Beyond Creation Science

The Mike Sullivan Files - (Unredacted)
August 8, 2026

The details below relate to the 2026 Martin vs. Sullivan "Isaiah 51 Debate":

Here is the webpage info for this planned event which Mike Sullivan cancelled.

Here is Tim Martin's video response to Mike Sullivan backing out of the debate and the agreed Proposition:

"Isaiah 51:15-16: First or Second Exodus 'Heavens and Earth?'"

Mike Sullivan Now Claims:

MIke_Sullivan_Claims_Debate_propositions_agreed_to_by_Jeff.png

(Editor's Note: Here is the e-mail discussion behind Mike Sullivan's recent statements and claims. Do you think his claims above accurately represent the facts? Read them for yourself. These "Mike Sullivan Files" are unredacted and unedited to provide public access to the evidence.)

Email list includes: Mike Sullivan, Jeff Vaughn, Dave Green and Tim Martin

Mike Sullivan Files (Unredacted)

July 25 from Mike Sullivan:

Gentlemen,

This is what we have so far. I thought it was clear enough but let's work through it.

Proposition:

The “heavens and earth” of Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:7, 10-12, and Revelation 21:1 referred to the Mosaic old covenant world established at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19-24 / Isaiah 51:9-16 that passed away in AD 70 —not the “heavens and earth” of Genesis 1:1.

Affirm: Sullivan / Green

Deny: Martin / Vaughn

July 25 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

Tim and I affirm that those passages refer to the Mosaic Old Covenant. Your proposal will be misread or misunderstood.

Why not:

The “heavens and earth” of Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:7, 10-12, and Revelation 21:1 referred to as the Mosaic old covenant world was first established in Genesis 1.

Affirm: Martin / Vaughn

Deny: Sullivan / Green

July 26 from Dave Green:

“The Mosaic old covenant world was established 2,500 years before the Mosaic old covenant world came into existence.”

Is that the position?

July 26 from Jeff Vaughn:

Not quite.

The Mosaic 'heaven and earth" was established 2500 years before Moses.

"World/kosmos" is generally restricted to about a generation.

"Heaven and earth" applies to the entire Old Covenant age which Tim and I say started with Adam.

That is why Christ was the last Adam.

The marriage motif that Mike and Tim like to use, Tim and I say, Adam was the corporate birth of the people, Sinai was the corporate marriage of the people. Noah, Abram/Abraham, and Egypt were the steps in the growth process as the corporate people grew to maturity. As far as Tim and I can tell, Mike places the birth and all those other steps at Sinai.

Tim and I say one Old Covenant from Adam's creation to AD 70.

Calvin and Luther had eight (which they called seven) separate Old Covenants from Adam creation to AD 70. Tim and I acknowledge each of these covenants that Calvin and Luther recognized, but have decided that they were different, shall we say, manifestations of the one Old Covenant.

Mike has had Tim and I blocked, so we can't see Mike's articles. Mike clearly emphasizes one of those "covenants" over all the others, both before and after. We have not seen a word about how he deals with any of the others, beyond our memories of Mike's talks in July 2006.

Jeff

July 26 from Jeff Vaugh:

“Theologians sometimes use ‘Old Covenant’ to refer to the Mosaic covenant. There is truth to this in that the Mosaic covenant published most fully the distinctive character of the Adamic covenant under curse. Yet, ultimately, the Old Covenant is the covenant of the original garden of Eden. Ultimately, there are two covenants, Old and New. There are two Adams, Adam and Jesus. There are two heavens and earth, the first in Adam and the second in Christ.”

--James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes (1988), p. 311.

July 26 from Jeff Vaughn:

David, I screwed up. I meant to send the Sailhamer quote to everyone.

Tim spoke at the Eschatology of the Prophets Conference two weeks ago. Three sessions.

He set up the sessions to post automatically every couple of days or so while he's in Honduras.

The first of his talks posted. The second and third will outline his position more completely. My differences with Tim on this are negligible.

Here's the Sailhamer quote again.

