Genesis creation: Alternative Interpretation

[Donald]

I've read the book, "Beyond Creation Science" by Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn and I think they did a great job but I do not agree everything what they wrote. I have no problem with the flood of Noah was local but I do deny anything that spiritualize or symbolic language all those stories about creation. However I do think that the creation was a literal six days creation of the land, and the flood was local. They were literal people and events. I don't think the Bible is about YEC vs. OEC. Both of them are right and wrong. I do hold in OEC but as for the Genesis creation itself I would called this "Young Land Creation" rather than YEC. :-)

The Genesis creation is about the beginning of the Promised Land and God's people, not about the universe, the earth, and the whole mankind. Here's what someone (Rivers Of Eden) wrote from the Planet Preterist forum:
 
"The language in Genesis 1-2 simply describes the clearing of a desolate flood plain (i.e. the Promised Land) so that it could become inhabitable for Adam and his Israelite descendants to whom the Land would be given by God through Abraham (Genesis 17:1-6)

At "the beginning" (Genesis 1:1-2), the Land was flooded the same way that it became during the time of Noah, and then the waters receeded and everything got back to normal. The days of creation merely describe the clearing of the rain, clouds, and flood waters so that the Land became a place where vegetation, animals, and Adam could live and prosper:

Day One: The land and skies were dark because it was night and nothing was visible because deep flood water covered all the Land and dark rain clouds covered the skies. When "morning" came, the "light" (of the sun) became visible through the clouds.

Day Two: The light made the horizon visible so that one could see the difference between the flood waters and the rain clouds. This is how the "waters" were separated. Flood water covered the Land, and rain water fell from the skies.

Day Three: The flood waters begin to receed so that the Land became visible and vegetation began to grow out of the ground.

Day Four: The rain clouds receeded so that the sun, moon, and stars (i.e. the source of the light from Day One) became visible to provide light even during the night.

Day Five: The animals and birds returned to the Land and skies because the storm was over and there was now vegetation and insects for food.

Day Six: The first ancestor of the Israelites (i.e. Adam) was made out of the Land where he could now live and prosper with his family.

This is a simple explanation of the meaning of the creation story that does not require any "science" or manipulation of the plain sense of any of the Hebrew language. It also accounts for the limited geocentric scope of the language and knowledge of the ancient Hebrews, as well as the limitations of the Noahic flood language.

From a theological standpoint, it also explains the inseparable connection between the Promised Land and the Law of Moses that is developed throughout the rest of the Pentateuch, as well as the centrality of the Land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem at the consummation of all prophecy."

[Donald]

Jeff,

So, are you in agreement with Tim Martin against a local creation in Gen. 1-2?

[JL Vaughn]

Don,

I am in agreement with that article. I see two questions that need to be asked.

1) Is Tim's argument valid? Validity has yet to be widely demonstrated. I believe it is valid.

2) Does it apply to your version of a local creation? Applicability has yet to be demonstrated. I believe it is applicable.

Are you up for the test?

[Donald]

Jeff,

I do not have a 2nd edition of BCS (2005). Do I need to order the latest edition or do you have one where I can read (link, Word, or pdf file)?

I am willing to put up for the test and see if it is consistent with the Scriptures and fit my view. :-)

[JL Vaughn]

Don,

I'll try to summarize it or copy it here tomorrow.

[JL Vaughn]

From BCS, 2nd ede, 2005, pg 100

Jesus refers to the end of the Mosaic administration at AD 70, not the end of the physical universe. It's interesting to note that if "heaven and earth" have not passed away, then Jesus' words would demand that the Christian continue every "jot and title" in the Law of Moses. The fact Christians are no longer called to observe details in the Mosaic Law is actually proof that the "heavens and earth" Jesus referenced have disappeared or passed away.

Don,

I think if you can get around this issue, you can get around the rest of Tim's argument against a local creation.

Blessings,

Jeff

[Donald]

Jeff,

If we compare the new heaven and earth with two kinds of old or first creations:
1. The physical, material world of heaven (sky) and earth (land), whose creation is recorded in Genesis.
2. The religious “creation” or “world” of the old covenant dispensation.

I think both of these are applicable. God planted the Garden of Eden with Tree of Life for Adam and Eve to dwell in and have fellowship with God. But they sinned and led into physical death. They were not able to have an access to the Tree of Life in order to have eternal life. The vision in Rev. 21-22 shows a spiritual recreation with many of the features what we have seen from the Garden of Eden. Remember first the natural/earthly then the spiritual/heavenly (1 Cor. 15:44-46).

