Hermeneutics, Divine & Human Authorship & Age of Earth

[Kurieuo]

This thread is a continuation of an exchange between Jac and I that started in another thread.

I've been reading books and developing a detailed response to a portion of Jac's last main response .
"Book 1" alone is a major issue and perhaps the main one. It is also so loaded with issues that need unpacking, that I'm at 25 pages in developing my response, Kurieuo-style. And this is still growing, although I believe I'm almost finished.

The last thing I want however is to inundate everyone, such that my response goes wasted.
With that said, I'm going to release a series of posts with my response over the coming days.
This will also give you (Jac) a chance to develop your own response over time without hopefully feeling too overwhelmed.
I'd recommend perhaps hold off on posting your responses unto the end, but it's up to you.

To jot everyone's memory Jac previously wrote:

Book 1 – The nature of Scripture and its divine and human authorship

I think this is of primary importance, because it goes to the heart of how we read Scripture. As I read you, you argue that because Scripture is divinely inspired, we are therefore free to find in the words of Scripture fulfillments that the human author would have been totally unaware of. As such, it would appear to me that we are forced to distinguish between the human intent and the divine intent. For if God intended a meaning that the human author did not, then clearly the human and divine intentions are necessarily distinct. But that raises serious questions about the relationship between those to intentions. Which is inspired? If the divine intention is correct, can the human intention be incorrect? Or worse, it seems like such a view results in what Earl Radmacher calls “hermeneutical nihilism” for it “separate the words of the text from the author resulting in multiple meanings.” He goes on to ask

• Is it not possible that the claim of authorial ignorance [and, thus, divided intentions] makes the Bible something less than a truly human document. Just as we do not want to describe the person of Christ as less than truly human, so we do not want to describe the Scriptures as less than truly human.

(See Radmacher’s Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, pp.433, 36). Now, I think Radmacher is making an important point. The Bible is certainly a divine book, but the moment we separate the intentions, we have ceased to allow it to be a human book. For now the only role the authors have is that they are providing the material cause; that is, they are the ones who write the words on the page. But their intentions behind those words prove to be secondary at best. The real cause is only divine. And that, I think, is a rather dangerous thing to do, because now we may as well ignore authorial intent all the way around. If the human author’s intention doesn’t have to be followed, then the text may as well mean whatever we want it to mean. All we have to say is, “It doesn’t matter what Moses meant. What matters is what God meant, and God meant so and so, even if that’s not what Moses own words actually mean.”

And if that isn’t bad enough, I charge that this makes all of Scriptural revelation absolutely meaningless and therefore no revelation at all. For, again, if we are not forced to hold to authorial intent, and if we can import meanings of the text that are foreign to it (or merely even unwarranted by it) based on future “revelation,” then what is to say that we understand the text as it we have it now? After all, if Moses himself could not, in principle, understand what he had written (since his intention is of secondary importance to the divine intention, and since the divine intention is only revealed later), then it is necessary to conclude that the divine intention was unavailable to Moses himself. And if the intention was unavailable to Moses, then he could not know its meaning, and therefore, the meaning was not “revealed” to him. And therefore, Scripture was not “revelation” to Moses after all. But if that is true, then why is it not also true for us?

The easiest solution to this whole dilemma is to simply say what we have always said: we go by authorial intention. We do not allow fuller meanings to be found in the text by later authors. Regarding inspiration, we affirm what the Bible actually says: the men themselves were inspired, and therefore, their intentions are the inspired intentions. There is no distinction, then, between the human and divine intention, and therefore, no one can appeal to a supposed meaning that God “hid” in the text that was only discovered/revealed later on.

As to your concerns that the NT authors found exactly those kinds of hidden meanings, it just so happens I wrote a paper titled “The Hermeneutical Implications of the New Testament’s Use of Three Messianic Psalms” on that very issue. You can find it here.

Introduction: Finding Agreement

Before getting started into my main response, I'd like to submit that I’ve always highly value the input of the ICBI (International Council of Biblical Inerrancy) and what they attempted to do via both the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) and Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH) – this version of CSBH also contains commentary by Norman Geisler. (I recommend these reads to anyone who will be following)

Both of these are great works which try to unpack in a coherent manner what Evangelicals mean when they call the Bible divinely inspired and inerrant, and with that in mind acceptable methods and principles of interpreting Scripture.

