Member # 1554
posted 03. February 2005 09:04
Just a little comment on your first response. This isnt a response or an attempt at defending any position, rather it is in the hope that you accurately represent the position of Morris/YECs.
In your first response it seems implicit that you believe young-earth creationists to interpret the Bible literally, for example when you refer to psalm 93 as requiring geocentrism by a literal interpretation, and when you state that "if literalism is the key to biblical hermeneutics". This is fine if you are talking strictly about Henry Morris because he does appear to take a literal appraoch to scripture.
However "literalism" hasnt been the hermenutical approach if the historic church, neither is it the approach taken by the majority of young-earth creationists (e.g. "Answers In Genesis"). Rather, they would say they interpret the Bible "straight-forwardly" or that their hermenutic is concerned with interpreting a given passage in light of its language, grammer, style, structure and social/literally context. This means that they interpret SOME passages of scripture literally (as would essentially all Christians) but not others. This is an important distinction and explains why, for example, psalm 93 is not read literally by these groups: it is not a literal genre! They therefore interpret Genesis literally not becuase that is the inevitable consequence of a literalist hermenutic, rather it is the result of a literary/historical criticism. As a convinced youg-earther myself i think it is an important point to make because it is often frustrating to be misrepresented as a literalist when in fact you are not. For example I read Genesis 1 literally because I'm convinced that it was written basically as historical narrative, but hold to a preterist eschatology beacuse I am convinced that the historical-grammatical method shows that most of the end-time prophecies were expected to (and did) occur within the lifetime of the Apostles.