Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Ancient Chinese History in Light of the Book of Genesis


 


By Hieromonk Damascene


Note: This is a three- part article submitted by Hieromonk Damascene. Fr. Damascene, from the St. Herman of Alaska Monastery in Platina, California, recently completed a trip to China. (Please see “OMHKSEA News” later in the June 2004 issue.)

 

1. The Chinese Border Sacrifice:
The Earliest Chinese
Theology and Worship of God


In looking at the Chinese history in light of the Book of Genesis, it will be helpful to look first at the earliest known religion in China. Later, we will see how this ancient religion fits in with the Biblical account of ancient history.
The earliest account of religious worship in China is found in the Shu Jing (Book of History of Book of Documents), the oldest Chinese historical source. This book records that in the year 2230 B.C., the Emperor Shun “sacrificed to Shangdi.” That is, he sacrificed to the supreme God of the ancient Chinese, Shangdi meaning Supreme Ruler. This ceremony came to be known as the “Border Sacrifice,” because at the summer solstice and Emperor took part in ceremonies to the earth on the northern border of the country, and at the winter solstice he offered a sacrifice to heaven on the southern border.
The Chinese have been called one of the most history-conscious and tradition-conscious peoples of the world. This is seen in many aspects of Chinese culture. Perhaps it is seen most of all in this very Border Sacrifice which the Emperor performed twice a year. This ceremony, which goes back at least to 2230 B.C. was continued in China for over four thousand years, up until the fall of the Manchus in A. D. 1911. Even though the people gradually lost an understanding of what the ceremony was all about, and Shangdi was obscured behind all kinds of pagan deities in China, nevertheless the worship of the one God, Shangdi, was continued faithfully by the Emperor up into modern times.
The oldest text of the Border Sacrifice that we have dates from the Ming Dynasty. It is the exact text of the ceremony that was performed in A. D. 1538, which was based on the existing ancient records of the original rituals. Let us look at portions of the recitation script that the Emperor used
Above: The Circular Mound Altar of the Temple of Heaven
in Beijing, built in A. D. 1420, where the Emperor
would offer sacrifice. Temple of Heaven Photo and caption
courtesy of Hieromonk Damascene
The Emperor, as the high priest, was the only one to participate in the service. The ceremony began: “Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements [planets] had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof there existed neither forms for sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Thou madest heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproductive power got their being.” This recitation praising Shangdi as Creator of heaven and earth sounds surprisingly like the first chapter of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1: 1- 2).
So, in the earliest records of Chinese religion, we see that the people worshiped One God, Who was Creator of all. We also see that the original people of China looked at Shangdi with a sense of love and a filial feeling. The Emperor continued his prayer: “Thou hast vouchsafed, O Di, to hear us, for Thou regardest us as a Father. I, Thy child, dull and unenlightened, am unable to show forth my dutiful feelings.”
As the ceremony concludes, Shangdi is praised for His loving kindness: “Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. As a potter, Thou hast made all living things. Thy sovereign goodness is infinite. Great and small are sheltered [by Thee]. As engraven on the heart of Thy poor servant is the sense of Thy goodness, so that my feeling cannot be fully displayed. With great kindness Thou dost bear us, and not withstanding our shortcomings, dost grant us life and prosperity.”
These last two recitations, taken together, bear the same simile as found in the Prophecy of Isaiah in the Bible: “But now, O Lord, Thou art our Father; we are the clay, and Thou our Potter and we all are the work of Thy hand” (Isaiah 64: 8).
In general, reading the text of the Border Sacrifice reminds one strongly of the prayers of the ancient Hebrews as found in the Old Testament: the same reverent awe before God, the same selfabasement, humility and gratitude before His greatness. For us Christians, these most ancient of Chinese prayers to God are strangely familiar. Why is this? It seems that the most ancient Chinese religion and the ancient Hebrew religion are drawn from the same source. And that is indeed the case, as we will see.

