Apologetics Gaps_Cropped

Published on February 27th, 2012 | by Gary DeMar

61

Young Earth Creationism and Gap Theology

Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is all about interpreting the Bible literally. They take the days of creation literally as well as the genealogies. YECs are very critical of Old Earth Creationists (OEC) for not taking the Bible literally on these and other creation issues. For years I have tried to get YEC organizations that push for literalism on creation issues to insist on the same hermeneutical model when the subject turns to eschatology. Many YECs I know do not see the relationship or do not want to see it since so much of the YEC movement is supported by dispensational churches. YECs want to keep the two theological issues separate. It can’t be done.

I believe that one of the reasons Christians are not making much headway culturally is because we lack a vibrant eschatology. Every competing worldview pushes an optimistic eschatology while Christians are continually bombarded by books assuring us that the end of the world is near. But if the same hermeneutic that is used by YEC were applied to eschatology, end-time speculative theology would bite the dust and a new vibrant vision for the future would emerge.

Two examples come to mind. The first is the way Henry Morris, author of the Genesis Flood (1961) with John C. Whitcomb, handles Matthew 24:34, and the second is the way prophetic gaps are used by dispensational authors who are also YEC to account for why certain prophecies were not fulfilled.

Let’s begin with Matthew 24:34 and the way Henry M. Morris, Sr., a dispensationalist and a founding father of the modern-day creationist movement, handles the passage in his dispensational-themed Defender’s Study Bible which was first published in 1995: “The word ‘this’ is the demonstrative adjective and could better be translated ‘that generation.’ That is, the generation which sees all these signs (probably starting with World War I) shall not have completely passed away until all these things have taken place” (1045).

Morris describes the use of “this” as a “demonstrative adjective.” It is better designated as a “near demonstrative” adjective identifying what generation will see the signs. In Greek and English, the near demonstrative (this) is contrasted with the far demonstrative (that). Prior to his comments in his Defender’s Study Bible, Morris wrote the following extended comments on Matthew 24:34 in his Creation and the Second Coming:

In this striking prophecy, the words “this generation” has the emphasis of “that generation.” That is, that generation — the one that sees the specific signs of His coming — will not completely pass away until He has returned to reign as King. [There is nothing in Matthew 24 that says Jesus is going to return to earth to reign as king.] Now if the first sign was, as we have surmised, the first World War, then followed by all His other signs, His coming must indeed by very near [Why does “near” mean “even at the doors” for Morris in the twentieth century, but it did not mean “near” in the first century?] — even at the doors! There are only a few people still living from that generation. I myself was born just a month before the Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. Those who were old enough really to know about that first World War — “the beginning of sorrows” — would be at least in their eighties now. Thus, we cannot be dogmatic, we could very well now be living in the very last days before the return of the Lord.”(1)

Consider what a YEC would say about this interpretive maneuver if an OEC applied the same logic to Genesis 1.

Then there’s the issue of “gaps.” Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International (CMI) writes the following in his summary to his very thorough and important article “Biblical Chronogeneologies:

A straightforward reading of the biblical genealogies according to the reliable Masoretic text shows that Adam was created about 4000 BC, and this was on the 6th day of creation. The existing copies of the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch are not as reliable, but at most could only stretch this date out to about 5400 BC. There is no justifiable reason to believe in gaps within the chronogenealogies of Genesis, as the arguments presented for such views are denied by contextual, linguistic and historical analysis.

Can the case be made for a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 in note-bearing Bibles like the Scofield Reference Bible and Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible?:

YEC do not support Scofield or Dake on the creational gap theory. Here’s what Henry Morris said about the Scofield notes about geological time without referencing the gap theory directly. Did Morris realize that to mount a frontal assault on creational gaps would jeopardize his believe in prophetic gaps?:

While anti-evolutionism was strong among the fundamentalists, almost none of their leaders questioned Lyeilian uniformitarianism and the geological-age system. The Scofield Reference Bible, originally published in 1909, had actually incorporated both these theories in its notes, while at the same time ignoring the critically important question of the universality of the Flood, and it had a tremendous impact on fundamentalists in many denominations. ((Henry M. Morris, History of Modern Creationism (San Diego, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984), 58–59.()

  • Harry A. Ironside, The Mysteries of God (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1908), 50–51.()
  • Print Friendly


    About the Author

    Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, His most recent book is Exposing the Real Last Days Scoffers. Gary lives in Marietta, Georgia, with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and four grandchildren, Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).



    61 Responses to Young Earth Creationism and Gap Theology

    1. zuma says:

      Let’s examine all the common isotopes that are used by scientists so as to determine their acceptability in radiometric dating method.
      The following is the list of isotopes extracted from the website address, http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html, and, http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/table_of_isotopes.htm:
      Parent Isotope; Stable Daughter Product; Half-Life Values
      Lutetium (Lu)-176; Hafnium (Hf)-176; 37.8 billion years
      Uranium-238 (U); Lead (Pb)-206; 4.5 billion years
      Uranium-235; Lead-207; 704 million years
      Thorium-232 (Th); Lead-208; 14.0 billion years
      Rubidium-87 (Rb); Strontium-87 (Sr); 48.8 billion years
      Potassium-40 (K); Argon-40 (Ar); 1.25 billion years
      Samarium-147 (Sm); Neodymium-143 (Nd); 106 billion years
      Carbon (C)-14; Nitrogen (N)-14; 5730 +/-40
      The analyses of the above-mentioned isotopes are as follows:
      a)Lutetium-176 (Parent Isotope) to Hafnium-176:
      The following is the extract of the article, Neutron-Deficient Nuclides of Hafnium and Lutetium, from the website address, http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v122/i5/p1558_1:
      (New neutron-deficient nuclides of lutetium and hafnium were produced by bombarding lutetium oxide with 300- to 400-Mev protons. The genetic relationships and mass assignments were established by means of high-purity chemical separations and a series of chemical isolation experiments in which the daughter activity was determined as a function of time.)
      The above was the only piece of evidence that scientists have used it to prove that lutetium-176 could turn up to be Hafnium-176 in a half life.
      The phrase, New neutron-deficient nuclides of lutetium and hafnium were produced by bombarding lutetium oxide, as mentioned above implies the immediate transformation from lutetium oxide to hafnium. If lutetium-176 would take 37.8 billion years for it to be transformed into Hafnium-176, why is it that the transformation as mentioned in the above example could take immediate effect instead of a half life? Or in other words, it did not take a half life (37.8 billion years) for lutetium-176 to be transformed into Hafnium-176 and this has put radioactive dating method into question. As the formation of hafnium was by means of lutetium oxide as mentioned above instead of through a pure lutetium, it gives no ironic evidence whether the formation of hafnium could be by means of a pure lutetium. What if the formation of hafnium could only be done through the compound of lutetium, i.e. lutetium oxide, the result of the experiment would not serve as evidence that lutetium could turn up to be hafnium in a half life. Besides, a question has to be raised what other substance has been used by this scientist to assist in the explosion. What if this scientist would have added other substance to cause the explosion and that the substance, that would have added, would assist in the transformation of lutetium oxide to hafnium, relating lutetium to be the parent isotope of hafnium might not be appropriate unless with the help of other substance for its explosion. If that could be so, radioactive dating method by means of lutetium is in question since radioactive decay might not cause lutetium to be transformed into Hafnium unless certain substance has been added for explosion.
      Refer to he sequence of pictures in website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/re20071121.jpg, pertaining to lutetium. Lutetium would turn up to vanish in the 3rd year. As lutetium could not remain alone and would vanish in the air, it is irrational to assume that lutetium would exist throughout a half life (37.8 billion years) to be transformed into Hafnium since it would vanish in the air within 3 years. This has put radiometric dating method by means of lutetium-176 into question due to the possible vanish within 3 years and yet radiometric dating method gives assurance that it would last until 37.8 billion years for the transformation. How could lutetium be the parent isotope of Hafnium as it might vanish in the air within 3 months when it has been left alone in contacting with air and could not be transformed into Hafnium?
      b)Uranium (Parent Isotope) to Lead (Daughter Isotope):
      The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf14.html:
      (The Earth’s uranium (chemical symbol U) was apparently formed in supernovae up to about 6.6 billion years…)
      As mentioned in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism, that scientists have accepted the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years and yet have computed the age of uranium through radioactive dating method to be about 6.6 billion years. As the age of uranium is higher than the earth, this has put the reliability of radioactive dating method into question.
      Could uranium be able to transform into lead?
      The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_6.htm:
      (Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and THORIUM into radium, helium, etc., and finally into LEAD.)
      The process above shows that uranium has to pass through Thorium in order to be transformed into lead.
      Could Thorium be able to transform into Lead?
      The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Abstract, from the website address, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1914Natur..93..479L:
      (THE work of Boltwood and Holmes some years ago on the occurrence of lead and uranium in minerals rendered it very improbable that the end product of thorium could be lead. From recent generalisations, however, in respect to radio-elements and the periodic law, it is to be expected that the end products of the radio-active elements should all be isotopic with lead.)
      The phrase, uranium in minerals rendered it very improbable that the end product of thorium could be lead, as extracted above implies that scientists have no physical witness that thorium could turn up to lead. Besides, it is by no means for them to transform thorium into lead ultimately. As thorium could be by no means to turn up to lead currently, how could scientists assure the transformation would come true in a half life and would be in 14.0 billion years later? This has indeed placed the reliability of radiometric dating method into question. The reason why they put these two together is simply due to they meet radio-elements and the periodic law instead of seeing the physical transformation from Thorium-232 to Lead-208.
      c)Thorium-232 (Parent isotope) to Lead-208 (Daughter Isotope):
      As explained in clause b) above the impossibility of the transformation of Thorium to Lead. It has placed reliability of radiometric dating method into question.
      d)Rubidium-87 (Parent Isotope) to Strontium-87 (Daughter Isotope):
      The following is the extract from the 3rd paragraph under the sub-title, Isotopes, from the website address, http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/P-T/Rubidium.html:
      (Rubidium-87 is used to estimate the age of very old rocks. Many kinds of rocks contain two rubidium isotopes, rubidium-85 and rubidium-87. When rubidium-87 breaks down in the rock, it changes into a new isotope, strontium -87. Any rock that contains rubidium-87 also contains some strontium-87. )
      As the phrase, When rubidium-87 breaks down in the rock it changes into a new isotope strontium-87, is mentioned above, it implies the immediate transformation from rubidium-87 to strontium-87. Or in other words, it does not take a half life (or 48.8 billion years) for rubidium-87 to be transformed into strontium-87. The transformation is simply immediate and this has put the reliability of radioactive dating into question. For instance, if radiometric dating method is a truth, it should follow the rule of half life in which rubidium-87 should take 48.8 billion years for it to be transformed into strontium-87. As it would take an immediate transformation from rubidium-87 to strontium-87, the reliability of the computation of age by means of radiometric dating would be in question.
      e)Potassium-40 (Parent Isotope) to Argon-40 (Daughter Isotope):
      The following is the http://www.ehow.com/way_5229579_fossil-dating-techniques.html
      (Unfortunately, only 11 of 100 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, and only one of every 10,000 potassium atoms is the K-40 isotope; fortunately, potassium is one of the most abundant minerals on the Earth’s surface.)
      The phrase, 11 of 1000 decayed K-40 atoms become argon-40, as mentioned above implies the immediate transformation from K-40 to argon-40. As there is an immediate transformation from K-40 to argon-40 despite the amount is small as 11 out of 1000 decayed K-40, the reliability of radiometric dating method is in question. This is by virtue of it is mentioned that it would take a half life (or 1.25 billion years) for K-40 to turn up to be argon-40 and yet in reality it would take an immediate effect for the transformation. Even if one would suggest that 11 out of 1000 would turn up to be argon-40 and would take 1.25 billion years to process the balance of 989 (1000-11) atoms, how could the scientists account for 11 to be immediate and the balance of 989 atoms to 1.25 billion years not proportionally?
      f)Samarium-147 (Parent Isotope) to Neodymium-143 (Daughter Isotope):
      The following is the extract from the 6th paragraph from the website address, http://www.chemicool.com/elements/samarium.html:
      (It wasn’t until 1885 that Carl Auer von Welsbach established that ‘didymium’ was actually composed of two distinct, new elements: neodymium and praseodymium.)
      The above extract mentions that didymium consists of neodymium and praseodymium and yet didymium was found in Samarium. With the discovery, they conclude that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium in 106 billion years. Their conclusion that Samarium could turn up to be Neodymium is not based on seeing the physical transformation from one to another, but the substance, Neodymium, was found in Samarium. That has caused us in doubt about the reliability of radiometric dating method.
      Could Samarium be able to isolate itself in the air without influence? No, it could not since the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm, shows the immediate chemical reaction upon Samarium when it has contacted with air. The following is the extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium:
      [Samarium ( /səˈmɛəriəm/ sə-MAIR-ee-əm) is a chemical element with symbol Sm and atomic number 62. It is a moderately hard silvery metal which readily oxidizes in air. Being a typical member of the lanthanide series, samarium usually assumes the oxidation state +3. Compounds of samarium(II) are also known, most notably monoxide SmO, monochalcogenides SmS, SmSe and SmTe, as well as samarium (II) iodide. The last compound is a common reducing agent in chemical synthesis. Samarium has no significant biological role and is only slightly toxic.]
      The phrase, Samarium…hard silvery metal which ready oxidizes in air, as mentioned above implies the ease to respond to air in chemical reaction. The ease in chemical reaction with the contact of air would certainly affect the quality of Samarium and even the radioactive decay since it would not be solely Samarium but other elements that would form a new compound with it to increase or reduce its decay. This certainly would put radioactive dating method into question.
      Could scientists be able to separate Neodymium from Samarium? The following is the extract under the sub-title, Abstract, from the website address, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003267094002746:
      (A separation scheme for strontium and light rare earth elements and its application to the isotopic analysis of strontium and neodymium in silicate rocks are presented. This method benefits from the selectivity and high capacity of two newly introduced extraction Chromatographic materials, referred to as Sr.Spec and TRU.Spec, respectively. These afford a straightforward separation of Sr and Sm + Nd with high yield, good purity and satisfactory blank levels, on very small (0.25 ml) columns using small volumes of solutions of a single mineral acid, HNO3.)
      The phrase, These afford a straightforward of Sr and Sm + Nd…using small volumes of… HNO3, gives the information that scientists could separate Samarium and Neodymium through mineral acid, HNO3.
      Could Neodymium be able to stand alone from scientific point of view? Let’s observe the sequence of pictures of Neodymium in direct contact in air as shown in the website address, http://www.elementsales.com/re_exp/index.htm. For instance, if Samarium would turn up to be Neodymium-143 in a half life and that is 106 billion years, there would not be another half life for it since it would corrode in the air and ultimately vanish since it could not be isolated itself in the air. The computation of Samarium-Neodymium isotopes by means of radiometric dating method presumes Neodymium still retains for another half life and yet in reality, it could not. This has put the accuracy of radiometric dating method by means of Samarium-147 due to the possible corrosion of Neodymium-143 to its ultimate vanishing in the beginning of another half life. The computation of age through isotope by means of samarium has presumed that neodymium would continue for another half life once samarium has turned up to be neodymium after the initial half life. Yet in reality, neodymium would vanish instead of continuing its existence. As the reality is different from the assumption that is set up in radioactive dating method, the accuracy of the age that would have computed through this method is in question.

