Hermeneutics, Divine & Human Authorship & Age of Earth

[abelcainsbrother]

We all know where you stand ACB.
I'm not sure even God telling you you're wrong could sway you.
@Jac, don't let ACB distract you.

For real,I'd repent real fast if God revealed to me it was wrong.I am not into dogma like some may think,I only truly care about the truth.

[Kurieuo]

Ok, last post for the night (and for a few days, I imagine ). This is by far the longest of the responses so far, but I think we are taking on a very deep issue that is fundamental in every sense of the word, so please forgive the dissertation . . .

Before dealing with the problems with authorial intent, I want to make one more comment about the two posts above. Some of this was covered early on. I want to highlight something you said back on the first page, K:

If that is all you are arguing for [my claim that "Psalm 16 is that is that God will preserve His chosen vessels—especially the Davidic King; . . . Psalm 22 promises vindication to those who are mocked and suffer for their faith"], and not in any way a prophecy of a suffering and crucified Messiah... then what I saw as a main flaw in your paper (assuming what David knew) is largely diminished.

Many just accept de facto that this is a prophecy dual-meaning in nature that refers to the crucifixion and all that goes with it. I don't really see any problem with this . . . Clearly you take the Historical-Critical approach to greater levels. Ones I've not before considered. There is merit to that. Seeing how far the matters can be pushed without resorting to a Higher Level view. Just be careful that the boulder you are pushing doesn't blind you to a cliff's edge lest you fall over with it.

Honestly, I had forgotten about your remark there before I said all the above, but I still think the above is helpful insofar as it further clarifies my thinking. I think this is also very important, because one of my complaints even with dispensationalists is that they often do not adhere to the HGM (I mean, to take an easy example, the seven churches of Revelation representing seven ages of church history . . . REALLY?!?).

I've just been re-reading everything more closely, jumping back to what I wrote, and then reading what you wrote here.

Don't want to distract, but I hadn't even considered your eschatology. You must have a really hard time when in comes to Revelation.

I mean we all do, but you more than most in a book full of significations carried to John by an angel.
Staying up at nights, not know what single meaning to believe that John intended...

Sorry, it just amused me. Because I saw Jac staying up late nights going through Revelations, reading commentaries with mutterings like, "what the !?", "seriously...?", "come on...", "you can't be serious..." And then you turn back to the text for the nth time to try and work out what the author intended... "Honey, it's late. Please come to bed," your wife calls out. "I'm never going to work this out anyway," you mutter to yourself as your put it all down. Then you're just starring in the dark at the ceiling, unable to sleep wondering about what the heck John could have meant, or the symbols meant, in the last pieces of text you read.

If that kind of described me, then it must be so much worse for you.

[Kurieuo]

So, Waltke's objections notwithstanding, the fact is that the author's words are exactly the means by which we discover his meaning. But here we have to raise the important points he raises about what we bring into the text. He is, of course, correct that we all start with presuppositions and theologies. So how can we be sure that we're reading the author's theology out of the text and not our own?

The answer is simply good hermeneutics and a huge dose of humility. Look, I'll be honest here. If you want to see an interpretation in a text, it is going to be next to impossible for you not to see it. But that, I submit, is not a problem with the HGM. It is a problem with the interpreter. It's a human problem... The grammar just doesn't allow for it. It doesn't matter what other passages say. Genesis 1, as written, permits no such gap. Other people on this board think that theistic evolution is a permissible reading of the text (including Waltke, by the way). But you know what? They are just wrong. It is not. As neo-x has admitted (to use you as an example, my friend!), if evolution is true, then Genesis 1 is incorrect as it is written. He thinks the HGM leads us to something like YEC but that is a wrong position. So fine, at least he's honest!

I really don't want to distract you.
This was meant to be merely commentary on Waltke, but became a little more.
That is, regarding Waltke's believing: "theistic evolution is a permissible reading of the text."
Before your post I was not aware of anything between Waltke and Theistic Evolution, so I spent a few hours tonight researching and exploring.

Ahh, but then surrounding this you mention Neo-X as support that TE cannot be read into the text.
You exclaim, "at least he's honest!" But, now that casts Waltke into a "dishonest" category which I don't believe is fair.
Unintended I'm sure. Accidental, but it does nonetheless portray Waltke in poor light.
And anyone who watches the same videos I saw will clearly see that this is far from fair.

