[editor-surveyor]

Albert Mohler is right!

[metmom]

One of the other major problems of theistic evolution is that it demands a literary reading for part of Genesis and a historical reading for the rest.

And the criteria for deciding on when to switch is based on the secular humanist interpretation of what fits with its world view.

So, when the Flood is over, and life span of mankind shortens to the present day span, then we can start interpreting it historically.

What happens is that then allows the secular humanist to dictate how Scripture is to be interpreted, within the framework of secular humanism.

But since Scripture is not a secular work it’s the wrong method of interpretation and will always result in a faulty one.

Consistency is important. Either interpret it all as historical, or all as literary. But by choosing the literary, you run into problems when it can be historically verified. It demands a literary interpretation of Jewish history all the way through the death of Jacob, one of the patriarchs of Judaism.

It undercuts the foundation of Jewish history and the promises of God to mankind through Abraham.

[Just mythoughts]

Thanks for the ping... I ran across the thread a few minutes ago.

Evolution is a fairy ‘tail’ mislabeled as ‘science’, the TOE would wither on the ‘vine’ if its funding were to be shut off. All this pretend TOE demonstrates only the ‘fittest’ survive is chaff blowing in the proverbial wind.

[betty boop]

Thanks so much for the ping, dear editor-surveyor!

I'm not sure I approve of Mohler's tactics here. It seems there are many undisclosed presuppositions at work. Better they were disclosed.

At the same time, at the surface level of the problem, I find his description excellent.

Please keep me posted on developments!