    2. zuma says:

      Let’s furnish another mathematical formula below for the computation of age of fossils and the earth that could be located at the website address http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/ess/Units/Unit4/U4L31A.html :
      t = 1/delta In (1+D/P)
      where t is the age of a rock or mineral specimen, D is the number of atoms of a daughter product today, P is the number of atoms of the parent product today, ln is the natural logarithm (logarithm to base e), and delta is the appropriate decay constant.
      In order that the formula could apply for the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth, the substance or objects or whatever must have established the relationship that one object must be the daughter of another. If the relationship between them could not establish to be one as parent and another as daughter, the above mathematical formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth.
      Let’s use Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 as examples for elaboration since scientists have linked up these two objects as parent-daughter relationship that would lead to the decay rate of 106 billion years. The following are the reasons why the computation by means of the above mathematic formula could not be used to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth:
      a)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning and Neodymium-143 would not be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, the relationship between them to be parent and daughter could not be established. As the relationship could not be established in case if they would have been created simultaneously in the very beginning, the above mathematical formula could not apply. This is by virtue of the above formula could only be applicable when two objects have established with the parent-daughter relationship.
      b)What if Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would be as hard as a diamond that there could be no way for them to decay, the formula could not be applicable to this condition since Both of these items could not be established to be parent-daughter relationship as one could not be the transformation from another.
      c)Even if Samarium-147 could decay, how could scientists be so firmly that it could turn up to be Neodymium-143 instead of otherwise since nobody could live billion of years to witness the end-result of transformation for Samarium-147 to be Neodymium-143? As that could be so, to comment Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 to be parent-daughter relationship and to use them to compute the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would lead to wrong age since they could have no relationship between them in the first place.
      d)What if Samarium-147 could decay to Neodymium-143 and yet the decay rate could not be established to be billion of years instead, it could only be a few thousand years, it would certainly affect the figure that has to be used for delta. This is by virtue of the unreliable decay rate would affect the decay constant figure that has to be used in the formula above. As the unreliable decay rate of the above substance would affect the decay constant to be used in the formula above, the end-result of the computation of the age of fossils or rocks or the earth would not be reliable.
      As it is hard to jump into the conclusion that one material or substance or whatever could be the daughter of another, this makes the computation to be unreliable and it is irrational to use radioactive dating method to jump into the conclusion that the age of fossils or the earth or rocks could be in billion years.

    3. zuma says:

