I concur. Nick M's sheer eisegesis and sloppy/shoddy exegesis is amateur. Equally capable/godly scholars down through the years thoroughly discount Nick's armchair quarterback interpretations. MAD is a non-starter.
saint john w the great: "What's the topic, again?"
Adherents to these general views can and do hold nuanced and even inconsistent ideas. We can and do hold nuanced variations of these views, not a manmade theology, but there is nothing wrong with systematizing biblical concepts for communication purposes (these are academic debates, so like any scholastic discussion)It is a convoluted, confusing, philosophical view. I think credible whateverists have given a reasoned response to it. Too many make wrong assumptions, leading to wrong conclusions down the line. This view is still problematic in other ways, notably inconsistent or syncretistic, and is a logical absurdity based on faulty heurmernetics. This is not a proof text for others views, but a simply idiom , nor is it not reasoning a verse away, but interpreting it in light of other verses, but that still does not make this consistent or defensible. I believe whateverism is based on deductive ideas and requires proof texting and rationalizations leading to weakness and problems. Like any view, there are a variety of nuances held by different people, so we have to be careful to stereotype. I do believe I am on the right track to reject whateverism as unbiblical, and that I have a more coherent, biblical view , based on normative church history, and, of course, rejecting hobby horses, pet doctrines, and wooden literalism.. But this all, of course, begs the question, based on sound exegesis, in consideration of not throwing out the baby with the bath water, which would constitute a logical fallacy.
Who is your rabbi?
