Here recently I have been studying extensively the traditional translation versus the dependent-clause translation of Genesis 1:1. While looking up some stuff online I came across a blog post by a guy named Ken Gilmore, who was a theistic evolutionist and old-earth creationist. From his bio he also seems to be a medical doctor of some sort. After reading it, and realizing there was a tremendous amount of factual, logical, exegetical, and historical errors in it, I decided to respond to it on my website. The full article can be found here.
His blog was on Exodus 20:11. YECs often use this passage as supporting evidence to the proper interpretation of Gen. 1. Since I am a young-earth creationist (YEC) this interest me. Somehow the guy questioned its factuality while trying to affirm the doctrine of Inspiration, in which he didn't seem to understand. He had a faulty interpretation of Ex. 20:11, as well as a faulty understanding of the rules of exegesis. He seemed to be under the impression that's man's fallible opinions about the past acted as the standard by which the Scriptures ought to be judged and gauged by. That it requires "oversight" from the "evidence" that is claimed by others outside of the Scripture. These are among the points my response to Gilmore will be dealing with.
I will, however, being doing this article differently from others I have done in the past. Usually I create one lengthy article responding to the person's complete set of arguments. However, Gilmore's article is already quite lengthy so I will not be doing that. Instead, I will break my response up into multiple parts as each section of Gilmore's blog is discussed. This will shortened down the length of my own articles.
The critic's arguments will be in red, while my own responses will be in black. I will be commenting on various snippets, or portions, of his arguments. I will offer a conclusion following my responses to this article responses once the post is completed, also in black, and make a final conclusion overall at the end of the last article, also in black, dealing with all of Gilmore's response.
Gilmore: Like any interpretive option, literalism is a choice, not the default option.
Brian: He starts his post on what he calls "literalism." We will later find out he doesn't really understand what we believe, and there might be an implied straw man in his term. However, his statement of "choice" is interesting because if someone is to properly interpret a passage in a text which comes from a style of literature called historical narrative without any reason to assume a different understanding of the passage as something "non-literal" then, hermeneutically, one has no choice if they are to properly understand the passage unless one is to give in to a misinterpretation of the passage.
This writer is treating versus which others may try to interpret differently, as a reason not to assume a literal interpretation. However, this type of hermeneutic approach would lead to the misinterpretation of the entire Bible if taken to its extreme. The reality is that a given verse has one meaning, the meaning that was intended by the original writer. How others may interpret it in other ways, or the fact that others may have misinterpretations of this passage, is irrelevant. One does not interpret passages merely on perspectives of others.
Gilmore: That comes down to something as basic as assuming that 'create' refers to material origins. As a number of Old Testament scholars note, in the ancient world, functional origins were more important than material origins, and YECs make a major mistake by assuming that the ancient world shared our obsession with material origins. That is not the case.
Brian: The word bara' (בָּרָא) just means "to create" or "to make new" or "to invent" (Brown-Drover-Briggs, p. 94). Information concerning who is doing the creating, what is being created, how it's being created, or anything that is considered a description of the thing(s) that's being created, is supplied by the context. Also, this statement is false. Bara' is used in Jeremiah 31:22 in reference to God creating the heavens and the earth. It is used in a context expressing material origins. However, keep in mind, it is the context that supplements how the word ought to be applied, not its lexical meaning. Its lexical meaning just tells us the word's semantic range, not how it is used in every context. This is worth noting.
In addition to this, it is worth noting that Gilmore tells us that "a number of Old Testament scholars" have that in the ancient world that their emphasis was on "functional origins" rather than "material origins" but then didn't even both to supply any names nor citations to his appeal to authority. "a number of" might his way to subtly imply that this claim is supported by a majority of Old Testament scholars, but this, too, would be false since most Old Testament scholars, such as Steven Boyd, Robert McCabe, and Walter Kaiser would argue that bara' here in Genesis 1's context is the creation of everything. They would not claim that "create" is intended with a "functional" meaning whether than a material one. If there really were any OT (Old testament) scholars, which this is questionable since he chose not to name any, they are nowhere near mainstream.
