I appreciate this honest reply, and I think this passage is deserving of its own discussion thread.
You appear not to have read them for yourself. Have you?
Today I read the creation.com critiques of Walton and Keller and found them quite weak. In particular, they do not address several of the key points that Walton and Keller make.
You see, PD, I am doing my very best to follow the admonition of Scripture in Proverbs 18:17:
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
How about you, PD? You’ve listened to one side and it seems right. Have you listened to Keller and Walton?
What do you have to lose? I’ve actually been quite edified and built up in Christian faith reading their works. You might enjoy that blessing, too, if you would be willing to put Proverbs 18:17 into practice.
One way to eisegete is to insert your own culture’s understanding of words into a passage that has someone else’s different cultural context embedded in it. Would you agree with that?
But since you seem disinterested in exploring cultural context in Genesis, how would you know which side is eisegeting?
YECs need to realize that in saying creation was “perfect” when it God clearly says “very good”*, they are making Jesus “Plan B”.
*(“You’re calling God a liar” has been used innumerable times by YECs against Christians who oppose their flawed interpretation.)
@DaleCutler, “perfect” vs “very good” is a good conversation, but I’m not sure if that’s exactly part of the Doctrine of Perspicuity.
However, it does make me think that the “given proper translation” part of @PDPrice’s version of the doctrine could be kinda fuzzy. @PDPrice, in your view does “proper translation” include an absence of interpretation (like we must have a literal Hebrew/Greek -> English translation) and if not how would we know which interpretations are acceptable?
My point is that since scripture is all about Jesus, in reducing Jesus to Plan B, YEC doctrine destroys the perspicuity of scripture.
Sure. If it’s an ‘interpretation’ it’s not a translation. We know which interpretations are acceptable by applying sound principles of biblical hermeneutics (historical grammatical) and allowing Scripture to interpret itself through crossreference.
What you just said seems to indicate that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin against him. Is that correct? It was God’s will for mankind to rebel?
What did Peter say the scoffers would deny in 2 Peter 3? Was it only Jesus they would deny?
Why did God create the universe?
Was the Garden perfect? No. Any place that Satsn could enter was not perfect.
How did Adam and Eve know what death was?
Why don’t you answer my questions before asking me different ones of your own?
You don’t recognize that the answer to your question is in the answer to my in my question, if you could answer it.
Why did God create the universe?
I just want you to simply and straightforwardly answer the questions I asked, directly.
There is major irony in your question about 2 Peter 3.
The world that then existed does not refer to the entire globe. Does it say globe? Do we not use the word to mean other things than the whole globe? Like ‘the world of politics’?
The irony is this, two verses later:
…with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
You don’t always get what you want. You can’t see the answer to your question in my answer, can you.
We just want you to simply and straightforwardly answer the questions we have asked, directly.
When you start answering questions instead of dodging then you can complain.
This helps me to confirm exactly what kinds of questions Old-earthers of your variety are uncomfortable with. Thanks for that, at least.
They make you think. That’s not a bad thing.
The answer to your question is yes, btw, but he is not to blame for it. I am not at all uncomfortable with that.
231 posts were split to a new topic: General YEC discussion