"The author apparently saw that the Flood and Noah's sacrifice played an important part in the cleansing of humankind [T.M covenant people] after the Fall and in the preparation for God's renewed covenant, first with Noah and then with Abraham. All in all this strategy places the covenant with Abraham within a much broader context and shows that God's purposes in Creation were continued in the call of Abraham and the covenant at Sinai."

--John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, p. 41.

July 26 from Mike Sullivan:

Hey guys,

I'm going to stick to the proposition below for the following reasons:

(1). Prior to you two, there were NO full preterists teaching the "heavens and earth" of Gen. 1:1 are the subject of the NT de-creation texts in the proposition. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you to prove such and should be front and center in the proposition.

(2). The proposition makes it clear that David and I believe and are affirming the NT de-creation texts come from the Mosaic Sinai covenant event (ex. Isa. 51:9-16) and "not" the "heavens and earth" of Genesis 1:1. You deny this and believe the old covenant heavens and earth began in Genesis 1:1 and that they are the subject of those NT de-creation texts. This is actually very clear.

Our openings will make it even clearer.

Jeff, is Tim getting these emails? I only used one of the ones you provided.

Proposition:

The “heavens and earth” of Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:7, 10-12, and Revelation 21:1 referred to the Mosaic old covenant world established at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19-24 / Isaiah 51:9-16 that passed away in AD 70 —not the “heavens and earth” of Genesis 1:1.

Affirm: Sullivan / Green

Deny: Martin / Vaughn

July 26 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

When K and I were in Honduras, the rates on data and emails were extremely expensive. More expensive than on the cruise ship.

That's the way taxes typically are in third world countries.

Tim's aware of the emails.

Question: If the burden of proof is on Tim and I, shouldn't we have the affirmative?

From Google: In formal debate, the negative does not carry the primary burden of proof; that responsibility belongs to the affirmative (or proposition) team. Instead, the negative carries a burden of rejoinder to clash with and dismantle the affirmative's case.

July 27 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

Also, if the burden of proof is on Tim and I, we should pick our own proposition to prove.

And, are you thinking of a separate debate on each of these passages or one overarching debate?

Jeff

July 27 from Mike Sullivan:

Jeff,

Yes and no. You two came into our full preterist house claiming we aren't "consistent full preterists" and you are. So since it is historically our house, and you are coming up with the futurist view that tries to shove Gen. 1:1 through all of those NT de-creation texts, I think the proposition I gave that includes (Ex. 19-24 / Isa. 51:9-16) clarifies what we will be affirming and what you will be denying.

Gary DeMar and Kim Burgess make the same empty claim - they alone are teaching "consistent full preterism" and we aren't when again, their view is likewise newer. They came into our historical house making this claim so they have to back it up.

It's our historical house - you, Tim, and now Gary and Kim are the newbies, we set the proposition that is very reasonable.

Can we agree on this so we can work out the other details that you mentioned?

Thanks,

Mike

July 27 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

In formal debate, the affirmative has the burden of proof.

The affirmative makes the case. The affirmative has to prove their case.

Which do you want?

Do you want the affirmative and the burden of proof?

Or do you want us to take the affirmative and the burden of proof?

Jeff

PS. Tim has the emails but has not read them all. He will respond this weekend after he gets home.

July 27 from Mike Sullivan:

Jeff,

I want to stick to the proposition I gave and then made further clarifications on.

Can we now move on to working out the rest of the details?

Thanks,

Mike

July 27 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

Okay. One clarification needed is how do you expect us to execute the burden of proof when we are the negative. The negative is supposed to show that the affirmative did not prove their case. Like in a court, the affirmative, the prosecution, is supposed to prove their case. The duty of the defense is not to prove something else. Their duty is to show that the affirmative did not prove their case.

That's presumably why Don and Ed's neverending CBV/IBV debate had two affirmatives. Can Don prove his case? And separately, can Ed prove his case? (Note: I want this debate finished, edited, typeset, and sent to the press, before Tim goes back to work in early March. Is this unreasonable? Sooner would be even better.)

(2) You provided a set of passages. Will we have a separate debate on each of these passages or an overarching debate?

If it is an overarching debate, a section on each passage, or do we handle them in a "general" manner?

