This still doesn’t change the fact that TEs continuously look for ways to disprove the Bible. That is a charge that can never be legitimately levied onto a YEC. Our entire purpose is to stand up for the entire Word of God, atheists certainly pick and choose many Scriptures they don’t understand to substantiate their views, however it is out of ignorance that they make their claims. YECs don’t selectively reinterpret Scripture to benefit us or justify a belief that contradicts Scripture. The same can’t be said for TEs.
Sure you do. You selectively reinterpret scripture all the time. God didn't create the animals when he was looking for a partner for Adam, he 'had' created them before. Mustard seeds are not the smallest seed, geocentrism... TEs don't look for ways to disprove the bible, we look for ways to show the inconsistency of a YEC exegesis that claims to understand all about how God communicates to us in scripture.
Again, this implies there was something to be gained by knowing the relationship between the earth and sun. Given that there isn’t, why should this get into the depth that you wish to take this. It is only because it deflects from the clearly unbiblical interpretation that TEs force upon Genesis.
Again you pick and choose which scriptures are important. All we are doing is approaching Genesis the same way you approach the geocentrist verses. Looking for a better way to understand the passages when science tells us the traditional interpretation cannot be right. If we are forcing a 'clearly unbiblical interpretation' on Genesis then you are doing the same with the geocentrist verses. That is not 'standing up for the entire word of God'. Double standards, Vossler, you condemn TE for doing the very thing you do yourself.
It’s not an all encompassing rule that one can plug any scenario into, it’s a general guideline for reading Scripture that works. If the question at hand can’t be answered by this rule then a more in-depth study is required.
What question is there the passage that can't be answered by Cooper's rule? It is very simple and straighforward and covers every eventuality. The plain sense does make sense and there is nothing in the context or anywhere else in scripture that suggests any other meaning than the simple plain sense. The only reason you think more indepth study is required is because the plain sense is contradicted by science. But that never made a YEC think other possible interpretations should be considered for Genesis or that or that a more in depth study might be required to find those interpretation. It should have of course. But there is a very simple answer, the one YECs use all the time for Genesis. Simply say the science is wrong and reserve any indepth study to looking for reason to support the plain reading.
But if it is not an all encompassing rule, how do you decide when to apply it? How do you know it should definitely without a doubt be applied to Genesis, but certainly not to any of the geocentrist passages?
This used to surprise me, but it no longer does.
I may start a thread on it.
I’m not here to defend YEC but God’s Word. It just so happens that YEC has the same goal I do.
That’s the whole point, if others see my position as a double standard and are not willing to ask or don’t like my answers to you and others here then I don’t have a problem with that. Let them see it as a double standard, that’s their prerogative. I’ve learned not to expect anyone to change their view; I’m not here to do anything other than to stand up for the Word of God.
It doesn't need you to defend it. You, on the other hand, do need to find a way that you can handle the word of God with the integrity that is in your heart. David Copper is no friend to you in this.
That used to be my justification for coming here, it was to defend God’s Word to the lurkers, but now I do it just for me and if a lurker should benefit then I consider that gravy.
Groovy
Could it be that Luther made a grievous error in that assessment and its importance?
Luther could see quite clearly what the plain meaning of the text was. I would say though, Luther would have been astonished at people thinking they could 'to stand up for the entire Word of God' by dismissing chunks of it as unimportant.
This is way that TEs seem bent on justifying their interpretation of Genesis, by comparing it to completely unrelated issues like geocentrism, a flat earth, mustard seeds, etc.
They are exactly the same issue. What to do when science contradicts a literal interpretation. The mustard seed example simply shows how David Cooper's exegetical scheme falls flat on its face when the only science you need is a rather small ruler. Flat earth was an issue that came up in the early church when the equivalent of today's YECs were insisting on rejecting the pagan Greek philosophy of a spherical earth in favour of plain meaning of the bible. The church had more sense and stuck with the pagan science. In the 16th century the church faced the exact same problem when the plain meaning of scripture was contradicted by the new astronomy of Copernicus and Galileo. The church came up with a completely new way of interpreting these passages, that became so well established you now think it is the obvious meaning of the text. It was not obvious to anyone, ever, until the church had to deal with the conflict between science and their plain meaning interpretation.