Also, you can't use how other ancient literatures emphasize "create" over how the Jews used the word since their application, as well as style of literatures, can be different (see below). His last statement here is a strawman. We don't claim that they were obsessed with material origins, only that is what the text and context indicates it. He seems to be claiming that we only believe and accept it due to a modern perception of it, but this is not the case. If it indicated something different we would claim something different. So far, he has merely made assertions. He has not demonstrated anything yet, provided any evidence, or list any names. He, apparently, wants us to take him at his word which we are not prepared to do.
Gilmore: The literalism YECs espouse here is inconsistent, as if they were entirely consistent, they would take the references in Genesis 1 to a solid firmament separating waters above from waters below, in which the sun, moon, and stars were embedded literally.
Brian: Again he uses the term "literalism" in some sort of negative way. However, it violates a principle in hermeneutics to assume something as non-figurative when there is no evidence as such. Gilmore seems to want everyone to treat the Bible as a kind of code that needs to be guessed at and speculated over. However, this is more eisegesis than exegesis.
Next, he accuses us of being "inconsistent" with our own position. His statement here seems to expose a fundamental strawman in his term "literalism" which I had already had suspected, and a possible equivocation fallacy over the word "literal." YECs acknowledge figurative language in the Bible. The fact that we take a literal interpretation (meaning non-figurative) doesn't mean we may not take that in other places in Scripture, if the context warrants it. However, when we say we take the whole Bible "literally" we mean in its ordinary sense. The equivocation happens whenever you move from one definition of "literal" to another in the same context.
In reference to Genesis One, he misinterprets the passages. The Hebrew word raqia (רָקִיעַ) for "expanse" doesn't have to mean something solid, only something that is "a flat expanse" or even "like ice" (Brown-Drover-Briggs, 956). The most likely interpretation is that this is being understood is that the "expanse" is space, which is made out of particles in physics, and is apart of the physics of the universe. There is nothing about the word that would require it to be rock solid. However, once again the deciding factor is context. The context dictates its meaning. The context is indicating that this is used to separate the heavens from the earth, regardless how one wants to interpret raqia. However, his statement is irrelevant since there is nothing about this statement that would either imply symbolism.
The "waters above" probably refers to the atmosphere which is made up of water vapor. Again, there is nothing that would suggest a figurative interpretation. The stars were embedded literally in the heavens above the firmament. There is nothing within the text that denies this. In fact, no one else does either. The Sun is clearly literal, as is the Moon and stars. We still see there existence today. Perhaps he thinks that the stars, Sun, and Moon were created within something "solid" instead of inside space. However, this is a misinterpretation of raqia.
Gilmore: Their failure to be consistent suggests that their reading of the creation narratives and Old Testament references to cosmology and creation is motivated more by the need to preserve a particular reading rather than to be guided by the text.
Brian: There are three problems with his statement here. First, there is the one I had discussed, a misinterpretation of the "firmament" which is more accurately translated as "expanse" as well as a strawman of assuming that YECs take a position of assuming a solid dome, which is not a YEC position. Some young-earth creationists do have a position called The Canopy Theory which use to be popular, and which some take today, but it fell out of favor with many YECs so it is no longer a mainstream position. As near as I can tell, all of the major YEC organizations, such as Answers in Genesis, now reject The Canopy Theory. I think Gilmore is assuming that YECs, in general, have taken up this position, but this is not the case.
Secondly, This is assuming another strawman argument, probably brought on by the author's misunderstanding of what we mean by "literal." He is assuming that we don't take any kinds of figures of speeches in the Bible, but this is inaccurate. We believe in looking at the context, the text's literary genre, and using its grammar and syntax to determine its meaning. If there are no good reasons for assuming that a particular text is figurative, then the rules of hermeneutics tells us to assume a literal meaning. With Gen. 1 and Exodus 20:11 there is nothing that would indicate some kind of "hidden" meaning within the text, but we do have contextual clues to taking these passages as literal such as the fact that both texts are found in historical formatted form, Gen. 1 has a number associated with the word yom, which always make it 24-hour periods of time, as well as the qualifiers such as "evening" and "morning" which is also an indication that these are 24-hour periods of time--this is also combined with the fact that Gen. 1:5, in the Hebrew, defines what a "day" is in conjunction with "evening" and "morning" and uses a cardinal number (1,2, 3, 4...--it uses the phrase "one day") while the rest of Gen. 1 uses ordinal numbers (First, Second, Third, Fourth...); Exodus 20:11 goes through great linguistic extremes to make you understand that everything was made in six days, something that is written figuratively wouldn't do, and it also uses the Hebrew word "yamim" (יָמִים֩) for "days" which is never used for something figurative in the OT. Apparently Gilmore is hoping you'd accept something as figurative on the mere blind faith that something could be figurative, or the mere possibility of it, because some other statements in Scripture are understood that way. However, Gilmore must demonstrate within the texts in question where such symbolism is assumed. Simply assuming symbolism without reasons is not enough.
