Musings of a Snickerdoodle

This is going to sound wrong, but for a study Bible, this is a lame one.   Not the Scriptures themselves of course, but the study notes, or rather, lack of notes in this edition.   It has several essays at the beginning of the book, on topics such as "the historical reliability of the Bible', "From text to doctrine:   the Bible and theology", "Biblical interpretation: a short history.   But I didn't like them much as they had several concepts and statements that were more biased towards Covenant Theology, promoting concepts like Christian Jews and Gentiles all being a part of the 'Israel of God', and the Promised land not being limited to a small geographical location like Israel, but now includes the whole earth…or something along those lines.   Also promoted is a 'Christocentric' hermeneutic…which I still don't quite get.   Why not use a Theocentric hermeneutic, or what about a literal grammatical historical one?   Some of the se...

Sadly this book was not what I thought it would be, I was expecting an exclusive defense of a literal 24 hour day week of creation; but that is my own fault, if I had looked at the back cover more closely I would have seen that the book is not claiming to defend only one view of creation.   There are four views presented, two are defended, those being the literal-24 hour day view and the Day-Age theory.   In the very first chapter/question the suggestion is made that 'young-earth creationists' come "perilously" close to 'blind faith', but as I understand it, old earth creationists believe(as do YECs) that God ultimately created out of nothing, so why is taking God at His Word in the case of Creation out of nothing less 'blind faith' than believing that God created out of nothing in six literal days?   Why is one more plausible than the other or less hard to believe?   Aren't both ultimately above our reason?    J. I. Packer is quoted in the book, ...