tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post4657444234167509445..comments2023-10-30T08:13:43.200-07:00Comments on Questioning Answers In Genesis: Welcome to 'Questioning Answers in Genesis'Chemostrat1646http://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-72793687855270674302013-01-03T10:24:16.368-08:002013-01-03T10:24:16.368-08:00Thanks for writing, Dave. I apologize for the long...Thanks for writing, Dave. I apologize for the long delay in responding. In any case, I think you have already noted the most relevant point of departure--that I reject the 'rabidly literalistic' (I like this term) hermeneutical approach to Scripture.<br /><br />It's not as though I reject the divinity of Scripture, or that it ought to inform our worldview. But Scripture describes itself as something on which to meditate and study for a lifetime, because it addresses so much that is ultimately incomprehensible to us. It is a means by which we gain wisdom to approach the world, whether to know its operational details, understand its Maker, or to determine our moral obligations to society. For example, even within the Biblical narrative (from Moses to the Postexilic return, let's say), laws are adapted to a new culture and circumstance. This is not an admission to relativism or a commentary on ethical liberalism versus conservatism, but an acknowledgement of life's dialogical complexity. There are no easy answers in Scripture, and its characters learn wisdom only after much prayer, trial, and hard experience. Nonetheless, the basic message is clear, that the judgments of history circle back on those who ignore the message and rebel against its author. The irony is that such rebels are most often found in close proximity to the altar.<br /><br />With regard to the natural sciences, I see little difference. Scripture provides an epistemological foundation for reality and structures a wise approach to forming knowledge from empirical noise; it does not name for us the sounds and colors. But the Ken Hams of our generation find in Scripture a list of simple answers to complicated and otherwise fascinating questions. They apply a literalistic reading that is as shallow as the answers received ("Well it says six days, so obviously plants are only days older than mankind! What else could it mean?"). It is, unfortunately, appealing to the common reader, who is high on zeal but short on attention span. These Ken Hams are then emboldened to challenge the status quo (whether within the church or without) because they feel empowered by divinely obtained information that seems incredibly obvious. If you can empathize with this mentality (which abhors critical self-inquiry), then you can understand the major strength (or weakness?) of the Young-Earth position.<br /><br />The precision of my generalization aside, I hope you can understand how our paths diverge after a simple, common confession ("Jesus loves me"). You will have to judge for yourself whether my understanding of Scripture and the application of biblical wisdom is more "acceptable". I can only appeal to what I think is largely ignored by Ken Ham and his readership: how the complexity of human language (i.e. the words of Scripture) relates to interpreting a message that must be read across time and culture.Chemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-77785853301821330292012-11-29T04:30:44.965-08:002012-11-29T04:30:44.965-08:00As an atheist myself, I am curious as to why you a...As an atheist myself, I am curious as to why you are so at odds with Ken Ham and AiG. You are both Christians, so I presume the Bible, to some extent, informs your worldview. Yet you have rejected the rabidly literalistic interpretation that Ken Ham thrives on. What makes your take on the truth more acceptable than AiG's <br /><br />Please don't take this as an attack or criticism, at least not directed at you. I think that by getting to know some of his opponents better, I can better understand Ham's (a man who's organization and stated mission I find abhorrent) weaknesses better.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03324051802160343773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-70520787948760728452011-10-02T20:04:55.412-07:002011-10-02T20:04:55.412-07:00Thanks for the link—interesting stuff!Thanks for the link—interesting stuff!Chemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-36331708403115276642011-09-30T19:09:52.570-07:002011-09-30T19:09:52.570-07:00Hi, I'm an ex-creationist from a previous gene...Hi, I'm an ex-creationist from a previous generation, and I know other ex-creationists from my generation, some of them are professional geologists like Kevin Henke. I also know Glen Kuban who taught ICR that the "man prints" in the Paluxy were no such thing. My story is here: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/leaving_the_fold/babinski_agnosticism.htmlEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.com