Thirdly, this statement is self-refuting. If Gilmore is trying to get us to either perceive something as all literal or all figurative, then this flies right back at him. Does he not perceive some Scripture at least as literal? If he does, then does that mean he would be "inconsistent" if he perceives other verses as figurative? I would imagine that he would reject the charge of inconsistency here, and so do we. Besides, at the end of the day, he is still assuming a misinterpretation of the text and a strawman argument on his part. He has failed to fully understand what we believe, and has argued against a misrepresentation of our positions.
What about his last statement here? He is accusing us of a double standard because he thinks we are not being guided by the text. Actually, the reverse is true. We are guided by the text, which is why we take a literal reading here. It is OECs and theistic evolutionists who are not guided by the texts. They assume a nonliteral reading without reasons, and assume that text means something else other than what it says. We are very much guided by the text, but Gilmore isn't. He's guided by his evolutionary assumptions. This will be made more clear as we move forward.
Gilmore: Fundamentalists in our community would be well advised to take seriously the advice of C.C. Walker, second editor of The Christadelphian, who recognized that "Moses’ testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be misinterpreted or misunderstood" and refrain from uncritically embracing views sourced from the fundamentalist wing of the evangelical Christian world.
Brian: Once again he uses his understanding of "fundamentalism" as someone who he thinks is opposed to sound hermeneutics, when the reverse is true, and this is not how typical fundamentalism is even defined. I wonder if he realize that someone like Bart Ehrman would call him a fundamentalist because he, at least, would verbally affirm biblical authority, although I don't think he practices it.
Next, he commits the faulty appeal to authority fallacy. He appeals to C.C. Walker who thinks the text is "not so plain" but this accusation of ambiguity is unwarranted. However, as I have already shown this is false. The text and context are very specific, lacking any signs of ambiguity or symbolism. This Gilmore and C.C. Walker speculating about the text more than anything else, but this claim of lack of specificity has no evidence or biblical basis for it. It is only being assumed by those who wish to read more into the text than it actually says.
This last statement seems to be making the genetic fallacy. He thinks that the only reason that we think this is because of the teachings of other "fundamentalist wing of the evangelical world" but even if one thinks a position cause of what is being taught this would not make such claims wrong, nor false.
It also assumes that the only reason they think it is because they were taught this, but they could have other reasons for thinking it. In addition to all of this, this statement is false. Most YECs believe in our position because of the Bible. I, for one, was both an OEC and a theistic evolutionist prior to my studies of the Scriptures. It was the Bible that convince me these positions were wrong, not some preacher somewhere. In fact, at this time, early on in my Christian Walk, I was unaware of such organizations as Answers in Genesis, CMI, and ICR. I was many years away from ever hearing of such people as Ken Ham, Dr. Jason Lisle, Kent Hovind, or even Eric Hovind. I was even several years away from ever hearing about the discipline of Christian apologetics. I became a YEC strictly on what was claimed specifically by the Bible. I had realized that there was no way to fit billions of years into the Scripture, and these positions were not advocated by the Bible. Ironically, when OECs are getting honest with it, especially if they were originally a YEC, they would admit that it was the plain reading of the text that led them to that conclusion. For example, the old-earth creationist, David Snoke, admits that:
To put it another way, it is very improbable that I ever would have come up with the view that the earth is millions of years old if I had never studied science (David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, p. 11).
