Philip Taylor

“This method of accommodation is similar to those found in Ps 58:4–5 and 1 Sam 28:11–15. In those two cases, erroneous assumptions in the audience’s encyclopedic entries about snakes and the underworld are allowed to remain in order to efficiently communicate the relevant point.”
― John W. Hilber, Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach

“As a clue to contextual relevance, we might ask to what use did later Old Testament interpreters put Gen 1?”
― John W. Hilber, Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach

“The incarnation of the Son of God is the most extraordinary example. God took on human nature to make his gracious attributes personally experienced by humankind (John 1:14–18).”
― John W. Hilber, Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach

“Following from this, it is not accurate to say that until the Enlightenment, there was an untroubled consensus to read Gen 1 as six ordinary days. An unbroken stream of pre-Enlightenment exegesis of Gen 1 felt free to interpret the days as other than normal (although “day-age” models, strictly speaking, did not emerge until the age of science). It may not have been the majority opinion, but an important minority of influential theologians throughout the ancient and medieval period deviated from literal interpretation. Therefore, attributing nonliteral exegesis simply to the church’s compromise with Enlightenment science does an injustice to complexities in the history of interpretation.”
― John W. Hilber, Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach