<<Could you give an example of where YOU found "compelling
[extra-scriptural] reasons for re-categorizing" some scriptural
interpretation? >>
For me the most obvious one would be the age of the earth. But what about Gen.
1 "days"? Well, looking at them again, we see "yom" can mean "age", and is NOT
used as a 24-hour day in Gen. 2:2 (there's more here, but this should
suffice). Thus, from a YEC starting point, which may be a presumption based
upon a reading of the text, one can re-categorize the interpretation. This way
looks compelling, as it is for people like Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer. I
happen to agree with them on this point.
Here, the geologic data combined with a fair reading of the text removes one
view in favor of another. Vis-a-vis the animal ancestry of Adam (and,
especially, Eve) I don't see data on par with the dating of rocks, nor a way
to get around the presumption of the special creation of man.
Jim