If anyone takes a conservative view of Scripture as being divinely inspired and the inerrant word of God, then it would do well to start with what the ICBI defined as a foundational work.

@ Jac, it seems to me that you too agree ICBI ought to be respected. The fact that you quoted Radmacher in the papers submitted to the council for consideration (which Radmacher himself was a leading figure). When discussing Biblical interpretation in a fashion we both would draw a line with the ICBI against liberal interpretations.

With that, the foremost interpretative method they embrace is the Historical-Grammatical method that you so highly respect. For those who do not know, whether or not you agree, the aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood.

It has full backing by ICBI as the main method of biblical interpretation. Given its authoritative backing, Jac is on solid grounds to use it and challenge any interpretation by its standards. This is what it appears he did with the bulk of his reply in what he titled “Book 1”.

I hope in what follows I’m able to clarify, help others understand and refute various objections as they bear upon my own position of creation: God performed specific fiat creative acts in the world that spanned relatively long periods of time.

[RickD]

Good stuff K!!

I'm looking forward to learning from this discussion between Jac and you. Especially seeing you both use the same historical-grammatical method, yet one believes in a young earth, and the other believes in an old earth.

[Jac3510]

Sounds good, K (of course it sounds good when we agree on fundamental issues! ). Given all the work you're putting into this, I'm going to hold off on any comments until you have thoroughly stated your case. I want to be able to give you a full hearing.

[Philip]

'm looking forward to learning from this discussion between Jac and you. Especially seeing you both use the same historical-grammatical method, yet one believes in a young earth, and the other believes in an old earth.

Should be interesting.

Kurieuo prepares his various arguments carefully and methodically while Jac patiently waits.

(Preview of Jac's strategy)





Jac: Eagerly (impatiently) awaits K's arguments and his first post.





K delays too long with his first post, so Jac spontaneously posts: "Pull!"


K lets fly his first argument: "jffklsjseoreurrodfdlkerorfioeoijeeoiwoejeoj32ourijijfddjfjvnrukefjrojereoirieuroie eieeeowrowerweurwoiereoijwojoiejoijo54757483838yjhfieoreiriererereroeirjjreooejrieeroretcetcetc!!!!!jffklsjseoreurrodfdlkerorfioeoijeeoiwoejeoj32ourijijfddjfjvnrukefjrojereoirieuroie eieeeowrowerweurwoiereoijwojoiejoijo54757483838yjhfieoreiriererereroeirjjreooejrieeroretcetcetc!!!!!jffklsjseoreurrodfdlkerorfioeoijeeoiwoejeoj32ourijijfddjfjvnrukefjrojereoirieuroie eieeeowrowerweurwoiereoijwojoiejoijo54757483838yjhfieoreiriererereroeirjjreooejrieeroretcetcetc!!!!!jffklsjseoreurrodfdlkerorfioeoijeeoiwoejeoj32ourijijfddjfjvnrukefjrojereoirieuroie eieeeowrowerweurwoiereoijwojoiejoijo54757483838yjhfieoreiriererereroeirjjreooejrieeroretcetcetc!!!!!jffklsjseoreurrodfdlkerorfioeoijeeoiwoejeoj32ourijijfddjfjvnrukefjrojereoirieuroie eieeeowrowerweurwoiereoijwojoiejoijo54757483838yjhfieoreiriererereroeirjjreooejrieeroretcetcetc!!!!!"






Jac's response:










Jac: "Oops, it appears my initial response wasn't effective against part of K's clever argument ... no matter."




Jac: "Oh, yeah!"





Jac: "It's like shooting fish in a barrel!"


All that without the sound effects (Pity) .

[Byblos]

^

If skeet shooting were a herrmaneutics method look out, I won several tournaments in the good old days.

[Kurieuo]

Single Meaning – Divine and Human Authors

Your whole focus in your “Book 1” argument against me, and as such my position, is based upon a principle where the divine intention in the text cannot be had where the author would be unaware to it (the principle of "single meaning"). However, with ICBI, there are exceptions made—namely the author need not be fully aware to the fuller implications of the writing like God would be given His foreknowledge.

Let me say I do find "single meaning" suspect, nonetheless I’m going to accept it based upon authority (ICBI’s) because to I have not fully explored the reasoning behind it. Therefore, I accept this principle to the degree that ICBI have defined it. A principle which obviously forms a crucial part of the Historical-Grammatical method which aims to get at what the original author’s intentions were.

