Lin

“Notice that in his article he continues to say “implied”. This is significant.”

This type of interpretation is in all the their teaching. It is all over CBMW. Everything they believe on this issue has to be implied or read into the account. They tell us what God ‘meant’ when He did this or that…not what He ‘said’ or did not say. I have also noticed that they also ignore Genesis 1 quite a bit because it does not fit into their interpretation of Genesis 2.

My question is this: To what point does this become false teaching? At what point does reading INTO the text, twisting it to mean something else become false teaching?

BTW: Hagar named God: El Roi