Since you are the affirmative, we will let you decide and we will follow your lead.

(3) You do your affirmative(s). We do our negative(s). How many responses does each side get?

Jeff

July 27 from Mike Sullivan:

Subject: Proposed Format for Our Debate Book – Dual Affirmative Structure

Jeff and Tim,

I’ve put together a clear format for the debate book that I believe is fair to both sides and will allow us to finish, edit, typeset, and get it to the press before Tim returns to work in early March. We both want the other side to prove its positive case. Therefore we will run this as a dual-affirmative debate.The Two PropositionsProposition A

The “heavens and earth” of Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:7, 10-12, and Revelation 21:1 referred to the Mosaic old covenant world established at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19–24 / Isaiah 51:9-16 that passed away in AD 70 — not the “heavens and earth” of Genesis 1:1.

Affirm: Sullivan / Green
Deny: Martin / Vaughn

Proposition B

The “heavens and earth” of Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:7, 10-12, and Revelation 21:1 referred to (or originated from) the “heavens and earth” of Genesis 1:1.

Affirm: Martin / Vaughn
Deny: Sullivan / Green

Both propositions will be debated together in one book focused on these five texts.Round Structure and Word Limits

Round	Content	Word Limit (per side)
1	Affirmative Constructives (both sides)	10,000 each
2	First Rebuttals (both sides)	8,000 each
3	Second Rebuttals (both sides)	6,000 each
4	Final Rebuttals / Closings (both sides)	5,000 each

After Round 4 the content is locked. Editing and typesetting will follow so the book can go to press before early March.

Word limits are shared by each team (David and I share the Affirmative limits; you two share the limits for Proposition B). Charts, tables, and long block quotations count toward the limit.Additional Rules for Clarity and Fairness

Agreed Definitions
Before Round 1 we will agree in writing on a short list of key terms (what “heavens and earth,” “Mosaic old covenant world,” and “Genesis 1:1 heavens and earth” mean in this debate, etc.). This will be printed at the front of the book.
Mandatory Clash
Each rebuttal must directly address the main arguments of the previous round.
Self-Contained Openings
Round 1 must contain each side’s full positive case. No major new arguments may be introduced after Round 1.
Timeline Buffer
A reasonable grace period will be allowed for each round. After that, the late side may still reply to the opponent’s points but may not introduce new material.
Neutral Style Editor
We can name a mutually trusted third party whose only role is to enforce word limits, deadlines, and final copy-editing for consistency. He or she will have no authority over content.
Publication Details
We should decide copyright, print-on-demand vs. traditional press, and whether either side may later reprint its own chapters. I’m open to discussion on this.

Suggested Book Outline

Introduction & Agreed Rules/Definitions
Affirmative Constructive – Sullivan/Green (Proposition A)
Affirmative Constructive – Martin/Vaughn (Proposition B)
First Rebuttal – Sullivan/Green
First Rebuttal – Martin/Vaughn
Second Rebuttal – Sullivan/Green
Second Rebuttal – Martin/Vaughn
Final Rebuttal/Closing – Sullivan/Green
Final Rebuttal/Closing – Martin/Vaughn
Scripture & Subject Indexes (produced after content is locked)

This format requires both sides to prove their positive claim while still allowing full clash. It stays tightly focused on the five texts and is realistic for our deadline.

Once we agree on the structure, we can set the actual schedule and begin writing.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Mike

July 27 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

I'm generally agreeable.

I would like to reword our affirmative to something simpler. Your emphasis on those passages is fine, but I would prefer them in a Whereas rather than in the affirmative statement. I'll wait until Tim gets home.

Is Don available for moderator, editor, etc.?

Jeff

July 27 from Mike Sullivan:

I don't want Don to be a moderator. I may want him to be review my material and he won't be able to do that if he is a moderator.

July 27 from Jeff Vaughn:

Okay,

Thoughts on who then?

Tim had suggested William Bell for your Isaiah 51 debate.

July 30 from Mike Sullivan:

Let’s focus on the particulars of the debate first before discussing the moderator.

July 31 from Mike Sullivan:

Are we agreed on the debate formatt here or not? I don't have time to go back and forth on this forever. We can agree on a moderator at some point but we need to get past this other stuff right now.

