Greg Laurie

[whag]

When I drive, I tend to listen to conservative radio. I'm not sure why other than my CD player is broken and I find liberal talk radio a little more boring. I like to hear what's new in evangelical thought. Yesterday, I was tuned into pastor Greg Laurie, a popular Southern California evangelist who preaches at a huge annual evangelistic event called the Harvest Crusade.

In his sermon, Laurie mentioned Noah. Laurie said that the rain that caused the global deluge was actually the first rain that the earth experienced. He mentioned a water canopy. He was a crude literalist, IOW.

I was surprised that someone from the Southern California "Jesus movement" evangelistic tradition could really believe this. It reminded me that many Christian adults have a shallow faith and are vulnerable to doubt because they lack a sophisticated understanding of the real world and their own religion. I didn't see Laurie as a model of the Christian faith but, rather, someone to be pitied. I also felt a little bit of anger in contemplating the pedagogy of Laurie's crude evangelism at his Crusade. It occurred to me his ministry must hand out teleological resources to new believers that propagate bad ideas throughout the new Christian community. If Laurie's idea of teleology is taught to new believers, those believers are in danger of losing their newfound faith when they learn that YEC is false and biological evolution is true.

It's hard enough to believe without adding more burdens to it. If I was ever in the position to tell Laurie that, I would. I fear he'd be too entrenched in his literalism to understand what I meant.

I respectfully request that seer, shunyadragon, and Adrift not post in this thread.

[rogue06]

The no rain prior to the flood is actually one that YEC groups such as AnswersinGenesis (AiG), Creation Minstries International (CMI) and the like have been actively discouraging. For example, CMI has a webpage called Arguments we think creationists should NOT use where it is #2 in the "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?" section:

Source: “There was no rain before the Flood.”

This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.

© Copyright Original Source

Interestingly just above this is one concerning the water canopy:

Source: Canopy theory.

This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For CMI’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from?.

© Copyright Original Source

I have to admit I'm not sure if the writer was showing a bit of wit or unintentional irony when he wrote "no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water."

[whag]

The no rain prior to the flood is actually one that YEC groups such as AnswersinGenesis (AiG), Creation Minstries International (CMI) and the like have been actively discouraging. For example, CMI has a webpage called Arguments we think creationists should NOT use where it is #2 in the "What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?" section:

Source: “There was no rain before the Flood.”

This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so again there should be no dogmatism. Genesis 2:5–6 at face value teaches only that there was no rain at the time Adam was created. But it doesn’t rule out rain at any later time before the Flood, as great pre-uniformitarian commentators such as John Calvin pointed out. A related fallacy is that the rainbow covenant of Genesis 9:12–17 proves that there were no rainbows before the Flood. As Calvin pointed out, God frequently invested existing things with new meanings, e.g. the bread and wine at the Lord’s Supper.

© Copyright Original Source

Interestingly just above this is one concerning the water canopy:

Source: Canopy theory.

This is not a direct teaching of Scripture, so there is no place for dogmatism. Also, no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water; but some creationists suggest a partial canopy may have been present. For CMI’s current opinion, see Noah’s Flood—Where did the water come from?.

© Copyright Original Source

I have to admit I'm not sure if the writer was showing a bit of wit or unintentional irony when he wrote "no suitable model has been developed that holds sufficient water."

I'm occasionally encouraged that AIG advises not to make some claims because there's no evidence for them. But then I realize ALL YEC arguments are "inadvisable."

[37818]

The interpretation is made that there was no rain on the earth before the flood is based on interpretation of two scriptures.

". . . And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. . . ." -- Genesis 2:5-6.

". . . And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. . . ." --Genesis 9:12-17.

Along with arguments being made to justify this interpetation in the mind of those who hold the view.

[whag]

The interpretation is made that there was no rain on the earth before the flood is based on interpretation of two scriptures.

". . . And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. . . ." -- Genesis 2:5-6.

". . . And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. . . ." --Genesis 9:12-17.

Along with arguments being made to justify this interpetation in the mind of those who hold the view.

It's mind boggling to think that some people believe *weather* began existing after human beings came into existence. It doesn't get much more anthropocentric than that.

[Cow Poke]

I respectfully request that seer, shunyadragon, and Adrift not post in this thread.

This is about me, isn't it?

[37818]

It's mind boggling to think that some people believe *weather* began existing after human beings came into existence. It doesn't get much more anthropocentric than that.

So you think *weather* means only *rain*? At issue is that YEC believe there was no rainy weather before that flood.

[whag]

So you think *weather* means only *rain*? At issue is that YEC believe there was no rainy weather before that flood.

Do you know where groundwater comes from? The water cycle starts with rain, so it's almost as absurd to disbelieve in pre-anthropic weather as it is to disbelieve in pre-anthropic precipitation.

Are you YEC?

[whag]

This is about me, isn't it?

You're nowhere near as annoying, even at your worst.

[rogue06]

You're nowhere near as annoying, even at your worst.

I'm sure that you've succeeded in now motivated him to try harder

[Faber]

In his sermon, Laurie mentioned Noah. Laurie said that the rain that caused the global deluge was actually the first rain that the earth experienced. He mentioned a water canopy. He was a crude literalist, IOW.

