Creation Science that is NOT Young Earth?

[...................]

Daisy, absolutely well said.

 

Melmichigan, it would go downhill quickly for us too if we were stating as fact that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark. Or that they were created on the 5th day. I don't mind discussion but I guess I shouldn't buy something that I'd have to disagree with at every turn. There are plenty of neutral Science programs for homeschoolers.

 

This has been a great discussion, thank you.

 

Oh yes- cindlouwho I agree. You get to heaven because of your belief in what Christ did on your behalf. Not on your belief in six 24 hour days of creation.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Wow, this thread has been wonderful. Thank you all. I have had to put books down because there was too much I had to explain or even redo. We are using secular neutral curricula for so many of the reasons posted above. I'm glad to hear other Christians talking about this.

[SophiaH]

I just finished reading God Said It and Bang! It Happened by Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz and it was a great intro to the old-earth theist view. Written for upper elementary/jr. high level and above, I thought it was so good and we're going to be using it along with other science resources for our kids. It was nice to find a concisely written book that explains what dh and I believe. Our kids can read it along with everything else we offer and make their own conclusions. :) Right now, we use Apologia, but I'm trying to find an alternative if we can.

 

:iagree:I really enjoyed this book as well.

[Lovedtodeath]

Can anyone weigh in on BJU and Rainbow?

[justamouse]

I have never seen the elementary books, but Wiles' books are very blatant. He will give his "evidence" supporting YE and then basically lay it out like if you can't accept this evidence as superior to all other data, then you are stupid.

 

This is very apparent in the middle/HS texts.

 

BJU is pretty much the same.

[...................]

I got a chance to read apologia astronomy today.

 

The intro had YE, there was one entire section which said that comets are proof of YE, and there was one other reference to YE. Basically 3 pages in the entire book. I think users would have to be Creationists, but the YE stiff could be skipped easily.

 

So I'm going to take a look at Zoology before I rule it out.

[6packofun]

Anyway, Strong's concordance shows that yom can mean 24 hour day, or, general time, or a point in time, or an age.

 

Morning and evening was often used to show, figuratively, the beginning and end to something. The fact that that is included is not conclusive. And God uses evening and morning to talk about the first three days, but the sun was not created until the 4th day. Morning and Evening are also used in the Psalms to show a beginning and an end- look at Psalm 30:5.

 

 

I

 

I always found it curious that the term "day" as we know it is applied to/ describes a time period in creation that occurred before an actual, 24-hr day caused by the rotation of the earth, had been...created. LOL It was a real sticking point for me that old-earth theism makes more sense out of. Well, oldER earth...lol I'm not quite convinced of the billions and billions, either. ;)

Edited April 14, 2010 by 6packofun
...

[FlutterbyMommy]

Looking at the helpful link,

 

http://oldearthcreationism.blogspot.com/p/curriculum-grades-k-5.html ,

 

I am curious if anyone is familiar with Christian Schools International and Real Science for Kids.

 

The link is extremely helpful for OE believers I think. I have been very frustrated at the lack of curricula based upon OE views.

 

Thanks for the thread and the information!

[AK_Homesteaders]

When we did Apologia Astronomy, it was a bit irritating to read her "proof" of YE in several places throughout the book. I didn't think her "logic" held water. But even with younger children, it was easy to discuss it. I have not decided whether I believe YE or OE, and I don't really see how it matters. I tend to lean toward OE, but there are just so many more important issues that this one really takes a back seat. But back to the astronomy book, I was able to use it as a way to start teaching my boys not to believe everything they read, to think through things rather than just blindly accepting what they read, and to compare it to the Scriptures. They're young and I'm sure we'll have many more discussions about it, but it's a start.

[Laura Corin]

I am curious if anyone is familiar with Christian Schools International and Real Science for Kids.

 

RS4K sidesteps the whole issue of the age of the earth and how it (and living things) came about. As a secular user I supplemented with evolution texts. As a religious user, you could add in whatever beliefs you chose.

 

Laura

[Liza Q]

Can anyone weigh in on BJU and Rainbow?

