And you know this [about the writing of the flood story] how?
In the same way a YEC "knows" that every current land creature is directly descended from an occupant of Noah's Ark. I've made these bare assertions about the how the story was first put into scripture because it's the only way the story makes sense to me. The flood story does make sense to me, and I appreciate its importance, given these assertions.
But I think there is a difference between my assertions above, and the assertions about the ancestors of current land creatures being traceable to occupants of the Ark. It's a matter of being plausible, as opposed to being directly refuted, on the basis of available objective evidence.
As for the essentially individual nature of interpretation for biblical text, as opposed to news reports: the latter are generally attributable and trackable to first-hand observation and confirmable evidence. There's video, documents, and eye-witnesses; responsible news outlets require confirmation before they report.
Even with all that validation, of course, there is still ample room for individual interpretation about things like why certain events are happening, what they are likely to lead to, and so on. There's only so much a reporter can tell us.
Even if we do not fully understand a passage it doesn't mean that it is incorrect.
If we do not fully understand a passage, we have no basis for determining whether or not it's "correct" -- it's either ambiguous or it's incomprehensible. When it's a matter of ambiguity, that in itself is not a bad thing. If a text is really well written, it can lend itself to numerous interpretations, and they would all be considered "truthful" by the people who understand the text in those various ways.
autotelicadj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
The difference between your assertion and what i was saying is that you just made up your assertion, while I was just reporting what is written in a historical document. If you think that the historical document is wrong in what it asserts, then yes, you should bring evidence to support your view, but that is a different topic. Just because you reinterpret something to fit it into what makes sense to you, doesn't mean that the author viewed it in the same way as you.
News reports and the Bible: My main point here was not if the information is accurate or not, but about the way that information is presented. Genesis presents itself as a historical narrative as do many news-stories irrespective of their accuracy.
I was just wondering what people's experience was on this topic. It seems that the debate is avoided in most churches i have been to, even though the implications of what we believe in this area are far reaching. So here are some questions for discussion:
1. Have you ever experienced a sermon that mentions the debate, or preferably a whole sermon on the topic?
No. I have heard some of Ken Hams ramblings on the topic, but don't respect him or his organization, since to me they are in it for the money. Besides...why would there be such a rift in science? Is one side deluded, and if so, why?
2. Do you know what the leadership of your local/denominational church believes on this issue?
Most Protestant fundamentalists and charismatics stubbornly cling to Biblical Innerrency, though the implications of such a belief are never carried out to a final conclusion.
3. Is it ever discussed outside of sermons?
Of course, though overall the topic does not interest me much.
4. In fact is there any emphasis put on apologetics at all?
Apologetics is an ongoing debate, yet neither side as either proved nor disproved the Bible as a whole. Perhaps folks should begin to think about re-framing the questions rather than finding answers that fit their world views.
My main point here was not if the information is accurate or not, but about the way that information is presented. Genesis presents itself as a historical narrative as do many news-stories irrespective of their accuracy.
But so does the vast amount of fictional writing, all myths, all creation stories, etc. It's the way we tell stories. Using the voice of the authro doesn't do anything to indicate whether the story is supposed to be considered "true" or not, nor does it help us suss out what the author and intended audience got out of reading it versus what we get out of it now.
A good example is Lord of the Rings. JRR Tolkien came up with an entire creation story, complete with battles between heavenly hosts, good/evil, heroes and demons, etc. He came up with races and languages and back stories so complex and detailed and interwoven with each other, it seems all but impossible to believe he's just making it up. It's told in a historical way, detialing who, what, when, where, why, and often, how. It has been interpreted many times since it was written. First, it was interpreted as an attack on the wars of Tolkien's experience (World War One). It was trotted out again during World War Two as anathema to Nazism and fascism. The hippies embraced it as an attack on conformity and promoting civil rights and freedoms. More recently, it has been touted as an ecological book, attacking the destruction of the natural world and deforrestation.
The point is, the stories were written a bed-time stories for his children and because of a bet between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. (Narnia came out of that bet as well.) What other statements Tolkien wanted to make are mostly lost to history or his family. People have written theses, books, and entire curricula on it, and most of them disagree. In less than a century, we have many, amny interpretations, all of them supposedly saying exactly what the people of the time wanted it to say. If the book were not intentionally marketed and sold as fiction, it would be very easy to see people accepting it as actual religion, in fact, some still do. If we were to come back in 2,000 years, how many interpretations and ideas would you expect to find...all from one story, written in a "historical" mode.