And so history repeats itself as modern YECs think this is the very first time there has been a conflict between science and interpretation, and of course the plain meaning of scripture is always correct. Oblivious to the fact that that what they see as plain meaning of geocentrist and flat earth scripture are the non literal interpretations that have won out over the plain meaning in the debates of the past.
Evening and morning are not used in those two verses,
You sometimes get an interesting sequence of arguments for literal day in discussions with YECs. It starts off with the claim that when day is used with a number it is always literal. Of course any good search of scripture can throw up a half dozen passages where that is not the case. Then you get the more refined version, (some discussions come straight in at this stage): When day used with an ordinal number is always literal. This of course leaves our good friends Hosea 6:2 and Luke 13:32. The argument is further refined. A day with an ordinal number and evening and morning is always literal. But unfortunately by then they are running out of bible. How many verses are there in the bible outside Gen 1 that have day, a number, and evening and morning? What sort of precedence is that supposed to set?
But the whole argument is based on a logical fallacy. No number of white swans could tell you that all swans were white, but a single black swan could tell you that they weren't (John Stuart Mill/Popper).
The YEC argument tries to prove you can't have a figurative day if it is used with a number (swans can't be black) by counting all the times day is literal with a number (white swans). but it does not follow. No matter how many times a literal day is accompanied by a number, it still tells us nothing about whether non literal days can have numbers as well. Not only that but we have the black swans, the verses where day is used figuratively with a number.
What if we wanted to argued that at the last supper wine really was turned into literal blood.* Jesus describes it as the blood of the covenant shed for us. Let's use the YEC argument. Everywhere else in the bible when blood is used with covenant it is literal blood. Everywhere else in the bible that mentions blood being shed it is literal blood. This has to prove the blood in the last supper is literal doesn't it? No. It doesn't matter how many verses there are with literal blood and covenant or shed, it still would not mean the wine became literal blood. No matter how many white swans you count it doesn't make a single black swan white.
*Of course while the Catholic church does does believe the wine is transformed into Jesus blood, they certainly do not use this argument.
be that as it may though are you stating that when Hosea 6:2 and Luke 13:32 state “third day” they could in fact be really meaning third hour or year, etc.?
This is how you then take the very specific days of Genesis 1 and allow them to mean whatever you choose for them to mean?
Jesus seems to be referring to the third year of his ministry. Hosea may be a more poetic general use, possibly referring to a two stage gradual building up and restoration, given as a poetic parallelism, though as I said rabbinical interpretations saw it as restoring the nation after three different periods of exile.
I find this so convoluted and amazing. YECs are trying to tie God down to a human understanding of His timetable. 
It is in fact the exact opposite, it demonstrates how God brought creation into existence via language simple enough for humans to readily understand. Sadly it is humans that wish to take the simple and make it complex by introducing their own man-centered theories of what God did. YECs don’t bring in anything extra biblical into the text, it is only the evolutionist that does so.
The people Peter warns about were taking the simple words of the bible about Jesus' return and wondering where he has got to. 'Behold I am coming soon' What could be simpler? You don't need to being anything extrabiblical into the text to misread it. All you need to do is think God is speaking from a human perspective. That is the mistake Peter warns against. But of course YECs
do bring extra biblical science into the geocentrist text, their real mistake is not doing it with Genesis.
As far as I know it is only the KJV that uses the term Adam in Gen 5:2. All the other versions I’ve come across use man.
KJV
and the Hebrew. Notice that the text actually says
adam is being used as a name here. The LXX and Apostles Bible use Adam, so does the JPS - the Jewish Publication Society version, Green's Literal version and t
he World English Bible WEB.
Please unknot it then so that everyone else can see the plain meaning you’ve found.
Just read what it says in the text. There are no knots in it.
