Comments on: The Garden of Eden: thoughts from Tim Martin http://undeception.com/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin By faith, Abraham... Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:03:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Tim Martin http://undeception.com/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/comment-page-1/#comment-472 Tim Martin Thu, 08 May 2008 02:52:02 +0000 http://undeception.com/index.php/2008/05/02/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/#comment-472 Doug, Thank you for your kind comments. They are very encouraging to me. Please consider that our goal with BCS was to focus on the Genesis debate from a preterist perspective. That mandated we offer a brief explanation and broad defense of preterism, but it was not our intent to make a comprehensive case for that view. There are other authors who have done that work very well in my opinion. I would recommend some of Don Preston's books if you are interested in studying out the preterist view in detail. You can find them here: http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.browse&category_id=18&Itemid=209 He also has quite a few recordings that are always informative. For a more basic look at preterism, you might want to check out Gary DeMar's <em>Last Days Madness</em> available at: http://www.americanvision.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1559 The fact that we made a case that was good enough for you to want to further investigate preterism means that we accomplished what we set out to do with BCS in regard to preterism. Thanks again for your kind words. May God bless you as you continue to study the Scriptures. Your friend, Tim Martin Doug,

Thank you for your kind comments. They are very encouraging to me.

Please consider that our goal with BCS was to focus on the Genesis debate from a preterist perspective. That mandated we offer a brief explanation and broad defense of preterism, but it was not our intent to make a comprehensive case for that view. There are other authors who have done that work very well in my opinion.

I would recommend some of Don Preston’s books if you are interested in studying out the preterist view in detail. You can find them here: http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.browse&category_id=18&Itemid=209 He also has quite a few recordings that are always informative. For a more basic look at preterism, you might want to check out Gary DeMar’s Last Days Madness available at: http://www.americanvision.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1559

The fact that we made a case that was good enough for you to want to further investigate preterism means that we accomplished what we set out to do with BCS in regard to preterism.

Thanks again for your kind words. May God bless you as you continue to study the Scriptures.

Your friend,

Tim Martin

]]> By: Doug Moody http://undeception.com/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/comment-page-1/#comment-471 Doug Moody Thu, 08 May 2008 01:37:47 +0000 http://undeception.com/index.php/2008/05/02/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/#comment-471 Tim, I am a big fan of you and Jeff, and especially the quality of your writing style. I was a writer in another life, so I can enjoy it when the craft is employed well. I devoured your BCS book, and then very much enjoyed the notes I read in your PPT slideshow on the garden. Then, I am being treated to this blog! Can it get much better? All that aside, let me say that I am an undecided preterist, meaning that there are some very important points which I feel you haven't proven conclusively. If you could prove them beyond a doubt, then I no doubt would be a preterist. Your book showed the evidence, but not enough, IMHO. But the other covenantql material in the book...WOW! I am still pondering it a month after I finished your book and thinking of more and more implications for the Christian life. This isn't just theoretical stuff. This is gospel stuff for living! In fact, I started a thread on another christian website (full of futurists ;) ) arguing for an old earth based on what I got from your book. Needless to say, I got a frosty reception, but I don't care. I argued for a non-exclusive non-historical Genesis. What I mean by that is that Genesis can be BOTH. It can be historical, and yet it can also be allegorical and metaphorical, as well as covenantal. Arguing that one has to exclude the other denies the richness which scripture gives us in all dimensions. So, keep it coming! I am growing greatly. It's too bad that I don't have anyone locally with whom I can discuss these things without great hostility. It doesn't have to be that way - but it is. That's why I turn to the Internet for material. Thank you and thank God. Tim,
I am a big fan of you and Jeff, and especially the quality of your writing style. I was a writer in another life, so I can enjoy it when the craft is employed well.
I devoured your BCS book, and then very much enjoyed the notes I read in your PPT slideshow on the garden. Then, I am being treated to this blog! Can it get much better?
All that aside, let me say that I am an undecided preterist, meaning that there are some very important points which I feel you haven’t proven conclusively. If you could prove them beyond a doubt, then I no doubt would be a preterist. Your book showed the evidence, but not enough, IMHO. But the other covenantql material in the book…WOW! I am still pondering it a month after I finished your book and thinking of more and more implications for the Christian life. This isn’t just theoretical stuff. This is gospel stuff for living!
In fact, I started a thread on another christian website (full of futurists ;) ) arguing for an old earth based on what I got from your book. Needless to say, I got a frosty reception, but I don’t care. I argued for a non-exclusive non-historical Genesis. What I mean by that is that Genesis can be BOTH. It can be historical, and yet it can also be allegorical and metaphorical, as well as covenantal. Arguing that one has to exclude the other denies the richness which scripture gives us in all dimensions.
So, keep it coming! I am growing greatly. It’s too bad that I don’t have anyone locally with whom I can discuss these things without great hostility. It doesn’t have to be that way – but it is. That’s why I turn to the Internet for material. Thank you and thank God.