As far as Neo-X in concerned, he believes the only valid interpretation of Genesis 1 is YEC.
That's the reason he rejects a TE interpretation along with any other.

Sadly, the "presuppositions and theologies" that we each bring to the text are often coloured by what we've been taught and come to accept.
Many self-professing Christians, when they start learning science in higher education, often leave the faith altogether. I don't like that fact. You don't like it. We could debate it with Atheists like Audie who love to tout such and point to examples in the other direction.
But, that doesn't interest me here.

The question of more interest to me is why would such throw away their Christian beliefs?

One possible answer is because they cannot read Scripture in any other light besides how they've been taught it.
It is quite possible that such may have been taught from ICR books how God created in six 24-hour days, created the Sun on day 4 and all that. Ken Ham and AiG has had a big impact on the world in getting books out there that are suppose to provide all the answers to difficult scientific questions. My Dad had them. I can't find a church who doesn't have a group promoting such. I was taught Creationism in Sunday School. YEC is all non-Christians I come into contact with seem to know about creation. So it's theological influence is BIG not just inside of Christianity, but also outside of in colouring what "the Bible says".

So if Scripture can't be seen any other way,
as Neo-X believes, alongside of many non-Christians and Christians alike who have come into contact with such...
Then if Scripture can't be trusted as far as origins and creation is concerned, then what hope of any promised ending?
Perhaps that's wrong also? Doubt sets in, and before long tertiary students are "enlightened" Atheists debating "stupid" Christians.

These Christians may have heard of other interpretations even like Day-Age or something more in line with Biologos which is supportive of evolution. BUT, at the end of the day, they can't get around a YEC interpretation being the one that they accept as the true reading.
So they have to decide: Do I accept the "Bible" or do I accept "Science"?
And many to my disliking, and your disliking, opt for the latter and end up throwing out Christ also.

Neo-X may not be much different from such Christians in what he experienced.
He may have been taught YECism, such that he must now discard the Scripture as being full of stories.
Only he has somehow made peace with his Christian beliefs, Christ being the Way, Scripture being errant and what he sees as undeniable science and arguments for biological evolution.

Nonetheless, his reading of Genesis 1 and the reading of many Christians of Genesis 1 could actually be influenced towards a particular YEC interpretation (and likely the one promoted in AiG creationist books). Such that the only interpretation Neo-X can see is in fact YECist in colour -- such is how they were taught to read it.

So then, what Neo-X actually thinks as far as supporting an obvious plain reading of Scripture as YEC may be his honest feelings (as Waltke's are his) -- but such opinion could simply be the presuppositions and theological beliefs that have greatly influenced his thoughts on how Scripture should be interpreted.

REGARDLESS, I still agree with you and Neo-X, at least as far as TE is concerned, that Theistic Evolution cannot be read into Scripture, even the Genesis Creation accounts (chapters 1-2).

BUT, is that because I've too been theologically cultured? Maybe. I don't believe it is just that.
I can't see much movement beyond perhaps a small verse here or there that I may have not thought much of.
I'm open to listening to any Scriptural argument that might be TE-leaning.
I guess that makes me open to a possibility of some sort. Isn't being open to minimally listening healthy?

This "possibility" finally leads me back to Waltke, who was actually the reason for my posting.
Besides all the commentary by others, Waltke himself doesn't say, from what I have researched, that TE is a possible reading of Scripture.
The most I've found is him asserting that there is room for a verse in Genesis 2 being read in such a context.
And the verse he cites from other made me think I've got to read that one, but it's like one scrappy verse.
This is far different from saying the Genesis Creation, indeed even Genesis 1, that TE is a permissible reading of the text.

What became obvious to me watching Waltke is his strong Christianity, rock-solid belief in Scripture, gracious mannerism and extremely wise old man of God. Just watch the videos below, and I'm sure others will see this too. Especially watch the second which is his response to the controversy that happened.

He talks of how he was actually surprised that many God-loving Christian Evangelicals embraced TE. He is adamant that he first and foremost believes in God's direct involvement with creation, but God using evolutionary processes is a possibility. But, he notes there is a big difference between believing something is so, and believing something is possible.