Lot lifted up his eyes and saw all the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere--this was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah--like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt as you go to Zoar. (Gen 13:10, NASB)

The Jordan River, the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers have something in common: They flow through deserts and have a high flood stage in the early spring, when snow melts and, except the Nile, are during the rainy season upstream. The floods carry with them fertile soil which is deposited as the floods subside, leaving a narrow strip of fertile land in an otherwise desert-like region.
iraq rainfall.jpg
The Mesopotamian Valley gets only about five inches of rain annually, nearly all of it in the winter, or from November to April, and nothing during the summer, which would normally be the ideal time to grow crops. If we understand the Hebrew eretz to mean land, limited to the local region rather than the entire planet, it could probably be said of that region, as we read in Genesis 2:5, that no shrub grew on the land, because God had not sent rain, at least not in the growing season. If that is the case, then what Genesis 2:5-6 is describing is no different from the present-day climate of the Mesopotamian Valley.

In Genesis 2:6, the word ed, translated mist, is found elsewhere only in Job 36:27. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, its derivation is uncertain, but possibly from the Assyrian edu, meaning flood or mass of water. Knowing the perennial flooding situation in the Mesopotamian valley, that derivation would make sense.

Bible scholar Franz Delitzsch even suggested that the word Eden may have been derived from the Sumerian edin, a watercourse whose clay was used to produce plaster.

The presence of rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10 which flowed from four tributaries is proof that there had been rain. You can't have rivers without rain.

The command of God to Adam, to cultivate the land, in Genesis 2:15, could mean the necessity to build irrigation ditches and dikes to hold back the floodwaters after the flood subsided. If that was so, we can say that the world's oldest profession is civil engineering.

The notion that it never rained anywhere on the planet Earth cannot be supported, and the idea of a canopy of water in the stratosphere which acted as a global greenhouse is nonsense.

I have a lot of respect for Greg Laurie and the work he is doing in promoting the Gospel, and I feel sorrow for the loss of his son in a tragic accident several years ago. But some of the theological comments he makes are simply off the wall.

And on the subject of Noah, nowhere does Scripture say that he built that ark in a desert.

[whag]

The Jordan River, the Nile and the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers have something in common: They flow through deserts and have a high flood stage in the early spring, when snow melts and, except the Nile, are during the rainy season upstream. The floods carry with them fertile soil which is deposited as the floods subside, leaving a narrow strip of fertile land in an otherwise desert-like region.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]13572[/ATTACH]
The Mesopotamian Valley gets only about five inches of rain annually, nearly all of it in the winter, or from November to April, and nothing during the summer, which would normally be the ideal time to grow crops. If we understand the Hebrew eretz to mean land, limited to the local region rather than the entire planet, it could probably be said of that region, as we read in Genesis 2:5, that no shrub grew on the land, because God had not sent rain, at least not in the growing season. If that is the case, then what Genesis 2:5-6 is describing is no different from the present-day climate of the Mesopotamian Valley.

In Genesis 2:6, the word ed, translated mist, is found elsewhere only in Job 36:27. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, its derivation is uncertain, but possibly from the Assyrian edu, meaning flood or mass of water. Knowing the perennial flooding situation in the Mesopotamian valley, that derivation would make sense.

Bible scholar Franz Delitzsch even suggested that the word Eden may have been derived from the Sumerian edin, a watercourse whose clay was used to produce plaster.

The presence of rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:10 which flowed from four tributaries is proof that there had been rain. You can't have rivers without rain.

The command of God to Adam, to cultivate the land, in Genesis 2:15, could mean the necessity to build irrigation ditches and dikes to hold back the floodwaters after the flood subsided. If that was so, we can say that the world's oldest profession is civil engineering.

The notion that it never rained anywhere on the planet Earth cannot be supported, and the idea of a canopy of water in the stratosphere which acted as a global greenhouse is nonsense.

I have a lot of respect for Greg Laurie and the work he is doing in promoting the Gospel, and I feel sorrow for the loss of his son in a tragic accident several years ago. But some of the theological comments he makes are simply off the wall.

And on the subject of Noah, nowhere does Scripture say that he built that ark in a desert.

I like Greg, too. I find him charming, funny, approachable, and charismatic. That's why this is so sad. All his efforts to woo people to Christianity are in vain when he exposes himself as a literalist. That's repellent, not attractive.

[Cow Poke]

You're nowhere near as annoying, even at your worst.

I love ya, man!

[rogue06]

I like Greg, too. I find him charming, funny, approachable, and charismatic. That's why this is so sad. All his efforts to woo people to Christianity are in vain when he exposes himself as a literalist. That's repellent, not attractive.

It is only "repellent" if he were to insist that if you were to disagree with him on this then you aren't a Christian.

[whag]

It is only "repellent" if he were to insist that if you were to disagree with him on this then you aren't a Christian.

There are lesser degrees of shaming a Christian other than saying "you aren't a Christian if you disagree with me." Even the worst of the anti-evos, like Ray Comfort, don't say that. That's why it's so pernicious.

It's a more subtle shaming than the cartoonish way you expressed it. No one really says that.