In other words, if hadn't been for secular scientists' opinions about how old the Earth was he would've never believed, from the Bible, to assume such things Scripturally. Another OEC, Jeff Zweerink, in a debate with Ken Ham on Unbelievable admits the same thing, namely that he was convinced about the plain reading of the text from Scriptures, until he encountered others with a different perspective and this made him think that this wasn't set in stone (Jeff Zweerink debating Ken Ham on Unbelievable found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNmuB9EF_vk&t=1832s). However, there's no doubt that the straightforward reading of the text does not allow for OEC views.
Gilmore: Ex 20:11 has long been regarded by YECs as a 'clobber verse', one that is wheeled out to shut down debate on the subject of origins. The idea of a 'clobber verse' however runs counter to sound exegetical methods which recognize that building doctrines on an isolated passage of scripture is risky at best.
Brian: This is another strawman argument that Gilmore is making. We didn't build an entire biblical doctrine off of one verse of the Bible. YECs take our position from a series of verses, and their context, from Genesis chapter 1. This is also typical whenever you have a number of people questioning and challenging a particular interpretation. However, YECs do use other passages to support our views and our interpretation of Genesis 1, which is in accordance with sound exegesis and the rules of hermeneutics such as let Scripture interpret Scripture. However, we don't just use Ex. 20:11, although this is frequent go-to verse for many YECs, myself included, we use lots of other supporting verses such as Mark 10:6, and so forth. However, Ex. 20:11 is very explicit, so it is used a lot.
Gilmore: This is particularly so here given that the first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other on the length of creation when read literally...
Brian: Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other, particularly on the length of creation. Gen. 2 is a specific event within Day 6 that is zeroed in by the biblical writer. The writer could be assuming this based upon Gen. 2:4, but Gen. 2:4 uses bəyōm (בְּי֗וֹם) and has an inseparable preposition in front of it which alters its meaning. The context of this also supports this. There is nothing within Gen. 2 that even speaks about the length of the created days, so how do these chapters contradict? He could be assuming that Gen. 2 is a continuation of the Creation whether than a focused aspect of it, but such alleged "contradictions" fall apart when you realize that this is not a continuation, but an event that is zeroed in with far more details that was provided in Gen. 1:26-27. This is a complimentary account, not a contradictory one.
Gilmore: …while an avalanche of evidence from the natural world flatly demolish YEC.
Brian: Although Gilmore claimed an "avalanche of evidence from the natural world", he does not provide any, not even one example. It will always come down to someone's starting assumptions, and how one interprets the evidence. However, although YECs, myself included, don't embrace secular assumptions of uniformitarianism, especially since such assumptions are extrabiblical, antibiblical, and are secular, whenever a YEC has engaged such arguments by using what is called a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity) argument (an argument that shows that the conclusion is absurd or inconsistent if I assumed the same things) has always led to most of the evidence supporting our position on the matter.
For example, the existence of blue stars. Blue stars cannot last for billions of years. In fact, blue stars cannot last more than 1 to 2 million years. This is not disputed. This acts as an upper limit which would mean any date within this limit would be consistent with it, including a 6,000-year date. However, billions of years would not be. Yet, there are an abundant of blue stars in our universe. If our universe was "old" there should be no blue stars and only red stars (which has the potential to be "old" because they can, potentially, last billions of years). However, there are an abundancy of both, which is what we would expect if our universe was less than 10,000 years old.
Also, galaxies, within the secular timescale, is suppose to be 10 billion years old, but they are winding up too fast. If they were truly billions of years old they would have no more spiral arms. They would look like an elliptical galaxy. However, there are billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. In fact, one secular site admits that:
Approximately 60% of all galaxies are thought to be spiral galaxies, making spiral galaxies the home of the majority of the stars in the Universe. Spiral galaxies are populated by stars that are on average much younger than those that populate elliptical galaxies, and current thinking suggests that spiral galaxies may evolve into elliptical galaxies. Spiral galaxies rotate, and their spiral shape is not stable. A puzzle of modern astronomy is how spiral galaxies maintain their spiral arms (ESA, found at: https://esahubble.org/wordbank/spiral-galaxy/, accessed at 09/10/2022).
