I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions?

I have been Asked if Kent Hovind didn't have Talmudic Positions? · What I Owe and Don't Owe Kent Hovind

I'll actually give you one (I am not sure he is aware of the Talmudic connection himself) off hand. He and Talmudic Jews (or at least one tract in the Talmud) seem to agree Christians should not be given wine.

However, it is more crypto-Talmudic, hidden to himself probably too, than openly Talmudic. Because he and the Talmud differ in why.

Talmud says "because they commit idolatry with it" - probably referring to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they as well as some Protestants (possibly including Hovind) consider as an act of idolatry, while his own words are "there is a curse on those who give wine to someone", forgetting to mention that this curse only applies if the intent is seeing one's brother (not enemy) drunk and have fun at him (not with him, drinking oneself).

But if you mean he has a Talmudic position in saying the Flood was really global, there are two answers.

• the "Talmudic position" par excellence, which neither I nor Kent Hovind share is that the Flood was nearly global, with Holy Land excepted, just like there was an exception to the sea for the Israelites through the Red Sea;
• the Talmud certainly says somewhere (I haven't studied it, but the opposite would surprise me greatly) that God created Heaven and Earth. Now, to a man like Dominic Venner this makes it a Talmudic or Jewish error : and to him Christianity itself is a Jewish error. But to a Christian, it cannot be a Talmudic error to believe God created Heaven and Earth, because that is in the First Article of the Creed (Apostolic or Nicene). The point is not to contradict the Talmud on everything it says, but to contradict it where it is wrong (like when saying Christians should not be given wine or commit idolatry with wine), and to identify this by its contradicting traditional Christian sources (like a comment on V commandment forbidding drunkenness, but not moderate drinking - drunkenness is still a sin, even if shared drunkenness is not under the curse Kent Hovind spoke about, or like a tradition saying Holy Mass is the supreme sacrifice now present on Earth to the True God as He wants it).

So, if by Talmudic positions of Kent Hovind some guy at St Nicolas du Chardonnet was referring to his being Young Earth Creationist, that guy should quit reading Dominic Venner and start reading Catechism of Pope St Pius X (which is explicitly Young Earth Creationist and which at least is compatible with Geocentrism).

To those unfamiliar with French conditions : Dominic Venner is a recently suicided, self killed, essayist, on the right wing but also on the antichristian wing of the right wing, the re-paganisers. He committed his suicide in Notre Dame, and did this as a protest against mainstream Catholics promoting immigration. In Notre Dame and elsewhere Catholics have been praying for his soul.

I find it very bad that Femen has committed a sacrilegious act in Notre Dame. But it did not involve suicide, so each of them are still able to repent. I find it very bad style when certain right wing Christians are all flustered with indignation over the sacrilege of Femen, but very ready to excuse the even worse sacrilege of Dominic Venner and adhere to his positions.

To those unfamiliar with both French and Fraternity of St Pius X conditions : St Nicolas du Chardonnet is the main poster child church for the Fraternity of St Pius X in France, since they took over the Church using some force against a mainstream Catholic curate. They and mainstream Catholics are divided over who was committing a sacrilege, he for saying Novus Ordo mass or they for removing him. They are right wing, and some of them seem to have great sympathy for Dominic Venner. But I think it would be healthiest for their souls if they read - some of them - less Dominic Venner and more of the patron Saint of their fraternity : Pope St Pius X.

To any Young Earth Creationist ear, the decisions of the Pontifical Bible commission from his time (he died when World War I broke out) are music.