2. The Book of Genesis and the Beginnings of China

Let us begin at the beginning. Adam and Eve, as we know from the book of Genesis, were cast out of Paradise, and Cherubim with flaming swords guarded the East Gate of Eden so that Adam and Eve could not return to it. Paradise, according to tradition, was on a high place, like a mountain. Adam and Eve remained near to Paradise, “over against” it according to the Greek (Septuagint) version. They remained on a high place, viewed Paradise from afar, and lamented what they had lost.
God placed it into the minds of Adam’s sons Cain and Abel (and, we assume, Adam himself) to offer sacrifice. They would have done this near to the border of Eden. The sacrifice, of course, was not enough to save mankind, or open to him the Paradise and the access to heaven which he lost. However, God placed in man the idea of sacrifice in order to prepare man to understand the Sacrifice that would save man: the Sacrifice of the Son of God on the Cross. Adam lived to be 930 years old. According to the Hebrew genealogy, Adam lived at the same time as Noah’s father Lamech: Lamech was 56 years old when Noah died. According to the genealogy in the Greek version of the Old Testament, there about a thousand years more time between Adam and Noah, so there would have been another generation. But, at any rate, Noah would have heard about the creation and the Fall from his father Lamech, who was only one, and perhaps two, generations removed from Adam himself. This gives us an idea of how direct the knowledge was that Noah had.
The Great Flood occurred, according to the Biblical reckoning, in approximately 2348 B.C. It was a global Flood which wiped out the entire earth and all human beings except for Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives (8 people in all).
The Bible says that, when Noah got off the Ark after the Flood, the first thing he did was to offer sacrifice to God, just as his forefather Adam had once done. In fact, before the Flood Noah had brought on the Ark with him some animals which were specifically meant to be offered in sacrifice, in addition to all the other animals that were on the Ark. So, the religion of Noah, which he had received from his forefather Adam, included the sacrifice of animals.
Only 101 years after the Flood, evil abounded again; and therefore, as the Bible tells us, “the earth was divided.” This occurred at the Tower of Babel, when God confounded the languages, and people began to be scattered about the earth. The Tower of Babel incident occurred at about 2247 B. C . And it is soon after this point that Chinese history begins.
The original people of China were undoubtedly a group of people (of unknown number) who traveled to China from Babel. It is probable that most of the people living in China today have descended from this original group.
Many Christians who have looked into this question have suggested that, in the Genesis “table of nations” chronicling the language groups migrating from Babel, the “Sinite people” (Genesis 10: 17) could refer to the group that became the Asian peoples.
Whether or not this is the case, here is a very interesting fact to consider: According to the Chinese records, the establishment of China’s first dynasty, the Hsia (Xia) dynasty, occurred in 2205 B.C. Modern scholars ascribe a somewhat later date of between 2100 and 2000 B.C. Therefore, depending on which reckoning one accepts, the establishment of China’s first dynasty occurred anywhere from 42 to 205 years after the approximate date of the Tower of Babel incident. That was the time it took for the protoChinese to migrate to China from present- day Iraq (the site of the Tower of Babel) and already begin their dynastic civilization.
From the Bible we know that Noah lived 350 years after the Flood. So the founding of China’s first dynasty occurred while Noah was still alive.
The first people of China could have heard about the creation, the Fall, and life before the Flood from Noah himself. And Noah, as we have said, could have learned about these things, through one or at most two intermediaries, from Adam himself. This gives us an idea of how close were the first Chinese people to the first man, Adam.
We know that when the original settlers of China came to their new land, they brought the religion of Noah with them. We know this from the Border Sacrifice of which we spoke earlier. The Border Sacrifice was like the sacrifices of Noah, which were like the sacrifices of Adam. And, as we have seen, the God that was invoked at the Border Sacrifices was the One God, the Creator of universe, that both Noah and Adam worshiped. The prayers that were at the Chinese Border Sacrifice bear remarkable similarity to the prayers of the ancient Hebrews because both come from the same source: the religion of Noah.
An interesting point to ponder is why the Chinese called their sacrifices “Border Sacrifices,” and why the Emperor traditionally performed them at the border of the Empire. We know that Adam would have performed his sacrifices outside the borders of Paradise, probably as close as possible to Paradise, outside the Gate that was guarded by the Cherubim. It is possible that the Chinese Border Sacrifice were based on the tradition of a “border sacrifice” from the time of Adam.
As we have said, the Sacrifices— whether of Adam, Noah, or the Chinese Emperors— could not save mankind from the consequences of the Fall: death, and eternal separation from God. They could not get man back into Paradise. For this, a totally pure and unblemished sacrifice had to be offered, by a totally pure and sinless human being: one who would be the Second Adam and set aright what Adam had ruined. This sacrifice was offered for all time by Jesus Christ, the “Second Adam.” And another interesting point: Just as the first Adam had offered his sacrifice outside the Gates of Eden, the Second Adam offered His Sacrifice outside the Gates of the Holy City of Jerusalem, when He was taken outside the city to be crucified.
Christ fulfilled what was prefigured by the sacrifices of Adam and Noah, and by the Border Sacrifices that were offered by the Chinese from the very beginning of their history.

3. Chinese Recorded History in Light of the Bible

Let us go back now and look at the recorded history of China in light of what we’ve just been talking about, that is, in light of the Biblical history of the world.
We’ve already mentioned the oldest book of Chinese recorded history: the Shu Jing, or Book of Documents. This book was written in about 1000 B.C. and was based on material from the Shang Dynasty, which began in 1700 B.C. (1700 B.C., by the way, is 200 years before the time of Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis.) Even if we assume that the original materials for the Shu Jing came from the beginning of the Shang Dynasty in 1700 B.C., this means that at least 500 years would have passed from the beginning of China to the first written record of its history.
The first thing that students of Chinese history learn is that Chinese history began with a Flood. This is not surprising, since we know that ancient peoples from all the continents of the world have a story of a Great Flood which covered all the earth as a judgment on man’s sin. In many cases, the details are remarkably like the details recorded in the book of Genesis. The Aboriginal peoples of Australia, for example, speak of a global flood and how only eight people escaped it in a canoe.