However, this would not be an issue if the galaxies were less than 10,000 years old. This is only an issue if they were 10 billion years old. In addition to that, we have the Moon moving away from us. It is moving at approximately 4 cm/year (or 2 inches/year). Assuming that the Moon's "jumping off point" was a safe distance from Earth, if the Moon, its orbit, and Earth, were 4.5 billion years old we would've already lost the Moon. However, you get the Moon too close to us and its gravitational pull, which controls the tides, would cause the tides to flood the world over several times a day. Any closer than that would force the tidal forces between the Moon and the Earth to rip the Moon apart. If you run the Moon backwards, based upon uniformitarian and deep-time assumptions, a million years ago the Moon would be almost touching the Earth--realistically, however, we know that's not possible since the Moon would no longer exist.
Also, if our solar system was really 4.5 billion years old, we would not have comets anymore. Comets are large icy materials made up of frozen water vapor, ammonia, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, & dust. They are sometimes called "Dirty Snowballs" and emit a tail which is always facing away from the Sun. This "tail" is material that is being blown off by the Sun. Comets cannot last billions of years. In fact, long-period comets can only last, at most, up to 200,000 years before they are gone, and short-period comets can't last, on average, up to 10,000 years before they are all gone. These provide upper limits on comets. However, allegedly they formed in the early period of our solar system. This is evidence that our solar system is not billions of years old.
We can also throw in lots of other evidence such as the amount of helium that exist in Zircon Crystals, C-14 in diamonds (which are suppose to be hundreds of millions to billions if years old and formed in the early periods of Earth's history) and other material that is suppose to be at least millions of years old, the decaying of Earth's magnetic field (a million years ago the Earth's magnetic field would've been so strong it would've ripped the iron out of your blood), as well as the decaying of other inter-planet magnetic fields, the fact that Neptune, Uranus, and Saturn are all losing more heat than they gain from the Sun and they can't do that for billions of years, but they would be a proverbial ice cubes today if that was true; as well as blood cells found inside dinosaur bones and biological molecules found in other fossilized examples (biological molecules can't last more than 10,000 years), and much more evidence besides those things as well.
The wealth of evidence does not favor OEC nor evolutionary positions. At any rate, Gilmore failed to justify his claim of an "avalanche of evidence" so it just seems like he is repeating a mantra that has been claimed by evolutionists for a long time, but never justified. So far, despite his claim, he hasn't presented a shred of evidence that "demolished YEC" positions.
In addition to all of this, he seems to think that the Bible ought to be interpreted in light of secular interpretations of "evidence" outside of Scripture. However, this is a hermeneutical no-no. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy even forbids taking outside opinions and using them to interpret the Bible with them:
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood (The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, Art. XII).
One cannot use these modes as a way of properly interpreting Scripture. So the use of outside speculations about evidence being used to interpret Scripture is not good exegesis, but, in fact, bad exegesis! You don't use outside opinions about the past as a way of understanding what the original writer had meant. As we shall see, as we move forward, that Gilmore will continue to use this mentality that thinks such outside interpretations act as an overruling guide for whatever the original writer had intended.
Gilmore: Against this background, the only possible approach for the intellectually honest exegete is to re-examine Ex 20:11 in context, to see what it really says, as opposed to what the YEC wants it to say.
Brian: By him saying the "intellectually honest exegete" he is making the question-begging epithet fallacy whereby he is using emotional language to persuade. He is doing this by using the words "intellectually" and "honest" to imply if you don't use secular opinions to interpret the Bible with then you're being dishonest and stupid, but this isn't proper exegesis to begin with. Actually, it isn't even exegesis at all, but eisegesis. The later is where you import into the text outside opinions and ideas, rather than extrapolate (exegete) from the text.
We should take Exodus 20:11 in context, but that's not what he is doing. He wishes to import his already-assumed views into the text, rather than extrapolate from it. That last part will hint at his methodology. He is treating the text as if, though it says what it says (the "YEC position" that he had mentioned), it really means something else, and he is going to tell us what it "really means" as if it is a secret code that only he has the answer to. As if someone can't read the text for themselves to see what it says. This is a very Gnostic approach to Scripture of which I reject, and defies proper exegesis. However, we will see him using this method throughout his article.