      Scientists have accepted the use of half-life decay rates to be in millions or billions years for radiometric dating method or radioactive dating method. Some would suggest that Noah’s ark should have caused the rocks to have accelerate decay and that would have caused the age of the earth to be misled in millions or billions years. Discuss.
      Noah’s ark that had appeared in the past might not cause the rocks to decay accelerate for the following reasons:
      a)Some rocks that have been created in the very beginning would be as hard as diamond so much so that it is impossible for these rocks to decay. As these rocks would be impossible to decay, the appearance of Noah’s ark would not cause any damage of these rocks. As these rocks could be as hard as diamond, it is irrational to suggest their decay rates to be in millions or billions of years since it would be impossible for them to decay in the first place and that the decay rate for them should be set at 0. To give the high value of decay rates, such as, billion years, for hard rocks in which they are impossible to decay, Scientists have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth to billions years unrealistically.
      b)Only the soft rocks that would have created in the very beginning would decay rapidly instead of the hard one. Scientists might have observed the change of shape of the rocks and comment that they should be the cause of decaying rocks. However, they should consider also the change of shape of rocks could be the result of soft rocks instead of hard since the hard would be impossible for them to decay. Besides, the hard rocks that could have been created initially would look like the current shape. As these hard rocks could never decay since they are as solid as diamond, there is no way for Noah’s ark or wind or whatever to cause them to decay. As these hard rocks could not decay, it is irrational to suggest that the incidence of Noah’s ark would have any influence upon the shape of hard rocks.
      The reliability of radiometric dating method that has been adopted by scientists to determine the age of fossils as well as the earth would be in question on the condition of the possible existence of rocks that would be as hard as diamond so much so that there is no way for them to decay. If that would be so, there should be no reason for scientists to suggest that the decay rates of the rocks should be million or billion years since they would have been created in the beginning in such a way that there is no way for them to decay. If that could be so, to insist the value of decaying rates for hard rocks with millions or billions of years would simply be unrealistic and unreliable.
      The following is the list of isotopes that have been used by scientists to estimate the age of the earth as well as fossils:
      Samarium-147 (parent); Neodymium-143 (daughter); decaying rate: 106 billion years
      Rubidium-87 (parent); Strontium-87 (daughter); decaying rate: 50 billion years
      Uranium-238 (parent); Lead-206 (daughter); decaying rate: 4.47 billion years
      Potassium-40 (parent); Argon-40 (daughter); decaying rate: 1.3 billion years
      Uranium-235 (parent); Lead-207 (daughter); decaying rate: 704 million years
      Uranium-234 (parent); Thorium-230 (daughter); decaying rate: 80,000 years
      Carbon-14 (parent); Nitrogen-14 (daughter); decaying rate: 5,730 years
      Using radioactive dating method to date the age of fossils and the earth would be unreliable. Let’s take Samarium-147 (parent) and Neodymium-143 (daughter) to be one of the examples from above for illustration.
      a)What if Neodymium-143 would have been created in the very beginning instead of it would be the result of decaying from Samarium-147, it is irrational to link up the relationship between them and to comment that Neodymium-143 was the transformation of Samarium-147 and to establish its half-life decaying rate to be 106 billion years.
      b)What if both Samarium-147 and Neodymium-143 would have been created as hard as diamond that it would be impossible for them to decay, it is irrational to conclude that Neodymium-143 should be the daughter of Samarium-147 and to suggest that the decaying rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. This is by virtue of the half life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 should be set at 0 at the absence of the possibility of decaying.
      c)How could scientists have established the relationship between these items and comment that Neodymium-143 should have decayed from Samarium-147 instead of other source or material or substance? There would be a possibility that Neodymium-143 might decay and turn into another form of material instead of Samarium-147.
      d)How do the scientists derive the decay rate for each material and to ensure its accuracy of decay rate? For instance, the Scientists have suggested the half-life decay rate for Neodymium-143 from Samarium-147 to be 106 billion years. Why should the decay rate be 106 billion years instead of a few thousand years? How do they get this figure or whether they would have plucked from sky since nobody could live so long so as to witness this would come true for the transformation?
      e) When the scientists suggested the decay rates for various materials, such as, from Argon-40 to Potassium-40 or from Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143, how do they arrange in such a way that the decay rate for Argon-40 to Potassium-40 would be lower than Samarium-147 to Neodymium-143 and not the other way round?
      d)As nobody could live millions or billions of years to witness whether Samarium-147 would turn up to be Neodymium-143, the reliability of radioactive dating method by means of the use of isotopes is questionable.
      All the above have placed the reliability of radioactive dating method into question especially the setting of decay rate in million or billions years have indirectly pushed the age of fossils and the earth unreasonably to billion years.
      Refer to the website site address http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html pertaining to the mathematical formula in which it indicates how the age of fossils and the earth to be computed:
      t = h x ln[1+(argon-40)/(0.112 x (potassium-40))]/ln(2)
      where t is the time in years, h is the half-year, also in years, and ln is the natural logarithm.
      Examine the formula carefully. t, the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, corresponds with h, that is the half-year decay rate. If the scientists intentionally push the half-year decay rate to millions of years, t, that is the age of the fossils or the rock or the earth, would be pushed up by them to millions or even billions of years.

    4. zuma says:

      The following are the various methods that are adopted by scientists to assess the age of the earth:
      a)Using sea composition to compute the age of the earth:
      Scientists used sea composition to derive the age of the earth. This method has its derivation from Edmond Halley (1656-1742). In his opinion, the rain would have dissolved all salt from the ground and would bring down to the sea with the assumption that there would be no salt in the sea initially.
      In 1910, George F. Becker found the age of the earth to be between 50 and 70 million years by means of salt clock method.
      However, the measurement by means of seawater composition does not give an accurate age of the earth on the condition if the sea might have been formed initially with much salt in the beginning. If that would be so, it is irrational to measure sea composition to determine the age of earth since much salt would have been in the sea already during its creation.
      b)Lord Kelvin in 1862 did compute the age of earth through the estimation of the coolness of the earth from its original molten state in which he concluded that the age of the earth was between 20 to 400 million years ago.
      However, its assumption that the earth would be in the molten state might not be accurate on the condition if the earth would have been formed in solid state initially instead of in molten. If that would be so, the computation of the age of this earth that is by means of the computation of the time taken for earth to be cooled down would not be reliable.
      c)Erosion method: The assessment of the age of the earth is by means of the observation with presumption that erosion would take place at about 1 ft every 5,000 years. With this method, they assess Canyon would start out flat and it would take 30,000,000 years for the Colorado river to erode 600 ft of the Grand Canyon.
      The computation above suffers a shortfall with the assumption that it would start up flat. What if the place does not start up flat or it would be that the place has already been created nearer to current condition in the beginning of its creation, the computation would not give the accurate period of erosion.
      Another query is why the erosion rate should be consistent at 1 ft every 5,000 years and not 1 ft every 4,000 years or otherwise.
      Thus, the computation of the earth by means of erosion method would be subjective and not reliable.
      d)Using radiometric dating methods to compute the age of the earth:
      The derivation of radiometric dating methods or radioactive dating methods came in the late 1940s and 1950s. These methods focus on the decay of atoms of one chemical element into another. This technique is based on a comparison between the measured amount of a naturally occurring radioactive element and its decay product, assuming a constant rate of decay – known as half-life.
      Using this technique, scientists could analyze the rock to assess the age of the earth through uranium and lead, plug those values along with the half-life into a logarithmic equation. They have arrived with the conclusion that the age of the earth should be 4.5 to 4.6 billion years.
      However, what if both the parent isotopes, i.e. Samarium-147, Rubidium-87, Rhenium-187, Lutetium-176, Thorium-232,Uranium-238, Potassium-40, Uranium-235, Beryllium-10, Chlorine-36, Carbon-14, Uranium-234 and Thorium-230, that have been commented by Scientists to be the products (daughter) of Neodymium-143, Strontium-87, Osmium-187, Hafnium-176, Lead-208, Lead-206, Argon-40, Lead-207, Boron-10, Argon-36, Nitrogen-14, Thorium-230, and Radium-226 respectively, might have co-existed in the beginning of the world during its formation, it is erroneous to comment that there would be relationship among them and to use them to assess the decay rate of half life in order to use it to compute the age of the earth or fossils since all these materials might have been created ever since the beginning of the earth. As that could be so, it is erroneous to use it to compute the age of the earth to be billion years.

    5. zuma says:

      Let’s presume that spectrophotometer could be a reliable source to be used to detect all galaxies would be advancing further away from the earth. It might not give any sufficient reason that this entire universe would be expanding on the condition if our universe has already been extended into infinity. If our entire universe has already been extended up to infinity in the beginning of the creation of this universe or somewhere later, the red shift that is reflected in spectrophotometer nowadays could only reflect the advancement of galaxies and it would not imply the further expansion of universe since the space of the universe has already been extended in the infinity without any end initially and needed not to been extended further currently.
      Some might have pointed out that the website below, has computed the size of the universe to prove that there could be a boundary of this universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151 The formula that they use to compute the size of the universe is by means of the basic 184K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion years age of the universe. The above computation is based upon the assumption that the universe would be expanding. As the assumption that the space might not be extended fully and it assumes that the extension of space would progress accordingly with the age of universe as well as the speed of light, the computation of the size of the universe has been done by using the age of the entire universe to be multiplied by the speed of light that travels in space. Now a question has to be raised. If this world would have already been extended to infinity initially, it is inappropriate to use the speed of light to be multiplied by the age of this universe so as to compute the size of the universe since this universe itself would have already been developed into infinity without boundary in the very beginning.
      From the above explanation, it would not be justifiable to conclude that this universe would be expanding simply by observing red shift in the sky since this universe might have already been extended to infinity without end initially in the very beginning

    6. zuma says:

      The word, universe, as mentioned below refers to the entire system that is made up of many galaxies instead of a galaxy by itself.
      Big Bang Theory assumes that galaxies are advancing towards the edge of the universe as a result of the expansion of universe. The following are the few possibilities that our galaxy would be in this entire universe:
      a)As the universe would be expanding continuously, it is rational to presume that all galaxies, and these include our planets, would be influenced by the expansion of the universe to advance towards the boundary of the universe. As our galaxy would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of the expansion of this universe, our earth could still identify blue shift due to we are not in the centre of the universe. Instead, we would be in the midst of galaxies that facing the same direction to move forward towards the corner of the universe. As all the galaxies (these include us) would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of its expansion, they would be many galaxies that would be many miles behind the earth moving (as the same direction as our galaxy) towards the corner of universe. As there would be galaxies moving behind our galaxy advancing towards the boundary of the universe as us, there would appear blue shift since we could still see some galaxies advancing to us in which its movement could be to bypass our galaxy towards the corner of universe.
      b)It is rational to assume that our galaxy is in accelerating speed in which many galaxies would be moving far away from us. As a result of it, it reflects red shift. However, as our galaxy would be travelling faster than other galaxies, there would be a likeliness that our galaxy would overtake other galaxies that are moving ahead of us towards the corner of universe and that would reflect unavoidably blue shift. As our galaxy gets closer to those galaxies that are moving ahead of us since our galaxy is accelerating, those galaxies that are behind us would show red shift and those that are ahead of us in which our galaxy would overtake them soon as a result of accelerating, would show blue shift. Thus, it is inevitable to have red shift as well as blue if our galaxy is in the midst of those galaxies to advance towards the corner of the universe.
      From the above illustrations, it would come to the conclusion that as long as our galaxy was among the galaxies to proceed towards the corner of the universe, we would still be able to identify blue shift.
      Let’s assume that our earth would be stagnant in the centre of the universe, the above events would not occur since we would only see red shift instead of blue.
      To presume that our earth would be in the centre of the universe and all other galaxies would be advancing away from us, is rather irrational and not justifiable.
      The above have caused us to question whether it is accurate to use light from the star that is run through a spectrophotometer so as to determine whether it is red shift or blue for the determination whether the universe would be expanding.

