Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  I agree that not all science is unbelieving, but I think that those who compromise on six day creation make concessions to it. Why are they making such a concession? There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days. That is why we should not apply the same principle to Revelation, as the book of Revelation is not historical literature but apocalyptic literature. |
And yet great scholars (yes, even Reformed scholars) believe they have "good exegetical reason" to not be committed to the literal 6-day reading. I'm not for one side or the other...I simply haven't studied it enough. But I am suggesting that perhaps the rhetoric should be turned down a bit. There are serious arguments made for other positions
from Scripture not "unbelieving science" by reputable Reformed scholars. If you want to disagree with their arguments, that's cool with me, I need to see both sides. But don't act like they don't have anything worth hearing at all.