To convince a YEC

Right, but the question then becomes WHY start with a literal presumption?

With so many varied and useful types of literary genres available and, you would agree, used throughout Scripture, why start with literal as the presumption?

We see symbology, metaphor, typology, poetry, hyperbole, parable and, I would argue, various *forms* of historical writing leading right up to those more strictly literal forms as in Luke. These can all convey truth, even truth about literal past events, without always having to attempt to convey strictly literal historic narrative.

There is a reason Herodotus is called the "Father of History", and some even find that title a bit premature, since he did not hesitate to create speeches he believe would have fit the occasion for his historical personages (which no one at the time would have blinked at or even considered it "false" or "untrue"). So, why would we consider that possibly up to a 1,000 years before Herodotus, when nobody was writing strictly literal historic narrative, but instead preferred to describe events about their past (especially stories about such things as origins) in much more "appropriate" literary styles, that the ancient Israelites would do so?

It really makes little or no sense to start with "literal narrative history" for those early Genesis texts, any more than it is to read Revelation as literal. One describes past events in figurative, symbolic and typological terms, the other describes future events in figurative, symbolic and typological terms. In both cases, they are referring REAL and TRUE events in our historical timeline, just choosing a very non-literal style of writing to convey them.

Then, even if one were wavering as to which genre was intended (both by the original authors and by God) for Genesis 1 and 2, the evidence from God's Creation itself, that other revelation, should clinch it. One of these possible interpretations is entirely consistent with the evidence from God's Creation, the other is entirely inconsistent with it.

There is a reason that William Ramsey called Luke an historian of the highest rank.

But, while recognizing the risk, and the probable condemnation that awaits the rash attempt, I will venture to add one to the number of the critics, by stating in the following chapters reasons for placing the author of Acts among the historians of the first rank. (ST. PAUL THE TRAVELER AND THE ROMAN CITIZENBY W.M. RAMSAY, D.C.L., LL.D.)

Why start with a presumption period? I'm not going to take the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry into my theology and that's final.

I'm not going to start with an a priori assumption of literal interpretation into my theology and that's final.

Like most modernist-influenced fundamentalists, you can't spot your own a priori assumptions even if they've been pointed out to you till we're blue in the face.

Believe it or not I never left, just have a new job that keeps me thankfully very busy. I lurk just to keep up with what’s going on, not with the intent of getting involved anymore. I’ve realized that most discussions are futile and the arguments keep going ad nauseam. This is another one!

After repeated attempts to post a response to the middle of you post I must say I was unsuccessful. I wouldn't be surprised if God was letting me know this wasn't what He wanted me to do. So, you get the last word, but I will respond to your last quote if I can and hopefully sum up how I feel about all of what was said.
I could care less about dissing Darwin, Einstein or anyone else. I’m here to defend the Word of God, everything else is meaningless.

I truly have no desire to continue this discussion. We both know where the other stands.

Vossler,

I think you’re missing the main point of Shernen’s post. What he’s saying is that no matter what you think about the Bible, it isn’t possible to avoid letting your interpretation of it be altered by outside sources. My favorite example, which Shernen didn’t mention, is 1 Kings, 7:23 ...

You say that there is a proper assumption about whether AOD or IOD is used.

How exactly does that assumption work.

You haven't used Hebrew to get there.

One of the two types of measures fits nearly exactly with the diameter. So, doesn't that tell which is the proper assumption? It works for the evolutionist view of Genesis (which does not have the express need for alternatives in the text itself, which is exactly what you have with the Bronze Sea). Why is assuming the Bible to be wrong better?

Simply because the you think the diameter and circumference should be consistent?

What exactly was the prevailing practice among craftsmen in Israel 3,000 years ago?

You have no idea of the history or the Hebrew. Once again, why make the assumption?

I'm not going to start with an a priori assumption of literal interpretation into my theology and that's final.

Like most modernist-influenced fundamentalists, you can't spot your own a priori assumptions even if they've been pointed out to you till we're blue in the face.

Then we are even.



Your wrong about that, I am well aware of what I consider to be a self evident fact. We can play these games as long as you like but if you think for one minute this is theology verses science you are sadly mistaken. It's a clash of philosophies, nothing more.

Back to Aggie. I'm not interested in bit-player verses with minor copyist errors. So the Bible misses a cubit in a measurement. (Assuming it does.) How is that supposed to inform my thinking on how science should interact with the Bible? Were the Hebrews really so dumb as to think that pi is really 3, and even if they were, where do I go from there? How does that tell me about the effects on science on religion?

I think there's far more to be gained from comprehensive studies on areas in which the Bible is comprehensive. I'm about to start a series on change in creation and the invisibility of second-order influences, in which you'll see what I mean ...

It's a clash of philosophies, nothing more.

I have a lot more to say about how the Bible should be interpreted than what I said in my post about that verse, but most of it was already covered in what you posted. The point I was trying to make is just that this is another example of where it’s necessary to rely on external information while interpreting the Bible.

I have an essay I wrote recently about why I think the authority of the Bible should never be allowed to overrule what we’re able to observe in the physical world. I posted it in the creation/evolution section a few months ago, but only two creationists replied to it, and neither of them tried to address what I said in the essay. I guess I could post it here, though; this section of CF seems to have a much higher concentration of creationists who are interested in debating.