Because your interpretation is not is God's living, perfect and complete revelation. And where it has got things wrong it should be open to correction.
Because no one's 'interpretation' of the Bible is true we need an outside source that's complete to play referee. That's the mantra of those who don't accept the truths of the Bible. It isn't sufficient to explain itself and needs the assistance of 'science' to make it complete. Essentially the Bible is a subjective book and thereby is impotent.
I have given examples of Luther (and we can add in Calvin and Melanchthon who also believed the bible taught geocentrism). I have mentioned believers who came to the Lord in the revivals of the Great Awakening. I don't know how you feel about Seventh Day Adventist, but if you think they are a cult you should certainly reject the YEC movement and that grew out of Adventism.
It is truly fascinating to see the incredible focus placed on whether people of old saw our world as geocentric or heliocentric. I would submit that it played no real role in Luther's or Calvin's life and it certainly doesn't play one in my life. Somehow TEs can't let that one go, it's their only claim to legitimacy it seems. It is a most fascinating thing to observe.
You think you shouldn't learn from the mistake the Jews made when their promised Messiah came?
Did I say that?
I find it odd you quote 1Cor 2:14. If you think your interpretation of Genesis is infallible and that you are not subject to the mistakes non Christians make (though I have been looking at plenty of Christian mistakes), what makes you think your interpretation is the Holy Spirit Inspired one when non Christians, even atheists read the same six day timetable in Genesis as you do?
Again, did I say that? What I thought I said or pointed out was that you don't go to people who are not Christians as a source for knowledge of the Scriptures; at least I don't.
Didn't I point out that the 'six days' in Exodus 20 are in the middle of a metaphor and that we have as much reason to interpret them literally as we do God's 'mighty hand and out stretched arm' found in the same place in the 10 commandments in Deuteronomy.
I am sure I pointed out Psalm 90 where Moses takes a very non literal approach to God's days, or the fact that no one else in the whole bible mentions the subject. That the only day of the creation week mentioned anywhere else in the bible is the seventh day and that it wasn't interpreted literally when mentioned by either Jesus or the writer of Hebrews?
I can't find a single commentary that states the six days in Exodus 20 are metaphoric. I'm sure one exists somewhere, I'm just saying I haven't come across it yet. You know before coming here I never even knew people actually thought in the ways of many here, in order to do so one has to open the Bible to a subjective interpretation. That's something not easily done and probably why you just don't see respected commentaries using that approach. There isn't a single shred of biblical evidence to lay claim that the six days were metaphoric and no matter how many times someone claims otherwise it's still the evidence that matters.
It is abundantly clear to see that Moses, when speaking of God, knows that time in no constraint for almighty God. The argument that Moses takes a very non-literal approach to God's days here does nothing to disprove Genesis or Exodus from being literal days. If anything it supports it. It shows that God was painstakingly deliberate when describing creation when He gave each day a number and an evening and a morning. Then when He was not, as in Psalm 90, He demonstrated how He is beyond our constraints.
No they were too busy defending the word of God and their interpretation of it with their own unfailing determination.
Yes, they were hypocrites of the first order. They didn't know God and they certainly didn't have intimate discussions with Him. 2 Timothy 3: 1 - 9 sums up today's version of the Pharisee or Jew.
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.
They swallowed all the arguments, the hermeneutical systems, the interpretations, until they believed those interpretation were the Word of God.
Beyond that, they were, first and foremost, lovers of self. When a person loves self above God their hermeneutics easily become skewed and untrustworthy.
Are you saying you are immune to making this kind of mistake? If you are not immune, then answer the question, what would you have done when confronted with extrabiblical evidence that your interpretation was disastrously wrong. There are only three choices, choices that face young Christians in droves today wen they go to college and confront the evidence. They can give up on Christianity, trust in God and go back to the bible to see where they had gone wrong, or deny the plain facts and fervently cling to their interpretation.
I'm immune as long as I know to keep God's Word above everything else. Once I open the door to science or anything else taking precedence over God's Word then I too will fall victim to those mistakes. BTW, there is a fourth choice, they can open their eyes and see the facts which are suppose to be so plain are actually hardly so.
Modern YECism was kick started by Henry Morris and his book the Genesis Flood. But flood geology wasn't Morris's idea, it came from George McCready Price a Seventh Day Adventist. Fundamentalism had accepted the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and had gone back to their bibles. Their interpretations of Genesis were Day Age or Gap. It was only the influence of the SDA and then Morris who drew his flood geology from Price that gave us modern YEC.
I don't know this history of which you speak all that well so let's assume everything you just stated is correct. That doesn't change the fact that before the 17th and 18th century the vast majority of Christians believed in a young earth so the doctrine of a young earth predates all the people you mentioned.
Extra biblical evidence is truth. It is true that Christ did not return in 1844. It is true the earth rotates and orbits the sun. It is true the earth is billions of years old. Why shouldn't I accept extra biblical evidence. Or if I am to ignore the evidence, should I ignore it all, or just some of it. Are you the one to tell me which extrabiblical evidence should influence me and which should not?
I have no problem with extra biblical evidence, that is, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture itself. Much of what you call evidence I call conjecture and speculation. I ignore only the 'evidence' that can't be objectively proven.
Hey, you can believe and trust all the extra biblical evidence you want, that's your free choice. The only 'evidence' I ignore is the subjective stuff built on conjecture and speculation, I would hope that you did too. It would be nice if more people did that instead of blindly accepting what someone, who is highly educated and arrogantly confident in his/her knowledge tells them. It's when you choose to believe things that are biblically unsound that your credibility should be challenged and if the error in judgment is ignored and not admitted that we are to finally dismiss it as heresy.