Above: Noah with his family, having come out of the Ark,
offer a sacrifice upon an altar. 16th- century Russian icon.
Icon image and caption courtesy of Hieromonk Damascene
The flood story was the most pervasive of all the other legends in ancient China. The Shu Jing records: “The flood waters are everywhere, destroying everything as they rise above the hills and swell up to heaven.”
Since the Shu Jing only begins with Chinese history, however, this statement does not refer to the global Flood, but rather to the local flooding that was caused in China by the remnants of the Great Flood. The Shu Jing speaks of how, after the Great Flood, some of the land was not yet habitable because the flood waters were still inundating the land. This was certainly possible. The time between the Flood and the founding of the first Chinese dynasty was as little as 143 years, and we would expect that huge pockets of water would have been on the land at that time, which are not there today. This phenomenon of post- Flood water- pockets is described in the book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, written by a geologist, Steven Austin. Dr. Austin is a believer in the Biblical account of the Flood, and in this book he posits that Grand Canyon was formed by a huge pocket of water that was left over from the Flood, and which broke loose over the land. Since the layers of sediments had recently formed during the Flood and the land was still soft, the leftover Flood waters were able to carve out the magnificent Grand Canyon.
Going back to ancient China: These leftover Flood waters made parts of the land uninhabitable. At that time, according to Chinese history, there were the first righteous Chinese Emperors, Yao and Shun: the first emperors to offer the Border Sacrifices to Shangdi. To a man named Kun given the task of ridding the land of the flood waters, but he was not able to do so. It was not until Kun’s son, Yu, devised a new technique to channel the waters out to sea that the land was eventually made habitable.
Yu the Great
It took nine years for Yu to channel the waters out to sea. He became a hero because of this amazing feat. As a result, Shun turned the rulership over to Yu. Yu became emperor, thus beginning China’s first dynasty, the Xia. After that, China’s dynastic culture lasted almost another four thousand years.
There do exist legends about dynasties in China before the Xia dynasty, but these dynasties are of a different sort, with questionable details attributed to them and very long lives ascribed to their people. The Xia dynasty is the first precisely documented dynasty. Christian geologist Dr. John Morris suggests that the welldocumented dynasties date to dispersion from Babel, “while the prior dynasties were faded memories of pre- Flood patriarchs, preserved as legends.” Emperor Yu of the Xia dynasty “evidently gained prominence when he engineered the draining of swampy land left saturated by leftover flood waters. His following dynasty commenced about the time of Abraham or so, and the memories of long- lived patriarchs of pre- Flood days became legends of early dynasties.”

4. Indications of Ancient Chinese Knowledge of the Creation and the Global Flood

So, now we have looked at Chinese history in relation to the Bible. If we start with the most ancient record of Chinese history, the Shu Jing, we find that the history of ancient China matches very well with the history of mankind as recorded in the Bible. (The Shu Jing, by the way, was the source of Chinese history used by Confucius, considered by him to be the most authentic source of Chinese history.)
Since the Shu Jing begins with specifically with Chinese history, however, it does not refer to Noah, or to what occurred before the Great Flood. Is there anything in ancient Chinese history that refers to the Great Flood or to what occurred before it? Yes, there is, but unfortunately it was written much later than the Shu Jing, and thus filled with legendary material. In the Huainan- tzu, written in the 2nd century B.C., we read the story of Nu- wa (also pronounced Nu- kua), whose name sounds a lot like “Noah.” The story says that, in very ancient times, the habitable world was split apart, waters inundated the earth without being stopped, and fires flamed without being extinguished. “Therefore,” the text reads, “Nu- kua fused together stones of the five colors with which to patch together the azure heaven.” This is perhaps a distorted retelling of the Flood story, over 2,000 years after it happened. The stones of Five Colors by which Nukua patched the heavens may be a legendary retelling of the rainbow that Noah saw in the sky after the Flood, which was to be a covenant between God and the earth that God would never again destroy the earth by water.
Whether or not the Nu- kua legend was based on actual history of the Noahic Flood, we know that the original people of China knew the basic facts concerning the creation of the world. We know this because these facts are laid out in the text of the Border Sacrifice which we have quoted earlier. As we have shown, the Border Sacrifice describes the creation in a way remarkably similar to the book of Genesis.
Dr. John Morris points out that many of the language groups migrating from Babel “took with them technological knowledge which they put to use in their new homelands. History documents the fact that several major cultures sprang into existence seemingly from nowhere at about the same time— the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Phoenecians, the Indians, as well as the Chinese— and each possessed a curious mixture of truth and pagan thought, as would be expected from peoples only briefly separated from Noah and his teachings as well as the star- worshipping, pyramid- building heresy of Nimrod at Babel.”

5. About the Evolutionary Explanation of the Origin of the Chinese People

Now that we have gone this far in our examination of Chinese history in the light of Genesis, a few questions may remain. First of all, it may be objected that, according to secular scientists, the first inhabitants of China were actually hominid ancestors of man. About thirty years ago, it was generally believed by evolutionists that the hominid ancestor of Chinese man was the Asian Homo erectus, otherwise known as “Peking Man” or Sinanthropus (meaning China Man). Sinanthropus was supposed to have lived from a million or two million years ago in China. Today, however, some scientists disagree that this Sinanthropus is really an evolutionary ancestor of today’s Chinese people. In fact, the whole field of paleoanthropology is becoming more and more confused as time goes on. The paleoanthropologists can’t agree on the evolutionary tree of man, and different parties among them have heated fights over this question. Now it is generally thought that there is not an evolutionary tree at all in relation to man, but rather a confused “bush.”
If we look at the so- called ancestors of man, we can see that, in some cases they are extinct apes, and in some cases they are human beings. Sinanthropus, whose skulls have been found in China, is a case in point. What is this Sinanthropus? Clearly, he is a human being, probably one of the early settlers in China after the dispersion at Babel. He did not live two million years ago, which is an inconceivable amount of time. All over the world, recorded human history begins no earlier than about 2,400 B.C., which is the approximate date of the Flood. The radiometric dating methods that are used to get ages of a million or a billion years are based on untestable and unprovable assumptions, as the scientists who believe in them will admit themselves. (As an indication of hypothetical nature of these methods, rocks known to have been formed in volcanic eruptions within the last 200 years have yielded radiometric dates of up to 3.5 billion years.)
Many secular and even evolutionist scientists today say that the distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (human beings) is an artificial one: Homo erectus, including Sinanthropus, is nothing else than a human being. This claim has been made by paleoanthropologists both in the West and in China (such as Wu Xin Zhi at the Institute of Paleoanthropology in Beijing).
Professor William S. Laughlin (University of Connecticut), in studying the Eskimos and the Aleuts, noted many similarities between these peoples and the Asian Homo erectus people, specifically Sinanthropus (Peking Man). He concludes his study with a very logical statement:
“When we find that significant differences have developed, over a short time span, between closely related and contiguous peoples, as in Alaska and Greenland, and when we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus belongs within this same diverse species.”