Once you finally agree to this, then I would like some time to read your book and online articles and listen to some videos. Probably a few months will do it. Then we can begin writing and debating.

In Christ,

Mike

July 31 from Jeff Vaughn:

I think I'm fine with it. I still haven't heard from Tim.

August 1 from Tim Martin:

https://youtu.be/MWjcFqfGFYY

August 1 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

I wasn't aware of much of this. You already agreed to a debate with Tim. Why the new challenge to Tim and I? Is this the same debate or a different one?

Jeff

August 2 from Mike Sullivan:

Tim,

You are confused this is what is in front of us at this point:

We will run this as a dual-affirmative debate:The Two PropositionsProposition A

The “heavens and earth” of Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:7, 10-12, and Revelation 21:1 referred to the Mosaic old covenant world established at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19–24 / Isaiah 51:9-16 that passed away in AD 70 — not the “heavens and earth” of Genesis 1:1.

Affirm: Sullivan / Green
Deny: Martin / Vaughn

Proposition B

The “heavens and earth” of Psalm 102:25-26; Hebrews 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:7, 10-12, and Revelation 21:1 referred to (or originated from) the “heavens and earth” of Genesis 1:1.

Affirm: Martin / Vaughn
Deny: Sullivan / Green

Both propositions will be debated together in one book focused on these five texts.

Are you two in or out?

August 2 from Mike Sullivan:

This is what is on the table and where it evolved. You two are the authors of your book and Dave and I will respond.

Looks like Tim and you just want to continue to play games. Either you are agreeing to this written book debate or you are not.

This is your last chance. No more games. The debate has widened to include more texts and more participants. This is the agreement on the table - yes or no?

August 2 from Mike Sullivan:

Tim,

Amazing how you have no time to engage on this thread, yet somehow found time for a video—lol. Here’s my response:

https://www.youtube.com/live/La2fd7gJioU?si=eruXDORKX5p107Ns

Jeff, David, and I have agreed to the debate and the proposition(s). Don Preston also said they look good! Jeff wanted to slightly clarify yours, and we have no issue with that. Are you in or out? Stop making videos with that creepy smile and laugh coupled with false accusations. Time to man up and let’s get our chapters going.

Thanks,

Mike

August 2 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike, You already had a debate arranged with Tim. David and I were not included in that debate.

It seems to me that you need to have that debate first, as agreed or make a new agreement with Tim.

Adding David and I to a debate that the two of you already agreed on seems to me to be, what did you call it, a violation of the proposition?

Also, it appears to me that you changed the response format from FB to YouTube. Now you are upset that Tim followed your lead?

You have some issues here.

After church today, I started listening to your recent Three Amigos video [https://www.youtube.com/live/KMoCbdp5vDU?si=ZxsOxzz1p0IoiUrs]. I got about 17 minutes in before my grandson got here. While he finishes his lunch changes into his swimsuit, I thought I'd comment.

You accuse us of eisgesis and futurism. Yet you are the one pushing Physical Creation, PC, in Genesis 1. You've mentioned Covenant Creation several times. Some favorably and some with malice. In other words, you are trying to hijack Covenant Creation.

Sad.

Back in 2008, you said that someone needed to develop more or less what Tim and I developed in 2006-2007. What changed your mind.

Regardless, given your statement last week, it seems that we have a simpler pair of Affirmatives.

Physical Creation (PC) is the only view of Genesis 1 consistent with Preterism.

And

Covenant Creation (PC) is the only view of Genesis 1 consistent with Preterism.

No need for restricting it to particular passages, one of which Tim and I already debated with your co-author Sam Frost. [Sam Frost vs. Martin/Vaughn 2008 Formal Debate Here] Sam conceded that debate. Rather than give up his PC views, he left Preterism and has spent 18 years now trying to find a reason why.

Regardless, you need to settle your previous debate challenge with Tim. Is this that debate? If not, you need to have that debate. If it is, you should have talked to Tim before you added David and I to it.

