Search results

That's unfortunate. Thinking critically doesn't mean you parrot other people. You should read proponents of the view you disagree with.

Glad to hear it. I just hope some of those books are for the position rather than all against it.

First... this has nothing to do w/ the not so new perspective of Paul. Second... it (the NPP) is not nonsense (jury is still out for me). I would hear out the argument before casting stones (i.e. read Wright; most assume his arguments who have never read one word of him). Third... why don't...

Hold on... the text doesn't say anything about the 7 churches representing ages of the church age... and I'm making too many assumptions???

Even when I was a dispo, I had a hard time w/ this interpretation. You who argue for and "maintain" a consistent, literal interpretation have no problem foisting that for a figural one when you get to the 7 churches. Strange. Plus, even if your interpretation is correct, you have no way to...

I disagree... but this is becoming asinine.

Suspect is at least a better way to put it. To call his view "absurd" was itself an absurd statement considering the man's background. And I honestly do not think that the quote you submitted demonstrated that his sole purpose to his interpretation was to square Scripture with an old earth...

A little research confirms that Sailhamer was a linguist and his UCLA studies focused on semitic languages. http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=1212 for proof.

Do you know what his MA/PhD was in at UCLA??? I was not able to confirm, but I know Robert Cole (OT & Hebrew Prof at SEBTS) was his classmate. And according to his CV, his degree was in Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. That sounds like it dealt in semitic languages on a linguistic...

I did not know you knew the man. To study the HOT with the composition theory of Sailhamer, one must be a specialist in Hebrew and TNKh. So there does not have to be this incompatible "theologian is not a linguist/scholar" duality that you want. The best theologians are grammarians...

I just re-read this and saw how pretentious and unkind it sounded. Forgive me. I just mean to emphasize that Sailhamer is no Hebrew slouch. I would have a hard time saying his understanding of a term is "absurd." My lack of Hebrew acumen forces me to look at the experts and count their...

Notice... that is why I qualified what I meant in the parenthesis. Science studies natural revelation. So combative...

And to a certain extent, so too is our understanding of Scripture. Interpretation is limited, although I'm not sure whose feet to cast the blame. However, I think there are plausible interpretations of Scripture that account for things differently than we have done in years past. And so if we...

I daresay you are half the Hebrew scholar Sailhamer is nor do you fully understand his point about "beginning". He did give examples of other places in Scripture where the word is used as an undefined period of time. Its not absurd unless you cling to the English rendering as your final...

What if there was a way to interpret an old earth position from the text of Scripture and still maintain a literal view of the days in gen. 1 and a literal view of the ages of people (900+ years old)???? Isn't this what we all want... to have agreement with the scientific community and still do...

The title of the thread would suggest otherwise.

Historic Creationism is a good view but not many know about it. It is the one proposed by John Sailhamer and espoused by John Piper and others. Since his book Genesis Unbound is out of print, you can read about the view here...

"Biblical view" is a stretch since the Bible never clarifies what you listed so neatly. Not that I disagree, but we need to realize that in this subject we are going beyond Scripture (not a bad thing, but we need to be aware). This awareness causes us not to be so hard-nosed and rigid. We...

So do you want a commentary or a theology book of the gospel accounts??? The 2 are different.

I would say that the question of inerrancy is a result of a non-literal gen. 1 interpretation but not a cause to affect a view of inerrancy. And to speak to Yeshua1... there are various views and definition of inerrancy (even "full inerrancy). So one can claim to be evangelical and a...