    7. zuma says:

      The reasons why the data that have been gathered for red shift and blue shift from the observation of galaxies through the use of telescope might not be served as a guide that the world would be expanding:
      a) The accuracy of the telescope that has been used to determine whether the galaxies would be in red shift and blue shift in order to conclude that the galaxies would moving away or towards the earth could be in question. In short distance of viewing an object, the telescope could identify accurately the change of the size of planet from big to small or small to big so as to give signal whether it should be in blue shift or red shift. However, if the object is placed very far away from telescope, the object that is shown in the screen on the telescope would be very small. The telescope might turn up to show one signal as a result of its inability to identify the accuracy of change of size of the object as if that all the galaxies are moving far away from the earth. Or in other words, it might have given wrong signal that the world would be expanding due to the inaccuracy of the telescope since it might be accurate in short distance with a big object and yet it might not be accurate if if would be in very small and tiny object that would appear on the screen when it would be placed many miles far away from the earth. Thus, the accuracy of the telescope might be in question since it has not been tested whether it could be accurate when objects would appear to be very tiny and small on the screen..
      b) The telescope might have been tested on earth to be accurate in short distance and yet it has not been tested from one galaxy to another so as to determine whether it is still accurate to measure the movement of object in the galaxies that is located in many miles far away from the earth.
      c) If you would blow a balloon, all the substances in the balloon would be shaken and vibrated. Even if they would be creatures inside the balloon, all the creatures would feel the strong pressure, i.e. wind, pulling them towards the corner of this balloon. Why is it that we that are on earth would not feel the pressure that the earth would be expanding? As we know if we blow the balloon, all the things in the balloon would fly away and would turn up to be in messy order. Question has to be raised. Why is that the air would still remain on earth despite the great pressure that has caused galaxies to advance as a result of expanding? No matter the pressure would externally influence as a result of the world expanding, nothing has affected the earth and it seems to be that something is controlling the earth to make it a secure place. Religious people call it, God.
      d) If you blow a balloon, all the substance would go travel towards the corner of this balloon. Let’s use blowing balloon to explain the galaxies. Let’s assume that you blow from the Mars, you would certainly see blue shift as well as red shift since some galaxies would move towards the earth from Mars. If you would blow from the sun, the same, you would still see some galaxies moving towards the earth since there are some galaxies from the sun would move towards the earth from the sun. However, if you would blow from the earth as a centre outwards, you would then see all galaxies would be moving far away from the earth. Now question has to be raised. The assumption that all galaxies would have been moving far away from the earth seems to presume that the earth would be stagnant and all galaxies would be advancing away from the earth. As the earth would turn up to be the centre of the universe, it turns up that a person would view from any side of the earth would turn up to be that all galaxies seem to moving away from earth. This seems to be weird and irrational.
      The reliability of data gathered from scientist that the world would be expanding is in question.

    8. zuma says:

      Let’s assume that this universe should be formed through Big Bang theory. Questions have to be raised. Why is it that Big Bang theory could create perfect galaxies that a planet would revolve around another instead of the danger that anyone of the planets would crash with another easily and that would cause the earth not to be in secure position? For instance, the moon always revolves around the earth and it would not crash it and the distance between them remains constant. The same is for the earth to the sun. How could Big Bang theory be able to create these perfect galaxies unless there is one behind that controls all the planets that causes perfect galaxies to be formed. For religious people, i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Muslims, call it as God.
      For instance, if this world would be formed in random order through the Big bang theory, the following events would appear: The earth might be formed too near the sun and to cause many inhabitants to be hurt; or the earth might be flying everywhere in the universe without guidance due to these be formed in random order through Big Bang theory; or the sun might well be formed stagnant in one place and leaving the earth to fly everywhere among the galaxies so much so that all the inhabitants might not be able to enable sunlight; or the earth might fly everywhere or even worse, the danger to hit against the sun; or etc. What if the earth would be formed too far from the sun, all the inhabitants would be in the darkness for 24 hours. Currently, all the galaxies in this world seem to revolve around the sun instead of the other way round. It seems to be that there must be some kind of supernatural being controls it. Religious people call it, God.
      If the universe would be created from Big Bang theory, the above is the likeliness of the world since nothing is controlling it and everything is formed in random or messy order. The whole universe would be disorganized and one could find hard to determine which planet was rotating against which.
      From the above, it would come to the conclusion that Big Bang theory is unrealistic

    9. Thanks for the great article. Being consistent is so important, and that is the greatest problem with Dispensationalism.

      I was brought up in Dispensational churches that generally believed in Young Earth Creation (although many had Scofield Bibles and believed in the Gap Theory). There were so many things that just didn’t make sense in the Dispensational system. Often I would feel that passages were strained. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it was the unbiblical system of interpretation that made me uncomfortable.

      In recent years I have been exposed to other ways of looking at things (ie. letting the Bible intrepet itself). Ironically, Dispensationalists say they interpret the Bible literally and let it interpret itself, but that is definitely not the case. I think that’s what kept me stuck in that system for so long.

    10. Matthew says:

      JL,

      Has anyone gone line-by-line through Genesis 1 in order to determine what all the other things mean (e.g. plants and animals, etc)?

      • JL Vaughn says:

        Matthew,

        Milton Terry sort of did that back in the late 1800′s (Biblical Apocalyptics).

        Norm Voss used Augstine’s work to go line-by-line at the Second Covenant Creation Conference. His talk is in the archives at Preterist radio.

        As for Planet Earth’s future, there is nothing in Scripture about it. Scripture is just as silent on the eventual end of Planet Earth as it is on the beginning of Planet Earth.

    11. Matthew says:

      Micah, the sins of the serpent are outside the bounds of my questions. The fall of the angels is outside the scope of Christ’s work. They are fit for hellfire. They sinned, but that doesn’t prove the continuation of wickedness in heavenly places. Eve was deceived, but that doesn’t prove an evil heart. Adam was not deceived. Adam was tempted by Satan just like Christ. Being tempted is no sin.

      • Micah Martin says:

        Matthew,

        Your first comment is very interesting:

        “Micah, the sins of the serpent are outside the bounds of my questions. The fall of the angels is outside the scope of Christ’s work. They are fit for hellfire.”

        This would appear to contradict Romans 8:18-23, specifically 8:21:
        “because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

        Now, either you need to redefine “creation” in this text or affirm that the serpent was not a part of “the creation.” (In the futurist, YEC paradigm this also leads right into Universalism. The “self same bodies” of the un-righteous are a part of “the creation” that is going to be finally redeemed right?)

        As to your other comment, you may not be familiar with organizations such as Vision Forum, who preach a patriocentric model of Christianity. They eagerly show how Adam failed by not asserting his authority over Eve in the Garden Story.

        In one instance, I have heard a preacher argue that Adam and Eve broke all ten commandments before the fall. If you deny that Adam’s passivity was not sin, and neither was Eve’s rush to “lead her family” instead of letting the “head” (her husband) lead, then I wouldn’t hang out around organizations such as Vision Forum, etc. if I were you.

        You also have to argue that passive men and “go getting wives” was the natural way for marriages to work before “sin” messed things up.

        BTW, did Eve “add to the word of God” in her response to the serpent? Isn’t that a sin?

        In any case, your first point absolutely defeats any futurist theology. You plainly admit that “sin” was in the world before the fall.

        Perhaps we should back up and work harder to Biblically define things such as “world,” “sin,” “death,” and “resurrection.”

        Blessings,
        Micah

        • Matthew says:

          Micah,

          Some people don’t have this problem with Romans 8 and yet still believe in a physical (re)new(ed) earth and (re)new(ed) bodies:

          http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/romans8.html

          The husband/wife relationship was changed by the fall. I’d keep that in mind, but I disagree with these groups you’ve mentioned because I don’t think that the actions by Adam and Eve are very telling. It’s totally possible to read too much into Genesis 3:6. Her offering the fruit to Adam doesn’t prove she became head of the family. The text doesn’t allow such sweeping statements. Further, the text doesn’t assert he was passive. We have no idea what kind of dialogue they shared together.

          Further, we don’t know that Eve was quoting directly from Genesis 2:17. Genesis in no way suggests that it provides a complete record of exchange between God and the couple. So no, the text doesn’t allow us to conclude that she added anything to God’s Word. And, concerning this creation, Satan is a spiritual creature, and so I would be very hesitant to say that he could bring sin into the physical creation. Man was given dominian over the physical world, not Satan. Adam was the federal head.

          So, let me now ask you two questions:

          Why was Paul mocked in Acts 17:32?

          How could “body” change meanings in Matthew 10:28?

          Matthew

        • JL Vaughn says:

          Matthew,

          That is ironic. You went straight to a dispensationalist, old earther who believes a billion years of physical death, disease, meat eating, etc. were all part of God’s very good creation. How does that support your view of how the physical universe will be after all is fulfilled? He doesn’t believe in restoration of creation to the old created order.

          Rom. 5 says there was sin in the world before law came. There is no imputation of sin without law. Adam’s death was that imputation. Adam’s death came about, not because Adam sinned, but because Adam was a sinner before he had law. Adam had sinned in ignorance. It was law that condemned him.

        • Micah Martin says:

          Matthew,

          Your last comment didn’t have a reply button so hopefully this shows up with some sort of order.

          It looks like you are OEC. I really enjoyed that article. I would take the same approach in saying that Romans 8 is talking about the Old Cov. world and not the material creation.

          I am OEC but I take a non-concordist approach to Genesis one. The same Creation that was groaning in Romans 8 is the same Creation that was created in Gen. 1. It was a covenant Creation of God’s people.

          I would disagree with the article that the material universe is going to be destroyed per 2 Peter 3. I think they have some issues with consistency. (See Gary’s articles on 2 Peter 3.) John Walton does a great job in showing that ANY scientific concordist view fails when it comes to Genesis 1. IMO, the same is true with Eschatology. Covenant Creation, Covenant Eschatology. The end matches the beginning.

          As to your comment on the fall affecting individual marriages. I would disagree with the premiss. I think we are asking the wrong questions when we look at that text. I think it has to do with the OC world. I am in the process of writing an article explaining a covenantal approach to the “curses” and how they are all removed in Christ. I would be happy to send you a draft copy. My email is at the bottom of this comment.

          I am glad you would disagree with the hardcore YEC guys and how they interpret the fall. We have a lot of common ground there.

          Now for your questions.
          It seems to me that you are trying to establish a biological resurrection. I find that interesting because in an OEC framework biological death before the fall is not an issue. Now I understand that some argue that human death only entered after the fall but that is a position that I would never want to defend in public debate. It is a form of dispensationalism on hyper drive, IMO. (I would highly recommend “Beyond Creation Science.” It goes into all of these questions.)