In any case, Biologos' article and video posting (now taken down) actually misrepresented what Waltke actually thought and lead to him resigning.
Waltke explains it all in the second video below.

But, I'd recommend everyone view the resources in the following order:

• 1) Why Must the Church Come to Accept Evolution?: An Update, Biologos article on Waltke
  
  2) To get a feeling for what Waltke is like on a great Christian topic:
  
  
  3) To get Waltke's full view on TE, the Biologos issue and his true thoughts:
  

Before now, I have never seen Waltke talk, nor read much of his work outside of the ICBI stuff.
BUT, I must say when I hear him talk I see much wisdom and come away thinking what a brilliant Biblical scholar.
And actually more conservative than I expected he would be. And now, I'm interested to read more of his works.

Hopefully this doesn't distract from your further responses.
I couldn't help myself, but I'll try to remain more silent like you did.

[Jac3510]

In this post I want to address the remainder of K’s critiques under his heading Problems Understanding the Human Author's Intended Meaning. All quotes and references comes from this post, this post, and this post, as well as from an addendum found here. K has provided a very helpful summary of these points here. In fact, I encourage the reader to take five minutes and reread that summary before continuing.

I want to start with K’s question about creation positions: “Is There An Objective Interpretation?” Though he never explicitly answers it, the implicit answer throughout is simply “No.” He quotes Waltke with apparent approval saying,

• But modern hermeneutics has turned attention from the text to the interpreter and underscored that it is impossible for him to be neutral or presuppositionless; rather his prejudgment (Vorurteile) decisively influences his understanding of the text before him.

Now, I grant Waltke’s statement as true insofar as it reflects the conclusions of “modern hermeneutics.” I then take away with the other hand what I just granted with that one, for I think modern hermeneutics are simply wrong. I’ll offer a substantive reply just below, but let me just ask a simple question:

If, per Waltke, objective interpretation is impossible, then what about the interpretation of his claim that objective interpretation is impossible?

Put differently, if there is no objective interpretation, then what about K’s question itself as to whether or not there is an objective interpretation?

I hope my point is clear from the outset. If, as modern hermeneutics claims, there is no objectivity in interpretation, then the hermeneutical texts themselves that make those claims cannot themselves be interpreted objectively. Therefore, there is no way to objectively claim that any author, ancient or modern, objectively holds that there is no objective interpretation. I could even go talk to Waltke face to face, and he could tell me exactly what he means, and it still wouldn’t prove anything, because, on his argument, I would still need to subjectively (that is, non-objectively) interpret his words.

In still other words, no matter how sophisticated Waltke gets, he is basically saying, “The truth is that there is no truth.” It’s just highly sophisticated, self-defeating drivel. It’s non-sense and it ought to be treated as such. Well meaning, sophisticated non-sense is still non-sense, after all . . .

Having said that, I want to point where his argument actually fails, and in doing so, I want to point out where he is right and what we need to take away from it in order to ensure that we are coming to an objectively true interpretation.

The first thing is to recognize that we all do come to a text with presuppositions. To take only one example, I presuppose the law of non-contradiction. If Moses says God exists, then he can’t mean that God doesn’t exist. That’s a presupposition. But it doesn’t follow from our having presuppositions that those necessarily mean that we cannot see what the author meant. In fact, I hope you see the opposite. Far from being obscuring factors, our presuppositions can actually be clarifying features of our hermeneutic! It seems, then, Waltke actually has an incorrect presupposition insofar as he seems to think that presuppositions by nature necessarily detract from objective interpretation. But that is just a presupposition I reject.

