YEC and The Doctrine of Perspicuity of Scripture


Do you mean an unbelieving Jew?

I tend to write exactly what I mean.


You can start by reading the article I linked.

And you can start by reading the actual book which the article basically reviews. Why are you focused on the book review instead of the book on which it is based? Of course, if you actually read the book you could learn a lot from Dr. Hoffmeier and Dr. Wenham. (I often chatted with them years ago. I don’t think I ever met Dr. Sparks.) I’m very familiar with their academic credentials and backgrounds. I used to see them at ETS and AAR/SBL conference—and Hoffmeier and I actually go back quite a few decades to when he was teaching at Grace Theological Seminary and I used to speak on the campus.

Author Lita Cosner could learn a lot from them as well. In fact, seeing how Ms. Cosner has an M.A. in NT from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School from 2012, I wonder if she took any OT classes from Dr. Hoffmeier. Probably not—seeing how the M.A. in NT at Trinity is quite focused on NT—but I’m curious to know.


Then your appeal that I should consider you learned in the Scriptures because you have studied under an unsaved heretic is not particularly convincing.

Are “unsaved heretics” unable to teach us anything about Hebrew exegesis? And what exactly about my professor’s writings did you find heretical? Or is this just a reckless accusation?

Are you saying that all rabbinical scholars are heretics? Are you really and truly unaware that the Apostle Paul was a rabbinical scholar?

@PDPrice, I am delighted that you have joined this forum. Your participation here is quite interesting.


Perhaps they can, perhaps they can’t, but if I’m going to look for a good teacher on Scriptural exegesis the very first question I’m going to ask is “Are they a believer or a heretic?”

Are you saying that all rabbinical scholars are heretics?

I guess that depends upon what you mean by ‘rabbinical scholar’. I specifically asked if this person was an unbelieving Jew so I could understand what you meant. Your answer seemed to imply that they were. Did I misunderstand you?

Are you really and truly unaware that the Apostle Paul was a rabbinical scholar?

Yeah, I’m aware. That’s why I asked you the question I did. What is the answer?

This is probably redundant, but what YECs don’t get is that the truth that comes from the reality of the data in God’s word cannot conflict with the truth that comes from the reality of the data in God’s creation.

1 Like

Creation is not propositional revelation. Scripture is. Man’s stories about what they believe happened in the past can never conflict with the revelation of Scripture (and be right, that is). Human scientists are not on the level of God.

(I even had a YEC ask me once for chapter and verse where the Bible says that truth comes from reality. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:)

Genetic fallacy


Truth is truth.

1 Like

No, I don’t think you understand what a genetic fallacy actually is. Is it a ‘genetic fallacy’ for employers to ask to see a resume before hiring someone?

Um. It seems you don’t. Your statement implied this person’s interpretations were wrong because he was an unbelieving Jew. That is 100% the genetic fallacy.


If you call it revelation, then you are admitting that God has revealed truths through his creation. Excellent. So why then do you choose to ignore what God has revealed in his creation? Why do you treat it as unreliable?

Human theologians are not on the level of God. So why do you distrust the “interpretations” of human scientists while trusting the interpretations of theologians when they happen to agree with your own opinions?

What about theologians’ stories about what they believe happened in the past?

You surely agree that both theologians and scientists are human beings who are capable of being fallible. So why are you treating scientists’ interpretations of God’s creation as untrustworthy while theologians’ interpretations of God’s scriptures (at least, the theologians you like) are fine?

For that matter, why is there so much disagreement even among evangelical theologians about what appears in theology textbooks while there is tremendous consensus among scientists in most fields about what appears in science textbooks?

You’ve been dodging my questions and those of many others on this forum. We are getting weary of answering your questions (some of them quite irrelevant to the discussion) while you ignore ours. For example, why do you think a rabbinical scholar is a “heretic” and unable to teach Hebrew grammar and exegesis appropriately? (You are tripping over several classic logic fallacies here.) Moreover, the word “heretic” doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means—but let’s not start even more rabbit trail tangents while you evade our questions.

You can start with the questions above about scientists versus theologians and their fallibility.


You ignored my question, didn’t you? Is it wrong for a hospital to assume I don’t know how to perform surgery just because I have never studied at medical school?

Need we compile a long list of the questions you have ignored in this entire thread? Seriously?

1 Like

@AllenWitmerMiller Whoops, it looks like you just totally ignored my last questions to you and skipped forward to responding to what I wrote talking to somebody else.

Meanwhile, I’m preaching this Sunday so I have to get some work done. When I come back, I hope to find that you will finally start answering the questions posed to you.


That takes guts to say something like that right after obviously ignoring a question you didn’t want to answer.

I didn’t find it worth answering but oh well. Lol you weren’t conducting a job interview. Do you need to know if people have qualifications before hiring them? Yes. But that isn’t what you did. You went straight to “oh this is a guy is an unbelieving Jew. Can’t take him seriously.”

I’ve asked you about ten you have completely ignored. Still waiting on that paper, big dog.