          The Acts passage is really interesting. Just like today, there would have been misunderstanding and divisions about what the “Resurrection” was. (Even the Jews disagreed on how to define it.) The Greeks in Paul’s audience would have rejected, for the most part, the idea of life after death. But, notice that some did believe. So, yes he was mocked but he also had a few converts! (The Bible even mentions a woman… gasp! ;) )

          Now go back to Acts 17:31 and do a search on the word “mello” that is translated “will.” You will easily find that mello is a strong time statement for something that is “about to” happen.

          Try Young’s Literal Translation:
          Acts 17:31
          31because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.’

          So, whatever Paul meant by “resurrection” we know for sure he said (prophesied) that it was “about to” happen! (Just check out how “mello” is used in other places.)

          (I would also refer you to the same type of time statements in Romans 8, “until now” in verse 22 and even “mello” shows up in verse 18!)

          Matthew 10:28:
          First of all I would point out that the entire passage is an eschatological one. Notice in verse 23. Jesus tells them (his disciples) to flee from city to city as they are persecuted. He then says that the disciples would not finish going through Israel before the 2nd coming!

          That naturally leads into Jesus encouraging his disciples to be faithful through the transition period of the 1st century.

          They were not to be afraid of those who could physically kill them because the transition period had begun. Sheol would soon be emptied and the faithful of the OC would be restored to the presence of God (Dan. 12). Therefore, physical death was not to be feared because “eternal life” (knowing God and Jesus, John 17) was lived wether you were biologically alive or dead. (John 8:52ff , John 11:26ff)

          Instead they should “fear” Jesus who would destroy both the persecutors’ bodies (Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, 2 Thess. 1:5-7) and their soul’s (judgment at the end of the OC age in AD 70. See Joel’s Article on the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.)

          I don’t arbitrarily switch definitions of “body.” Context makes it clear.

          For instance. Follow Paul’s use of body in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 -14. We totally understand that that is corporate in nature. But when it comes to chapter 15 we are told to switch hermeneutics and jump track with Paul’s thought. Somehow we go back to our own traditions instead of following Scripture. That is why we can’t follow Paul back to Hosea where he is pulling his doctrine from. CORPORATE RESURRECTION FOR ISRAEL. There is not biological death in the OT passages that Paul cites in 1 Cor. 15! It’s all corporate “death.” Check out Alan Bondar’s 1 Cor. series at his New Covenant Eyes Church’s website.

          There are enormous problems with defining resurrection as “an end of time raising of biological bodies out of the ground.” I don’t have time to go into them here but hopefully I answered your questions clearly enough.

          Thanks.

          Blessings,
          Micah
          micahartin5@gmail.com

        • Matthew says:

          JL,

          “That is ironic. You went straight to a dispensationalist, old earther who believes a billion years of physical death, disease, meat eating, etc. were all part of God’s very good creation. How does that support your view of how the physical universe will be after all is fulfilled? He doesn’t believe in restoration of creation to the old created order.”

          AIG might care about billions of years of dying animals, but I don’t care. I’m in good company too (e.g. Francis Nigel Lee, Gordon Clark). Seems to me like God is moving from more and more chaos to more and more order. Why shouldn’t the consummation of things have even greater order than the initial creation? Anyways, who is the “he” you mentioned?

          “Rom. 5 says there was sin in the world before law came. There is no imputation of sin without law. Adam’s death was that imputation. Adam’s death came about, not because Adam sinned, but because Adam was a sinner before he had law. Adam had sinned in ignorance. It was law that condemned him.”

          Your view of Adam’s death is not clear to me, could you rephrase a bit? I don’t follow the bit about Adam’s death being “that imputation.” Besides, didn’t Adam have a Law? God told him not to eat of the tree. He didn’t have the Law of Moses, but he did have a command.

          So JL, in a nutshell, what do you see as the Christian’s role today? Where is this physcial universe headed, and what is our place in that direction? What’s the end game for it all? What Laws do we still obey, if any?

        • JL Vaughn says:

          Matthew,

          “He” is the author of the website you linked.

          You claim Adam didn’t have the law. Please tell me then? Without law, how did Cain and Abel know how/what to sacrifice? How did Cain know it was sin to murder? How did Noah know which animals were clean? How did Judah know about “levirite” marriage? Why did God say “Remember the Sabbath,” if they hadn’t already known of the Sabbath? What law was Moses judging by and teaching in Ex. 18, before the law was given?

          No, it is clear to me Adam had the law. The law was given in Gen. 1:3.

        • JL Vaughn says:

          Matthew,

          Sorry, I am very confused by your response. I said Adam had law. You disagreed with me and said had law. I made an argument against your disagreement which appears to not be a disagreement at all.

        • Matthew says:

          Micah,

          Will your article be posted here at American Vision? If so, I can just read it when you finish.

          You:
          “I am OEC but I take a non-concordist approach to Genesis one. The same Creation that was groaning in Romans 8 is the same Creation that was created in Gen. 1. It was a covenant Creation of God’s people.
          I would disagree with the article that the material universe is going to be destroyed per 2 Peter 3. I think they have some issues with consistency. (See Gary’s articles on 2 Peter 3.) John Walton does a great job in showing that ANY scientific concordist view fails when it comes to Genesis 1. IMO, the same is true with Eschatology. Covenant Creation, Covenant Eschatology. The end matches the beginning.”

          I’d love to get a link for Mr. Walton’s article. I’ve heard him before (audio at Wheaton College) thanks to Michael Heiser mentioning him.
          Where do you get the “end matches the beginning” idea?

          You:
          “As to your comment on the fall affecting individual marriages. I would disagree with the premiss. I think we are asking the wrong questions when we look at that text. I think it has to do with the OC world. I am in the process of writing an article explaining a covenantal approach to the “curses” and how they are all removed in Christ.”

          Why is Genesis 1 so detailed when it describes physcial things like animals, trees, land, stars, etc.? It seems to have nothing to do with the creation of a covenant… only in that the covenant is created within the created order… that’s an important caveat for me to mention.

          Don’t you worry about becoming to esoteric with Genesis, and the Bible in general? I mean, I agree that consistency is important, even in eschatology, but at what cost? Do clear, literary passages get removed from the understanding of simple people, like tent-makers and fishermen?

          You:
          “Now for your questions.
          It seems to me that you are trying to establish a biological resurrection. I find that interesting because in an OEC framework biological death before the fall is not an issue. Now I understand that some argue that human death only entered after the fall but that is a position that I would never want to defend in public debate. It is a form of dispensationalism on hyper drive, IMO. (I would highly recommend “Beyond Creation Science.” It goes into all of these questions.)”

          If God made Adam as a direct creation, and Adam had conditional immortality, then what’s the problem? I was under the impression that the resurrection was a better body than the current. I thought we’d have spiritual bodies, incorruptible. I just don’t care about these animal deaths at all.

          You:
          “Instead they should “fear” Jesus who would destroy both the persecutors’ bodies (Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, 2 Thess. 1:5-7) and their soul’s (judgment at the end of the OC age in AD 70. See Joel’s Article on the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.)”

          Fine, you didn’t change bodies arbitrarily, but what about hell? How is the destruction of Jerusalem hell? After all, men (Roman soldiers) did destroy mortal bodies at the siege of Jerusalem. In one instance, the same event is hell (i.e. Jesus’s judgment) but the death at the hands of the soldiers isn’t the body being destroyed in hell.

          A few more questions too:

          I agree with preterists concerning Matthew 24, but I’ve seen judgment language used in the OT too. So, the idea that this had to be the second coming isn’t an issue for me.
          But, the question, do you still take the Lord’s supper? Assuming the second coming already took place.

          And same questions as for JL -> in a nutshell, what do you see as the Christian’s role today? Where is this physcial universe headed, and what is our place in that direction? What’s the end game for it all? What Laws do we still obey, if any?

          Thanks,

          Matthew

        • Matthew says:

          JL,

          How did you get Law out of Genesis 1:3? I know Adam had a command not to eat. I figured that Cain, Abel etc. received propositional revelation that’s not included in the content of the Bible.

        • JL Vaughn says:

          Matthew,

          Please compare Gen. 1:2 to Jer. 4:23. Then compare the circumstances.

          In Jer. 4:23, the earth is the covenant people. They sin in ignorance because they have no law (they have forgotten it).

          In Gen. 1:2, the earth, the covenant people, sin in ignorance because they have no law. (Compare Scripture to Scripture.) Gen. 1:3 solves the problem. We have plenty of Scripture to compare this passage to to confirm this reading.

        • Micah Martin says:

          Matthew,

          Ok, I am sorry it took me so long. Here are some quick answers to your questions:

          No, my article won’t be posted here at AV. That would be awesome, and I would love the larger audience. However, I am a full-preterist and my article undercuts not only the YEC paradigm, but also the Patriarchy paradigm that AV promotes. I doubt they would want to lose the financial support that would come along with publishing my article.

          I have heard Mr. Walton but I don’t have the link available. I would recommend reading his book “The Lost World of Genesis One.” It is short, inexpensive, and a quick read.

          BTW, on a side note, if you like Michael Heisner, you should pick up Brian Godawa’s new book “Noah Primeval.” It is a fantastic read. Google it and you will see what I mean.

          The end matches the beginning is basic Christian doctrine. Pick up any commentary and you will notice that Gen. 1 is tied to Revelation 21. Notice the Heaven, Earth, and Sea motif of both passages.

          This is why Gary is still a partial preterist. He is beholden to a Dispensational “literal” interpretation of Gen. 1. Therefore, he must have a literal Rev. 21. Everywhere in between he exegetes the Heavens and Earth as Covenant, but he just can’t seem to go all the way. (Jeremiah 4, Isaiah 65, 2 Peter 3, Matthew 5 = All OC according to Gary.)

          Genesis 1 is not that detailed in light of modern science. Start searching other places in the OT and see how that same language is used. You will see that it is talking about People. (Try Jeremiah 4 and make sure you get past verse 23.)

          I don’t worry about becoming esoteric with Genesis. Covenant Creation and Covenant Eschatology has finally shed so much light on how to actually live in God’s Kingdom. The idea that all of this gets scrapped in the end (something even the postmillennialist have to acknowledge in the end) is really what causes esoteric living.

          The Bible is a love story. It comes to us in History. So many things literally happened but they were used by God to point to far deeper spiritual reality. Are you worried about the sacrificial lamb because you see Christ as the real sacrificial lamb? The Bible absolutely comes alive when you approach it as fulfilled. I can point you to many sermon series that will blow your socks off if your willing to question tradition.