6. Chinese Dragons

Another question arises: If, as we believe from the Biblical account, the earth is only several thousands and not billions of years old, and if Adam lived only two or three thousand years before the first Chinese dynasty, then how do we account for the dinosaurs, which supposedly became extinct seventy million years before the first man appeared on earth?
This is a very fascinating subject to discuss, especially in relation to China. What about dinosaurs? Were there dinosaurs in China? The Censer Dragons, of course, are depicted everywhere in Chinese culture. But these are only legendary creatures, some will say. No, not at all. Later depictions of dragons, to be sure, contained fanciful elements, because they were drawn by people who did not see dragons themselves but had only heard about them from others or from historical sources. But dragons did live contemporaneously with humans in the history of ancient China. Dragons are written about in ancient Chinese annals, and not as imaginary creatures, but as real live animals. It is known from Chinese history that certain parts and fluids of dragons were used for medicines. And one historical account even mentions a Chinese family that bred dragons to be used to pull the Royal Chariot during Imperial processions!
What the ancient Chinese wrote about dragons fits in with what ancient people all over the world had to say about them. In all the ancient cultures of the world, people wrote about seeing dragons or killing dragons. They painted pictures of them or, in the case of some Central American cultures, made statues of them. Many of the historical descriptions and depictions of dragons match precisely with the physical features of known dinosaurs such as Triceratops or Tyrannosaurus Rex. They were not called dinosaurs then, because the word “dinosaur” was not invented until 1841 (by the way, it was invented by a Christian scientist who believed the Biblical account of origins).
When the army of Alexander the Great (356- 323 B.C.) went through India, they went to see a dragon living in a cave, which the Indians worshiped as a god, bringing it sacrificial food. This is only one of many historical accounts of dragons from places in the world other than China. One of the Holy Fathers of the Church, St. John Damascene (A. D. 674- 750), wrote of dragons as actual creatures that still existed in his time in small numbers. When people with an evolutionary frame of mind read of such things, they automatically think of them as legends. But it is very hard to explain why peoples from all over the world have spoken of dragons as real, living creatures. From these accounts from all over the world, we know that some dinosaurs went onto the Ark with Noah (probably as babies). There is much evidence that, after the Flood, the climate and conditions of the earth became harsher; and thus the dinosaurs had a more difficult time surviving (hence Alexander the Great’s army saw one living in a cave). They did spread all over the earth, since people from China to South America tell of seeing them. But they were much more rare than other creatures, and they eventually died out due to the new conditions of earth and also, undoubtedly, to the fact that people killed them because they saw them as a threat.
To the ancient Chinese, dinosaurs or dragons were a symbol of power. It was natural that they would be fascinated with them and make them such a frequent subject of their art, because of all the land creatures that ever lived, what was greater and more powerful than a dinosaur?
In the book of Job, chapter 40, God calls Job’s attention to his greatness by reminding him that He created the great and powerful creatures of the earth. And the land creature that God mentions is the behemoth, which has a tail like a cedar tree. The Biblical description of the behemoth matches no other creature than a sauropod dinosaur. Not only Chinese history, but even Chinese sayings and the Chinese lunar calendar, make it clear that the Chinese have traditionally regarded dragons as real creatures.
Here’s an interesting story, which indicates that a few winged dinosaurs may have survived in China into relatively recent times. At the end of the 19th century, a Russian Orthodox saint named St. Barsanuphius was stationed in Manchuria to pastor the Russian soldiers during the RussianJapanese War. From there he wrote in his journal: “I happened to hear from soldiers that stand at the posts at the Hantaza station, forty miles from Mullin, that two years ago they often saw an enormous winged dragon creep out from one of the mountain caves. It terrified them, and would again conceal itself in the depths of the cave. They have not seen it since that time, but this proves that the tales of the Chinese and Japanese about the existence of dragons are not at all fantasies or fables, although the learned European naturalists, and ours along with them, deny the existence of these monsters. But after all, anything can be denied, simply because it does not measure up to our understanding.”
As mentioned earlier, the Chinese people are one of the most tradition- conscious and history- conscious peoples. So it should not be surprising that they, of all peoples, should be the ones to have retained such a strong cultural memory of dinosaurs. Their records showing that dinosaurs lived alongside man, and not in an “age of dinosaurs” ending 70 million years earlier, further supports the Biblical account of the world’s history.

7. Conclusion

When the world was inhabited by people groups coming out of Babel, some groups retained more awareness of the original religion Adam and Noah, and some retained less awareness. The Chinese, as we have seen, retained more than most other cultures. They have retained it up until modern times in the Imperial Border Sacrifice. Also, with the great value they place on history, they have preserved a knowledge of their own past which matches in its essentials the history of the world which is given in the Holy Bible.

