My* interpretation of the Bible is the historical interpretation of the Bible that was accepted in the formative years of Geology. There's nothing peculiar to *me* about my interpretation, it's quite standard.
By formative years, you would have to mean prior to the nineteenth century back during the time when people believed that the sun and planets orbited the earth.
That is not a Biblical viewpoint, that was the pagan view of Aristotle that came into the ROMAN church via Aquinas.
No, I had in mind the historical BIBLICAL view that is still the view of true Christians, has never changed, but I think PaulK is into all the apostate revisionist views which got big since the early part of the 20th century. The true Biblical understanding, again, has always been shared by majority Bible believers and still is.
The fact is that YEC belief was in serious decline before its revival in the twentieth century.
Not among Christians who call themselves Bible believers.
I don't see that I should have any obligation to prove that God claims the Earth is young when that was the standard historical Christian understanding of Genesis for all orthodox believers back to the beginning
You don't have to prove anything. But in a discussion forum it is not unreasonable to make attempts at persuasion, which generally requires evidence. I'm just not sure that such an attempt is really on topic here.
It's not.
As I understand it, the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether tectonic plate friction raises any issues that reject a YEC interpretation.
Go for it.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
™ Version 4.2
