Well, I guess it was only a matter of time.
Some of you might have heard about John Holzmann and Sonlight Curriculum for Homeschoolers based out of Colorado. John is a friend of mine who, a couple of years ago, expressed interest in Beyond Creation Science. (You can see his comments here.)
John is the inquisitive type who is always investigating various viewpoints. That shows in how Sonlight Curriculum is formulated. They tend to offer books with contrasting (and sometimes contradictory) views. The goal is to expose the home school student to different points of view so they can develop critical thinking skills. In a nutshell, Sonlight Curriculum is after real education -- which is probably why they are so popular with home schoolers.
Except this has now caused a problem for John in Colorado.
The Colorado homeschool association (CHEC) decided that Sonlight would no longer be allowed a booth at the annual Homeschool Convention in Colorado that is hosted by CHEC. Why not? Because Sonlight Curriculum includes material written from an old-earth creationist/Intelligent Design perspective. (GASP!!)
Apparently, this makes Sonlight Curriculum "not Christian enough" to participate in the Homeschool Convention since CHEC requires a strict 6 Day/Young-Earth statement of faith for all its vendors. Of course, Sonlight has been displaying their material at this annual convention for years. They make no official stand on the YEC-OEC debate as an organization. They include YEC material along with OEC material in their curriculum. None of this matters now. Somebody just decided they don't meet up to the standard required by CHEC.
Hmm....
I suspect that some of John's recent articles on the subject might have something to do with Sonlight getting the ax. The irony, though, is that there appears to be a backlash against CHEC from loyal Sonlight supporters. Gotta love those home schoolers! It appears that some of them think that loving God with all their mind means actually learning about opposing views whether they agree with those views or not. I am also willing to bet that the OEC home schooling contingent will be getting larger in the future rather than smaller. Sonlight Curriculum is sure positioned to serve this niche within the home school community! Looks like free advertising to me, courtesy of the nanny CHEC! (Who needs state control of education when you can have have your state Christian home school association filter vendors at the convention for you! Ironic, no?)
Now we get to wait on an official response from CHEC regarding the situation. This one will be fun to watch. I don't know if CHEC realized this, but they just put the subject of old-earth creationism front and center for a lot of new people who probably had no interest in it before.
You can read John's account of the details here.
Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com
12 comments:
Hey Tim, just got my latest issue from "fulfilled". Nice introduction to Covenant Creation, what kind of response did you get? Who coined the term "Covenant Creation" BTW?
This latest incident by CHEC hopefully will make Sonlight more popular.
Critical thinking is crucial, especially in light of the current political and economic situations are country faces.
Jesse,
In a word, positive.
Covenant Creation? It seemed the logical corollary to Covenant Eschatology. Chapter 14 of BCS is titled "Covenant Creation." I would guess someone used the term before us, but I haven't found them yet.
We are still waiting to hear official word from CHEC regarding the situation with Sonlight. I am investigating whether Ken Ham was involved in the decision or not. He spoke at the CHEC conference in 2007.
I'll post details when I get them!
Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com
I have read John Holzmann's article dealing with YEC and OEC and found it temperate, thought-provoking and well thought out. However a few points in which I ask readers to either ponder, accept or reject concerning this issue.
1. I believe John is correct when he suggests that a person can believe in an OEC and still be a Christian. If Peter could still not understand that the Gentiles were acceptable to God's plan of salvation, even after clear teaching from Jesus indicating such (from our perspective after the fact), until a special vision was given to him in Acts chapter 10, then we should be patient with brethren who do not agree with us. Some take longer to come to truth than others and some truths or more likely opinions, are not significant as to our eternal destination.
2. John makes this statement in his article: "We believe, however, that a correct interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is extremely difficult--perhaps more difficult than the interpretation of almost any other section of Scripture."
I find the above comment rather incredulous concerning the historical evidence. While I would agree that there is material in those chapters that is wondrous and hard to believe, I believe that the material mentioned is not hard to interpret. I can recall reading those chapters in my youth and not finding them difficult to interpret for I had the faith of a child, innocent and ready to accept at face-value what the Scripture says. And now as a 56 year old man, I find that even my life experiences confirm much of what is stated in these chapters. For example, we must remember that the first words recorded by the serpent (literal??) was, "Did God really say" (Genesis 3:1). Continually I find this the case today concerning the Word of God, "Did God really say?". In reality, I find one of the most difficult Scripture for believers to interpret today not to reside in Genesis 1 -11, but rather Acts 2:38 concerning baptism (a word which is not really translated in our translations) and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is amazing how we just cannot accept this verse for exactly what it says, for I hear constantly "Did Peter or God really say or mean this ". Seems like I have heard that question before. Oh, yes, in Genesis 3:1.
