Looks like this will be the new go-to book on the interpretation of Gen 1-11 from a YEC perspective:
On the one hand, I think scientists generally make poor commentators on Genesis.
On the other hand, scientists have a how-to mentality which inclines them to look for realistic interpretations. They try to visualize the text at a very concrete level. That can be much better than scholars trained in ancient languages, comparative literature, and hermeneutics, who minimize or deny the referential aspect of the text.
Also, I think he does know Hebrew.
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13504&cpage=1#comment-88991
ReplyDeleteLooks like this will be the new go-to book on the interpretation of Gen 1-11 from a YEC perspective...
ReplyDeleteYou seem disappointed about this.
Based on what?
DeleteI'm just not perceiving overwhelming enthusiasm. Or much enthusiasm at all. You have shown much greater enthusiasm for other "go-to" books. (I am thinking of your recommendations of Beale books).
DeleteGenesis 1-11 is crucial to us. Wouldn't you like to see a "go-to" commentary where you can say "this nails it"?
DeleteHi John,
DeleteI think you might be reading way too much into what's really just a matter-of-fact comment?
Sure, it'd be good to see a single Genesis commentary where one can say "this nails it," but at the same time there's value in competing commentaries among conservative Christians. Plus, it's difficult to be an expert in multiple let alone all the disparate fields relevant to Genesis (e.g. history, exegesis, linguistics, various sciences).
Hi Rocking. I know ... I just didn't "feel the love" here.
DeleteJohn, to begin with, I plugged the book. Second, not having read it, I'm in no position to wax enthusiastic or otherwise. Third, Gen 1-11 could still be crucial on an OEC interpretation as well as a YEC interpretation.
DeleteFrankly, I've never had must use for dog-whistle commenters whose ears are cocked to pick up ultrasonic frequencies inaudible to the average listener. Commenters who "hear" things the speaker never said. Who presume to detect an unspoken subtext.
DeleteThis only exists in the head of the listener, not the words on the page. The onus is not on me to refute imaginary projections and imputations.
Fair enough.
Delete"On the one hand, I think scientists generally make poor commentators on Genesis."
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but better than Hebraists who are way too respectful of the "science" of evolutionary uniformitarianism. That is, they agree that the Hebrew teaches YEC, but this contradicts "science" so we must find an alternative understanding. This is the method of all who promote billions of years, e.g. Gleason Archer, Bruce Waltke.
Note that I do refer to commentaries by Hebrew specialists, as well as the understanding of Josephus, the Church Fathers, Thomas Aquinas, and the Reformers.
Thanks for mentioning The Genesis Record BTW.
I meant the Genesis Account of course.
Delete