And my advice to you,-57, is to not just focus on a partial reading of my points. I spelled very clearly in post 191 the hard evidence why Genesis consists of two contradictory accounts. If you wish to provide a rational rebuttal, if you can, fine, but make sure you carefully read what my case is. I specifically addressed why your pluperfect theory of Genesis falls flat on its face. I specifically addressed this issue about "had." There is not HAD there, period. If read in HAD, you are seriously mistranslating and mistreating the text. Also, this bit about Paul being a "liar." Such a comment betrays your total ignorance of the material at hand. Without even having looked at a major , such as Von Rad, mandatory reading in most OT seminary courses, you feel it is your place to sit in judgment on them. Having gone through seminary, I can well assure you that with your negative attitude, you would be lucky to last a day there. That's how far off your thinking is from solid biblical scholarship.
And while we are on the subject of Paul? Can you explain to me his real itinerary, how many pilgrimages he made to Jerusalem? You see, we scholars have a bit of a sticky wicket here. Acts says he made five such pilgrimages. Galatians-Romans give only three. Again, it has proved impossible explain away this contradiction. So, since you know so much more about it than the scholars do, and are such a better Christian they are, suppose you dazzle us with the great brightness of your intellect and get busy and tell us just how many pilgrimages he did make? Frankly, I think he solution is that Paul either forgot just how many he made or deliberately omitted mentioning them for some unknown reason.
You made two additional blatantly false statements. You spoke of reading commentaries, right? You claim you know some that will support you, right? Well, what are they? If you knew anything about graduate study, you would that that is what we do, read commentaries until you are blue in the face. The other way-off assumption you make is that we are reading the Bible through the lens of evolution. That is totally incorrect, because what we are doing is reading the Bible though the lens of a careful linguistic analysis. Greened, everyone reads though Scripture though one lens or another. nobody comes to Scripture with a totally blank mind. So the question is: Just what lens are you reading Scripture though and how valid is it? Correct me if I am wrong, but it does seem you are reading Scripture though the lens of the inerrancy theory. OK, but then you have to rebut my case that this theory is incorrect. If you want, go ahead. But you will need to go through my case, point by point, showing a relational rebuttal, or an attempt thereof, for each of them. I think part of your discomfiture what I and others are saying comes from the fact you are coming here as a lay person. Nothing wrong with that. However, as such, you need to respect the fact that the world of biblical studies and theology is a whole different world, a wholly different ballgame from the world of the laity. It's rules are very different, its priorities are very different, etc. I realize that many laity hold with the inerrancy theory, the notion that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened exactly the Bible says. Fine for laity. Doesn't work a bit in the world of serous scholarship. We want to come to scripture more open-minded. Maybe it is inerrant, maybe not. Let us see. And, no, we definitely do not look at Scripture the lens evolution. We do, however, want to look at Scripture in terms of a very detained literary analysis, as I mentioned. That means biblical scholars are fluent in Hebrew and Greek. Now stop right there. With absolutely no knowledge of biblical languages, you would not seen, right off the bat as totally unqualified to sit in judgment n the scholars who may very well disagree with your preconceived-of notions. So, when you feel the urge to flail biblical scholars, ask your self just how much Hebrew do you know, how much education have you had in biblical archaeology, how much ability you have t discriminate earlier form later forms of the linguistic style of the text, how sensitive you are to picking up on sutle changes of style, etc.