On May 30th, 2009, Jeff and Tim updated their site with a link to a sermon by David Curtis entitled, "The Perishing of Heaven & Earth".

They quote part of the sermon, link to the rest, then drop this "summary" at the bottom:

"Let me summarize the main points discussed in this section:

* The writer of Hebrews does not refer to the physical universe in Hebrews 1:2 or 1:10-11.
* The writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 102 (which speaks of God's people).
* God created the Heavens and Earth according to Genesis 1:1.
* This Heavens and Earth perished in A.D. 70.

Conclusion: Genesis 1:1 speaks about the creation of the Old Covenant Creation, not the creation of the physical universe.

Could it be that the Rev. David Curtis was the very first modern advocate of Covenant Creation?

Tim Martin"

oy vey! Tim Martin now has David Curtis teaching that Ge 1 is not about the physical creation.

This is a pattern from Tim Martin and i just don't understand where the break in communication is. When you see this MULTIPLE times from them, it just makes you wander what in the world is going on. They did this with Sam when Sam offered up his wide/narrow explanation of Genesis 1 and 2. They presented Sam as though he was "proving" their points, when a CAREFUL reading of Sam indicated just the opposite.

Are they rushing through articles? Are they reading them entirely? What is it?

The only reference to Genesis 1 by Curtis was this:

Hebrews 1:10 (NKJV) And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. That could be talking about the Genesis account. God did create the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The Greek words used in Hebrews 1:10 don't really help us in understanding the meaning of "heaven and earth" -they are very general words. The word for "beginning" is arche, which simply means: "a commencement." It does not have to mean the beginning of time, but simply means the beginning of the thing under discussion, in this case the heaven and earth.

Now, you are probably thinking: "Well that was at the beginning of time." Maybe, maybe not! Could this possibly be referring to a different "heaven and earth" than the physical creation of the world? Is that even a possibility? I think it is a strong possibility; let's look at the use of "heaven and earth" in Scripture and see if they have some other meaning besides the literal physical heavens and earth.

All Curtis said was that Heb 1 "COULD" be talking about Genesis 1. It is a hypothetical. Basically what i understand Curtis to be doing at this point is throwing out "possibilities" and then going from there. "This MIGHT be that....it might not be". And when Curtis asked, "Could this possibly be referring to a different "heaven and earth" than the physical creation of the world?", the "this" is referring to Heb 1, NOT Ge 1.

Nowhere did Curtis go on to say that Genesis 1 is in fact what Heb 1 has in mind. Curtis then went on to explain how Scripture can use "heaven and earth" language to refer to something else, other than the physical creation; but nowhere do i find Curtis saying that is what Ge 1 is doing.

Curtis has a another sermon entitled, "Where Did We Come From?" In it, he states: [emphasis mine]

The evidence is very strong on the side of creation. But we know that God created everything because the Bible says He did: Genesis 1:1 (NKJV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And with that statement the Word of God, holy Scripture, affirms the existence of the universe and everything in it as the product of God's created act. It's a very important statement. This verse, I'll say it again, affirms the existence of the universe and everything in it as the product of God's created act. We are here shown in this verse that evolution, the dominant theory of science, is not true. What exists, exists not because it evolved, but because God created it.

That statement was said approximately a year later from Curtis' "Perishing of Heaven and Earth" sermon.

How many times is Tim Martin going to do this before some in the BCS crowd start questioning his research?

Tags: covenant, creation, curtis, david, martin, tim

Views: 45

Replies to This Discussion

I'll email this to Tim and Jeff. We'll see how long his "Covenant Creation as Taught by Rev. David Curtis" stays up.
Dave, what am i missing? ( :
Tim and Jeff responded: (LINK)

*sigh*

They COMPLETELY ignored the complaint. The issue was not about what Sam said, or what i have said, or anyone else. The issue is about Tim Martin MISrepresenting what David Curtis said.

Keep in mind, these guys had a cow when Answers in Genesis appeared to have removed a line from one of Spurgeon's sermons revealing his Old Earth beliefs. Granted, Tim and Jeff have not manipulated anything, but Tim wrote a "Summary" of Curtis' sermon and put words into his mouth to make it appear as though David is teaching their view of Ge 1. David confirmed he was doing no such thing.

They still have the link titled as, "Covenant Creation as Taught by Rev. David Curtis" and they still have the "Summary" up stating:

Let me summarize the main points discussed in this section: (what section? the section of David's article they pasted on the site - Jason)

* The writer of Hebrews does not refer to the physical universe in Hebrews 1:2 or 1:10-11.
* The writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 102 (which speaks of God's people).
* God created the Heavens and Earth according to Genesis 1:1.
* This Heavens and Earth perished in A.D. 70.

Conclusion: Genesis 1:1 speaks about the creation of the Old Covenant Creation, not the creation of the physical universe.


So i guess once again we have to put up with having things on their site that are completely inaccurate. *smh* Even in their response, they ADD more erroneous assertions. They state:

"The critic above argues there is no need for a connection between Heb. 1:10-11."

I NEVER said that i agreed with Curtis or Sam or anyone else. Because again, that was not the point of the post. This has nothing to do with anyone but Curtis and what he ACTUALLY said vs Tim Martin and what he wants you to think David said. THAT is the issue.

I understand what Sam is saying about the Ps. He believes the Ps is stating nothing more than pointing out the temporal nature of the things of earth. Grass comes, grass goes. People come, people go. Animals come...well, you get the point. I am not entirely convinced of this explanation, but that is how i have understood it in the past. So i have argued for a connection between He, the Ps, and Ge; though admittedly not 100% on it. Tim, wanting to avoid the issue all together, starts pointing out all this and does not even do that accurately.

This has been a continual pattern from Tim. One erroneous assertion after another, and then next thing you know, you have a collection of these, a "book" called "Beyond Creation Science."

Very troublesome.

Why doesn't Tim just admit he goofed? What's the motive? David flat out said that's not what he was teaching...what is driving this need for Tim to validate his view by pulling material from others and misrepresenting it?

i don't get it.

RSS

© 2014   Created by Michael Bennett.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service