That said, there are weaknesses in trying to understand what the original author intended and as such the Historical-Grammatical method. This is not just my own words, but words from those who had played an important part of ICBI's discussions in the lead up to their statement formulations.

On a personal note, I think it is hard enough just trying to understand the writing in Scripture let alone trying to understand what an author did or didn’t know. In a court of law anything that would come from this would be called hearsay, and I dare say hearsay in the worst degree—or should we call it “readsay”.

Now hearsay is rejected because often one colours what they hear to mean something other. Likewise, we also have a weakness in the Historical-Grammatical method in that subjective assumptions often make their way into what the author meant or intended. This particularly happens if one has strong beliefs or adheres to a particular systematic theology.

This "subjectivity creep" is something I hope to reveal happens in your Psalm paper which tries to apply the Historical-Grammatical methods to get at the three messianic prophecies as acceptable interpretations of the text. So let's delve a little into your paper: The Hermeneutical Implications of the New Testament’s Use of Three Messianic Psalms (recommended read for this discussion).

Critiquing Your Paper
In your paper you attempt to justify the NT authors adhering to a “literal” or plain interpretation using the Historical-Grammatical method. BUT, it seems to me that your reasoning begs the question—for you assume a crucial point at the start. Namely that David was fully informed about, or at least saw the bigger picture of, the Messiah. Allow me to clarify what I mean and why this matters.

You rightly point out in your paper that “one must decide the place of the Messiah in the Psalter.” (p.2) This is crucial in my opinion for your argument. What did David know about the Messiah and how did he know it? And yet, you pay these particular questions little attention and simply write: “David himself says in his last words (2 Sam 23:1-5) that the Messiah is one of his favorite topics to write about.”

Here is “the key” that you use to resolve the difficulty of the author (David) knowing more fully that his writing has prophetic value of the Messiah. Yet, nothing more is said about the content of the Messiah that the author (David) or Israel (the hearers) knew or would have understood.

Jewish Messiah Expectations
It was/is the case that Jews did not expect the messiah to be like Jesus, but rather more like a military leader, king or some power head to lead them out of exile back into their home land where there would then be a time of peace.

This point of fact was used by the high priests, elders and teachers of Jewish law to try and incite Pilate against Jesus. Once Jesus confirmed to the Jewish Sanhedrin that he was the Messiah, what did they do? With this “ammo” against Jesus they probably thought they could persuade Pilate to kill him on some bases of rebellion against Rome or the like (since the messiah was to set the Jews free). Surely, Rome would not stand for such insurrection?

So after beating and spitting upon Jesus, the Sanhedrin took him the very next day to Pilate. It seems that Pilate somewhat saw through their cunning and desire to have Jesus’ killed—something that required Roman authority. Yet, at the behest of the Jewish leaders he asks Jesus, “Are you the Messiah, King of the Jews?” and ends up sanctioning his beating and death by crucifixion.

As the gospel accounts tell, a series of events unfold where Jesus is mocked as the Messiah. The soldiers dress him up as a king and beat him in mockery of his being “King of the Jews”. The plaque was intended to mock Jesus, although it did not pan out to be exactly what the Pharisees wanted written which was, “He calls himself King of the Jews.” Instead the plaque read: “King of the Jews”. Then Christ says on the cross “forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” What didn’t they know? That they actually were crucifying the real Messiah!

Jesus’ only crime in all this was that he claimed to be the Messiah. The implications being that Jesus would free the Jewish people and bring about a time of peace. Bart Ehrman, who is by no means in the Christian camp but nonetheless a valid first-rate historical authority, says in a debate against Craig that “No Jew prior to Christianity thought that the Messiah was to be crucified.”

I also had an interchange with a Rabbi not too long ago, and it was his firm opinion that Zionists have lead Israel astray because occupation of their land is not divinely sanctioned. He wrote to me: “Jews are obligated by their own Torah to remain in exile and make no claim to Palestine until the messiah comes, at which time things will proceed as commanded directly by G-d.” Jewish people are still waiting for their messiah to come today!

So, what is my point against your paper?
My point is you have assumed that David and his hearers would have known the Messiah as the one Christians believed in (Jesus), rather than being the one they themselves actually expected. So how do you then reason that David (the psalmist) would expect a dying messiah? How does this play out in the Pslam passages? Further still, how did David know anything about the Messiah? Did God tell him beforehand and would the immediate hearers have understood this too?