Gilmore: Without endorsing CC Walker's explanation, it is significant that he recognized both the weight of scientific evidence against recent creation, as well as alternative ways to interpret Ex 20:11 [he cites C.C. Walker again].
Brian: This statement doesn't make any sense. How can C.C Walker not endorse his own explanation, which Gilmore clearly does, especially since he cites him in support of this? Gilmore commits the faulty appeal to authority fallacy again with C.C. Walker. Just because Walker claimed that this was proper hermeneutics, or just because he thinks that the existence of an alternate view, doesn't make it true nor does it mean that such view is valid. We would still need to look at the reasons that are claimed. Outside opinions cannot be used to overturn the clear meaning of Scripture.
Furthermore, C.C. Walker, that Gilmore cites, cites 2 Peter 3:8 which either Walker or Gilmore mistakes for 3:9 when it's actually v. 8 that says it. However, this is a figure of speech called a simile, which uses words such as "as" and "like" to draw a contrast, but the contrast is between an eternal God and time. If taken literally the first half of the verse would've contradict the second half. This passage is not defining what a "day" is but, whether, it is showing why God is justified by not coming back when Peter's readers wanted Him to in order to punish their enemies. The context of this passage indicates that it is speaking of the return of Christ:
But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed (2 Pet. 3:7-10, ESV).
Also, keep in mind Gilmore's methodology at all times. He thinks the very present or suggestion of alternative interpretation should, in itself, overturn the clear meaning of Scripture. However, this is terrible exegesis. It also could be that he is making a categorical error, which is when you conflate categories. In this case, proof and persuasion. Proof is the body of evidence and facts you have to support a particular conclusion, and persuasion is a person's willingness to accept that evidence or a particular conclusion. People may see things differently, but this does not mean there isn't an objective truth, or that such alternate perceptions are warranted.
Gilmore: It has been argued persuasively that a fundamentalist is one who does not think he has a hermeneutic.
Brian: This is a false definition of "fundamentalism" it seems that he has. I don't know anyone else, including Bart Ehrman, who would have this kind of definition for a fundamentalist. Everyone concedes to the rules of hermeneutics, it is just a question whether everyone applies them consistently or not. I think he might be making another categorical error with conflating a "fundamentalist" with a "traditionalist." Although all traditionalists may be fundamentalists, not all fundamentalists are traditionalists. I'm not a traditionalist, for example. I define a traditionalist as someone who embraces ir accepts traditions for the sake of traditions. Of course, one can embrace traditions if that person had reasons that existed apart from it being traditional.
The word "fundamentalism/fundamentalists" gets thrown around in unusual ways today from its original definition. Originally a fundamentalist was one who accepts the foundational teachings of Scripture. If this was still the definition then I would be a fundamentalist, and probably so would he. However, this is not the way people use this term today. They use it now as almost synonymous with such things as traditionalists, right-wing scholars, King James Onlyism, and ultraconservatives, of which I am none of them. Although some YECs could be label as such, such as a King James Onlyist, most YEC would not be label as such, myself included. This appears to be nothing more than a strawman argument. We believe in the rules of hermeneutics and exegesis, including examining context. However, as we should see, it is the OECs and theistic evolutionists that have the problem.
Gilmore: In other words, he simply assumes that a hyper-literal reading of an English translation of the Hebrew text, taken out of its ancient Near Eastern context is the default exegetical option.