3. I agree that Scripture must trump science. Remember science really means knowledge. So our knowledge is limited and finite. So sometimes faith must step in. I believe there is a place called heaven where the throne of God and the Lamb is(is this throne literal?) and that there is a place called Hades. Now have I seen either one of these places. No! I must accept it on faith, not a blind faith, mind you, but a faith that says I do not know all things but what I do know has convinced me to accept what I do not know. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that some things did happen to the earth after the flood, if we accept that conditions before the flood were much different. I can see the seasons that Genesis mentions in 8:22, while I cannot see the fact that there must have not been a rainbow prior to the flood nor that the fear of man was not in the beasts of the earth prior to the flood, Genesis 9:2. I must accept this on faith. I can see the weeds that grow in my garden and the thorns and thistles, but I cannot see the fact that they must not have been there prior to man's fall. I must accept this by faith. I can see that the days of a man's life averages about 80 years today, but I cannot see that the life span of Adam and others after him were much longer. I must accept this by faith.
4. There is a little bit of arrogance in much of the dialogue about this matter. We must recognize that these issues have been discussed before by Christians and Jews for centuries. What is the difference? Modern science. Let's face it, were it now for modern science, must of this would be left to just faith. Interestingly, the early Church Fathers, which did at times have trouble with the literal interpretations of some of the material in Genesis 1 - 3 (Origen for one), most of them did not have trouble believing in Genesis 1 - 11 as literal and factually true. Now they has the same Hebrew and Greek as do we, in fact they may have had a better understanding being closer to the ancient manuscripts than we. So let us not be deceived into thinking that these issues have not been thought of before. So we must ask, how did the early Christians and Jews understand these issues in their day without the benefit of modern science to suggest to them, "Does the Bible really say this when the evidence suggest otherwise".
Pascal Redfern
Pascal, my friend, welcome to the world of "Will Not Delay" debate. I am sure you will bring a lot of thought provoking study and discussion. To bad you have not been here for the last 3 weeks of our "Trail Blazer Ministries" studies on "Salvation" since I sometimes think you and I are the only wants that see the plain simple truth of Acts 2:38, although you and I even differ in that because of my "Preterist" take on even that since I see in water baptism the point at which we are "Resurrected" and death is conquored.
Pascal,
Nice to see you here.
I do have a some questions.
Have you read Beyond Creation Science?
I would be happy to provide you a free review copy if you do not have a copy already. In that book, we demonstrate the connections between Genesis creation and the New Heavens and New Earth spoken of in New Testament prophecy. The connections seem to be most clear with the garden in Genesis and the garden (with the tree of life and river, jewels, gold, etc) inside the New Jerusalem. We also showed the connection between the coming of Christ and the flood of Noah's day. Published YEC material speaks a great deal about this same comparison. My first question is this. Do you see a logical connection between these things (Genesis and Revelation, Noah's flood and the coming Jesus promised in Matthew 24, etc.)?
My next question relates to your statement here:
"So we must ask, how did the early Christians and Jews understand these issues in their day without the benefit of modern science to suggest to them, 'Does the Bible really say this when the evidence suggest otherwise'".
In BCS, we showed how Josephus' conception of Noah's flood, in the first century, was clearly a local flood that took place within a covenant context. We showed how the modern global flood view is actually an effect of applying modern scientific conceptions (geology, etc.) to the Genesis text. Can you demonstrate how we are mistaken in our presentation?
Next, I am wondering if you would agree with the pre-Galileo teachings of the Church regarding geo-centrism based on such texts as Joshua 10 and Psalm 93 which states that the "sun stood still" and the earth "cannot be moved"? Do you believe that the Bible teaches a stationary earth, or do you believe that the Church, pre-Galileo, were mistaken in their Biblical interpretation regarding astronomy?
If you believe they were mistaken in their biblical interpretation regarding astronomy, then why should we make their understanding of the age of the earth (geology) our standard? (Assuming they taught the age of the earth.)
If you agree that geo-centrism is not accurate or biblically defensible, could you please tell me what, exactly, caused Christians to doubt that long-held doctrine?
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com
Tim, I respond to your latest post. I will highlight some of your comments and then respond to them.