It seems to me that God would have needed to have communicated his divine intentions to David, the human author. Otherwise the Messiah would have never have been, as you say, one of David’s favourite topics. Some divine intention needed to be communicated, such that David’s own intentions are aligned to God’s and "single meaning" justified.

BUT, this is kind of cheating! You assume David already knows about the Messiah. This then allows you to claim success in using the Historical-Grammatical to discover the author’s intended meaning, the literal meaning of the text, which is actually God’s intent. And now all your same arguments in "Book 1" applies to your interpretation of the Psalm passages.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it does look like a double-standard is being applied here. That is, you assume it is alright for David and his immediate audience to have particular knowledge about the Messiah, but then turn around and declare what Moses could or could not have known or intended regarding the Genesis creation.

Furthermore, if the original author (David) and hearers have a different conception of the Messiah compared to us Christians (as appears to be the case), then it seems you’ve actually failed to justify the prophecies in Psalm, especially in regard to a dying Messiah, using the Historical-Grammatical method.

Therefore, to claim that the NT authors adhered to a Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic appears to be begging the question. THAT SAID, I don’t think it is entirely your fault. Rather it is actually a weakness to the Historical-Grammatical method that I mentioned earlier.

It is a weakness that Bruce Waltke notes in in his writing, Historical Grammatical Problems of Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible.
This massive book consists of a many writings submitted to ICBI, that in true scholastic fashion offer both critique and response from those who were part of ICBI.
I intend to explore this subjective problem in trying to get at the human author’s intended meaning next.

___________________

Last edited by Kurieuo 15 Nov 6:15PM EST

[Kurieuo]

Last night when posting I was falling asleep, but I've just gone through a performed some major edits.
I'll be doing this as I progressively post my "good" rough version of what I've written, but was too tired to last night.
Really, just noticed some parts were quite vague so made my points more clear.

[Starhunter]

The relationship between God and man in terms of writing the scriptures, is one of cooperation, but the human is not fully aware of how God interacts with man.
But there will be arguments from those who want to be able to define God's business which He has not revealed.

The "mystery of godliness" is God working with and through men in ways they cannot know. It is not an act of secrecy on the part of God, but one of necessity, where infinite wisdom meets the needs of finite man, the results of which can only be comprehended upon completion of the plan of salvation.

On the other end, of receiving scripture and reading it, the cooperation between man and God has to be continued in order for the Spirit of God to complete the purpose of scripture. Here again, making definitions as to what God does and does not do, is an act of avoidance towards God, because it is founded on distrust and the need to control.

The fact that theologians have found a way of philosophically avoiding obedience to the Spirit of God, through their interpretations of the workings of the Divine, reveals itself in the permissions they give others to misconstrue the scriptures.
So Satan has succeeded in bringing in a baleful of errors by appealing to people through the intellectual niceties of professors.

[Squible]

Interesting...

[Philip]

K wrote: So, what is my point against your paper?
My point is you have assumed that David and his hearers would have known the Messiah as the one Christians believed in (Jesus), rather than being the one they themselves actually expected. So how do you then reason that David (the psalmist) would expect a dying messiah? How does this play out in the Psalm passages? Further still, how did David know anything about the messiah? Did God tell him beforehand and would the immediate hearers have understood this too?

And this was precisely my point when I wrote that the purpose of the Genesis creation accounts was likely not addressing age of the earth/length of the Days of Creation. Because clearly there were significant limits between what God had the prophets write and what in-depth understandings they would have had about its precise meanings and intentions. God just didn't explain everything in detail. In fact, much was shrouded in mystery. And that's not in any way to infer that the text wasn't factual or that it didn't contain the actual truth. But was its entire purpose well understood at the time God had them write it, that's the question. To say that God well explained everything he inspired is just not born out by the various writers, their writings and the understandings we know that they had at various times.

[Starhunter]

And this was precisely my point when I wrote that the purpose of the Genesis creation accounts was likely not addressing age of the earth/length of the Days of Creation. Because clearly there were significant limits between what God had the prophets write and what in-depth understandings they would have had about its precise meanings and intentions. God just didn't explain everything in detail. In fact, much was shrouded in mystery. And that's not in any way to infer that the text wasn't factual or that it didn't contain the actual truth. But was its entire purpose well understood at the time God had them write it, that's the question. To say that God well explained everything he inspired is just not born out by the various writers, their writings and the understandings we know that they had at various times.