          The Bible IS our history!

          I am glad you don’t worry about the physical death issue. You are half way down the track. However, I would challenge you to think in corporate terms for the “bodies” idea. Adam was a corporate body. He was mortal. Christ is the raised Spiritual body. He is immortal. Try Alan’s 1 Cor. series at New Covenant Eyes Church.

          I would say that the view of Hell you and I were taught was not Biblical. It was born out of Dante’s “Inferno” and medieval art. There are a lot of good books out there on that.

          Paul preached nothing but what was in the OT. If you have the OT fulfilled, you can’t have a future to us 2nd coming. If you don’t have the OT fulfilled, you better start worshiping on Friday night’s into Saturday, and quit eating pepperoni pizza, because you are still under Torah. (Matthew 5)

          I do take the Lords Supper at my local congregation but not because I believe it is a command. (It was a sign for the 1st Century.) I do it to keep the peace in my local congregation, and to give me an opportunity to talk with my kids (5, 4, 2) about the Kingdom that they are living in, when they are having “bread and wine.” (Yes my kids take it to.)

          If it were up to me I would just have a big fellowship meal and celebrate Redemption. (I guess that would qualify because we certainly would have bread and wine, probably some beer and cigars too. LOL)

          To answer your last question: I see the Christian’s role as the same that Israel’s was. To live in the Kingdom. To be a city on a hill. To show the love of Christ through peace, love, and sacrifice.

          I don’t know where the physical universe is headed? The latest science says that eventually the earth will burn up. That is a LONG time away. Who knows where we will be by then. I just go on Faith.

          Eternal Life is the end game. It is here already though! Check out my blog on that one. (Click on my name for the link.)

          The Law is written on our hearts. Love God, Love your Neighbor. That is a good place to start.

          Blessings,
          Micah

      • Micah Martin says:

        Matthew,

        Could you send me information on what Gordon Clark said about Gen. 1. I have not been able to find any. Most of the Clark followers that I know are hard core YEC guys. (Strict literalist, 24 hour day, 6 day creation, 6K years ago.)

        I have looked for Clark endorsing an OEC model but have yet to find any. If you have a citation or resource that would be awesome.

        Thanks in advance.

        Micah

        • Matthew says:

          Micah,

          I heard John Robbins mention Clark’s position in a sermon (on sermonaudio). He was disappointed that Clark didn’t take a strong, YEC stance. Robbins was probably Clark’s greatest disciple, so I took his word for it. Robbins is dead, but his site might know the exact location of Clark’s opinion. Based on Robbins’ context, I’m not sure if Clark was an OEC, but at least, he like Francis Nigel Lee didn’t care too much about the issue of “days” being 24 hours long. I’m like Lee and Clark (presumably). I appreciate some of the work that AIG does, only in that they point out the limits that empiricism has to live with. But, I’m not on their bandwagon for biblical exegesis.

          http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=1

          This foundation also keeps a huge amount of Clark’s work for sale.

          Thanks,

          Matthew

        • Micah Martin says:

          Matthew,

          Thank you for that info. I would love to find that sermon. If you remember which one it is let me know. In the meantime, I will search around sermonaudio.

          I’ll try to respond to your other post this evening when I have more time.

          Blessings,
          Micah

    12. Tim Martin says:

      Gary,

      I have seen you and other AV writers recycle this old argument a few times over the last 5 or 6 years. Are the major young-earth creationist organizations buying it now? Are you making any progress with them? And if they didn’t agree with you before, what makes you think they are going to agree with you now?

      It seems to me that your argument is very shallow.

      Let me give you an example of one of the problems you face. Would you consider this explanation by Kenneth Gentry (young-earth creationist) to be a good example of a literal interpretation of 2 Peter 3?

      “Fourth, the reference to the unraveling and conflagration of the heavens and the earth is expressly tied to the material creation. Hence, it seems clearly to refer to the consummation, and not to A.D. 70, despite certain similarities. Peter expressly refers to the material creation order: ‘from the beginning of creation’ (3:4; cf. Gen. 1:1); ‘by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water’ (3:5; cf. Gen. 1:2, 9); the heavens and the earth which now exist’ (2 Peter 3:7). He seems clearly to be defining the “heavens and earth” to which he is referring. He is not contemplating the destruction of the old Jewish order, but the material heavens and earth…

      The new creation, then, of 2 Peter 3 is the renovated material world that will succeed the present temporal order. It will be purified by fire and refashioned by the hand of God. It is on this new earth that the saints will dwell forever.”

      Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominon (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), pp. 304-305.

      See more explanation here:

      http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=YEF_Symbiosis_Gentry

      I wrote a book with Jeff Vaughn on the pervasive connections between modern young-earth creationism and dispensationalism. The specific chapter that discusses these deep and well-documented connections is online for anyone to examine for themselves here:

      http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Read_Chapter_6

      Perhaps, someday, you will get around to write this history, or even refute our case. Once that work is done, then you will need to show how your entire preterist paradigm can be defended from the consistent method of “literal” interpretation including how the language of the Book of Revelation pertains, predominantly, to the local covenant judgment on national Israel fulfilled by A.D. 70.

      Do young-earth creationists recognize your “literal” interpretation when it comes to the entire model known as preterism? Will they ever? Think a bit deeper than time-texts. That’s where they have their real problem with preterism.

      I feel sorry for young-earth preterists. They just seem doomed to a perpetual love-hate relationship with all things dispensational. It’s as if YEC preterists want to say the dispies got it all right in Genesis and the Old Testament, but then the same preterists will “jump the tracks” in the New Testament and in Revelation. I gave that up when I realized the schizophrenia involved in starting with dispensational methodology in Genesis and ending with preterist conclusions in Revelation. It’s hard for me to imagine that you don’t see these problems.

      You taught me, and many others, the importance of a consistent worldview method from Genesis to Revelation. I guess we’ll just have to move forward. It was preterism that nuked my previous YEC views. Preterism is precisely what took myself (and quite a few friends) right out of YEC forever. Progress often takes generations to work out the details consistently. Baggage is sometimes hard to let go.

      Good luck with your argument above. I actually hope it convinces as many as possible.

      Tim Martin
      BeyondCreationScience.com

    13. Matthew says:

      JL, Paul said that by the Law we havw knowledge of sin. There is still sin today. People get murdered daily. Arent men still denying God?

      • Micah Martin says:

        Matthew,

        Was there sin before the fall?

        Was the serpent sinning when it tempted Eve?

        Was Eve sinning when she saw the fruit and desired it (lusting or coveting)?

        Did Adam sin by ignoring the threat that the serpent posed?

        I have heard plenty of futurist (theonomist, reformed, take your pick) that point to all the “sin” before the fall, yet out of the other side of their mouth they say that full-preterism can’t be true because ultimate redemption means that we are no longer “able to sin.”

        There is a lot more to that conversation but think about those questions for a while. You might be surprised at your own conclusions.

        Blessings,
        Micah

    14. Matthew says:

      @JL, so Christianity has no connection to the physical world? If so, will the evil world system continue forever?

      • JL Vaughn says:

        What “evil world system?” The only evil world system in the Bible was the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is gone.

        If you have something else in mind, the Bible doesn’t speak of it.

        That’s standard Covenant Eschatology aka Full preterism.

        Blessings

    15. Matthew says:

      @John, it seems hard to believe that Jerusalem was ever master over the Roman beast.

      • JL Vaughn says:

        Master over the Roman beast? I thought Jerusalem was the whore that “rode” the Roman beast.

      • John McGrew says:

        Matthew,
        The Jews were called to be kings and priests to the nations, and they provided that office to Rome with a daily sacrifice for the empire and the emperor. This was a deal made with Julius Caesar, in exchange for religious freedom and so they would not have to worship Caesar to demonstrate their political loyalty. Julius defeated Pompey, who had trespassed in the Holy of Holies, these facts help explain why the Jews were initially loyal to the Caesars. Eleazar stopped all sacrifices for Gentiles, including this one, which the Romans justly interpreted as a declaration of war, and which nullified any reason for the Jews continued existence as the people of God under the old covenant. Of course, Christ had done that, but this is one more legal reason for nullification. At some key points, the Jews did direct the Roman and Herodian Beasts, they forced Pilate’s hand to kill Jesus, and Herod Agrippa killed James and would have killed Peter because it pleased the Jews. A more literal translation might be better here, the harlot sits on the beast and the beast bears her,(supports) but they aren’t necessarily going anywhere, except gehenna- another failure in the priesthood department.
        John

    16. Matthew says:

      So, preterists, what now? Bodily resurrection? Did God create this physical universe and will He judge it ALL?

      • Micah Martin says:

        Matthew,

        Here is a good place to start. You are not the first to ask these questions.

        http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/

      • JL Vaughn says:

        Matthew,

        Though I certainly don’t mind if you buy the book Micah recommended, we now have more succinct answers to your three questions than are found there.

        The clue to the resurrection is to figure out what “body” is being raised. In 1 Cor. 15, it was the same body that was the subject of 1 Cor. 14, which was the same body that was the subject of 1 Cor. 13, etc. The one body that was the subject of those chapters was the body of Christ, the Church, the bride of Christ.

        The singular body of Christ, the Church, the Bride of Christ, was undergoing “the standing again of the dead [ones].” (Present perfect or present passive, currently ongoing tense, unfortunately translated as future tense.) Resurrection – ana-stasis = stand again. Who are the dead ones? The text makes numerous references to Adam. Due to sin, Adam could no longer stand. He was dead. And all of those in Adam were just like him. They were dead and needed to, collectively, stand again.

        This is standard Covenant Eschatology (aka Full Preterism).

        One down, two to go. My answer to the next two is currently contrary to standard Covenant Eschatology, but it is slowly winning out.

        Matt. 5:18 answers both. “All will be fulfilled.” This includes judgment. When? When “heaven and earth pass away.” Before even a jot or a tittle of the law will pass away. The jots and tittles of the law have passed away. Therefore, heaven and earth have passed away and judgment is finished, all has been fulfilled.

