it'll be great to see the faces behind the keyboards. Unless of course you prefer your keyboard over your face..

[Guest]

I am studying the creation account and it seems to me that there is no basis to assume that God created everything with the look of age built into it which would have to be the case for the 24hour creation day to square with nature. God gave us scripture but he also gave us nature and the two should reconcile about everything. Science is not evil ,it's a tool God gave us to use to learn about what he created for his glory yet because of the fear of evolution i think we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. According to science the universe is about 14 billion years old and using a day-age creation day Genesis can be squared with science without coming up with elaborate explanations. According to Psalm 19 1-2 it sounds like the heavens reveal knowledge in a straightforward manner. "The heavens are telling of the glory of God. And their expanse is declaring the work of his hands. Day to day pours forth speech. And night to night reveals KNOWLEDGE."
Knowledge is revealed to us by God ,it should be used by us instead of fighting it.