The face value of a text, is not diminished or removed by a deeper understanding.
So to say that Moses had a simple understanding of the 7 day creation and that God intended it to mean billions of years for some future generation is not how inspiration works. What was written in its simplest way, remains the truth.

Saying that the prophets did not quite get what they were writing about is not how inspiration works either.
The prophets wrote what they were told to write or what they were inspired to write. God overruled what would remain as scripture to be passed down into the future, and what would not.
The prophets were not in some trance or daze when they wrote, writing things which they did not understand.
They were clear on the intention and meaning otherwise they would not have written it.

Inspiration is the human agent responding - in full attention - to the truth of God, but inspiration does not have contradictory results, otherwise God does not know who He is talking to.

[Philip]

The prophets were not in some trance or daze when they wrote, writing things which they did not understand.
They were clear on the intention and meaning otherwise they would not have written it.

Nonsense! If this were true, there would not have been such poor understandings concerning the coming, prophesied Messiah. There would be far fewer debates concerning the meanings of various prophecies. And in many instances, if they DID have a comprehensive understanding, one must wonder why they didn't clearly and much better explain some things that have caused reasonable theologians to have long debated them.

[Kurieuo]

Problems Understanding the Human Author's Intended Meaning

ICBI, in putting together a fairly coherent statement on Biblical inerrancy and hermeneutics, first had much conversation across a range of issues. While statements of affirmation were arrived at, there does seem to be flexibility with terms and phrasings since sometimes not all agreed in the same sense on every point.

As previously mentioned, the Historical-Grammatical method was accepted as a main method of interpretation. BUT, this was not without some discussion surrounding its weakness, especially Waltke's paper commenting on weaknesses with the Historical-Grammatical method. Waltke did a good job highlighting some issues and I highly recommend the read, even if skimming over some more tedious parts.

To highlight one issue I wish to pursue here, Waltke writes: "In theory practitioners of the historico-grammatic method of exegesis decry the rule of faith, but all too often in practice they allow their creeds to usurp the place of the author's intended meaning."

This raises an important question: How do we really know what the author really knew, and can we really get at their intended meaning?

Can We Know What the Human Author Intends?
I'm sure we can to a degree get at the human author's intention. How much? Some appear to believe that we can clearly see what the author sees without any doubt, especially on some main issues like creation. I'm sceptical. I know people have often read what I write and either mistake what I mean, assume what I know and understand/don't know and understand.

I'm sure others here have felt the same, especially in discussions like often happens on this board. Thankfully, you can at least correct people when they misunderstand. Hopefully they get it right on the second or third time around, before you throw your hands up in the air and walk away from your computer frustrated. Sadly, the human authors of Scripture – Moses et al – have long disappeared. So things are much more difficult for us without them here to question.

That said, writings do provide us with some access into the mind of the writer so it would be wrong to say nothing can be known. We should be able to draw out at least some things about a human author's own knowledge and intentions. In the case of Scripture, what makes it even more difficult though for us is the two-authorship belief—human and divine.

SO when it comes to Christians arguing for their own position saying that the human author didn't intend this or that meaning, such starts to wreak of "allow[ing] their [beliefs] to usurp the place of the author's intended meaning" (to paraphrase Waltke). Especially when the text itself can support otherwise.

Waltke's before discussing issues that surround prejudgements interpreters bring to a passage writes:

• "This method [the Historical-Grammatical], as normally understood, attempts to recover the author's meaning and intention by carefully establishing the context-the meaning of his words, the grammar of his language and the historical and cultural circumstances, etc.-in which he wrote. But this is easier said then done." (emphasis mine)

What the Author Isn't Allowed to Know
Something I have noticed amongst various Historical-Grammaticians is a tendency to ignore and keep separate any communication God may have had with the author. While the human author was inspired by God, for some reason they aren't allowed to have any divine insight or knowledge imparted to them. That is, unless an interpreter using the Historical-Grammatical method thinks otherwise.

@Jac, you yourself appear to argue for keeping the author's intended meaning clean and unmixed from God's. You argue this, for example when trying to make a point saying:

• "It doesn't matter what Moses [the author] meant. What matters is what God meant, and God meant so and so… this makes all of Scriptural revelation absolutely meaningless and therefore no revelation at all."