]]> By: Tim Martin http://undeception.com/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/comment-page-1/#comment-468 Tim Martin Sun, 04 May 2008 20:29:34 +0000 http://undeception.com/index.php/2008/05/02/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/#comment-468 Wow, More friends with King's X backgrounds!? Steve, No sweat. There is a lot of fresh discussion going on right now. At this point, I do take Adam and Eve as real flesh and blood human beings just like Jesus and everybody else in the New Testament. I'm not ready to commit to whether or not Adam and Eve were the first physical human beings or not. I am still thinking that through and studying the issue. I may write something on that at a later date. What I can say is that I see the issue of the fall primarily in a covenantal sense rather than a biological sense. We are not brethren with Christ because of a biological connection, so I do not view biological descent from Adam as necessary to have a covenantal relationship to the likeness of Adam who transgressed the commandment. Covenantally speaking, "sonship" is a reality whether we have biological descent of all human beings from Adam or not. I would suggest that biological descent has been over-rated in Church history in regard to both believers and unbelievers. Covenant is primary. What that means in the nitty gritty details of Genesis and the rest of the Bible and anthropology, etc, is what I am still working out in my own mind and studies. I'm not sure that I could say "an unspecified Adam and Eve (who could have been a real couple or an unspecified people group) were brought into the family of God" because I believe God's family (i.e. covenant relationship) in a human sense <em>began</em> with Adam and Eve. Your comment seems to imply that the family of God (in a human sense) existed prior to Adam and Adam and Eve were brought in to something that already existed. I really do believe that Genesis 1-2 is a beginning. The question is the beginning of what, precisely? I'm also still thinking through the relationship between Adam in the Garden and Israel under Torah. I think we do have to honor Paul's statement that the Law came many years after the promise (Gal. 3:16-17). On the other hand, there is some sort of relationship between the original garden scene and Israel under Torah. Right now I'm leaning toward the idea of the relationship where the Law is a shadow of both Christ and the original creation order since Christ's work is one of redemption (made-new heaven and made-new earth). That would make the Law (formally speaking) an intrusion into history, but reflecting the ultimate (new) covenant that lies below everything in Scripture from Gen. 1-Rev. 22. You are right, though. The second presentation I offered in Ohio is where a lot of these details become effective in their outworking, practically speaking. Enjoyed the discussion, Tim Martin www.beyondcreationscience.com Wow,

More friends with King’s X backgrounds!?

Steve,

No sweat. There is a lot of fresh discussion going on right now.

At this point, I do take Adam and Eve as real flesh and blood human beings just like Jesus and everybody else in the New Testament. I’m not ready to commit to whether or not Adam and Eve were the first physical human beings or not. I am still thinking that through and studying the issue. I may write something on that at a later date.

What I can say is that I see the issue of the fall primarily in a covenantal sense rather than a biological sense. We are not brethren with Christ because of a biological connection, so I do not view biological descent from Adam as necessary to have a covenantal relationship to the likeness of Adam who transgressed the commandment. Covenantally speaking, “sonship” is a reality whether we have biological descent of all human beings from Adam or not.

I would suggest that biological descent has been over-rated in Church history in regard to both believers and unbelievers. Covenant is primary. What that means in the nitty gritty details of Genesis and the rest of the Bible and anthropology, etc, is what I am still working out in my own mind and studies.

I’m not sure that I could say “an unspecified Adam and Eve (who could have been a real couple or an unspecified people group) were brought into the family of God” because I believe God’s family (i.e. covenant relationship) in a human sense began with Adam and Eve. Your comment seems to imply that the family of God (in a human sense) existed prior to Adam and Adam and Eve were brought in to something that already existed. I really do believe that Genesis 1-2 is a beginning. The question is the beginning of what, precisely?

I’m also still thinking through the relationship between Adam in the Garden and Israel under Torah. I think we do have to honor Paul’s statement that the Law came many years after the promise (Gal. 3:16-17). On the other hand, there is some sort of relationship between the original garden scene and Israel under Torah. Right now I’m leaning toward the idea of the relationship where the Law is a shadow of both Christ and the original creation order since Christ’s work is one of redemption (made-new heaven and made-new earth). That would make the Law (formally speaking) an intrusion into history, but reflecting the ultimate (new) covenant that lies below everything in Scripture from Gen. 1-Rev. 22.

You are right, though. The second presentation I offered in Ohio is where a lot of these details become effective in their outworking, practically speaking.

Enjoyed the discussion,

Tim Martin
http://www.beyondcreationscience.com

]]> By: Steve http://undeception.com/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/comment-page-1/#comment-467 Steve Sun, 04 May 2008 12:01:30 +0000 http://undeception.com/index.php/2008/05/02/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/#comment-467 How could I claim to be so awesome otherwise? 8) How could I claim to be so awesome otherwise? 8)

]]> By: Mike Beidler http://undeception.com/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/comment-page-1/#comment-466 Mike Beidler Sun, 04 May 2008 06:19:03 +0000 http://undeception.com/index.php/2008/05/02/the-garden-of-eden-thoughts-from-tim-martin/#comment-466 "Thanks for taking the black flag off my morning." King's X fan, Steve? “Thanks for taking the black flag off my morning.”

King’s X fan, Steve?

]]>