Jeff

(Editor's Note: This Screenshot is from April, 2026)

August 2 from Mike Sullivan:

1). That debate was cancelled a long time ago and I explained that to the public and Tim - several times as this point! So your exhortation and this excuse is irrelevant.

2). Sounds like Tim desperately wants to get out of this one.

3). This is what is on the table - take it or leave it.

4). Sam didn't leave FPism because Tim out debated him - I already explained that, but good try. I love the propaganda by Tim and Sham on this one though - lol.

5). This is an exegetical debate so the passages stay. You had no problem with this until Tim began whining and complaining and is clearly the one trying to "run away" from this debate.

Are you in or out? I'm tired of the games and excuses.

Mike

August 2 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

Your reneging on the debate with Tim looks one-sided. You need to settle with Tim. I'm waiting. Whether it's just him, or the two of us, your clock will be cleaned.

In 2007, Tim and I did what you said in 2008, needed to be done.

Now, you accuse us of eisgesis. Ha-ha. If it was so bad, why didn't you write a review?

Funny how none of our accusers ever quote us.

In 2007, Tim and I published the first Full Preterist understanding of early Genesis, building on years of our two separatly working on Genesis issues. To date, several others have written Covenant Creation books. The only other book on early Genesis, by William Bell, he's renounced it and adopted Covenant Creation. You have nothing but your empty angry accusations.

In 2007, Tim and I published the first Full Preterist hermeneutic. Don Preston endorsed that hermeneutic. We used that hermeneutic to develop our understanding of early Genesis. You have proven time and again that you have no consistent hermeneutic. You opted for Dispensational literalism last week with Don and Zach.

In 2007, Tim and I published the first substantial answer to the common question for Preterists, "What now?" There has since been an entire Preterist conference devoted to that topic. The sum total of all those talks doesn't amount to what that one chapter said [Chapter 21 of Beyond Creation Science Here]. Tim and I have lived that chapter for 19 years since and several before.

You claim you read the book. Yet you have never made a coherent statement about it's contents.

What I see is a long history of you calling people names and making unfounded personal accusations, just because you disagree. You have never said why in any meaningful way. You have never developed an alternative. Like Ed Stevens, you just accept what some Dispensationalists have said about Genesis, while rejecting what they say about else in Scripture. That is not a hermeneutic. That is hypocrisy.

I'm here to support Tim. Settle it with him. You set one set of goalposts. You moved them.

You promised that Ed would be your next target. Before Ed finishes his debate with Don? You plan to undermine Don next?

After that, you're going for the big guns, DeMar and Burgess? With what? 1. Tim already did that. A full review of their pair of books. 2. Their view of Genesis is the same as yours. PC in Genesis. CC at Sinai. It's a mess. You advocate the same mess.

[Review of Volume 1 of "The Hope of Israel and the Nations"
Review of Volume 2 of "The Hope of Israel and the Nations"
Tim Martin Challenges Kim Burgess to Formal Debate]

If you aren't willing to deal with Tim, in the way the two of you agreed, you might as well go on to DeMar who will reject you outright.

Jeff

August 2 from Mike Sullivan:

Jeff,

I'm tired of listening to you make excuses for Tim. If he is a coward and won't do it, then have your boy just write it himself and we can all move on. If not, make that modification you wanted to make Jeff to your proposition and we can get started. Talk is cheap "clean your clock" - lol.

You have till tomorrow Tim. No more games.

Mike

August 2 from Jeff Vaughn:

Mike,

Yes. Talk is cheap. Like you calling our work eisgesis.

The only heaven and earth that Moses mentioned was the one in Genesis 1.

You want a public apology from Tim? Where's your public apology?

Jeff

August 2 from Mike Sullivan:

Jeff,

All I can smell is fear from Tim and now you. Tim has until tomorrow. Dave and I have things to do. We are tired of all the excuses. You two clearly don’t want an exegetical debate. At least this is documented for the public. It’s okay, the writers of WSTTB? didn’t want an exegetical debate either. History will not be kind to their silence.

Tim you can make your Mr. Roger “friends from the cabin” creepy videos all you want, but history will record you and Jeff had an opportunity to defend your book and position but “ran away.”

I will not be playing this game with you again Tim.

