In 1977 the worst winter in a century struck The United States. Arctic cold ripped the Midwest for weeks on end. Great blizzards paralyzed cities of the Northeast. One desperate night in Buffalo, eight people froze to death in marooned cars... The brutal Buffalo winter might become common all over The United States. Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way. According to recent evidence, it could come sooner than anyone had expected.
What happened? What happened was a difference in interpretation based on supposition, guided by tribal and political leanings. The evidence from "the last million years" didn't change. The three PhDs quoted didn't go back to school. What changed was a cultural and political shift in a desired outcome. I have no idea how to interpret sea cores and now I know that so-called "experts apparently don't either.
- 1990 Five years to save the rainforest
- 1999 Himalayan Glaciers will be gone by 2009
- 2000 Snow no longer seen in England by end of decade
- 2007 Fewer hurricanes
- 2008 Arctic ice-free by 2013
- 2012 More hurricanes
- Eastern Orthodox
IOW, being a "scholar" carries minimal weight in arguing one has the right theological conclusion. The difference between a "Greek Scholar" and me is that he/she might know the definition (or definitions) of Greek words whereas I might have to look for the meanings... from other Greek Scholars. That is, he might know Strong's definition right off, I would have to look for Strong's (or Wycliff's or Mounce's or Bullinger's or Young's, etc.) and by doing so, be just as informed. If the conclusion was unalterable, we wouldn't have such a divergence in interpretive opinions.
I can also look up Greek grammar and word usage.
The difference is interpreting these words, in their contexts, theologically. We can both know what "ekklesia" or "parousia" may mean, but we might interpret them very differently. Someone being a "Greek Scholar" does nothing for the supposed iron-clad nature of his conclusion (as evidenced in the list above).