>>I suppose that's not hermeneutics. I should have guessed, since he was
>talking about "context," that he wasn't doing any interpreting. How silly
>of me. How could I have thought you were including an interpretation
>because it seemed to favor your view? How could I have been so dim? Three
>years of law school? Two years at Chippendale's? (You guess which one's
the
>fib).
Glenn responds:
<<No Jim, it is not a fib. Next time I will cut that quotation off earlier
(if
I can remember). All I was interested in was the count. I don't care
about
the rest. Believe me or don't. I don't care. I don't want to get into
hermeneutics anyway so lets move on. If you feel this gets you some sort of
debate point, then you have it.<
Yes, I have scored exactly 10 more points. (BTW, the "fib" I referred to
was either my going to law school, or being a Chippendale's dancer. Which
do you think it is?)
You can't avoid hermeneutics, Glenn. I mean, you take the "proclamation"
view of Genesis 1. Either that's arbitrary, or you have a reason. Knowing
you, I think you have SEVERAL reasons, all of the bad. ;-)
>How much of this is dependent on a young earth? Are you saying that young
>earth and global flood must always go together?
<<That is exactly what the function of the global flood is. It functions as
an
attempt to explain geology. Without the global flood, one can't have a
young earth because they have no means of explaining footprints and burrows
throughout the entire geologic column.>>
Interesting. I don't have a problem with an ancient Earth, due (ahem) to my
interpretation. Does that mean do away with the global flood? I don't see
that the two are NECESSARILY tied together.
>It doesn't sound to me like he thinks it fried the earth. It sounds to me
>like he thinks this is how the Earth got to look the way it does.
<<Then why don't you read more than just the Baptist newletter or whatever
that quote came from and have a bit of skepticism when something supports
your position?>>
(Austin, et. al. snippets)
Well, since Baumgardner made his comments in 1998, and your posts were from
1994, I assume what I posted is his current view. You do provide a VERY
interesting quote, though, which I reprint:
"Finally, it seem evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood
or
modeled in terms of time-invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God in
the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a logical
necessity. Manifestations of the intervention appear to include an
enhanced
rate of nuclear decay during the event and a loss of thermal energy
afterward. Although many scientists do not readily entertain such
possibilities, Scripture indicates that God has indeed on rare occasions
intervened in the laws of nature on a grand scale."J. R. Baumgardner.
This looks like what I've been saying all along. I don't have a problem
with it.
I do understand your point. Why do YEC's "assume the laws of physics were
working then." I would ask the same thing.
This has been an interesting run, but I'll sign off for now (unless moved
by one of your provocative posts). Thanks for taking the time.
Jim