And yet, it is true that we all hold to presuppositions that obscure the author’s original meaning. So what do we do in that case? And here, I think that K has given us the best possible answer, and I’ll quote him directly:

• we truly self-examine ourselves – the beliefs we hold, systems of theology we are drawn to, thinkers that we look up to and appreciate, the beliefs of family and friends whom we respect and look up to, our education and what we are taught, our experiences in life and the fuller picture of all our influences

This is work that I take very seriously and very personally as it goes to the particular training I’ve had not in school but in my clinical work. As a chaplain, I spend my days interpreting “human documents.” I see someone who is refusing to let their dying mother go, who is offering theological defenses. Through interpretation, I detect anger. I ask about it, and soon it is revealed that the theological positions were all smokescreens. The real issue is that the woman is using her mother as a proxy-war against death itself, as she had recently lost several other family members in a tragic way. She herself did not see that until she was willing to “truly self-examine . . . [her] experiences in life and the fuller picture of all [those] influences.” It is hard work that requires humility and, frankly, courage, because it requires a willingness to be wrong.

Anyway, in light of this, K, you say you are afraid that I missing the simple fact that “we are all guilty of eisegesis to some degree.” But I want to know if that is really true. I grant that we are often guilty of eisegesis, and that we are often guilty of it unawares. But is it true that we are always guilty of it? Is it true, per Waltke, that we are “never neutral when we come to the text” ? As I said above, if so, then we aren’t neutral when we read Waltke saying we aren’t neutral. We are eisegeting to some degree when we read that we are always eisegeting. And that strikes me as the absurd position.

“Well,” you might respond, “It remains true that we are always eisegeting and that we are never neutral; but it is clear that in some cases, that eisegesis and bias isn’t enough to prevent an objective interpretation.” Fine. Then the fact is you are allowing for objective interpretation in principle, and on that principle, I claim that it is possible—even in the case of Genesis 1!

That brings us to your questions of divine dictation. And here, I want to acknowledge that dictation per se isn’t the problem. I don’t know that anyone denies that God dictated some portions of Scripture—you cited the Ten Commandments as an example, which is as good as any I could come up with.

I still object to divine dictation as a meaningful understanding of inspiration, as I distinguish between dictated passages that the author understands (such that the author becomes the efficient cause of the text, including the meaning of the text) and dictated passages that the author doesn’t understand (such that the author becomes a mere material cause of the text).

Consider two examples. Suppose your wife is a member of some other board and she reads some particularly interesting post and calls you and reads it. She asks your opinion, and you ask her to share your opinion. You give her a brief word-for-word response that she types out. She completely gets what you are saying, and after quoting you, even offers a few of her own thoughts amplifying your own.

Now suppose that I am reading the boards and come across some comment Hana makes in which she makes a mathematical reference. I am completely lost (hardly a unique experience!). My wife, who is a numbers girl, walks in and reads over her comments over my shoulder and finds them terribly interesting. She says, “Hey blah blah blah blah” (well, that’s what I hear, because I don’t get numbers). She wants me to share her thoughts as she doesn’t have an account here, so I do so. I write her gibberish out word for word, and she and Hana have a neat exchange that the rest of us find about as interesting as when I start talking Greek.

Both are examples of dictation. In the first, your wife is the efficient cause of meaning. Yes, you dictated what to say, but she fully understood the referents, such that your message was in a very real sense her own, and that whether she acknowledges you as the source of the quote or not. Hand that’s the key: your point became hers; that is, you shared a common intention. In the parlance of our discussion, there is a single meaning. But in the second example, that isn’t the case. My wife’s intention is not mine. Her point is not mine. I’m just a material cause with, frankly, no point at all—and any point that I do have may as well be ignored anyway because it’s not my meaning that matters! Here we have two intentions: my (non-existent) one and my wife’s.

It is the second type of divine dictation that I and classical proponents of the HGM like Radmacher object to when considering divine dictation. We allow that God may have dictated a passage. We allow that God may have had a long face-to-face conversation with some author and then that author shares God’s words with the people. What we object to is the idea that in sharing those words, that they are sharing words of which they are ignorant or even wrong about the meaning. For that claim reduces the human author to a mere material cause, and that, in turn, means that the human author’s point is meaningless.

To close this section, you raise an interesting Christological aspect of hermeneutics. I’ll quote you at length here:

• Far from being a robot, I think an author having close communication with God would actually have become alive and free. Far from removing the author's meaning, we find our true meaning and fulfilment in God. It stands to reason that an author who is in direct contact with God would gain an enriched intention and meaning rather than having it nullified.
  
  Our true self and purpose reach their pinnacle in Christ. It is in Christ our creator that we attain true freedom. Why can't we then apply this theological principle to an author who is in God's immediate presence? That is, the author's true self is actually accentuated.
  