        James Jordan claims that the physical universe did pass away at that time. I claim that Gen. 1 was the “creation” of the Old Covenant at the time of Adam. That is, bara, translated create, is the verb root of the Hebrew noun berith, translated covenant. “In the beginning, God covenanted the heavens and the earth.” All through Scripture, “heaven(s) and earth” is a name or description for God’s covenant.

    17. Alex Alexander says:

      I’m a YEC and a (partial) preterist. Am I the only one, then?
      Alex A
      UK

      • JL Vaughn says:

        Alex,

        You are not the only one. For such a strange beast, you are surprisingly common. :) It appears to be the official position of American Vision. An even stranger beast is the YEC full preterist, yet I know a bunch of those also.

        Matt. 5:18, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

        The jots and tittles of the law have passed away. The Sabbath law has passed away. Therefore “heaven and earth” have passed away. James Jordan insists on a YEC interpretation of Gen. 1 and concludes that the physical universe passed away in AD 70.

        Jordan missed a few issues that contradict his physical universe presuppostion. The Law roots the Sabbath in the Gen. 1 creation. The Sabbath was unique to Israel. The Sabbath was observed in Ex. 16, before the Law was given at Sinai. Therefore Gen. 1 creation (with it’s Sabbath) was not a universal creation and only applied to Israel. It was Israel’s creation as the “sons of Adam” (frequently translated “sons of man” in the OT). It was the creation of the old covenant, “the first heaven and the first earth,” which passed away in Rev. 21:1, with the completion of the new creation, “the new heaven and new earth,” which has “no more sea.” That is, as Jordan says, no more gentiles, no more distinction between Jew and gentile.

        • alex alexander says:

          Now, I’m even more confused!
          I’m going to have to re-read the article — and your comments.
          But, thanks for telling me I’m normal!
          (I can’t “do” “smileys”… I’m not smart enough. But…)
          “SMILEY!!”

        • alex alexander says:

          BTW: I may be a “beast”; but I object to being called “strange”…
          I’m BRITISH! I’ll have you know, Sir!
          (PS: Hand back those 13 rebellious colonies. Right Now!)
          please…

        • JL Vaughn says:

          Alex,

          Smileys are done by placing a colon “:” followed by a close parenthesis “).”

          No offense meant. Young-Earth Creationism as commonly taught (ICR, AiG, etc.) comes straight from Ellen G. White and is consistent with her’s and her dispensationalist followers premillennialist eschatology. It is not consistent with any form of preterism, even though numerous preterists (partial and full) endorse it.

          Every form of preterism requires some or all of the New Testament references to heaven and earth to refer to either the Old Covenant that was then passing away or the New Covenant that was then coming into existence. By what standard do partial preterists assign some of these passages to a covenantal heavens and earth and others to a physical heavens and earth. The inconsistancy between partial preterist writers suggests there is no standard.

          And how can any of them be separated from the Gen. 1 creation? They can’t. Careful study can only conclude that the Gen. heavens and earth and all of the New Testament heaven and earth are all covenantal heaven and earth. The Old Covenant began some 6000 years ago with Adam in the garden. Eschatology points to the end of that covenant, that heavens and earth, that sin and death, and to all of the things that were added to the covenant over the 4000 years from Adam to Christ.

          Blessings.

      • Micah Martin says:

        Alex,

        Jeff is too humble.

        You can go here to read about the book he co-authored documenting the YEC history and how it is directly tied to Dispensationalism.

        http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/

        You can read chapter 6 online for free. That will shake things up a bit for you.

        Blessings,
        Micah

    18. Tim Martin says:

      Gary,

      I have seen you and other AV writers recycle this old argument a few times over the last 5 or 6 years. Are the major young-earth creationist organizations buying it now? Are you making any progress with them? And if they didn’t agree with you before, what makes you think they are going to agree with you now?

      It seems to me that your argument is very shallow.

      Let me give you an example of one of the problems you face. Would you consider this explanation by Kenneth Gentry (young-earth creationist) to be a good example of a literal interpretation of 2 Peter 3?

      “Fourth, the reference to the unraveling and conflagration of the heavens and the earth is expressly tied to the material creation. Hence, it seems clearly to refer to the consummation, and not to A.D. 70, despite certain similarities. Peter expressly refers to the material creation order: ‘from the beginning of creation’ (3:4; cf. Gen. 1:1); ‘by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water’ (3:5; cf. Gen. 1:2, 9); the heavens and the earth which now exist’ (2 Peter 3:7). He seems clearly to be defining the “heavens and earth” to which he is referring. He is not contemplating the destruction of the old Jewish order, but the material heavens and earth…

      The new creation, then, of 2 Peter 3 is the renovated material world that will succeed the present temporal order. It will be purified by fire and refashioned by the hand of God. It is on this new earth that the saints will dwell forever.”

      Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominon (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), pp. 304-305.

      See more explanation here:

      http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=YEF_Symbiosis_Gentry

      I wrote a book with Jeff Vaughn on the pervasive connections between modern young-earth creationism and dispensationalism. The specific chapter that discusses these deep and well-documented connections is online for anyone to examine for themselves here:

      http://beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Read_Chapter_6

      Perhaps, someday, you will get around to write this history, or even refute our case. Once that work is done, then you will need to show how your entire preterist paradigm can be defended from the consistent method of “literal” interpretation including how the language of the Book of Revelation pertains, predominantly, to the local covenant judgment on national Israel fulfilled by A.D. 70.

      Do young-earth creationists recognize your “literal” interpretation when it comes to the entire model known as preterism? Will they ever? Think a bit deeper than time-texts. That’s where they have their real problem with preterism.

      I feel sorry for young-earth preterists. They just seem doomed to a perpetual love-hate relationship with all things dispensational. It’s as if YEC preterists want to say the dispies got it all right in Genesis and the Old Testament, but then the same preterists will “jump the tracks” in the New Testament and in Revelation. I gave that up when I realized the schizophrenia involved in starting with dispensational methodology in Genesis and ending with preterist conclusions in Revelation. It’s hard for me to imagine that you don’t see these problems.

      You taught me, and many others, the importance of a consistent worldview method from Genesis to Revelation. I guess we’ll just have to move forward. It was preterism that nuked my previous YEC views. Preterism is precisely what took myself (and quite a few friends) right out of YEC forever. Progress often takes generations to work out the details consistently. Baggage is sometimes hard to let go.

      Good luck with your argument above.

      Tim Martin
      BeyondCreationScience.com

    19. Michael Earl Riemer says:

      Brother DeMar you state:
      “I believe that one of the reasons Christians are not making much headway culturally is because we lack a vibrant eschatology.”

      You couldn’t be more correct. How can someone win, if they believe they are on the losing side? An athlete will not win the gold medal if he doesn’t believe he can beat all the other competitors?

      Christians (Dispensationalists) will not build a better culture, for most believe evil will overcome God’s Church.

    20. John McGrew says:

      The Herodian dynasty fills the requirements for the Beast from the Land, they received their power from the Roman empire, first from Mark Anthony and the senate, then from Octavian and the following Caesars, Herod the Great was worshipped as the Messiah, and Herod Agrippa was worshipped as a god, they persecuted and killed Church leaders, including the attempted infanticide of Jesus and their role in his death, and the death of James, and they preyed upon innocent life and property in general. There is only one Temple of God now, but there was another, see Mt 21:12. Eleazar, the last governor of the Temple of God, fulfilled the II Th. prophecy very literally, as detailed by Josephus, and no, it wasn’t made from brick. The pope has many of the characteristics of the man of lawlessness and is a reasonable secondary application of scripture, but could never fulfill this prophecy literally, he never has ruled the whole church and never will, the church is indwelled by the Holy Spirit and ruled by its Head, Jesus Christ, no man can do these things or has ever claimed to do these things, especially since the Church as temple is already in Heaven. All of which has little to do with Mr. DeMars article. Whenever I try to hold someone to the literal meaning of prophetic passages, they just repeat the mantra: a thousand years is as a day or something about the indeterminacy of time. Funny how one poetic passage trumps and destroys all the objective prophetic time texts.
      John

      • Matthew says:

        Mr. McGrew,

        Do you have some links about what you are talking about (especially Eleazar)? I’d like to do some reading about what you’ve mentioned. Also, who do identify as the Whore?

        • John McGrew says:

          Matthew,
          the history of the fulfillment of the pertinent prophecies is found in Josephus, both in the Wars and at the end of the Antiquities. Whiston’s edition has a good index, look up the passages relating to Eleazar and read the context too.
          John

        • John McGrew says:

          Matthew,
          Sorry, I didn’t answer about the identity of the harlot, Isaiah Jeremiah and Ezekiel make it clear that the harlot is Judah, or sometimes more specifically Jerusalem. I think of the religious leadership of the people, as vs. the Herods as political leaders. That isn’t always a clear distinction, though. Modern types of the beast are the different ideologies of the total state, which are conscious returns to the pagan idea of the state as god walking on earth, as Hegel put it. Unfortunately, I think most denominations have had their adulterous flings, looking to the state for their security. Think of the Catholic bishops and their support of Obama care and how that has come back to bite them. Herod the Great worshipped as the Messiah came from a historical novel by Dr. Paul Meier about Pontus Pilate, it was a footnoted reference, I don’t remember the reference, though.
          John
          John

      • E Harris says:

        Alright John, now we’re getting down to some discussion of real history, as it applies to prophecy. Most of the time it’s just Mr. DeMar picking on helpless Futurists.

        “Matt 21:12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God[a] and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.”

        This “temple of God” was before the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This was before the gospel was even chronologically completed. PEOPLE were not (chronologically) called “the temple of God” until after the gospel was chronologically revealed to mankind. Jesus said that “if you destroy this temple, I will raise it in 3 days”. He had a secret about His temple’s identity that he wasn’t sharing yet. It wasn’t time, yet…because people weren’t ready. The gospel hadn’t yet been revealed.

        At the crucifixion the veil was torn seperating Jewish believers from God. That was symbolic of the old seperations going away (that were part of the Old Covenant practices). From then on, believers (priests) had immediate access to God without having to go through any other mediary than Jesus Himself. Then, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came upon all the believers. They were filled, much as a temple is filled. (Ez 44:4 “the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD”). They were now God’s house, the Body of Christ on earth.

