Paula

If we focus in on the myths first and line up God’s revelation to these myths we will narrow our interpretation to God’s creation account as seen through man’s eyes. We would then be testing God’s word by the words and myths of men. This is the opposite of how scripture should be tested.

That is the crux of Bible interpretation. The traditional and modern approaches have been “what this verse means to me” when it should always have been “what God said, what the possible range of interpretations are, and only then how I can apply it today”. I agree that the Bible is not a reaction but a revelation. God wrote it for a reason.

As for what is possible in a given text, the common practice of refusing to rule out anything even when the text itself does, is a gateway to error. All falsehood needs is for the door to be cracked a little. So when I say I disagree with an interpretation, I’m saying that it seems inconsistent with the whole of scripture.

If a word or phrase can mean anything, then it means nothing. There are legitimate boundaries in textual criticism, and we need to know where those are. But such knowledge will not be gleaned from randomly-chosen websites whose theories sound good at first hearing. My favorite verse is Prov. 18:17, and it has served me well. When the range of meaning is in dispute, we must consult experts to find the boundaries. Even experts disagree at times, but we dare not call any meaning possible– or impossible– until we’ve done our research and compared it with others.

So while it’s fine for each one to have a personal conviction, it is dangerous ground unless we’ve done our homework.