 

Before I start I should mention that I have always been YE (because that is how I was taught) but I am pretty open-minded about it. I don't want to teach my kids YE (I got rid of most of the AIG-type books I had) OR OE. I just want to teach them to think sensibly and to respect the opinions of others. This is not a salvation issue, it is a matter of interpretation. OK.

 

BJU HS Biology was pretty strong in favor of YE but not as strong as Apologia. I did not use Apologia Bio but I did use the General and Physical Science so I am going by them. I had no problem using BJU for 10th grade as my daughter was old enough to look at the whole issue of Origins from a logical pov.

 

I will be using BJU 7th grade Life Science next year and I am a little more concerned. I have not finished pre-reading the text but I am planning to stop when we get to the sections on Creation and Evolution and add a few things before we move on. I am looking for a secular book at her level on evolution and we are planning a trip to the Museum of Natural History and a tour of the Hall of Human Origins (I did one a few years ago and I was surprised at how, um, misinformed I was! Not that I believed what they were saying but they were not saying what I expected them to - kwim?).

 

Rainbow, on the other had, was pretty good. It speaks about Creation but does not take a stand on the age of the earth or any specifics.

 

I wish I could give you a quote or two from these books but I have loaned out my Rainbow and the BJU Bio is buried with all the books that I may use again for my next two.

 

hth!

 

OK - I just skimmed the chapter on Creation in BJU 7 and it was better than I thought. I would say that it favors a YE interpretation but it is very clear that "You can be a Bible-believing Christian and believe in any of these theories.", the theories being YE, OE, long-day, gap/non-gap, etc. In the beginning of the chapter it says "Creationism cannot be a part of science because no human has observed, measured, or recorded observation of Creation. Creation must be accepted by faith." There is a similar comment about evolution. I like that they make that clear right off.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Liza Q
adding some quotes

[ChrissySC]

Curious, Elijah went to heaven for a day. Anyone seen him yet? How long was that day really? Genesis does describe morning and evening, but how fast did the earth rotate? Thinking scientifically, I believe this is something that should be considered. Not to mention, my goodness people were extremely long-lived in Genesis too. I do wonder about this as well. There certainly is something more to this wonderful book than just the plain language. :) Things that make you go .... hmmmmm.

 

Have an awesome God day! (My 3yo says this, lol)

[melmichigan]

Curious, Elijah went to heaven for a day. Anyone seen him yet? How long was that day really? Genesis does describe morning and evening, but how fast did the earth rotate? Thinking scientifically, I believe this is something that should be considered. Not to mention, my goodness people were extremely long-lived in Genesis too. I do wonder about this as well. There certainly is something more to this wonderful book than just the plain language. :) Things that make you go .... hmmmmm.

 

Have an awesome God day! (My 3yo says this, lol)

 

Interesting, considering every earthquake we have recorded in recent years has changed the length of our day, just a little, but I wonder how that would add up over time? I was just reading about the one in Chile, wish I remember exactly where.

[Orthodox6]

RS4K sidesteps the whole issue of the age of the earth and how it (and living things) came about. As a secular user I supplemented with evolution texts. As a religious user, you could add in whatever beliefs you chose.

 

Laura

 

That is a strong reason for why I like RS4K. I wish that high school level texts were available from Gravitas !

[FlutterbyMommy]

RS4K sidesteps the whole issue of the age of the earth and how it (and living things) came about. As a secular user I supplemented with evolution texts. As a religious user, you could add in whatever beliefs you chose.

 

Laura

 

Thanks so much! I am looking more closely at RS4K. It seems to be a good program. When did you begin using it? I have a DD in K. It says the re-Levels begin in K and I am curious if it is a good fit.

 

Also, I find it attractive that they leave out the issue of age. I am avoiding curricula because of their inclusion of this information. I would prefer to address it myself and then as my daughter gets older, share various views on the subject so she is able to develop her own opinion.

[Laura Corin]

Thanks so much! I am looking more closely at RS4K. It seems to be a good program. When did you begin using it? I have a DD in K. It says the re-Levels begin in K and I am curious if it is a good fit.

