Just beat it for him. So, you didn’t intend to lump it in with the “fringe” elements? If not; sorry --I’m just so used to it being so treated by others. Cheers!
In principle, @swamidass , you’d have to agree that “fringe ideas” are often at the forefront of paradigm changes, and though I disagree with Mark on his method of exegeting here, I do not conclude that he is “wrong.” The dustbins of academic history are filled with prescient people who were ignored, rather than engaged. Mark is saying that, even given your decade, that’s a raindrop to him. And “luck” will have had nothing to do with it.
That Mark is not claiming some new “apostolic authority” for this view shows good restraint. He is excited about what might be, in service to the church.
Every good communicator knows that, indeed, we are somewhat limited by our audiences, and even the most careful explanation of quantum mechanics, say, will fly right past many listeners. No matter; our intentions, no matter whether communicatively successful or not, are often NOT clear to our whole audience… perhaps, as humans, even to ourselves. A willingness to dialogue and receive criticism is in evidence here, and I’m honored to count Mark as a friend and brother, as I know you are, Josh.
All the best, Mark! I think you’ve gotten some wonderful feedback “meat” to chew on, and ask for guidance about.
The Tablet Theory is a more concise description of what YECs have implied for generations.
It is not inherently more accurate. It is just more specific.