PrincetonGuy,
You wrote,
The “evidence” that was presented by providing links to CMI articles was their thinking as a pre-1800’s naturalists and had absolutely nothing to do with exegesis of the Hebrew Text. Moreover, exegesis of any text includes determining the genre of the literature that includes the text.
This is false. This is what you stated at #55:
The people as CMI are very much aware of the indescribably massive amount of evidence that the flood did not occur, but they insist upon teaching what is easily proven to be false.
You are caught out again in your inconsistency.
The flood, as described, was a supernatural event only in the sense that God caused it to happen. A literal interpretation does not allow for miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural, physical means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of land animals were saved from the floodwaters. How about the fish? How about the plants? They would have died, according to a literal interpretation of Genesis 6-8. Therefore, we are left with the following choices: a collection of sagas, legends or myths, or a collection of epic tales.
False again. The supernatural nature of the flood was that:
1. God spoke to Noah about what to do in building the ark and how many animals and people to bring onto the ark (Gen 6:13ff).
2. That 'all the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens were opened' (Gen 7:11)
3. Rain fell on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights and 'all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered'. And these highest of mountains were covered by 15 cubits, i.e 22.5 feet (Gen 7:12, 19).
4. All flesh on the earth died (Gen 7:21).
It's too late to convince me that this was not a supernatural event. And CMI has presented evidence to demonstrate that there are fish fossils in the desert and on the high mountains to demonstrate that the flood happened and reached all over the world and even to high mountains.
Now for your version of exegesis:
Exegesis does not ignore pertinent facts—it takes them all into consideration and gives us an explanation that is in harmony with all of the facts—textual, linguistic, historical, cultural, literary, and scientific, etc. Ignoring the facts that one may not like is not exegesis—it is nothing but messing around with the Bible.
Of course exegesis deals with textual, linguistic, historical and the cultural. BUT ...exegesis of the biblical text NEVER imposes your kind of evolutionary biological information on the text. Exegesis does not deal with your understanding of science unless you can find the mention of CO2, He, Mg, transition species of macroevolution, etc in the text. The Bible simply does not deal with contemporary language of chemistry, physics, biology, zoology, etc.
Berkeley Mickelsen's definition of exegesis is (he was a professor of NT interpretation at Bethel Theological Seminary, St Paul MN):
Everyone who interprets a passage of the Bible stands in a present time while he examines a document that comes from a past time. He must discover what each statement meant to the original speaker or writer, and to the original hearers or readers, in their own present time' (Mickelsen 1963:55, emphasis in original).
It is the purpose of the exegete to discover the meaning to the original writer and readers.
It is the purpose of the expositor to
'convey this message [of the exegete] to his contemporaries. He must see what meaning these statements [of the original writer] had in the past, but he must also show what is their meaning for himself and for those to whom he conveys these ideas' (Mickelsen 1963:55).
You seem to be confusing exegesis with eisegesis in imposing your evolutionary biology and mythological interpretation on the text of Genesis. And you don't seem to be listening to what the text of Genesis is saying about the Noahic flood.
Works consulted
Mickelsen, A B 1963.
Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.