Brian: By the "he" Gilmore is referring again to C.C. Walker, but here he isn't appealing to authority. Instead Gilmore is just letting you know what C.C. Walker's position is. However, again, he uses the term "hyper-literal" which is being used synonymously with "wooden literal" as a way of claiming someone is being "super-literal" with the text. However, what does that even mean to be too literal? According to the way in which Gilmore is using the phrase, he seemed to be using the definition of "literalism" as if opposed to figurative. Where, in this case, these two would be opposites from each other, so how can something be "too literal"? It is possible by "hyper-literal" or by "wooden literal" he means in such a way that figurative language, or normal speech (the way people normally speak) is not allowed. However, this would then pose a strawman argument on us that we are not claiming. We are not suggesting something that is "wooden" in speech, or something that is "verbally mechanical", but what we are claiming is using the normal rules of hermeneutics to derive at the meaning that was intended by the original writer. If the original writer made a claim (let's suppose they made "Claim X") and it was made within the genre of historical narrative, and looking at context and other relevant details (relevant Scriptures) then we believe that in taking it for what it says, and not treating it as if it is some kind of code which has a hidden meaning that needs to be figured out and speculated over. Whether, we believe that it says what it says. It is like Gilmore and other OECs are saying "Yes, it says Claim X, but it really means Claim Y!" However, according to the normal rules of hermeneutics I should believe Claim X. Think of all the passages that these same people were to regard as literally true as stated that someone can apply their own speculations to if this rule in hermeneutics was ignored?
The Bible tells us "The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road" (Matt. 21:6-8, ESV). This was done as a fulfillment of a prophecy (Matt. 21:4-4; and Jn. 12:14-15). Can you imagine the implications if someone wanted to take these passages spiritually or non-literally and assume that these verses don't mean what they said as stated? Let's say I saw this as "symbolism" for Jesus' humility, and then started seeing other references that emphasize Jesus' humility, and use these to argue that was all the Gospel writers meant and use this deny that Jesus literally went into Jerusalem on a donkey. I wonder if he'd be OK with that? Probably not. We can't just ignore rules of hermeneutics to claim something is figurative because it fits our perception. "If the plain sense makes commonsense, then take no other sense, unless you give into nonsense." This rule of hermeneutic is claiming, essentially, always assume a literal meaning unless you are given good reasons t the contrary. Otherwise you can come up with all kinds of nonsensical interpretations that would've not been meant by the original writer. Simply, "I, and some others, have an alternate view of this passage" is not a reason to assume a figurative interpretation.
Also, assuming an Ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) background is not the "default option." There is some value in looking at how people wrote literature back then, but to read too much into it, or act as though that can act as an overriding factor to the text, context, or to any Scripture for that matter, is what you would call eisegesis not exegesis. The "default option" would be to look at what the text, and the context, says, and to apply the normal rules of exegesis. As time goes on will deal more with this supposed Near-Eastern connection" that Gilmore and other Christian Mythicists and theistic evolutionists take.
Gilmore: However, literalism, like any hermeneutical option is a decision, and the fundamentalist does not get to assume literalism as the default. He is obliged to fully justify that strategy. Given that the scientific evidence (the careful study of God's creation is no more 'man's wisdom' than is the careful study of the Bible) completely rules out recent creation, any reading of Ex 20:11 by necessity needs to take place within the framework of what we know about our ancient universe, and those facts a priori exclude YEC.
Brian: Here, Gilmore tries to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof, however, is not on us. It is not up to us to to prove that the text is literal. Again, can you imagine all of the nonsensical interpretations one can come up with by simply assuming a nonliteral reading every time a passage said something? I honestly doubt that Gilmore would hold to this concept consistently throughout the Scriptures, so he appears to be special pleading, which is the rhetorical equivocate of a double standard. Unfortunately for him, as I said, the burden of proof is on those who claim that this passage should be taken in some sort of figurative way. Gilmore seems to want to try to justify his eisegetically methodology.
Furthermore, we do get to assume it as literal, and that is the exegetically sound default reaction. It is him and other OECs that don't get to assume that this is figurative without good reasons from the text or context. Again he applies the terms "literalism" and "fundamentalist" in negative ways, and in ways that conflate various categories. He claims we should "justify that strategy" as a way of trying to flop the tables and shift the burden of proof, but we don't have the burden of proof, he does. The rules of exegesis are clear at this point, of which, we are squarely within our rights on this, but he is not, since, exegetically, eisegesis is frowned down upon, but he seems to be trying to justify it by shifting the burden of proof, but none of that is the case.