....

Taken from: http://www.orthodox.cn/localchurch/200406ancientcnhist_en.htm

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Was There a Garden of Eden?


 
 
[The AMAIC would agree with much of this, but not e.g. the dating]
 




 
Most people are aware that legends of a global deluge are
found in the ancient traditions of nearly all cultures on earth.
Less well-known is that stories remarkably similar to Genesis'
account of the Garden of Eden are also widespread. The Greek
myths of Pandora, Epimetheus & amp; Prometheus, and the Golden
Fleece all contain basic elements of the Genesis account--plus
mysterious additional details that are not found in the Biblical
story, but are later reflected in rabbinical and church traditions.

Upon one of the oldest of all formal human records, a cylinder
seal from the ancient Sumerian civilization, is found an image of
a naked or sparsely-clothed man and woman standing on either
side of a tree, around which is entwined a serpent. To explain
this ancient artifact away, the skeptics assert that the Jews must
have taken the idea from the Babylonians. But then, where did
the ancient Chinese memories of the pre-flood world originate?
In fact, when ancient mythology in general is examined, most
of the tales of the promordial "gods" are from the period of the
pre-Deluge epoch of each cultural tradition.
It is to be expected that survivors of an age-ending cataclysm
would recall the recently-destroyed civilization as a much better
world than the post-cataclysm condition of ruin. Yet the Bible is
rather unique in taking the opposite view: The pre-flood world
was evil and decadent and deserved to be destroyed, Genesis
says [Gen 6:1-22]. Hence, it is ironic that Genesis would then
preserve the notion of a pre-Flood Paradise in spite of its view
that the old world was almost totally corrupt and wicked. Is it
possible there really was a Garden of Eden?

Until recently, there were few scientific tools which could shed light on this question
or the related issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve, the first couple always included
in the ancient myths of Paradise. Then, in the late 1980's, Dr. Rebecca Cann and a team
of paleo-geneticists observed that all human beings carry around genetic markers inherited
from our ancient ancestors that might provide clues to when and where we originated. So
Cann took genetic samples from all over the world to reconstruct our genetic family tree.

The results shook the foundations of science. Cann's team discovered that all females
carry a particular genetic marker that must have come from a single woman who was the
sole ancestor of all women now living. Moreover, they found that the time-frame for the
"genetic Eve" to have lived was relatively recent: Between 180,000 and 22,000 years ago.
Paleontologists had previously toyed with estimates as far back as 4,000,000 years for
our common ancestor. So even the 180,000-year age was far too recent for some of them.
But even more disturbing was how the 22,000-year estimate was derived. Cann's team
had argued that, if only two individuals were involved, then the couple must have lived in
even more recent times; the 180,000-year estimate assumed an initial group of thousands
of people among whom the "genetic Eve" had distributed her genes by having sex with a
large number of men However, if only a single couple had started the process, the date of
the pair could have been only about 22,000 years ago.
What upset many scientists was that this time-frame was uncomfortably close to the
chronologies of Genesis and other ancient traditons. They had good reason to be worried.
Other studies began to confirm this recent date. It was found, moreover, that roughly
23,000 years ago mankind had been located somewhere between Egypt and Mesopotamia
--in other words, in the region of Israel, at the time of the emergeance of modern genes.
Studies of domesticated animals were showing similar results, as were various human
migration studies. Again and again, the era around 25,000 years ago was found to be the
starting point for human civilization. Ironically, a book had been written back in the
1980's, before all the new genetic discoveries, which had noted the peculiar fact that all
the first evidences of human inventiveness and true artistic expression emerged rather
suddenly about 25,000 years ago; the title: The Creative Explosion.
The pieces were coming together rapidly in the late 1990's. By 1996, evidence showed
that the world's males had likewise descended from a single "genetic Adam" whose date
was uncertain, but compatible with the 22,000-year age. Further confirmation came in
1997 that all males derive from a single "Adam" and that mankind had not come together
from multiple simultaneous parallel populations developing in different areas, but from a
single population--and apparently a single couple--in one specific area: Near Israel.
According to both Islamic and Jewish tradition, the Garden of Eden was located in the
viciinity of Jerusalem. Although the Greeks spoke of Atlantis as a kind of Paradise, it
was not their Garden of Eden, which they had located in the land of "Cohchis" where the
Grove of fruit trees was guarded by a Dragon or winged serpent-god. Cholchis was to be
found by sailing south and east of Greece, but its exact location was uncertain.
The Nazis searched for Paradise in Tibet because they believed Helena Blavatsky's
claim that she had seen an ancient book in India which said survivors of the Deluge had
landed atop mountains north of India around 9,549 BC. The Nazis assumed these were
the Himalayas, but they could just as easily have been the mountains of eastern Turkey.
The Nazis forgot that the myths of India come from a people who had migrated into the
Indus valley from the north after the Mohenjo-Daro civilization collapsed c. 1,500 BC.
But Blavatsky wrote about survivors of the Deluge, not of the original Paradise.
Much confusion exists between the paradise-like Atlantis and the original Paradise of
the Garden of the first couple. Francis Bacon, the famous occultist said to have edited the
King James Bible, was writing a book when he died called The New Atlantis, in which he
argued for America being the remnant of Atlantis and a pre-flood Paradise.
In the Middle East there is no uncertainty. The Garden was located in the region of
Jerusalem. Genesis implies that Abraham and Lot had seen it during their travels:
"And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well-
watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as
THE GARDEN OF THE LORD, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar."
[Gen. 13:10]
Notice how casually the comparison to the Garden is inserted along with an ordinary
geographic reference to a place in Egypt, apparently the area near the Nile Delta from
which Abraham and Lot had recently come. The obvious implication of the passage is
that Abraham and Lot had also recently passed through "the Garden of the Lord" along
their journeys. And it was seemingly prior to their going into Egypt because Egypt is
mentioned after the Garden. Of course, the scribes knew that Abraham had passed by
the mountains of Moriah around Jerusalem before going on to Egypt. Abraham knew of
these mountains because he was able to recognize them from afar off when he later would
bring Isaac there.
 