        At the time that 2 Thess 2 was written, this change (from artificial temple to collective human temple) had already happened.

        ALL of proper eschatology hinges on the IDENTITY of the temple of God, and when/where it becomes the temple of God.

        John, I agree with you that nobody should be able to sit in the temple of God “showing himself” to be above all that is called God. It should be beyond his power. Because only God can TRULY be above all. But God granted the power, that it would happen.

        Another hurdle that I had to surmount was: how can he literally SIT in the Temple of God… the Body of Christ… in the Body of believers…? Well… the Body of Christ is physical. It is corporate, but physical. He sits among believers as a part of their accepted economy…and he uses that economy for his authority. This describes Constantine and the whole politicized Rome-centric pride rather well.

        The Temple (synonymous with the Body) IS the light of the world, IS the head and not the tail, it IS leading the world, it does have authority (it is in “heaven” in that sense). But the Temple of God (if it is synonymous with the Body of Christ) is a PHYSICAL economy. It is a HOUSE of God. A HOUSE of prayer. A HOUSE for the Spirit which is eternal. When Jesus ascended, you could say that WE became His Body on earth. We “inherited” the moniker of “Temple and Body” because we remained on earth.

        In but not of. Babylon is ‘of’ this world and tries to ascend. We already sit in heavenly places with Jesus, and His Spirit is expressed through us in our economy. He is the Head not only of us individually, but of the resulting economy as well. Satan craves to use this economy for his own ends. John, I’m glad you agreed that this principle is still in effect today…and that this evil was much stronger, and directly linked to political Empire, back around 1100ad. The real saints couldn’t even hardly communicate the truth – for fear of immediate reprisal from the man who claimed to be Head of the universal Body. Most of the proclaimation of the gospel message was tainted and hijacked by socio-political meanings. Jesus said that his kingdom was not OF this world (though it is in it). The kingdom of God is Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Spirit. And through that Spirit we have immanent communication with our Head (for those who listen).

        • E Harris says:

          As the Body of Christ grows, so does its wealth. The flesh, the devil, and the world crave this wealth. The wealth that was preserved and strengthened by the church (of words, faith, inventive minds, and physical riches) was bent toward service of Rome for a while.

        • E Harris says:

          (The only reason we got off on this tangent… is because Preterism is good at pointing out the gap between 69th & 70th week as being invalid. BUT Preterism tries to assume a PROPHETIC gap between 70ad and “the end of the world as we know it”. Protestant Historicism, though sometimes mistaken, asserts that there is no prophetic gap at all. History is one continuous prophetic story, that in fact is outlined in Scripture, and will be revealed to everyone’s amazement after the fact. In fact, somewhere in Revelation 15, it talks about the Acts of God being REVEALED. So not everything needs to be revealed all at the same time. It’s recorded at one time…but sometimes revealed in a WIDER CONTEXT for the world to see – at a later date.)

        • JL Vaughn says:

          E Harris,

          “BUT Preterism tries to assume a PROPHETIC gap between 70ad and ‘the end of the world as we know it.’”

          Really? Matt. 5:18, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” I don’t follow the Sabbath. Do you? The only Christians I know that follow the Sabbath are the followers of Ellen G. White.

          The rest of us? Our every action testifies that “heaven and earth” have indeed passed away. “The world as we know it” was never the subject of prophecy.

        • John McGrew says:

          Mr. Harris,
          Some things we don’t agree on: I believe the Body of Christ and the Temple as his body is the whole church, not just the church on earth, which is one insurmountable reason the church cannot be ruled by a man. Secondly, between Pentecost and the destruction of the Temple there is a generation of transition, the new bride does not fully take her place until the old wife is divorced and stoned and burnt, the new Temple does not fully take its place until the old is destroyed, as Hebrews 9 puts it, the way to the most holy place was not manifested while the old tabernacle was yet standing; and Rev 19 shows us the new bride prepared for her marriage after the destruction of the harlot city. Jesus won his victory on the cross, received it from his Father upon his ascension, but still had send his armies, and lead them as Lord of Hosts, to destroy those wicked men and their city and take the vineyard, or kingdom, from them; Mt 21:33ff and 22:1-7. As far as the more evil expressions of the type post 70, I look to the modern ideologies of the total state, beginning with St. Simon and his New Christianity, Rousseau, Comte and his Religion of Humanity, Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc. ad nauseum.
          John

    21. E Harris says:

      A very good point.

      I would like to point out (in my usual way) that Historicists don’t believe in a gap, either. Daniel’s 70 weeks were fulfilled, and then the gospel was preached to the Gentiles around 33ad. There was a window of time to be both in the New and in the outwardly traditional. But that window slammed shut in 70ad, as the Old geographically-restricted faith degraded to the point of being non-functional.

      The same day-for-year principle used in Daniel is what Historicists claim turns 3.5 months (1260 prophetic days) into 1260 years. ‘The man of sin’ sat in authority in THE temple OF GOD. (There’s only one “the” temple of God. And it’s a New Covenant temple, because it still bears God’s name, IN TRUTH, in a letter describing New Covenant issues.) Someone/something ungodly was seated in authority amongst believers (The Body/Temple of Christ), without being rejected – thinking that he alone had the authority to preside over all ideas about God. Sound familiar?

      (This logic of a centralized one-man heirarchy was later adopted & modified by Muhammad/muslims. Islam is (in part) a fruit and a reaction to the Holy Roman Empire-treatment of monotheism and Jesus. Muhammad rejected Jesus, but learned well how to use the authority of monotheism for political & monetary purposes. He could very well be “the false prophet” of Revelation. And the man of sin could very well have its fullest manifestation in the Papacy/Roman Catholic heirarchy.)

      Historicists have pointed to a few VALID & HISTORICAL instances where a political movement was created – and then taken from power… in that timeframe. I’m not certain about the timing, and all the specifics. I AM certain that 2 Thess 2 “temple” is the church. That means that ‘the man of sin’ was seated in power in the church, and was revealed after a political restrainer/persecutor was taken out of the way. (You cannot effectively exalt yourself as universal head of the WHOLE underground church…while the church is still underground.) I would point to two books: End Time Delusions by Steve Wohlberg, and “The Final Trumpet” by R.W. Mills.

      Of course, it does no good to pick on Historicism. So few actually know about it – that to debate it would be to elevate it’s stature. Am I right?

      Well… thank you Mr. DeMar for letting me post here. And thank you for the one response that you DID give to Historicism. You said something about it being too sloppy and flexible to even address or reason with. It does allow for a more open-minded inquiry, if one does not HAVE to make EVERYTHING fit into a framework that is (yet) historically incomplete.

      I DO think that a merger is possible between Partial Preterism, Protestant Historicism, and maturity-driven/spirit-driven Postmillenialism. In fact, I hold all these positions – and I fail to see how they are contradicting each other (by necessity).

      PARTIAL PRETERISM says that there is some yet to be fulfilled….and doesn’t pretend to know exactly when.
      PROTESTANT HISTORICISM says that we are in the middle of the progression of fulfillment (but we aren’t exactly sure where). Some place us near Armageddon (but that is common for nearly everyone). I place us near the end of Rev 14…crossing over into Rev 15. Whatever. I’m still learning.
      And SPIRIT-DRIVEN POSTMILLENIALISM says that God’s own Spirit and zeal will accomplish in the hearts of men what is necessary to have dominion in the earth realm. It’s not primarily a political (external) fight. It’s an inner surrendering that leads to societal/political transformation. God creates in us the New Man that brings about the new heavens (authority) and new earth (economy).

      All 3 positions are completely compatible with organic house-church theology (eldership based on faithful fatherhood & being a good husband). All 3 positions are completely compatible with the way that the Holy Ghost moved in the New Testament times (and that charismatics say still moves today). All 3 positions address the nature of the Temple as being the Body of Christ on earth. All 3 positions treat Revelation as mostly (if not ENTIRELY) symbolic of socio-spiritual realities and movements.

      • Matthew says:

        E Harris,

        Great post! I agree that the three positions are compatible (e.g. Most if not all of Matthew 24 is 70 AD stuff, as are the first three chapters of Revelation). It might be “sloppy and flexible,” but it is the only view that allows God’s Word to touch on every era since the Creation. It’s a nice thought to think that God has something to say about every era of human history.

      • Matthew says:

        E Harris,

        Have you ever considered that the land Beast might come after the 1260 years, and is itself an empire?

        • E Harris says:

          The ‘land Beast’ may come after the 1260 years, and itself be an empire? I’d have to read about that & see if it fits. All I KNOW (for sure) is that pride exalted itself within the church as predicted in 2 Thess 2. That temple was not a brick temple, it was/is the church. And that the fullest earthly expression POSSIBLE of pride in the church (in history past or future) is the papacy. It did PRECISELY what 2 Thess 2 describes. The strength and evil present in the papacy circa 1100 will never again be repeated in the church. It’s impossible, at this point. The Reformation is a movement AWAY from that. The anti-christ, the man of sin, was a Judas. And the fullest expression of this was a religious empire not like other empires. (And it helped to establish Islamism, by its very example.)

          There is a lot about historicism that is hazy (at least at the beginner-level, where I am). I didn’t grow up studying history. 1970′s was ancient history to me. America’s founding fathers and Jesus Christ seemed practically next door to each other….like maybe a few hundred years apart. The Roman Catholics were so “yesterday’s news” that I didn’t feel I even had to study anything that mentioned them. I came to realize that there was a REASON for that black hole between the time of ACTS and the time of America. There was a tremendous battle for the soul of human culture taking place within the church itself.

          When I read that book “End Time Delusions” my eyes were opened up … and my pentecostal/protestant christian libertarianism began to make more sense. I began to realize that statism is a part of human nature that exists both within and outside of church practices. It openned me up to begin exploring errors within my own ‘sect.’ And then history began to come alive, all around me. I’m just starting to explore other possibilities in Revelation. Protestant Historicism is BY FAR the most fertile ground for seeing the possibilities…but it must be tempered by Spirit-led Postmillenialism, and the intellectual weight of Partial Preterism.

      • Matthew says:

        E Harris,

        A good resource:

        http://www.noiseofthunder.com/

    Back to Top ↑

    electronic-white
    tail-ref