 

 

The chemistry was good, the biology a bit of a mixed bag (it seemed uncertain which level to target) and the physics rather boring. I was planning on reusing bits of it with Hobbes: we did half of the bio when he was about 8, then we did Teaching Physics with Toys (instead of the RS4K). I was planning to do chemistry level 1 and finish up with the second half of bio.

 

Laura

[GWOB]

That is a strong reason for why I like RS4K. I wish that high school level texts were available from Gravitas !

 

 

That is why we are using it as well. It may a "stick-your-head-in-the-sand" solution to sidestep the issue, but it works for now. I just want pure, unadulterated science, not propaganda from either side.

[Laura W.]

I got a chance to read apologia astronomy today.

 

The intro had YE, there was one entire section which said that comets are proof of YE, and there was one other reference to YE. Basically 3 pages in the entire book. I think users would have to be Creationists, but the YE stiff could be skipped easily.

 

LOL. I tried using the astronomy and came to the opposite conclusion. It seemed like I kept running into comments here and there as well as the larger sections. If I remember right, there was even a section that discussed eschatology, and that was a hard one to deal with, too. I guess that the chatty style of the text, and the "tone" bothered me as much as anything, and made it hard to want to figure out how to skip stuff.

 

OTOH, I've got CGC, which is also from a YE perspective, but I can work with it and skip what I need to.

 

To each his own. Hope you find what you need.

 

Blessings,

 

Laura

[hmschooling]

I take a literal translation of the Bible. Day is a day. Anyway, my thoughts..

 

He created Adam and Eve with the appearance of age, so why couldn't He have done the same thing with the earth? A young man and woman created as mature, fully grown adults and a young earth created as a mature earth??

 

Also, if it wasn't truely days...how would that have worked when each thing in nature is dependent on other things in nature...what would the flowers have done without bees to pollinate them? There are many more examples...but I have screaming children and such....

 

That's it. :D Obviosly I'm all about YE. I don't see how it could be any way...that's not to say I don't respect your views though!

[SophiaH]

Looking at the helpful link,

 

http://oldearthcreationism.blogspot.com/p/curriculum-grades-k-5.html ,

 

I am curious if anyone is familiar with Christian Schools International and Real Science for Kids.

 

The link is extremely helpful for OE believers I think. I have been very frustrated at the lack of curricula based upon OE views.

 

Thanks for the thread and the information!

 

I just wanted to give a little update. I met Krista Bontrager, the owner of the Old Earth Creationism blog mentioned a few times in this thread. She was at the Reasons Academy booth at my convention this past weekend. We had some lovely conversations and I bought the individual/small group study that she wrote, "The Bigger Picture on Creation", along with Hugh Ross' book A Matter of Days. She was surprised that there were so many of us OE Creationists hiding out here! ;) We expressed similar sentiments about wondering if we were the only ones! She mentioned that I must be one of her five fans! :lol: But I'm glad that I got to express my appreciation to her.

 

Anyway, I'm really excited about going through the study (it includes a DVD with short lectures from Dr. Ross and other scientists to go along with each lesson), and starting Ross' book--as soon as I finish his Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. :D (Great book, BTW.) As my children get older, I feel the need to educate myself is becoming more pressing, and I'm thankful that people like Reasons.org and Ms. Bontrager are providing some great resources for us!

[PentecostalMom]

i have come to the conclusion that i don't care how old the earth is, nor do i think it really matters. it doesn't change ANYTHING.

 

so i use Apologia, we love it, and appreciate that it gives all the glory to God for the magnificent creations on this earth. i have never had to explain to my kids anything about old / young earth theories. they really just present things at face value, and the kids seem to take it at that. what their underlying philosophy is doesn't affect how i teach my kids...

 

but i disagree that someone who arrives at a young earth conclusion has shoddy theology. the argument could be made both ways, but really, what difference does it make in the eternal scheme of things?