But, why must it be the case that the author cannot know what God knows? Why must we keep the human knowledge separate from divine knowledge? Indeed, it seems many Historical-Grammaticians want to keep the author's intended meaning clean and unmixed from God's own knowledge.

I can understand that mixing to two together presents a great difficulty in trying to "understand the text as the original human author and hearers would understand." And yet, if God does communicate to the human author, then the intended joint message seems to be somewhat sacrificed on the altar of the Historical-Grammatician.

Clearly, this is I think what Waltke had in mind when he gave a warning at the end of his paper:

• "While [paradigms like the Historical-Grammatical method] assist us in understanding certain aspects of Scripture we must be careful not to absolutize them in such a way that we rule out of our thinking data that does not fit them.
  
  A second problem is that we get attached to them. For psychological reasons once we commit ourselves to a paradigm we are reluctant to give it up.
  
  A third problem is that even when we have a paradigm that has problems in it we will not let go of it until we are sure we have a better one. Then too, we absolutize them so that they become authoritative as the text itself, though in theory we deny this.
  
  Finally, we find it difficult to believe that our paradigms are relative to our understanding and that with more maturity we should let them go for better ones. In short, the problem with paradigms is that we absolutize them. We fail to understand what they really are: human models to advance our understanding of the text." (line breaks mine, for clarity)

Furthermore, associated with this desire to keep the human intentions isolated from the divine during interpretation, there seems to be a distaste for Divine dictation. Many theologians seem uncomfortable with that. I'll get more into this later.

But, let it be said I'm puzzled as to why when Moses writes Genesis 1, we must assume that God couldn't have directly communicated a deeper meaning to His words? Like dual prophecy, as we find with David of the crucified Messiah in Psalm 22. Couldn't God have conveyed many things to Moses in visions, dreams or even a burning bush?

Why must it be the case that the author, who despite being "divinely inspired," actually had no special communication with God? This just sounds absurd if you accept the writings of the authors are divinely inspired to the extent God keeps their words inerrant while at the same time telling His own story.

Prejudicial Influences on Author's Knowledge
Whatever you think the author is or isn't allowed to know, or what they are able to or unable to intend in their message, it seems many who follow the Historical-Grammatical method at some time project their own beliefs onto the author.

A small example of this can be found in your paper with your quotation of Tom Constable. Of Psalm 16 Tom writes: "Evidently David had received a special revelation from the Lord that he would not die…"

Evidently, influencing Tom's interpretation is that David received a special revelation that "he would not die." Did God tell David this directly? Or is Tom projecting his own meaning into the text? And interestingly, you (Jac) did not think that Tom's interpretation of the text was as evident as he would believe.

As another example of projecting beliefs into the text, I again refer to your own writing that David had an understanding the Messiah i.e., "it was one of his favorite topics." BUT, any true understanding had to have been divinely imparted at some point. So, how did this happen? Did God tell David directly? Maybe visions or dreams?

I don't raise that necessarily as an argument here against what is otherwise an well written paper.
BUT, it seems like everyone at some point like to takes some liberty to project what we feel is the case about what the human author knew or didn't know.
AND that this projection can be easily channeled in via a direct or indirect assumption of God specially revealing such knowledge to the human author.

This enables those who think they're objectively practicing the Historical-Critical method to inject thoughts into "the human author [which they] would have been totally unaware of." (to quote one your accusations against me out of context) When this is done, then the human author's intention is lost – something you are clearly uncomfortable with based upon your own argumentation. There is an interesting irony to your argument here.

To show I'm not a lone voice here in my criticism, Waltke dedicates five full pages of his writing on to "Prejudgement" in his paper Historical Grammatical Problems (I highly recommend reading these pages!) He writes:

• "Traditionally the historico-grammatical method has focused its attention on the context of the biblical writers in order to control their meaning and neglected the context of the interpreter. This one-sided approach to interpretation was further exacerbated by Descartes' theory of knowledge, in which man as active subject looks out on the world as passive object.
  ….
  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."

I'm going to leave things here for now (as in for this post, but more posts will follow shortly).