Mike

August 3 from Mike Sullivan:

Since it looks like Tim remains a no-show (except to post a link to a video the other day), I have some concluding thoughts to eliminate the remaining excuses and comments:

(1). There is no logic in insisting that Tim and I must first write a debate book limited to Isaiah 51:15-16 and then write this broader debate book. The present book covers Isaiah 51 and much more. Who would buy the narrower volume when the second contains substantially more material? Not to mention I already have explained to the public and Tim a long time ago why I canceled that debate and Tim just can't move on. Why? Let's move to #2.

(2). I have already clarified why the first debate ended. It reminds me of the time Jeremiah (an amillennialist) and one of his postmillennial partial-preterist friends wanted to debate Don and me. We made clear it would be an exegetical debate over Matthew 24. After they agreed to the proposition, they saw the train coming (their positions formed ours). Jeremiah’s friend then announced he would continually bring up the fact that Don and I disagree on baptism. We pointed out that this was not the proposition and not what had been agreed upon. Clearly the man wanted out of the debate, so he deliberately sabotaged it, knowing we would not accept the change. We canceled the debate because of the violation and the lack of maturity and integrity shown. They then claimed that Don and I were the ones who canceled and were therefore “running away.” This is exactly what Tim has done, and he knows it. Instead of manning up and apologizing, he doubled down on the offense and is claiming that I'm "running away" from him. Lol.

To make it very clear to everyone: I widened the debate into a more historical response that includes Jeff Vaughn and David Green. This makes it a complete refutation of Tim’s book and position. David Green is my trusted friend, editor, and co-author, so the arrangement checked many boxes. The content itself was also broadened. There really could be no remaining excuse for Tim to “run away”—and yet here we are for all to see.

(3). Jeff, to answer your question: "no," the debate would not be limited only to the texts named in the proposition. For example, if you are treating Hebrews 1:10-12 and 12:26-28, you are free to spend your word count and appeal to Abel in Hebrews 11 in an attempt to "prove" that Genesis 1–2 is not referring to the physical creation. Knock yourself out. If you are in Revelation 21:1-2, you may develop anything in Revelation, including chapter 22, if you think it supports your case regarding a non-physical creation in Genesis 1–3. If you are in Psalm 102 and want to claim that none of the Psalms addresses the physical creation (isn't this your goal in the next conference?), Dave and I welcome you to double down on your Covenant Creation “consistent hermeneutic.”

(4). In the end, three of us were committed to the project and to the dual-affirmative propositions (we even agreed to the slight changes Jeff requested he wanted to make). The man you wanted to moderate the debate (Don Preston) said the propositions “looked pretty good.” The weak link in all of this was Tim Martin.

These are simply the historical facts.

Two of the prominent authors in the full preterist movement challenged you two to a book debate and give you the opportunity to debate and defend your book and you folded like a cheap suit.

In Christ (2 Cor. 1:20),

Mike Sullivan

PS - If Tim eventually shows up David can take it from there in representing our side. I have spent enough time on Tim's nonsense and have to get ready for the conference. I made it clear I don't want you around me at the conference Tim. I expect you to honor that request. You have provoked me enough. I have very little to no respect for you whatsoever.

(Editor's Note: This screenshot is from April, 2026:)

Here is the Martin vs. Sullivan "Isaiah 51 Debate" webpage Archive:

Here is Mike Sullivan explaining why Genesis Creation is "Irrelevant" (2022)

Here is Mike Sullivan showing his view of Adam as the first "Covenant Man" (2025)

Here is Mike Sullivan talking about how the Targums show Genesis 1 is all about Covenant, not the material Creation (2025)

Here is Mike Sullivan's excellent 2008 Article on Temple Theology in Genesis 1-3

Here is the Sullivan vs. Martin "Isaiah 51 Debate: First or Second 'Heavens and Earth?'" webpage archive.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
covgardens@gmail.com

P.S. The reader should be aware that Tim Martin and family traveled to Roatan, Honduras for his son's wedding July 20-28th.

Here is a link to pictures from the "night before" gathering.

Here is a link to some footage from the wedding and celebration.