  Furthermore, I'd argue that closer communication methods of Divine inspiration provides the most complete Christological picture of Scripture (if that is what one desires). God personally communicating with Moses allows God to accurately convey what he means, and Moses in awe and wanting to serve God now wishes to convey God's words or insights to the world accurately. The divine and human message in one unified front. A true hypostatic union of God's Word, both fully divine and fully human in one. Quite Christologically beautiful. Don't you think?

I would submit that you are broadly correct, so long as we are talking about “dictation” that the author understands. The kind that makes us “robots” (or, in my language, mere material causes) is the kind in which the author is passing on words that he doesn’t understand. And I think that you at least implicitly grant that in your words above. After all, what else would it mean that “an author who is in direct contact with God would gain an enriched intention and meaning rather than having it nullified”? His intention can only be enriched if it is his own!

So, how would we gain access to the author’s “enriched intention”? The only possible answer is the HGM. What we cannot due is appeal to passages or revelation of which the author is completely and in principle necessarily ignorant of and say that those passages revealed that “enriched intention.” For such an intention would not be the human author’s intention at all, and therefore, that wouldn’t be “his enriched” intention. It would be God’s rich intention of which the human author was totally unaware; thus, as I have often said, the words in question would not, in fact, be revelatory until future revelation came along and revealed this hidden meaning, and then all of the problems associated with such a view. Better to just hold that the only meaning that counts is the one the human author had in mind, because that is the inspired meaning!

So all this leads, quite naturally, to your question about what God saw that the human author didn’t. Here you quote the CSBH Article XVIII, which I’ll also quote in part:

• The single meaning of a prophet's words includes, but is not restricted to, the understanding of those words by the prophet and necessarily involves the intention of God evidenced in the fulfillment of those words. WE DENY that the writers of Scripture always understood the full implications of their own words.

To be clear, I deny the first sentence but affirm the second.

I think you picked up on this intention when you wrote in your addendum,

• You are therefore more content with attaching "literal" meaning at a higher level of the text in Psalm 22, than you would with Genesis 1 where meaning goes right down to the very terms themselves. The details of Psalm 22 you are much less concerned about. BUT, why not? I'm just taking a guess, but perhaps it is just more difficult to really understand what David means by his words and/or what knowledge he has of the Messiah.

The context of the question is a little different, but I think the point is basically the same. Per the article just quoted, I affirm that the single meaning of Psalm 22 includes what David understood—the point being that “though the righteous may suffer for trusting Yahweh, He will always vindicate that trust in the end.” I deny that the meaning is any more than that. To restate, I insist the meaning is in fact restricted to that principle. That does not mean, however, that David knew all the implications of what he meant.

There is a critical distinction to be made here between interpretation and application. Psalm 22 is applied to different people differently. David could never have known all of those applications (although God certainly did). In particular, he didn’t know how it would apply to the Messiah, only that it would (for it applies to all people: that was his point!). So let me say this clearly: there is one meaning or interpretation; there are many implications or applications.

And that is why I am less concerned about the details of Psalm 22. The details were necessary to reveal the one interpretation, the single meaning. They are not necessary in the application. That is the entire point of principalism! I hold that it is a happy coincidence of application that Jesus’ hands and feet were literally pierced, that his garments were literally divided, etc. That doesn’t constitute a secondary meaning. But it does justify the apologetic and theological value of the NT’s use of the passage in the way it does. We can marvel at how the passage applies in this particular case—to Jesus Himself. But what makes that so marvelous is not just the literal application of what in their original context were poetic words, but rather how Jesus truly fulfills the meaning of the text. That is no happy coincidence! That’s what the text actually means and meant.

I hope the application of all of this to Genesis 1 is self-evident. The meaning of Genesis 1 has to Moses’ own. That doesn’t mean that the application of the text had to be fully understood. Moses didn’t know about the Big Bang, so he didn’t know that this passage would have great apologetic value (an application). He probably didn’t know that God’s resting on the seventh day could be applied to our rest in Christ. But that wasn’t his meaning. His meaning, as far as I can tell, is that God created the universe is six days and rested on the seventh. The theological principle he was driving at was that God is sovereign over all, that He is a God of order who expects us to work as He did to bring order out of chaos and to ourselves be people of order, and that He alone is worthy of worship. What I don’t see is how Moses could have meant that God created the world in seven ages or that some later revelation can show that Moses’ words really meant that even though he didn’t.

