Ron is asking me what this means. This is my reply. Feel free to add or correct my answer respectfully:
Basically it just means treating an interpretation of the Bible (or a Bible passage – in this case the creation narratives (Gen 1-11)) as though it were somehow infallible (that interpretation couldn’t possibly be wrong no matter what) – when in reality because of our fallibility as humans, no one person’s interpretation of a particular Bible passage is infallible (necessarily), only the Bible is infallible.
We also have to remember too the Bible is not God and God is not the Bible – only God is God and the Bible represents his written word to us, but it isn’t God, so we should not worship the Bible (or overly exalt a particular interpretation), we should only worship God alone. I know this sounds ludicrous but it does happen.
I say this because when someone treats a particular interpretation of a Bible passage as somehow infallible, that is akin to worshiping the Bible (also referred to as idolatrizing the Bible, when an idol is something that is set up against the knowledge of God – and sadly enough, some people do interact with the Bible in a fashion that keeps them from knowing God on a personal level (though they may know tonsabout him – they don’t really know him. And in the case of this discussion on the Genesis creation narrative, such a thing can and has happened to YEC’ers or OEC’ers – it is also a trait of many in fundamentalist circles (though certainly not all).
This is primarily why how Ken Ham has been going about castigating myself and the AG for their position on the doctrine of creation is extremely concerning, if not dangerous, and needs to be corrected or altogether avoided.
I hope that helps some.
note: the bolded parts are merely for emphasis and to highlight key statements.
comments are now closed. thanks for the interaction.
ps, it seems that Theologian and Church Historian Roger Olsen has similar feelings as what I posted here.