1. "Have you read Beyond Creation Science? "
No, I have not except for what is available online. Therefore, it would not be fair, to the book, to address it specifically without reading it. So I would be glad to review the book. How much does it cost? My address is 4212 Edward Ave., Missoula, MT 59804
2. "In BCS, we showed how Josephus' conception of Noah's flood, in the first century, was clearly a local flood that took place within a covenant context."
I did a little research about this. Not much mind you. It appears that this claim of Josephus comes from this statement:
'"There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote." — Nicolaus of Damascus, quoted in Josephus, The Antiquity of the Jews, I:5:95. '
Now this is a quote by Nicolaus which Josephus records, so I am not sure that we can state that Josephus claims it. He does record it, I agree. The quote does suggest a local flood by the statement that many who fled the flood came to a great mountain. However the statement is quite confusing. Is Nicolaus suggesting that there were individuals besides Noah and his family that were saved? If so, that is not what the Genesis record of this event would say. The other thing that is odd is why do we need a great mountain (presumably very tall and imposing) if the flood was local? While Nicolaus has preserved the germ of the truth of the flood, it obviously has grown to legendary or mythical proportions with additions to the Genesis record. I recently came across a web site by Rich Deem (Evidence for God) who also argues for a local flood. His arguments are not very convincing but one comment of his illustrates the problem. He states:
"Many Christians maintain that the Bible says that the flood account of Genesis requires an interpretation that states that the waters of the flood covered the entire earth. If you read our English Bibles, you will probably come to this conclusion if you don't read the text too closely and if you fail to consider the rest of your Bible".
There it is! The problem is the English translation and the fact that we do not read the text closely enough. Deem, in essence, admits that anyone who reads the Genesis record about the flood will naturally come to a world-wide flood conclusion. However out English text is faulty and we (those of us who are not smart enough to realize this) need to look at the text more closely. Hmmmm! Seems to me this is the argument that cults use against Christians and the English Bible. Mormans, Jehovah Witnesses, etc., all believe out Bible is mistranslated or faulty or lacks fuller revelation. A dangerous path this is for OEC to follow!!
3. "Next, I am wondering if you would agree with the pre-Galileo teachings of the Church regarding geo-centrism based on such texts as Joshua 10 and Psalm 93 which states that the "sun stood still" and the earth "cannot be moved"? Do you believe that the Bible teaches a stationary earth, or do you believe that the Church, pre-Galileo, were mistaken in their Biblical interpretation regarding astronomy?"
Well, difficult to answer this question without going into what was the real "church" in those days. It is not the Catholic church, in my view. Since they were so mistaken on many doctrines, it does not surpise me that they would be mistaken in this area as well. Clearly, the geocentric view is correct when it comes to God's dealing with man and the earth. Jesus did come to the earth and die for mankind. Unless you believe there are other life forms in other galaxies, then this view is very earth centered. However you have to bring in science to show how the earth relates to the universe. I prefer to just leave that in the relm of opinion and concentrate how God has worked with man on this planet Earth. In this view I am geocentric.
Pascal Redfern
I'm quite interested in this and have to admit to a lack of real knowledge on this subject. Why not have Tim and Pascal debate this subject? Possible proposed propositions:
1) The account of the "flood" in Genesis is of a limited, local nature.
2) The "flood" was world wide.
Take your time in preparation for this debate.
Pascal,
I will send a complimentary copy.
Regarding Josephus: That is only one section related to what I mentioned. We have quite a bit on this in BCS. Here is another clear portion:
"Now the sons of Noah were three - Shem, Japhet and Ham, born one hundred years before the Deluge. These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and persuaded others who were greatly afraid of the lower grounds on account of the flood, and were very loath to come down from the higher places, to venture to follow their examples" 1:4:1
Looks like there were others who didn't want to live on the plain because they were scared. Ham, Shem, and Japheth had to convince them to come down. Kind of hard if Noah's family are the only ones alive on planet Earth.
I'll leave the rest for when you get a chance to read the book.
I have to confess, associating OEC with cults like Mormons and JWs is not an argument I have been exposed to before. Not sure how to respond to that in this medium.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com
Thanks,Tim, I will be looking for it. My comment about OEC and cults was not meant to disparage the views of OEC nor to make them guilty by association (associating with others who view our English translations with suspicion). Rather, I was suggesting that this path was dangerous.
I will wait before I comment any further concerning this topic for your book.
In the meantime, some of you might profit from a web site that I have come across recently. It is a web site dealing with creationism and the early church. The best I have seen on this subject. The web site is by a Robert Bradshaw and is thusly: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/index.html. Go to this and click on creationism. (Yes, I noticed the word demon in his web site but I must assume that this is an abbreviation)
Pascal Redfern
Tim, I received Beyond Creation Science yesterday, so thank you. What I thought I would do is review the book in pieces so that I don't write a long book in my review. So I read the first two chapters of the book this morning and will give my comments as per these two chapters.