Looking forward to addressing your own model next! Definitely the highlight of the thread, as far as I can tell!

[Jac3510]

I actually don't think that Waltke is being honest, K.

I think he wants to be honest, but I think he's first and foremost being dishonest with himself. He has a postmodern epistemology and has bought into self-defeating notions of objectivity and truth and is trying desperately to maintain an evangelical view of inspiration within that broken worldview. That leads him to make dishonest statements--all with the best of intentions.

I know that's some of that harsh rhetoric. I'll offer my own brief time out following your example next, actually. In general, I just want to completely affirm your comments there. But as you said, what does fairness have to do with truth? The truth isn't fair except insofar as it is no respecter of persons across the board: it equally discriminates between truth and falsehood, regardless of the speaker's intentions!

Again, Neo-X is honest. Waltke is, unfortunately, not--not intentionally dishonest, but dishonest, nonetheless.

edit: I have other thoughts about Waltke and the roots of his dishonesty. I think they are rooted in his eschatology, but I don't want the thread to become about him, so I'll just leave my comments here and let it be.

edit2: I feel the need to offer a second clarification. I think it's dishonest of Waltke to try to argue that TE is an acceptable understanding of Genesis 1 within the bounds of the HGM. In fact, in accepting TE, he has, in practice, repudiated the HGM. I want to be very clear on this. I was in no way attempting to portray him in a bad light or poison the well, but I'm afraid my comments may have had that effect. So let me be explicit here: I think Waltke's actual arguments (which you more than fairly represent, K!) are substantive, honest, and raise very important points that either need response and/or to be integrated into any hermeneutic we accept. The part that I see as dishonest is attempting to claim that TE is consistent with the HGM. That, and that alone, is the dishonest part. The reason I raised the point at all (and perhaps it was bad judgment on my part) was only to highlight the fact that different people sincerely hold to different beliefs that an honest commitment to the HGM would rule out.

In short, I'm accusing Waltke of inconsistency, of not following the very hermeneutic he has so avidly defended. I don't want that to get lost in these giant walls of text . . .

[abelcainsbrother]

I hate to say it but I think it is the way we read the bible and even if we went by the HGM it effects the way we interpret the bible. It really,really seems to me that those who believe in a young earth interpretation are so biased and hell-bent to make you read the bible like they do,so that it makes it hard to see the real truth the bible reveals by reading it like that and I think it needs to stop.
For one young earth creationists are not even biblical in how they make a case for Noah's flood,it is not even right biblically,much-less scientifically.The fact is the bible reveals that the earth is old already without reading Genesis and even without having to stretch out the 6 days of creation.

Young earth creationists are teaching lies about Noah's flood and I think they know it,but because of dogma,continue to do it.You see they teach that Noah's flood happened because of the the rain mostly and they have this made up water-dome theory that is purely made up imagination that goes against what the bible says about Noah's flood.

The bible tells us the earth was flooded by the fountains of the deep that broke open and this also lines up with other verses in other books of the OT like Job,Isaiah,Psalms,etc the bible even says the water level was rising before it started to rain,now whether or not you believe it was a global flood or not, the bible still tells us the earth was flooded by the fountains of the deep that were opened up and this would actually line up with real science because science has discovered oceans of water inside the earth,so that as the fountains of the deep were opened up the water level started to rise and the water spewing out of the earth shot up into the atmosphere or even evaporated which caused it to start raining.

Even if secular science denies a world wide flood if YEC's actually taught it like this,Noah's flood would not be seen as the joke it is today.This is exactly why people reject a world wide flood today,because it is how YEC's have taught it.It has nothing to do with the devil blinding nonbelievers about it and is all about the way they have taught it.
If you are going to teach about Noah's flood it should at least be biblical and scientifically valid and not just made up imagination.

[RickD]

.

