BCS Study - Part III (Chapters 7-9)

[Once4all]

I read chapter 7 this morning and I have to say, I thought some strong evidence was presented for a local flood.

[wandashort]

I agree Bev! I havent re-read this section yet tho so give me a few days to catch up because I did have several questions on this material from before. I went ahead and put a thread for chapters 5 & 6 too so if you have any comments on that there is a spot now to catagorize them.

[Once4all]

I'm having a problem with how the three-way comparison is being used in chapter 9 (pages 154-162).

I don't see how the inclusion of Sodom & Gomorrah in either passage provides any proof whatsoever about the scope of the flood.

In 2 Peter 2:5-9, the three events are being compared to show how God can/will spare the righteous when judgment comes to the ungodly. Just because the judgment on S&G was on specific cities, that doesn't mean that the flood could not have been global. The biblical text specifically identified S&G as an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, and an example by definition is a figure, pattern, or model of what it is meant to exhibit. Nothing in the word implies that it must be a full-scale model. The fact that the destruction of Sodom was not a global event does not prove anything about the scope of the other two events (the flood and the final day of judgment). (See pgs 159-160)

Likewise, the same three events being compared in Luke 17:25-30 are compared for the purpose of showing the suddenness of events in the midst of the normal proceedings of life. Saying that "the presence of Sodom in the comparison implies they are all local" (pg 155) is reading that purpose or implication into the text. It implies no such thing.

[JLVaughn]

Jan 20, 2011 17:38:58 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I'm having a problem with how the three-way comparison is being used in chapter 9 (pages 154-162).

I don't see how the inclusion of Sodom & Gomorrah in either passage provides any proof whatsoever about the scope of the flood.

In 2 Peter 2:5-9, the three events are being compared to show how God can/will spare the righteous when judgment comes to the ungodly. Just because the judgment on S&G was on specific cities, that doesn't mean that the flood could not have been global. The biblical text specifically identified S&G as an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, and an example by definition is a figure, pattern, or model of what it is meant to exhibit. Nothing in the word implies that it must be a full-scale model. The fact that the destruction of Sodom was not a global event does not prove anything about the scope of the other two events (the flood and the final day of judgment). (See pgs 159-160)

Likewise, the same three events being compared in Luke 17:25-30 are compared for the purpose of showing the suddenness of events in the midst of the normal proceedings of life. Saying that "the presence of Sodom in the comparison implies they are all local" (pg 155) is reading that purpose or implication into the text. It implies no such thing.

Bev,

What can I say? Some arguments just work better with some people than others. That argument worked like a ton of bricks on a couple of now former hardcore YECs.

We quoted noted authors and turned their own arguments around. Those arguments mean something to those people. All you are really saying is that the original arguments we refuted weren't very strong to begin with. I agree. But saying an argument isn't very strong doesn't matter to most people, "You're just saying that because you can't answer it." It's just better to answer it and show that the argument they made actually leads to a different conclusion.

That's both the power and the problem of the comprehensive case. We attack the other sides every argument. They have nothing left to stand on. Every argument we miss, there's the potential that someone will say, "They can't answer this, so we must be right and they must be wrong." Give no quarter. It is overkill, but it must be done.

[Once4all]

Jan 20, 2011 18:12:49 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Jan 20, 2011 17:38:58 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I'm having a problem with how the three-way comparison is being used in chapter 9 (pages 154-162).

I don't see how the inclusion of Sodom & Gomorrah in either passage provides any proof whatsoever about the scope of the flood.

In 2 Peter 2:5-9, the three events are being compared to show how God can/will spare the righteous when judgment comes to the ungodly. Just because the judgment on S&G was on specific cities, that doesn't mean that the flood could not have been global. The biblical text specifically identified S&G as an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, and an example by definition is a figure, pattern, or model of what it is meant to exhibit. Nothing in the word implies that it must be a full-scale model. The fact that the destruction of Sodom was not a global event does not prove anything about the scope of the other two events (the flood and the final day of judgment). (See pgs 159-160)

Likewise, the same three events being compared in Luke 17:25-30 are compared for the purpose of showing the suddenness of events in the midst of the normal proceedings of life. Saying that "the presence of Sodom in the comparison implies they are all local" (pg 155) is reading that purpose or implication into the text. It implies no such thing.