Let me say that I am intrigued by your attempt to harmonize protology (beginnings) and eschatology (the endings). I think all of us would agree that there was a beginning at some time particularly for mankind, and that there will be an end for mankind which is either consummated by us going back to God and/or the end of the world. But what you and Jeffrey are trying to do is more than that. You are trying to suggest that many of the conservative views on these subjects are wrong. This is possible. But my next question is so what? Let us say that I am wrong in my view that the flood was world-wide and that it was actually a local flood. What does this error do to view of God's judgement upon mankind not only in Noah's day but also to the future since Jesus and Peter refers to the event in referring to God's coming judgement. I can still hold that God holds man accountable for sin, that God expects men to be righteous in their generation and that God will reward those who are righteous and punish those who are wicked. What have I gained to these particular views if I move from the world-wide flood to the local flood theory? So I am not sure that much is gained. The most important question is the Bible is the one Jesus asked the apostles, "Who do you say that I am" Matthew 16:15. The second most important question in the Bible is "What must I do to be saved" Acts 16:30.
Still you do raise important questions and there is much error on these subjects particularly in eschatology.
So let us begin. You begin in chapter one by quoting Matthew 16:27, 28. Here you begin to state your proposition that certain prophecies are sometimes direct and simple and therefore many of the prophecies of Jesus should be understood simply and directly. So we are told to believe that Matthew 16:27, 28 had to be fulfilled within 20 to 40 years after it was said. This does appear to be simple, direct interpretation. However, as we all know with Jesus, sometimes this is not the case. He can couched His words in cryptic language which even the disciples did not understand until after His resurrection. In the text mentioned above what does Jesus me by death? Is it physical death or spiritual death? What does he mean by the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom? Is this referring to Jesus going back to the Father and sitting at the right hand, of which Stephen saw in Acts 7:55,56? Or is referring to the coming of the church which came about in Acts 2? Or is it referring to the time of which Paul speaks about in I Corinthians 15:23 - 26. We have a clue as to what Jesus is speaking about in verse 27 of Matthew 16. Here Jesus speaks about a reward being given to each person according to what he has done. This appears to be speaking about the Last Judgement. Now I realize that some of you believe that this also took place during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and that after that every Christian and non-Christian is judged immediately. I will leave this topic for another time. Still, I think one could easily interpret Matthew 16:27, 28 to be not referring to physical death but to spiritual death which will come at the Last Judgement. What are we to make of Jesus statement before the high priest in Mark 14:62 where He tells him that "you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven". When was this fulfilled!! Jesus was speaking before the high priest - either Annas or Caiaphas, history suggests that they were both dead before 70 A.D. Therefore it is possible to put a different light on this than the common preterist interpretation that Matthew 16:27, 28 is referring to those listening that they would not taste physical death until they saw the destruction of Jerusalem and the secret coming of Jesus - all fulfilled in 70 A.D.
The second point I want to address in this posted comment is dealing with Matthew 23:36 and 24:34. Now I agree that much of what Jesus talked about was fulfilled upon the Jews by A.D. 70. And I agree that by the time of Jesus the normal time frame for a generation was about 40 years. However, I must point out that this was not the case in patriarchal times. In Abraham's time, a generation was probably around 100 years. See Genesis 15:16
But if you compare Matthew 24 with Luke 21, then there are other possibilities to BCS's (Beyond Creation Science) view of Matthew 24:24. First of all, only Luke claims to write an orderly account of the gospel. We know that this is an important claim for Papias and Eusbieus claim that Mark wrote under the direction of Peter but not in an orderly fashion. So when we read Matthew, it is not always clear, when speaking of the Second Coming of Jesus, as to the time line or sequence of events. Luke helps us out a little. He states in Luke 21:24 that Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Now what does this mean. I think the common preterist view that this is referring to the Roman armies in Palestine. But is Jesus only referring to a roughly 2 - 3 year period here when He talks about "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". I think not.
Secondly, the signs of the coming of the Son of mana will be visible both on earth and in heaven. If the angles know not the day nor the hour, they are surely looking in expectation and wonderment. We are told that He will send His angels to gather together the elect from the four winds from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of HEAVEN. So all creatures in earth and in heaven will be looking forward to that day. So how can the son of Man be coming in secret according to preterists. The actual hour and day is secret but not the signs. I find it odd that none of the church fathers in the second and third centuries know of this secret coming in 70 A.D. How is it that we can speak with assurance about this and they are totally silent about the matter. Surely something of this magnitude would have been proclaimed loudly by the church fathers. Yet,they are silent! How come.
