If You Had to Recommend an Unaccredited Seminary with Distance Learning

What I said was that because the term was modified by the cardinal numeral on the first day and (along with the balance of creation days) is modified by "evening" and "morning" the account refers to conventional days. That seems to be pretty good reason (and I could mention more) to take the term literally. No force is required and, thus, the broad band of historical exegesis has agreed. Especially given the authoritative conventional interpretation elsewhere in the canon.

No force required.

Precisely where, anywhere is either the Hebrew canon or in the literature of contemporaneous cognates (Ugarit; Akkadian) does "day," when modified by "evening" and "morning" mean anything other than a conventional day? It doesn't.

If you had spoken to Adam ten minutes after his creation, would you not assume he was maybe 18-25 years old? If you examined trees in the garden five minutes after their creation, would they not look mature? So much for "deceit." The claim that YEC involves deceit requires one to assume OEC from the outset--an informal fallacy known as question-begging.

Who claimed otherwise?

From "man's perspective?" And there, you have divulged your low bibliology. The creation account is inerrant revelation written by man and inspired by God. To assert that it merely reflects man's perspective is to ignore divine revelation.

 

You have all the answers so discussion isn't necessary. I guess God was intentionally deceptive in presenting an aged creation. No worries.

 

Arguing over B.S. is about as sane as researching it.

 

Indeed. And BS is what these suppositions are - about a man being grown at his creation and trees popping out of the ground in their mature state. We KNOW scientifically how humans (and pretty well all other creatures) are conceived, born (or hatched, depending on species) and grow - and how trees evolve from seed - and where that seed came from. And what sort of plants were the prototypes for our present concept of trees. And what sort of beings were the prototypes for today's humanity.

We know about "Lucy" - the oldest known hminid skeleton. She is 3.2 million years old. Lucy was about 35 years of age when she died and from examination of her pelvic bones, experts determined she had borne at least one child.

Google: Lucy's skeleton. Lucy, a 3.2 million-year old fossil skeleton of a human ancestor, was discovered in 1974 in Hadar, Ethiopia. The fossil locality at Hadar where the pieces of Lucy's skeleton were discovered is known to scientists as Afar Locality 288 (A.L. 288).

Why are presumed adults here, with University educations doling out nonsense? There should be a penalty. At least 6,000 years' worth,

Sanctimonious index fingers are doing all the heavy waggling, here. Science has gone out the window. Fashion guy here says this is NOT a good look, on some of you.

 

I wasn't arguing. I was trying to have a discussion that was approached with some humility as I stated at the onset. Lack of humility equals a rigid position that's deaf to alternative interpretation possibilities, so I exited. I feel that way about most things these days. I'll discuss anything but argue very little.

 

Although you're responding to my post, please note that I was not responding to any particular person. I was simply expressing a point of view.

 

Absolutely understood, and I respect it.

 

I would never recommend an unaccredited school of religion to anyone.