Latin text		My own translation.
I. Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum sensum litteralem historicum trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur?		Whether the various exegetical systems, which have been thought out to exclude the literal historic sense of the three first chapters of Genesis and have been promoted with the pretense of science, are supported by any solid fundament?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
II. Utrum non obstantibus indole et forma historica libri Geneseos, peculiari trium priorum capitum inter se et cum sequentibus capitibus nexu, multiplici testimonio Scripturarum tum veteris tum novi Testamenti, unanimi fere sanctorum Patrum sententia ac traditionali sensu, quem, ab israelitico etiam populo transmissum, semper tenuit Ecclesia, doceri possit, praeditta tria capita Geneseos continere non rerum vere gestarum narrationes, quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant; sed vel fabulosa ex veterum populorum mythologiis et cosmogoniis deprompta et ab auctore sacro, expurgato quovis polytheismi errore, dottrinae monotheisticae accommodata; vel allegorias et symbola, fundamento obiectivae realitatis destituta, sub historiae specie ad religiosas et philosophicas veritates incultandas proposita; vel tandem legendas ex parte historicas et ex parte fictitias ad animorum instructionem et aedificationem libere compositas?		Whether, not withstanding the genius of form of the Genesis book being historic, the particular three first chapters among themselves and connected to following chapters, [notwithstanding] multiple testimony from Scripture of both old and new Testament, the near unanimous sentence and traditional sense of the holy Fathers, which transmitted also by the Israelite people, the Church has always held, it can be taught that the forementioned three chapters of Genesis contain not narrations of things really come to pass, which therefore respond to objective reality and historic truth; but either a fable fetched from mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and by the sacred author, after he expurgated all error of polytheism, accomadated to the monotheistic doctrine; or allegories and symbols devoid of fundament in objective reality, under guise of history proposed to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or at last to be read partly historic and partly fictions composed freely for edification and instruction of souls?
Resp. Negative ad utramque partem.		Nope and nope.
[They forgot the third part, probably too tired of the first two!]
III. Utrum speciatim sensus litteralis historicus vocari in dubium possit, ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis, quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt: uti sunt, inter caetera, rerum universarum creatio a Deo facta in initio temporis; peculiaris creatio hominis; formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine; generis humani unitas; originalis protoparentum felicitas in statu iustitiae, integritatis et immortalitatis; praeceptum a Deo homini datum ad eius obedientiam probandam; divini praecepti, diabolo sub serpentis specie suasore, transgressio; protoparentum deiectio ab illo primaevo innocentiae statu; nec non Reparatoris futuri promissio?		Whether especially one can call in doubt the historical literal sense, where it is a question of facts in these chapters which concern the foundations of the Christian religion: such as are, among others, the universal creation of all things done by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of first women from first man; the unity of the human kind; the original felicity of the first parents in the state of justice, integrity and immortality; the precent given by God to man to probe his obedience; the transgression of the divine precent, with the devil persuading in the guise of a serpent; the dejection of the first parents from that primeval state of innocence; not to mention the promise of the One coming to Repair?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
IV. Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam definitique tradiderint, liceat, salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei analogia, eam quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam?		Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, and not transmitted anything of certain and definite, it is licit, saving the judgement of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, each follow and keep the sentence which he prudently has probed?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.
[Great example : same day in Genesis 2:17 : you are free to say they began to die same day, they died from grace same day or they physically died "same day" as in same thousand years. All of which are true, but you can prefer which you like as the immediate meaning of the warning.]
V. Utrum omnia et singula, verba videlicet et phrases, quae in praedictis capitibus occurrunt, semper et necessario accipienda sint sensu proprio, ita ut ab eo discedere numquam liceat, etiam cum locutiones ipsae manifesto appareant improprie, seu metaphorice vel anthropomorphice, usurpatae, et sensum proprium vel ratio tenere prohibeat vel necessitas cogat dimittere?		Whether each and all, namely both words and phrases, which in these foresaid chapters occur, always and necessarily must be accepted in the proper sense, so that it is never licit to step away from it, even when expressions themselves appear manifestly improper, either metaphoric or anthropomorphic, taken over, and either reason forbids to hold or necessity forces to dismiss the proper sense?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
[You are not forced to say that "day" is literally one 24 hour day both in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2:4, and some might find it unduly anthropomorphic to think God appeared in Eden in a theophany and gave Adam life via a kind of CPR, which I do not find impossible.]
VI. Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorumdem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit?		Whether, presupposing the literal and historic sense, of more than one place in the chapters, the allegoric and prophetic interpretation, foreshing the example of the holy Fathers and of Church herself, can be used wisely and usefully?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.
VII. Utrum, cum in conscribendo primo Geneseos capite non fuerit sacri auctoris mens intimam adspettabilium rerum constitutionem ordinemque creationis completum scientifico more docere; sed potius suae genti tradere notitiam popularem, prout communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora, sensibus et captui hominum accommodatam, sit in horum interpretatione adamussim semperque investiganda scientifici sermonis proprietas?		Whether, given that in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the intention of the sacred author to teach the intimate constitution and order of the visible things of creation in a scientific manner; but rather to give his people a popular notion, as through these times the common speech imported, accomodated to the senses and to the understanding of men, it is in interpreting of these always and scrupulously to investigate about the propriety of scientific terminology?
Resp. Negative.		Nope.
VIII. Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yom (dies), sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?		Whether in that denomination and distinction of the six days, of which in Genesis chapter one, the word Yom (day) can be taken, either in proper sense for a natural day, or in improper sense, for some space of time, and that there is allowable for exegetes freely to differ about suchlike question?
Resp. Affirmative.		Yep.

The Latin version, which I quoted by copypaste and linked to, was signed by the consulters Fulcranus Vigouroux, P.S.S. and Laurentius Janssens, O.S.B. on the 30th June 1909. O.S.B. means Lawrence Janssens was a Benedictine monk, and - I looked it up - the letters P. S. S. mean that Fulcran Vigouroux was a Sulpician Father (an order with a connection to the Church Saint Sulpice in precisely Paris!)

So, I would greatly advice parishioners of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (where I was a parishioner when both they and I accepted "Benedict XVI" as Pope, a man who contradicted above) to not consider Kent Hovind as being Talmudic in the very act of being Young Earth Creationist. Or for that matter, to consider him as the one and sole example of Young Earth Creationism in the English language sphere.

Today one Australian pioneer is celebrating his look back on his carreer or beginning of it:

Creation pioneer looks back
Editors for Creation magazine interview our magazine's founder, Dr Carl Wieland
http://creation.com/carl-wieland-creation-pioneer

While Kent Hovind is a great speaker and debater and a good amateur scientist, and one very well known Creationist to those outside the movement, I would say communities like Creation Ministries International and Institute of Creation Research are more consultable on given questions about how the account not just of first 3, but of all first 11 chapters is inerrant and that both historically and scientifically (though not flawlessly worded in scientific terminology).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Seven Martyr Brothers
Sons of St. Felicitas*
10.VII.2017

* Romae passio sanctorum septem Martyrum fratrum, filiorum sanctae Felicitatis Martyris, id est Januarii, Felicis, Philippi, Silvani, Alexandri, Vitalis et Martialis, tempore Antonini Imperatoris, sub Praefecto Urbis Publio. Ex ipsis vero Januarius, post virgarum verbera et carceris macerationem, plumbatis occisus; Felix et Philippus fustibus mactati; Silvanus praecipitio interemptus; Alexander, Vitalis et Martialis capitali sententia puniti sunt.