[Jac3510]

K,

Thanks for taking the time to work through such a thorough response. I'm going to read through the 64 page document you posted. I also need to go back through Thomas Howe's Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, so it'll be a bit before I give you a fair and proper response. With that said, there is one thing I think you ought to reconsider while I work on my response, which is just that you seem to have misread me in one place in particular in my hermeneutics paper. You said, "it seems you’ve actually failed to justify the prophecies in Psalm, especially in regard to a dying Messiah, using the Historical-Grammatical method." But my paper didn't argue that that David foretold a dying Messiah. I am presently of the view that we can get that out of Isaiah 53 (and as you know, there were Jews in Jesus' day who expected two Messiahs--one suffering and dying, and the other a conqueror); but Ps 16 and Ps 22 make no such predictions. In fact, I say in the conclusion, " the general principle of Psalm 16 is that is that God will preserve His chosen vessels—especially the Davidic King—a truth that cannot be more greatly fulfilled that in the resurrection of Christ. Likewise, Psalm 22 promises vindication to those who are mocked and suffer for their faith. Again, Christ’s resurrection fulfills this is a truth in the grandest possible sense." Now, perhaps my argument does fail. That remains to be seen. But since I'm actually denying that David is predicting a dying Messiah, you can't use that failure to demonstrate that he did believe in a dying Messiah as evidence against my argument!

Anyway, give me some time to offer a serious reply to your other well stated points. I very much appreciate the approach you've taken here, as I think it will help clarify some very important hermeneutical points in general and their particular application to the OEC/YEC debate.

[Kurieuo]

I was about to spend time creating my next post, but time out to respond.

Thanks for taking the time to work through such a thorough response. I'm going to read through the 64 page document you posted. I also need to go back through Thomas Howe's Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, so it'll be a bit before I give you a fair and proper response.

My response is still largely incomplete. So you do have much more time.
Where I said I will leave things here for now, I was meaning just for that last post of mine.

People here were perhaps expecting something different, that is, more direct to the YEC/OEC debate.
Patience people. I will get to that to in due course. The issues just run much, much deeper as I hope is becoming apparent.

One reason such a deeper and more detailed approach was needed is that I readily saw that hermeneutics is the real battlefield between us.
For you, your YEC beliefs are symptomatic of methods that you accept, the way you utilise them and some foundational assumptions.
So if I were ever have any hope of getting to the bottom of your YEC beliefs, then I needed to deal with the cause of the symptom—your interpretative framework.

Please, do not feel that you must respond to everything.
Much of what I post here is rhetorical in the same sense as you would read a book.
I'm largely exploring issues for the benefit of others (and myself), although there are clearly areas where I speak directly to you—even strongly arguing if not even at times reprimanding you.
So it is good that you just give short and quick responses like you did here, to correct any misunderstandings on my part of yourself.
And you are more then welcome to refute any assaults made on you or your beliefs which will be unavoidable.

With that said, there is one thing I think you ought to reconsider while I work on my response, which is just that you seem to have misread me in one place in particular in my hermeneutics paper. You said, "it seems you’ve actually failed to justify the prophecies in Psalm, especially in regard to a dying Messiah, using the Historical-Grammatical method." But my paper didn't argue that that David foretold a dying Messiah. I am presently of the view that we can get that out of Isaiah 53 (and as you know, there were Jews in Jesus' day who expected two Messiahs--one suffering and dying, and the other a conqueror); but Ps 16 and Ps 22 make no such predictions. In fact, I say in the conclusion, " the general principle of Psalm 16 is that is that God will preserve His chosen vessels—especially the Davidic King—a truth that cannot be more greatly fulfilled that in the resurrection of Christ. Likewise, Psalm 22 promises vindication to those who are mocked and suffer for their faith. Again, Christ’s resurrection fulfills this is a truth in the grandest possible sense." Now, perhaps my argument does fail. That remains to be seen. But since I'm actually denying that David is predicting a dying Messiah, you can't use that failure to demonstrate that he did believe in a dying Messiah as evidence against my argument!

Thanks for clarifying Jac.

If that is all you are arguing for (the parts in bold of your reply here), 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, perhaps what you would identify as in your paper as "unfortunate":

Unfortunately, that commitment has not been held among many attempting to make sense of the NT use of the OT. The essence of their argument is that "through the progress of revelation and/or the fuller canonical interpretation of the Scriptures, one arrives at a more complete understanding of God's original intent in a given OT text."

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.