....

Sunday, October 7, 2012

The Decalogue and Reversal of the Fall

 
 
Taken from: http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/rowland35-3.pdf

....
 
Matthew Levering begins his
Biblical Natural Law (2008) with
the observation that “natural law doctrine does not become
significantly more persuasive or effective once pluralism dictates the
exclusion of biblical revelation.”
19 He believes that “no matter how
nuanced the schemes for exhibiting basic requirements of human
flourishing or however much one attempts to provide an autonomous
role for human practical reason apart from natural teleologies”
implanted by the Creator there are insuperable difficulties: “the
‘human flourishing’ answers reduce to sophisticated pragmatism
rather than real ‘law’; the ‘practical reason’ answers appear to be a
premature restriction of the possibilities of human freedom in everevolving
history.”
20 Accordingly, the focus of his Biblical Natural Law


is on exploring three questions: whether there are biblical warrants
for natural law doctrine, what kind of natural law doctrine biblical
texts support, and what happens when natural law doctrine is left out
of constructive ethics arising from the Bible. Levering proposes four
constructive principles, centered upon biblical texts, for understanding
the relationship between Christian ethics, biblical revelation and
natural law doctrine.
382
Tracey Rowland


21
Ibid., 59–60.


22
Ibid., 61–62.


23
Ibid., 63–65. In this context Levering makes reference to material in the Book
of Wisdom, Sirach, and Proverbs.
24
Ibid., 65.


25
Ibid., 67.


First, Scripture presents certain goods as constitutive of true
human flourishing and thus of moral order.
Genesis 1–2 provides
one place where such teleological ordering, rooted theocentrically
in God’s creative providence, can be seen. Here we find in
germ the human natural inclinations . . . . God creates human
beings so that they are naturally ordered to preserve the good of
their human existence. Without the inclination to preserve this
good, God’s warning about the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil would not be intelligible . . . . God also inscribes within
human beings an inclination toward the good of procreation and
toward knowing the truth, ultimately the truth about the
Creator.
21


Second, Scripture does not countenance an absolute disjunction
between divine positive law and natural law . . . . God in giving
the Decalogue connects obedience to the Decalogue with a
glorious new creation in justice—a renewed creation that
reverses the Fall. . . . Jesus retains the Decalogue in the form
given to Israel.
22


Third, the Bible’s understanding of law is theocentric. Law does
not first pertain to “nature” or to human “reason” . . . . Law has
its ground in God, not in human beings. Our participated
wisdom cannot be understood without adverting to its divine
source. We do not constitute wisdom, but rather we receive it by
seeking to discern and participate in it.
23


Fourth, the grace of the Holy Spirit does not negate, but rather
fulfills the law’s precepts.
24


Given these four premises, “the question cannot be whether
Christian ethics must import an extrinsic system of natural law,”
rather, “Christian moral theology requires a philosophically sophisticated
natural law doctrine in order to do justice to the teachings of
divine revelation.”
25 This is because “ultimately the work of Christ


Natural Law: From Neo-Thomism to Nuptial Mysticism
383


26
Ibid., 176.


27
Lorenzo Albacete has described moralism as a modern form of Pelagianism, a
belief in salvation through good works and obedience which he suggests can only
be overcome by a “proper theology of grace in which grace is not presented as
something added to and external to the natural law itself, but rather as the
possibility of a personal encounter with Jesus Christ.” See L. Albacete, “The Pope
Against Moralism and Legalism,”
Anthropotes (1994): 85.


28
In this context, for instance, Eberhard Schockenhoff has emphasized the
importance of the distinction between the passive participation of irrational
creatures in the divine reason that governs the world and the actively regulating
participation on the part of the human person, and he has also acknowledged that
this distinction was often “flattened” in presentations about the natural law by neo-
Thomists. See Schockenhoff,
Natural Law and Human Dignity: Universal Ethics in an
Historical World
, 159.


29
Pinckaers grew up in a Walloon region of Belgium, had a Dutch-speaking
father and a Walloon mother, and was from 1983 until his death in 2008 based at
the Albertinum at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland.
and the Holy Spirit fulfills the natural law in us and elevates us to
Communion with the Trinity.”
26


This last principle sits well with the classically Thomist
definition of natural law as a participation of the rational creature in
the eternal law, a doctrine that opens natural law, in turn, to
theological anthropology and nuptial mysticism. The link between
the two is the notion of life as a theo-drama. In Balthasar’s terms, the
natural law is perfected and fulfilled by the ecstatic movement of a
person’s response to Christ’s love and hence participation in the life
of the Trinity.
This placement of natural law within a theo-dramatic and
explicitly trinitarian context helps to overcome the moralism or, to
use Ratzinger’s more specific term, “Pious Pelagianism,” which had
been fostered by the tendency to sever the study of spirituality from
moral theology and a purely philosophical account of natural law
from revelation.