With the above in mind, I am forced to conclude that the generation that Jesus speaks about in Matthew 24:34 must be the future generation that will be around to see the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles. Now am I 100 % sure of this interpretation, no. So I still remain open about it.
Pascal Redfern
Pascal,
Honestly, I have not seen such a discombobulated comment for a long, long time.
I think they call that "exegetical gymnastics."
Most all of your questions will be answered explicitly in the book.
You do raise one question that I can provide an answer for:
"He states in Luke 21:24 that Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Now what does this mean. I think the common preterist view that this is referring to the Roman armies in Palestine. But is Jesus only referring to a roughly 2 - 3 year period here when He talks about "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled". I think not."
I "think not" as well. The preterist view is that the time of the Gentiles goes back into the history of Israel in the Old Testament. When was Jerusalem given over to the Gentiles? Think in terms of covenant history here. Jesus did.
That would be when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. From that point on, all the way through the inter-testamental period, Gentiles were in charge of Jerusalem, though some liberty was allowed by various rulers.
Daniel saw four kingdoms (Dan. 2) that would rule during this "time of the Gentiles." They are four Gentile kingdoms. In the time of the fourth (ROME), the kingdom would be delivered over to the saints.
Therefore, if we knew covenant history, the reference in Luke would make perfect sense to us (and fit the obvious timeline Jesus gave). The "time of the Gentiles" is, quite literally, Daniel's 70 weeks.
When Jesus makes reference to the time of the Gentiles being fulfilled, he is making reference to the fulfillment of Daniel's 70 Weeks.
Do you believe Daniel's 70 weeks have been fulfilled, or do you hold to a gap theory there?
Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com
Hmm, discombobulated! Well, I hope that does not set the tone for future discussions on this subject.
Anyhow concerning your latest post, you state that the times of the Gentiles started:
" when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. From that point on, all the way through the inter-testamental period, Gentiles were in charge of Jerusalem, though some liberty was allowed by various rulers. "
It appears that we are taking some liberty in interpreting the phrase "times of the Gentiles".
I will answer this way:
1. Gabriel gives us the understanding and purpose of the 70 weeks. He states in Daniel 9:24 - 27. Nowhere do we read of a period of the times of the Gentiles which was to begin.
2. If I understand you correctly, you being the period of the times of the Gentiles with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But actually, Jerusalem was a vassal of so-called Gentiles way before the destruction of Jerusalem. For example we are told that King Manasseh was taken with hooks and bound with fetters and carried off to Bablyon by the army of the King of Assyria in 2 Chronicles 33:11. Now he apparently repented and was brought back to Jerusalem. And Nebuchadnezaar took Jerusalem way before he destroyed it. We read in 2 Kings 24:1 that Jehoiakim became Nebuchadnezzar's vassal for three years and then he rebelled. Later the army of Babylon came again against Jeroiachin and took him prisoner and took all the treasures of the house of the Lord in 2 Kings 24:12, 13. It was then that Babylon put in place Zedekiah as king but again he was a vassal of Bablyon. So it appears that to you, Tim, the line of demarcation for the times of the Gentiles must be the destruction of the temple since evidence clearly shows that the Jews were in Gentile hands way before. Now there is not clear-cut Scripture to indicate this, so this interpretation has to be an opinion.
3. I don't even think that we can say with absolute assurance that during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah and during the Macabees, that Jerusalem was totally under Gentiles hands especially if we use the temple as the line of demarcation.
4. Now if we take the "exegetical context" of the phrase "until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" in Luke 21:24, we do not get your intepretation. From a simple reading of the text, it appears that Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles(starting around 70 A.D.) UNTIL the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. From the context of the hearers(the disciples), I am sure that they thought forward not backwards. In other words, I don't think they thought of this phrase as going backwards to Babylon but rather forward to when "will these things be" (Luke 21:7).
5. Finally, it appears from Paul that the times of the Gentiles is also spiritual besides the physical trampling of Jerusalem. Paul states that the blindness of Israel (towards the New Covenat) has happened until "the fulness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25)
So in conclusion, while I respect your interpretation, I must state that it must be put in the realm of opinion as is mine. If so, we must be careful when we built such a strong foundation on just opinions rather than truth.
Pascal Redfern
Post a Comment