There was violence done, Joe, but not to the Scriptures. It was done to Karl Giberson.
You see, the very next sentence after the partial paragraph quoted by whatever YEC site is this:
“I discovered, however, that this was about where Dennett’s acid ran out of steam (or whatever acid runs out of when it stops dissolving everything). The acid of evolution is not universal, and claims that evolution ‘revolutionizes’ our worldview and dissolves every traditional concept are exaggerated.”
Giberson then makes a series of affirmations:
For starters, what eactly does evolution have to do with belief in God as creator? It rules out certain mechanisms…but others remain…
And then:
The central idea in Christianity concerns Jesus Christ and the claim that he was the Son of God, truly divine and truly human…
And then:
Christianity merges the Incarnation with the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Christ’s Resurrection offers hope that we too can have eternal life and one day be united with God…
The specific doctrines in your list, Joe, are the details of a literal-historical hermeneutic of Genesis 1-3. Do you really wish to claim that favoring the framework hermeneutic over a 6-day literalism is doing violence to the Scriptures?
Do you really wish to claim that the doctrines of Scripture are inextricably linked to 6-day literalism?
A couple of concluding points:
-
In the context of the book, Giberson’s phrase “nearly everything else I counted sacred” is a reference to the YEC beliefs that he was so passionate about.
-
This is the second time in this thread that the source(s) you have cited have been shown to cut off quotes in a very misleading way. Clearly, the source(s) is(are) not worthy of your trust, or ours. It’s time to implement Proverbs 18:17, and find better sources on the relationship of faith and science.