27

....



Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Relationship Between Genesis and Revelation



 

Thoughts and Selections from Tim Martin’s “Beyond Creation Science: How Preterism Refutes a Global Flood and Impacts the Biblical Origins Debate”


By Walt Hibbard



Many preterists have come to assume that the acceptance of the traditional understanding of the extent of the Flood of Noah’s day requires a global-encompassing deluge that covered every continent and rose to the highest mountains of the world. This view teaches that every human being and land animal on the face of the earth was wiped out, and that only Noah’s family of eight people survived that monumental catastrophe.


Timothy P. Martin, coming from a dispensational background and embracing of the popular Creation Science movement, has found through diligent study that there is much more involved in studying this doctrine than a mere “surface reading” of the texts of Genesis. There is an urgent need to examine the language to determine how key words are used elsewhere in the Bible. This has brought Mr. Martin to the conclusion that the Genesis account is describing a great Flood which was regional but not worldwide.


He views the preterist movement as a good working out of the grammatico-historical hermeneutic in passages such as our Lord’s Olivet Discourse, II Peter 3, and the Book of Revelation. However, he has been disappointed to find that many preterists still cling to interpretative ideas in other passages that are inconsistent with the careful and studied work that they have done in the prophetic areas. Mr. Martin believes that the early chapters in Genesis need to be re-studied with the same care as the prophetic material.


I consider this new book, which Mr. Martin began to write prior to 2001, to be an important and eye-opening study that preterists need to examine carefully. The Creation Science people are already quite happy with their hyper-literal system and this prevents many of them from embracing preterism; they are consistent! But preterists who accept the global flood are betraying the hermeneutic principles that brought them initially into the preterist movement; namely, recognizing the covenantal manner in which God deals with his people, choosing them out of the great masses of worldwide humanity.


Now, here are several clips from Tim Martin’s book – his own words in this debate:


(Taken from Pg. 5 and 6 of the Necessary Introduction)


This book is a critique of the main Creation Science presupposition from the perspective of covenant thinking. I hope to demonstrate a methodological, theological and historical correlation between the rise of Creation Science ideology and the prevalence of dispensational theology in America during the 20th century. I hope to convince those who have already abandoned dispensational futurist eschatology in favor of preterism (regardless of any particular brand) of the need to completely re-examine the Creation Science paradigm. As preterism grows to eclipse dispensational futurism in American Christianity, I believe this re-examination will lead naturally to the wholesale abandonment of Creation Science ideas.


This critique of the Creation Science movement is a call to consistency. My argument is simple. It is time for those committed to a general preterist understanding of Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation to think through the logical implications of their beliefs as they relate to the rest of the Bible.


(From Pg. 11 & 12 of Covenantal Exegesis of Genesis 7)


The flood may be global if these same constructs support that conclusion as used elsewhere in Scripture. It is also possible the flood may not be global in physical detail if these same constructs are used elsewhere in cases we know were regional. In other words, if we are self-consciously covenantal, we will not first ask, “What is the literal meaning of this text?” nor “What does science say about a global flood?” We will first say, “Let’s examine these same constructs as used elsewhere in the Bible and interpret this Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture.”


There are three textual keys to understanding the language of this passage (Gen. 7:17-23). First of all, the term “earth.” Secondly, the phrase “all the high mountains under the entire heavens” must be understood. Thirdly, the related phrases “Every living thing that moved on earth perished” and ”Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out” must be compared to similar use in Scripture. Let’s look at how all three are used elsewhere in the Bible.


(From Pg. 47 & 48 of the Recent Rise of New Flood Geology)


How many Christian conservatives would have looked at The Genesis Flood a little more carefully if they were aware up front of its Adventist roots? How many preterists will re-examine Creation Science once they discover it is the direct product of radical, modern futurism? Most Creation Scientists today remain completely unfamiliar with George McCready Price. Given the choice between Josephus and his regional flood comments going back millennia and George McCready Price and his global flood geology formulated in the early 20th century, the choice is easy for any reasonable preterist. The time has come to move beyond Creation Science.


Preterism refutes a global flood and therefore discredits the entire Creation Science movement. It negates Creation Science ideology by textual and theological analysis of the biblical language. Historical investigation reveals its ignoble background in hyper-futurism. A large factor in the future success or demise of the Creation Science movement will be the growth of preterism. Wide acceptance of preterism among American Christians will inevitably prove fatal to the Creation Science paradigm. The popularity of Creation Science in the 20th century will likely guarantee its grave will be marked for future generations as one more example of counter-productive cul-de-sac thinking related to dispensationalism.


Conclusion


This brief review of Timothy P. Martin’s book is intended to whet the appetite of Christians, especially preterists, to take a closer look at what many, including this reviewer, believed was the only acceptable interpretation of the early chapters of the Book of Genesis. Compare the language of Genesis with the language of the Olivet Discourse, 2 Peter 3 and the Book of Revelation, and then strive for a more consistent, and thereby, a more accurate understanding of those early historical accounts. And be sure to keep in mind that it is always wise to constantly be taking a closer look at those time-honored conclusions of traditional Christianity, since a true and biblical understanding has nothing to fear from honest exegetical investigation!



