And so I wrote a little blog. I said that seminary professors should

interpret exegetically. I never had had this professor in any class

before. He was an undergrad guy. But a couple

days later, it was two days later, I had a message from, I believe it was the

vice president of the school and he said that I shouldn't have done that I

shouldn't have posted this thing now my realize this is on my personal blog

and I'm writing about a bigger political issue this just happens, I thought, a good example of the error of

presentism and isigetical interpretation when it comes to history. So I'm using this as an example.

I wasn't trying to just, you you know I was upset that the school I did put in there you know I was thankful for people at the school but I was upset that my tuition money is going towards things like this

But my purpose was to illustrate the bigger political

point on my personal blog. Vice President of the school reaches out to me and he

said something I think very telling. He talked about the reason that I was wrong to write what I did was because I'm treating this

professor who's a history professor as a Bible guy.

And I wrote back to him and I basically said, look, it doesn't matter whether you're a Bible guy or not.

Everyone's, everyone should interpret exegetically.

There's not a distinction between this field and another field the rules apply either way and

This made me realize something and something that I'll probably develop a little more later, but the school, this is how schools become liberal, okay?

Other influences outside that people that don't have perhaps, and maybe they're not even aware of it, but they don't have a Christ-centered

historiography let's say, or pick whatever discipline you want, a science, whatever.

They will infiltrate, and maybe they're not even try to infiltrate but they just they become

professors out of school and because you know maybe they're very involved in their

church maybe they could be even strong Christians

...