I think you will find Waltke's paper quite even handed. At least I hope you do.
Just keep in mind ICBI appeared to have followed a scholastic approach in formulating their statements.
Part of this approach is to think of the best possible arguments against your position, and then to respond to them.
Some are get confused by this approach and think the arguments being made against the position IS what an author is arguing for.
BUT, I do not think Waltke is trying to discredit the Historical-Critical hermeneutic especially since this was all part of the ICBI discussion process.
Rather through identifying its weakness it can be used more accurately and effectively.

Re: your paper, while you have greater perspective today, are you sure that throughout your paper that you didn't accidentally argue for something more?
At least, you seem to leave matters rather open. You write in your introduction:

Their use [OT prophecies] as an apologetic tool goes back to Christ Himself, who said that the Scriptures taught it was "necessary that the [He] should suffer these things and enter into his glory” (Luke 24:26). Paul echoed that claim as he was “proving that Jesus was the Christ” (Acts 9:22).

Where in the Scriptures (the Old Testament) was the content of what the Messiah would suffer revealed?
Luke 24:20 identifies some of Jesus' suffering as death via crucifixion which the prophets spoke of (Luke 24:25).
So I'm not sure how this can be down-played to simply Psalm 22 promising to "vindicate those who suffer for their faith, Christ's resurrection being the greatest fulfillment of this." (paraphrasing) Psalm 22 needs to be more than this in my opinion to justify its extent of use by NT authors.

Further, what was it Paul was echoing in the same vein of the Scriptures to prove Jesus to be the Christ?

Given your conclusion still involves the resurrection of Christ, it is still rather hard to picture a "resurrection" without a death.
Resurrection of the Messiah presupposed the Messiah's death. Yet, Peter in Acts 2:24-31 also identifies a dying Messiah in David's words.
So more seems to be evidently claimed by NT authors, that David would have not been aware to.

But, it seems that you make a concession at least in Psalm 22 that more is being said than David would be aware to.
This too still opens up to your same criticisms leveled against me in your "Book 1" for insinuating that God has intended more in the words of Genesis 1 than the author (Moses) may have been aware to.

What I mean by "more is being said than David would be aware to" I mean where you write:

J. Daniel Hays has argued for a method he calls “principlism,” whereby an analysis of a passage yields a timeless theological truth, and that truth becomes the basis for preaching and application...

This is not to suggest that the fulfillment of the details of the passages is accidental, unnecessary, and that they therefore are not prophetic. If, however, one recognizes that the fulfillment of the general principle in its highest fashion is a true fulfillment of the prophetic word, then one should not at all be surprised to see many of the details of that word fulfilled literally, too [Kurieuo: I believe you have in mind here a typological reference to "pierced hands and feet" in Psalm 22:16]. Indeed, it is upon retrospection that consideration of the fulfillment of those details confirms the fulfillment of the principle itself.

It seems then that rather than assume God has imparted knowledge into David re: the crucifixion, that you actually break away from the strict Historical-Grammatical approach (that you often appear to argue for) in that David possibly does not know all of God's intentions in his own writing.
If this is true, then all your same arguments in "Book 1" applies to your interpretation of the Psalm passages.

On a second point, it still remains how David knew anything about the Messiah?
At some point God has to do the revealing and rather directly I might add. There were many ways used that Scripture reveals.
Many seem reluctant to embrace God reveals his message directly to the author because such smacks of divine dictation. There is generally a repulsion towards such.
I'll be digging more into this issue soon.

As an aside, no I actually didn't know that the Jews expected two messiahs. Is this attached to some eschatology by any chance?
The claim is nearly always made by sceptics that the Jews never expected a dying Messiah like Christ, something Ehrman argued against Craig.
Seems like this could be easily countered if we can show that the Jews actually expected two messiahs in Jesus' day—one dying and the other a conqueror.
I'm interested to know more, although I notice you say "in Jesus' day" which means such doesn't necessarily extend all the way back to David (?) and the original hearers of the message.

Anyway, give me some time to offer a serious reply to your other well stated points. I very much appreciate the approach you've taken here, as I think it will help clarify some very important hermeneutical points in general and their particular application to the OEC/YEC debate.

You can wait longer if you like, but I would find it beneficial if you did correct things said that may not be entirely true of yourself.
It would probably be better for everyone following, that any inaccuracies be corrected in as sequential order as possible.