Bev,

What can I say? Some arguments just work better with some people than others. That argument worked like a ton of bricks on a couple of now former hardcore YECs.

We quoted noted authors and turned their own arguments around. Those arguments mean something to those people. All you are really saying is that the original arguments we refuted weren't very strong to begin with. I agree. But saying an argument isn't very strong doesn't matter to most people, "You're just saying that because you can't answer it." It's just better to answer it and show that the argument they made actually leads to a different conclusion.

That's both the power and the problem of the comprehensive case. We attack the other sides every argument. They have nothing left to stand on. Every argument we miss, there's the potential that someone will say, "They can't answer this, so we must be right and they must be wrong." Give no quarter. It is overkill, but it must be done.

But my point is not that the argument is weak, but that it is not a valid argument at all. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Can you reiterate what the "argument they made" is (or point me to the page in the book)?

[JLVaughn]

Jan 21, 2011 1:22:42 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Jan 20, 2011 18:12:49 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Bev,

What can I say? Some arguments just work better with some people than others. That argument worked like a ton of bricks on a couple of now former hardcore YECs.

We quoted noted authors and turned their own arguments around. Those arguments mean something to those people. All you are really saying is that the original arguments we refuted weren't very strong to begin with. I agree. But saying an argument isn't very strong doesn't matter to most people, "You're just saying that because you can't answer it." It's just better to answer it and show that the argument they made actually leads to a different conclusion.

That's both the power and the problem of the comprehensive case. We attack the other sides every argument. They have nothing left to stand on. Every argument we miss, there's the potential that someone will say, "They can't answer this, so we must be right and they must be wrong." Give no quarter. It is overkill, but it must be done.

But my point is not that the argument is weak, but that it is not a valid argument at all. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Can you reiterate what the "argument they made" is (or point me to the page in the book)?

Bev,

In Chapter 9 of BCS, that same section.

Whitcomb and Morris used the comparison of the flood and the end of the age to demonstrate that the flood was global. They claimed that since everyone knew the end of the age was global, the comparison proved that the flood was global.

Thomas Ice pulled that same argument on Gary DeMar, the last time they debated. Ice told DeMar that his preterism required the flood to be a local event. DeMar had no response. The expression on his face showed he thought that was the only point Ice made that DeMar had no counter to.

The issue of this comparison is very important to YEC-dispies.

[Once4all]

Jan 21, 2011 2:16:51 GMT -5 JLVaughn said:

Jan 21, 2011 1:22:42 GMT -5 Once4all said:

But my point is not that the argument is weak, but that it is not a valid argument at all. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Can you reiterate what the "argument they made" is (or point me to the page in the book)?

Bev,

In Chapter 9 of BCS, that same section.

Whitcomb and Morris used the comparison of the flood and the end of the age to demonstrate that the flood was global. They claimed that since everyone knew the end of the age was global, the comparison proved that the flood was global.

Thomas Ice pulled that same argument on Gary DeMar, the last time they debated. Ice told DeMar that his preterism required the flood to be a local event. DeMar had no response. The expression on his face showed he thought that was the only point Ice made that DeMar had no counter to.

The issue of this comparison is very important to YEC-dispies.

Ahh, okay. But isn't that circular reasoning? They are assuming the truth of one of their premises (that the end is global) without having proven it.

It doesn't help to counter one faulty argument with another one.

If the reason for citing the three-way argument is to basically say, "if you can argue that, then we can argue this," just to show that neither one is tenable, then I understand. But if that is the case, that point was not made clear to me in the book. It came across to me as an attempt at a serious argument that, upon examination, doesn't hold up. I think it negatively affects credibility of the book.