Young earth creationists are teaching lies about Noah's flood and I think they know it,but because of dogma,continue to do it.You see they teach that Noah's flood happened because of the the rain mostly and they have this made up water-dome theory that is purely made up imagination that goes against what the bible says about Noah's flood.

ACB,

If you're going to argue against YEC, at least you need to be up to date with what their arguments actually are. YECs don't argue for the water canopy theory anymore.

[abelcainsbrother]

.

Young earth creationists are teaching lies about Noah's flood and I think they know it,but because of dogma,continue to do it.You see they teach that Noah's flood happened because of the the rain mostly and they have this made up water-dome theory that is purely made up imagination that goes against what the bible says about Noah's flood.

ACB,

If you're going to argue against YEC, at least you need to be up to date with what their arguments actually are. YECs don't argue for the water canopy theory anymore.

I know there are variations within YEC and the Kent Hovind really hammered the the water-canopy theory but YEC's have still taught it is because of rain that the earth was flooded,like the heavens were opened up and it is because of this the earth was flooded.But the bible says it was the fountains of the deep and it tells us the earth was flooded by the water inside the earth too,and that the water on this earth came from inside the earth,like I said in other parts of the bible in the OT.

[RickD]

.

Young earth creationists are teaching lies about Noah's flood and I think they know it,but because of dogma,continue to do it.You see they teach that Noah's flood happened because of the the rain mostly and they have this made up water-dome theory that is purely made up imagination that goes against what the bible says about Noah's flood.

ACB,

If you're going to argue against YEC, at least you need to be up to date with what their arguments actually are. YECs don't argue for the water canopy theory anymore.

I know there are variations within YEC and the Kent Hovind really hammered the the water-canopy theory but YEC's have still taught it is because of rain that the earth was flooded,like the heavens were opened up and it is because of this the earth was flooded.But the bible says it was the fountains of the deep and it tells us the earth was flooded by the water inside the earth too,and that the water on this earth came from inside the earth,like I said in other parts of the bible in the OT.

Kent Hovind?
I don't think any educated YEC thinks Kent Hovind represents all of YEC, any more than any educated automobile mechanic thinks a 1986 Yugo represents all automobiles.

And yes, I did compare Kent Hovind to a Yugo.

I don't really like to recommend Answers in Genesis, but they're probably the foremost promoter of the YEC position. They don't deny The fountains of the deep opening up before the flood.
IMO,
If you're going to argue against a position, it's better to find the position's strongest points, and learn them, so you can argue against them with an educated reason.
Kent Hovind and the water canopy theory are not the strengths of YEC.

[abelcainsbrother]

.

Young earth creationists are teaching lies about Noah's flood and I think they know it,but because of dogma,continue to do it.You see they teach that Noah's flood happened because of the the rain mostly and they have this made up water-dome theory that is purely made up imagination that goes against what the bible says about Noah's flood.

ACB,

If you're going to argue against YEC, at least you need to be up to date with what their arguments actually are. YECs don't argue for the water canopy theory anymore.

I know there are variations within YEC and the Kent Hovind really hammered the the water-canopy theory but YEC's have still taught it is because of rain that the earth was flooded,like the heavens were opened up and it is because of this the earth was flooded.But the bible says it was the fountains of the deep and it tells us the earth was flooded by the water inside the earth too,and that the water on this earth came from inside the earth,like I said in other parts of the bible in the OT.

Kent Hovind?
I don't think any educated YEC thinks Kent Hovind represents all of YEC, any more than any educated automobile mechanic thinks a 1986 Yugo represents all automobiles.

And yes, I did compare Kent Hovind to a Yugo.

I don't really like to recommend Answers in Genesis, but they're probably the foremost promoter of the YEC position. They don't deny The fountains of the deep opening up before the flood.
IMO,
If you're going to argue against a position, it's better to find the position's strongest points, and learn them, so you can argue against them with an educated reason.
Kent Hovind and the water canopy theory are not the strengths of YEC.

I think the strength of YEC is to acknowledge Noah's flood but it is how they have taught it that is the problem.I have to admit I have not been to AIG in a while but even if they have changed now,it still matters how they have been teaching it.Also this was just one aspect,I have not got into their other bad teaching.

