Kurieuo wrote:Gman wrote:Let's just be truthful… Obviously you do believe in the global flood otherwise you wouldn't be attacking the local flood model. The problem is that you simply rely on the English interpretation of the Bible for this global flood. And whatever it says you HAVE to believe in it regardless of the physical implications it brings. To me not only does the global flood go against scripture, but it also goes against the physical boundaries that God has sent up. You then seem to be side stepping my questions because you know they bring sufficient arguments to your beliefs..
From the past, Jac believed in the Day-Age perspective and as far as I know the local flood scenario.
Now, and I'm sure Jac will correct me if this is not the case, but the church to which he belongs and has been getting trained up in are YEC and local flood proponents. Thus, Jac probably took more seriously and began question these beliefs in order to try align and fit it with the teachings of his church.
Meh, it's been a long, long process of going back and forth. I got heavily into apologetics so I held to the Day Age/Local flood for practical reasons. I have no problem whatsoever adopting a position tenatively and shelving concerns. It is simply impossible to try to answer every conceivable objection before assenting to something.
Anyway, things got particularly difficult for me in this area when I started studying hermeneutics. Not too long after that I adopted a Free Grace theology of salvation, and that had even more dramatic ramfications on my theology elsewhere. Above all, it made me something of a fideist. Further, my apologetics went more heavily in the direction of Jesus' resurrection to the point that I now just flat don't engage in creation apologetics. When that happened, my practical reasons for holding to the model fell out, and I was forced to come back and look at things exegetically, which is what I've been doing for the past year or so.
As of now, I just don't see the exegetical support. I
am ok with a local flood model if we date it back around 30,000 BC or so and if we can show the geography is significantly different. That's why I said that Ross' model (and the discussions I have had with you) have been much more profitable studies. Exegetically, I
think I can hold to that (still looking), and it even has its appeals in some way. But to do that, I have to separate it from the Day Age model as a whole, because I'm far less sold there than I was two years ago (I'm playing with a
severely modified form of YEC right now, hopefully with a local flood scenario).
So, in a sense, my questioning does relate back to my training in that my tranining has led me to a free grace theology, which has had direct ramifications on my heremeneutic. But, in a more important sense, I'm just getting around to asking the questions I shelved a couple of years ago. I couldn't think of a better place to examine them than here, assuming I don't get banned for it.
