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 āunsaved hereticsā unable to teach us anything about Hebrew exegesis? And what exactly about my professorās 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.
4 Likes
Perhaps they can, perhaps they canāt, but if Iām going to look for a good teacher on Scriptural exegesis the very first question Iām going to ask is āAre they a believer or a heretic?ā
Are you saying that all rabbinical scholars are heretics?
I guess that depends upon what you mean by ārabbinical scholarā. 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, Iām aware. Thatās why I asked you the question I did. What is the answer?
This is probably redundant, but what YECs donāt get is that the truth that comes from the reality of the data in Godās word cannot conflict with the truth that comes from the reality of the data in Godās creation.
1 Like
Creation is not propositional revelation. Scripture is. Manās 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. 
)
Genetic fallacy
3 Likes
Truth is truth.
1 Like
No, I donāt think you understand what a genetic fallacy actually is. Is it a āgenetic fallacyā for employers to ask to see a resume before hiring someone?
Um. It seems you donāt. Your statement implied this personās interpretations were wrong because he was an unbelieving Jew. That is 100% the genetic fallacy.
3 Likes
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 āinterpretationsā of human scientists while trusting the interpretations of theologians when they happen to agree with your own opinions?
What about theologiansā 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 scientistsā interpretations of Godās creation as untrustworthy while theologiansā interpretations of Godās 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?
Youāve 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 āhereticā and unable to teach Hebrew grammar and exegesis appropriately? (You are tripping over several classic logic fallacies here.) Moreover, the word āhereticā doesnāt mean what you appear to think it meansābut letās 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.
4 Likes
You ignored my question, didnāt you? Is it wrong for a hospital to assume I donāt 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, Iām 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.
2 Likes
That takes guts to say something like that right after obviously ignoring a question you didnāt want to answer.
I didnāt find it worth answering but oh well. Lol you werenāt conducting a job interview. Do you need to know if people have qualifications before hiring them? Yes. But that isnāt what you did. You went straight to āoh this is a guy is an unbelieving Jew. Canāt take him seriously.ā
Iāve asked you about ten you have completely ignored. Still waiting on that paper, big dog.
And not just this thread. How Science Works: One Anomaly Versus A Mountain of Evidence - #86 by DaleCutler
In context, Miller was attempting to bolster his own credibility by saying he had studied under this person. So in that context, my response was appropriate. It was not the genetic fallacy. I am not going to go to a heretic to explain anything about scriptural exegesis to me, just as I want my doctor to have a sound set of credentials before Iāll let them practice medicine on me.