Not according to Matchett-PI, since his contention is that there is enough sloppiness in Genesis to accomodate both an old earth and a recently created earth, as the following quote from one of his posts on this thread demonstrates:
It is likely that scientific research in the next ten or twenty years will tip the weight of evidence decisively toward either a young earth or an old earth view, and the weight of Christian scholarly opinion (from both biblical scholars and scientists) will begin to shift decisively in one direction or another.
This should not cause alarm to advocates of either position, because the truthfulmess of Scripture is not threatened our interpretations of Genesis 1 have enough uncertainty that either position is possible). Both sides need to grow in the knowledge of the truth, even if this means abandoning a long-held position.
Presumably, Matchett-PI would also concur with the idea that there is enough sloppiness in Genesis to accomodate evolution as well.
atlaw: "Not according to Matchett-PI, since his contention is that there is enough sloppiness in Genesis to accomodate both an old earth and a recently created earth. ..Presumably, Matchett-PI would also concur with the idea that there is enough sloppiness in Genesis to accomodate evolution as well."
[1]There is no "sloppiness" in Scripture. I didn't use that word, and am curious as to your motivation for wanting to change the meaning of what I wrote. Was it deliberate, or just done out of an honest misunderstanding due to a lack of careful reading?
[2] See #196.