THE END





How Does the Regional Flood Impact the Origins Debate?

By Walt Hibbard

_________________________



As we have already seen from the material in Timothy P. Martin’s book reviewed above, the hyper-literal interpretation of the biblical Flood is untenable. And if so, what can we say about the implications as they relate to the first two chapters of Genesis? I wish to quote Mr. Martin’s book further, this time on pg. 66-67:


The Creation Science movement was a result of sincere Christians desiring to defend the credibility of the Bible in the face of modern skepticism and unbelief. That motive is one that should be evident in all Christians who name Jesus Christ as Lord of all and wish to see the Kingdom of God expand in our day. The problem in this case is not the sincerity or spiritual goals of those within the movement. Nor is the problem their dedication to the cause. The problem is that the movement has backfired on its proponents.


Reading the Bible according to the methods of Creation Science ideology will convince those who read the Bible carefully of the fallibility of the Bible. It leads logical people to unbelief and ultimately to atheism.


Just a few pages ahead, on pg. 72, he writes:


At this time, I do not believe it is possible to replace Creation Science ideology with any particular old-earth creationist view in some simplistic, cut and paste process. What I would like to offer the thoughtful reader is an introduction on how to pursue the mammoth origins issue in light of the paradigm shift to preterism.


Then on pg. 111 of his book, and with support from the 19th century interpretative genius, Milton S. Terry, and his book, “Biblical Apocalyptics,” Mr. Martin offers the following:


The key Milton Terry offers in his work on apocalyptics is that our textual understanding of Revelation and Genesis are mutually dependent and related to each other … And this is where I believe preterism has so much to offer to the biblical origins debate. If preterism represents an advance in biblical understanding of Christian eschatology, particularly the apocalyptic genre of Scripture, then that advance will have tremendous implications in our understanding of Genesis. Put simply, as we understand the covenantal redemptive focus and Hebraic nature of biblical prophecy better, we will naturally acquire the theological tools to better understand the creation account in Genesis. The key to unraveling the origins debate in the modern church is eschatology …Just as biblical prophecy communicates through the big picture of Hebraic apocalyptic poetry, so the creation account in Genesis follows the same form and structure. (Emphasis his)


Quoting Milton Terry from pg.43 of his book, we read:


But if these opening chapters of the Bible are a revelation of God’s creative relation to the world, may they not be apocalyptical in character? Is it not fitting that the canon of Scripture should open as well as close with an apocalypse?


Then on pg. 113, Mr. Martin makes this interesting comparison:


Let us begin our textual comparison with the seven-fold pattern of the creation days. This pattern is repeated seemingly endlessly through the book of Revelation. All the apocalyptic events in Revelation are categorized in this same seven-fold structure and what’s more, they mirror the creation order.


Following this theme, we read on pg. 117 of Mr. Martin’s book:


Another evidence of the apocalyptic nature of the creation account is its prominent use of repetition and recapitulation. Many have pointed out the repeated examples of repetition and recapitulation in John’s Apocalypse. In fact, it is common in all biblical apocalyptic. The book of Revelation constantly repeats events of great covenantal significance and with each repetition enlarges on the redemptive historical work of Jesus Christ.


Lest the reader fears that reading the book of Genesis from this viewpoint will remove the element of real history from the biblical account, Mr. Martin writes on pg. 122:


The concern that this relegates the Genesis record to anti-historical myth is unfounded for another important reason. There is a common misconception fostered by literalists regarding the nature of apocalyptic language. Literalists often complain that all non-literal methods rule out historical events. But the fact that a text is apocalyptic in nature does not in anyway prohibit historical events to underlie it.


Drawing to the conclusion of his book, we read Mr. Martin’s words concerning the purpose of the creation account as understood from an analytical and textual

perspective, on pg. 122-125:


The creation of the universe is obviously a historical event, as is the creation of Adam and Eve. They are real, historical humans who were created innocent, yet they sinned and broke the covenant relationship between God and man. While this is perfectly compatible with apocalyptic, it is equally clear that a plain, historical record is simply not the purpose of the creation account. That it all happened according to the wisdom and benevolence of God is the point. How it all happened in scientific detail and physical phenomena is not in the priority of apocalyptic communication … Put simply, the apocalypse of creation is about worship and covenant relationship, not science. Understood this way, it is just as relevant to God’s people today as it was in Moses’ day as Israel was leaving Egypt with all its pantheistic idolatry of the creation … We are so used to reading Genesis in terms of the intramural origins debate among Christians or the creation-evolution debate that we have totally missed the reality that the apocalypse of creation is a powerful unveiling of the meaning, essence and goal of covenant life between God and man … Christians desperately need to change their focus from the supposed scientific implications of creation and instead feed off the apocalyptic vision of creation which demands covenant faithfulness in all aspects of life and dimension of God’s world.


And there we find the challenge to our erstwhile literal interpretation of Genesis. Tim Martin has done an immeasurable service to the Christian community by offering this book for study and consideration. It is the hope of this reviewer that none of us will shrink from our responsibilities as Christians to test these teachings in the light of the preterist-biblical hermeneutic. And then perhaps we can come up with a fuller and more accurate view of God’s plan for His people as recorded in His Word, both in the beginning as set forth in Genesis, as well as in the book of Revelation. Both are inspired revelations of His old and new creational work that only apocalyptic language could ever adequately give expression and meaning to.
 
....