Here, he brings up the "scientific evidence" which he has not yet demonstrated in the first place. He keeps making the assertion, but he hasn't provided any examples yet for us to personally examine, yet, as I did earlier. He also tries to argue that their interpretation of the evidence is analogous with the interpretation of the Bible. However, this is false, and, therefore, he is committing the false analogy fallacy whereby he's making a false analogy. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Biblical interpretation is propositional. This means that the original writer had an original intent and message that can be objectively determined from the text, the context, and using the proper rules of exegesis. However, man's interpretation of nature is subjective (subject to the person making the judgment calls), and is not the same thing. Nature does not have an "original intent" nor an "original message" but just is, and is subject to how one perception of it. A biblical writer is a person with an actual intent, motive, and has a mind to produce information. Nature is an abstract concept so it can do none of these, so any "interpretations" are going to be subjective, not objective. It is also possible he could've been trying to equivocate on the word "interpretation." There is a definition of interpretation that is subjective, but that is not what we mean by "interpretation" when we apply it to the Bible.
Also, he seems to think that man's view of the evidence can be used to overturn the clear meaning of Scripture, but this is not the case. Once again he hopes to justify his exegesis, but failing in the attempt to do so. In addition to this, the evidence doesn't "rule out recent creation" because, as we've seen, when one does a reductio ad absurdum argument most of the evidence is on our side. Besides, this is one of the things he has yet to demonstrate. Perhaps he thinks that we are going to accept this on his word alone. However, he has to demonstrate this. The term "recent creation" may also be a strawman argument, unless he is using the word "recent" in relative terms, that is, relative to old-earth positions. Even 6,000 years is a long time, so we don't think that the Earth and the universe originated a few years back.
He had also claimed that any understanding of Exodus 20:11 had to take place using the outside evidence as its framework, but these interpretations are always going to appear subjective because that's what they are. Secondly, you don't use outside opinions to try and interpret Scripture. That's called eisegesis. Right or wrong, the text must be applied to the barrier of the rules of exegesis. We don't take that kind of approach with any other literature, ancient or modern. Whether, instead, we look at things like the text, the context, relative Bible passages, etc. We don't judge it based upon outside opinions. Such opinions about the past could be wrong. Also, the Scientific Method cannot be used on a past event since we do not have direct access to the past. So one must apply their interpretation to the evidence, thereby they must make assumptions about the data. This is always going to be done within a particular worldview framework. Such views is always going to come down to speculation, unless you are dealing with a historical source. The Bible is such a source, but we do not use such speculations to overturn the clear meaning of Scripture, and neither does this overturn the normal rules of exegesis. You can use such tools of science to make guesses about the past if you want to, but these speculations do not have overruling authority like this.
His last statement is false. The facts that we do know do not exclude YEC positions. In fact, they are consistent with it. There is a reason that there is an abundancy of blue stars because the universe is younger than is claimed. There is a reason that the galaxies haven't wound themselves up by now. Because the galaxies are younger than speculated on. There is a reason that we haven't lost the Moon by now. Because the Moon, and its orbit around Earth, is younger than speculated by the OECs and evolutionists. There is a reason that carbon-14 is found in diamonds. Because diamonds are not hundreds of millions to billions of years old. These evidences and more are consistent with YEC positions, but not OEC positions.
One more thing here. Notice how he uses the words "ancient universe" to assume the position he hasn't yet demonstrated. He has failed to provide any evidence for this thus far and is arguing his way into a circle. He might assumed that the universe is "ancient" but this is what he has yet to demonstrate. Simply asserting it does not count as "proof", on the contrary, it exposes his assumption regarding this instead.
Well, that is all I am going to do for this portion of my review of this article. So far, Gilmore is not off to a good start. He has exposed his own faulty hermeneutical method of using eisegesis instead of the normal rules of exegesis. He has made several assertions and accusations toward us, about us, about the evidence, and a bit about Ex. 20:11, but demonstrated none of it, only assumed it. He keeps claiming there is outside evidence of this, but does not even give one example of this, but then claimed that Ex. 20:11 ought to be interpret based upon others' perspectives of the past, which is improper exegesis. He calls us "fundamentalists" and "literalists" but has redefined these terms to mean something that they're not. I am starting to think that Gilmore does not fully understand our positions on the matter.
We will see if he provides us with any good reasons on his particular interpretation of Ex. 20:11 on the next part to my series of evaluating his article. There will be more to come, so watch for it.
留言