[RickD]

ACB wrote:
I think the strength of YEC is to acknowledge Noah's flood but it is how they have taught it that is the problem.I have to admit I have not been to AIG in a while but even if they have changed now,it still matters how they have been teaching it.Also this was just one aspect,I have not got into their other bad teaching.

I think the strength of the YEC position, or more accurately those in YEC, is there belief that they're holding to the literal interpretation of scripture. I think that part of YEC is commendable.

But unfortunately their dubious interpretation of scientific evidence, is their weakness. And that's where they lose people.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:
I think the strength of YEC is to acknowledge Noah's flood but it is how they have taught it that is the problem.I have to admit I have not been to AIG in a while but even if they have changed now,it still matters how they have been teaching it.Also this was just one aspect,I have not got into their other bad teaching.

I think the strength of the YEC position, or more accurately those in YEC, is there belief that they're holding to the literal interpretation of scripture. I think that part of YEC is commendable.

But unfortunately their dubious interpretation of scientific evidence, is their weakness. And that's where they lose people.

I can't do that because I think their interpretation is wrong and I think it comes from a lazy way of reading the bible too,this does not mean all YEC's are not biblically smart,there are many that are,but I'm talking about how the YEC interpretation came about.

[RickD]

ACB wrote:
I think the strength of YEC is to acknowledge Noah's flood but it is how they have taught it that is the problem.I have to admit I have not been to AIG in a while but even if they have changed now,it still matters how they have been teaching it.Also this was just one aspect,I have not got into their other bad teaching.

I think the strength of the YEC position, or more accurately those in YEC, is there belief that they're holding to the literal interpretation of scripture. I think that part of YEC is commendable.

But unfortunately their dubious interpretation of scientific evidence, is their weakness. And that's where they lose people.

I can't do that because I think their interpretation is wrong and I think it comes from a lazy way of reading the bible too,this does not mean all YEC's are not biblically smart,there are many that are,but I'm talking about how the YEC interpretation came about.

ACB,

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on this. This is what this very thread is getting into. The Historical-Grammatical Method (HGM) of biblical interpretation. Both Jac(a YEC) and Kurieuo(an OEC) are discussing the HGM.
Both OECs and YECs use the HGM. AiG uses the HGM, and they're YEC. So, I don't think how the YEC interpretation came about, via the HGM, is wrong.

So, just because there may be some YECs who are lazy in their interpretation, that doesn't mean the YEC interpretation came about lazily.

As I'm not as knowledgeable as Jac and K are regarding the HGM, I'm interested in how this thread progresses in regards to the HGM.

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB wrote:
I think the strength of YEC is to acknowledge Noah's flood but it is how they have taught it that is the problem.I have to admit I have not been to AIG in a while but even if they have changed now,it still matters how they have been teaching it.Also this was just one aspect,I have not got into their other bad teaching.

I think the strength of the YEC position, or more accurately those in YEC, is there belief that they're holding to the literal interpretation of scripture. I think that part of YEC is commendable.

But unfortunately their dubious interpretation of scientific evidence, is their weakness. And that's where they lose people.

I can't do that because I think their interpretation is wrong and I think it comes from a lazy way of reading the bible too,this does not mean all YEC's are not biblically smart,there are many that are,but I'm talking about how the YEC interpretation came about.

ACB,

I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on this. This is what this very thread is getting into. The Historical-Grammatical Method (HGM) of biblical interpretation. Both Jac(a YEC) and Kurieuo(an OEC) are discussing the HGM.
Both OECs and YECs use the HGM. AiG uses the HGM, and they're YEC. So, I don't think how the YEC interpretation came about, via the HGM, is wrong.

So, just because there may be some YECs who are lazy in their interpretation, that doesn't mean the YEC interpretation came about lazily.

As I'm not as knowledgeable as Jac and K are regarding the HGM, I'm interested in how this thread progresses in regards to the HGM.

Yes I am interested too.I will try to stay out of it,at least for now.I was certainly not trying to derail the thread.I just had a few disagreements but it doesn't mean I disagree with all of it.

[Jac3510]

Public note: please see my second edit in my post above re: Waltke and my charge of dishonesty. Could be important to how the conversation continues and clarify what I was attempting to argue there. Thanks for the patience and sorry for the lack of clarity there.