In Revelation vision given to John may also picture a new heaven and earth in contrast to old covenant “world” that included the earthly Jerusalem and temple of God and its system of sacrifice and land. “The fact that the old earthly Jerusalem (Babylon) has been under God’s scrutiny in earlier chapters of the Revelation, as representing a corrupt old covenant Judaism and its people, and that in Chapter 21 he sees a New Jerusalem, representing a glorified new covenant people, presents a good case for regarding the first heavens and first earth passed away (21:1) as a reference to the first covenant “world” of the nation of Israel that was formed at Sinai under Mosaic Law” (Ian Harding, “Taken To Heaven in A.D. 70”, p. 251). He also wrote, “Both of these alternative meanings of the first heaven and first earth – i.e., the material creation, and the religious, covenantal creation with Israel – are superseded by the new, higher, spiritual creation called the new heaven and new earth symbolizing the spiritual new covenant kingdom of God” (Ian Harding, “Taken To Heaven in A.D. 70”, p. 251).

It seems to me that Gen. 1-3 speaks of local creation and literal events, much like the rest of Genesis. The creation was spoiled by sin. What I mean is Adam and Eve and their descendants, not animals, trees, etc. affected by it. The only way their sins removed by believing in God and His Son at the Parousia since the creation when they all were taken into heaven with spiritual and glorified bodies in circa AD 70.

[Donald]

Jeff,

What do you think of my previous pist?

1. You mentioned somewhere you believe Gen. 1:1 is speaking of covenant people, correct?
2. If so, what about the rest of Gen. 1:2 to 2 (Genesis creation account)? Was it about a local or global creation or something else? I am trying to understand your view which seems a little different from literal, locally events in Gen. 4-11 or something like that.

It seems to me we have a lot in common from Gen. 4-11.

[JL Vaughn]

Donald,

Here is my at-this-time view.

Gen. 1:1-2:4 is written in a standard Sumerian form for a temple dedication (Wiseman, Walton). Heavens and Earth is the standard designation for a temple. Before the dedication, the temple physically exists, but it is not yet a temple until the dedication is performed. They would have six days of ceremony followed by a day of God's eternal rest in his temple.

Almost everything about the text is in standard Sumerian form (3500 BC to 2000 BC). The three biggest oddities is the name of the deity, who did the dedicating, and the author of the account. In all other temple dedications, a local Sumerian god is named and a local ruler both dedicated the temple and is listed as the author. In Gen. 1:1-2:4, an unnamed supreme ruler is listed as the deity, the temple itself is listed as the author, and the deity dedicated the temple.

In the beginning, the Supreme Ruler, dedicated the Temple. .... Written by the Temple in the day the Temple was dedicated.

Only a person can write. Therefore the Temple was a person (or possibly people). God is a person, so he is capable of writing, but the Temple was distinct from God, and was therefore not God. This person (or persons) preexisted Gen. 1:1. He physically existed before he was dedicated as God's Temple.

God's original intent was God's people are God's Temple. Not each individual person is a temple as Christians commonly believe today, but all of God's people corporately is God's one-and-only Temple.

This is consistent with the Corporate Body View of modern preterism. In AD 70, a new Temple came down out of Heaven. God raised up, that is rededicated, His Temple, his Holy People, the Church.

Is that clearer?

Blessings.

[Donald]

Jeff,
I don’t know if that is clearer to me because it seems to me your view is kind of new to me but I am open-minded. I guess I’ll have to read Wiseman and Walton’s books eventually so I don’t have much comment right now. You said somewhere about Gen. 1:1-2:4 written by someone but in Gen. 2:5 to 5:1 were written by Adam, which I find this interesting. Who do you think the first part was written by? Was it from Moses or someone else before Adam or during the Jewish exile?

Do you have other forum that you have been discussing about this issue where I can look into? Thanks.

[JL Vaughn]

Donald,

According to Wiseman, Gen. 1:1-2:4 was written first. Adam had a clay tablet, with Gen. 1:1-2:4 in Sumerian pictograph cuneiform in his hands. He added the next tablet to the first in the standard Sumerian manner.

Neither Wiseman nor Walton believes H&E is a person or people. (Walton believes H&E are God's people in the New Testament, but adamantly refuses to consider it in the Old, even in the prophets, i.e. Jer. 4:23) Wiseman fudged. After saying "TOLEDAH" means "Written by" he claims in Gen. 2:4 that it means "Written for" and that it was written by God and handed to Adam. Walton claims the entire book was written by Moses, but never bothers to explain why Moses used standard Sumerian forms some 600 years after ancient Sumer ceased to exist.

Basically, I can't tell you (yet?) whether H&E was Adam, if H&E was a group of people that included Adam, or if H&E preceded Adam. All appear to work. My inclination is to go with the second, that Adam was dedicated as the priest of God's people on the 6th day and was likely the author of the first tablet. Going with the first doesn't change much, Adam is still the author. The third choice makes someone before Adam the author.

Blessings.

[Donald]

Here's the link that JL Vaughn referring to the Wiseman I just found:
http://www.trueorigin.org/tablet.asp

[JL Vaughn]

Donald,

Thanks for the link.

I believe the author has one significant error. In Wiseman's view, the tablets were passed from one author to another. There was nothing for Moses to compile. The compilation was already done. Each author added his tablet to the stack.