 

:iagree:And we used Apologia for ds (with some supplements, including Considering God's Creation & Dinah Zike)....and will be using it (with some supplements) for dd's. Honestly, all of this new/old stuff is too *new* for me to be concerned. After all, our salvation does not rely upon how old the earth is, just how much we love/serve/follow the Son.:001_smile:

[Guest momk2000]

Wow! This is an awesome thread. We lean toward OEC, but respect all views. I have gone cross-eyed over the past few years trying to find the right books. I'm not opposed to teaching the kids some YEC, but don't want books that teach it as fact. I also want them to be educated on all sides.

I have taken quite a few notes going through this thread. There are a lot of great resources listed.

We also have the God's Creation Series by Michael Carroll and his Dinosaur book. Currently, we plan to start using ACSI for Science, but don't know what to do beyond 6th grade.

With so many looking for more OEC resources, I'm surprised there isn't more available.

[ejeanes]

Just went to a Young Earth Creationist Seminar. The man had a doctorate in Evolution and after hearing Grady McMurty's lectures and thinking on what turned him from a hard core evolutionist to a young earth creationist. I agree with the young earth viewpoint. For example, Every 25 years one star in each galaxy will supernova or die. Astrologers have found that if they count the supernovas in each galaxy they can only come up with enough to base the world at about 7000 years. Also, if you look at a waterless globe you can see how a flood would have divided the continents quickly, in a bout a year. There a striations like stretch marks all over the ocean floor, just like a pregnant womans belly. I was amazed at how a man so dedicated to evolution and old earthism was totally turned around by discovering so many things it would make your head spin along with others along with him. To look more in depth and see that there are only five reasons that an old earth is questionable scientifically compared to over 235 conclusive scientific finds that it is young may be of great interest to you. It's all well and good to have an opinion but one must be informed then form a hypothesis based on correct scientific finds.:D You can find a link at http://www.creationworldview.org

[momma aimee]

:lurk5:

 

i need to read this -- thanks --

[Elizabeth in WA]

Just went to a Young Earth Creationist Seminar. The man had a doctorate in Evolution and after hearing Grady McMurty's lectures and thinking on what turned him from a hard core evolutionist to a young earth creationist.

 

I don't believe he has a doctorate in evolution. From your web link:

 

Speaker's Background

 

B S, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture

M S, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science

D D, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia

D Litt, Mid-Continent University, Mayfield, Kentucky

 

As far as I can tell his doctorate is theological in nature and his undergrad and masters degrees are not specifically in evolution.

[ejeanes]

I'm sure he did not misrepresent himself. He studies at Berkley for 8 years and I assure you that they don't offer theology there or anything remotely chirst centered. My Uncle was a Dr of Science there for many years and has told me how wonderfully free thinking the college is. If you study Evolution for 8 years, what do you have?

[Elizabeth in WA]

I'm sure he did not misrepresent himself. He studies at Berkley for 8 years and I assure you that they don't offer theology there or anything remotely chirst centered. My Uncle was a Dr of Science there for many years and has told me how wonderfully free thinking the college is. If you study Evolution for 8 years, what do you have?

 

As far as I can tell, he grew up at Berkeley - his father was there - but he did not study there. He lists no degrees from Berkeley on his own biography. Further searching suggests his BS is in Agriculture and his MS is a taught degree (no research) in Forestry. His only faculty position is at the unaccredited school he received his DD (Doctor of Divinity) from. He provides no information that I can find about the nature of the teaching of evolution he lists on his credentials. At the risk of being more controversial, a detailed and repeatedly updated discussion of his credentials can be found here.

[ejeanes]

1 1/2 Years a Theistic Evolutionist

10 Years as Evolution Teacher

He did refer to time at Berkley although I don't see it listed

You can have a Doctorate in the Sciences with an emphasis on Evolution

Thus giving one a Doctorate gotten by the study of and decidation to evolution. All that aside and a bit petty and ugly,

The fact is that the man has some incredible proof that is indeed scientific in nature, Did you know that fossils can form in days not years. A fish was discovered who had been determined to have died of fast fossilization. Gold can form in Months not millions and billions of years. There is much proof that there was a flood, that the layers that are shown in regular textbooks that prove how creatures evolved and fossilized in the ground are actually pulled from places all over the globe then ordered to support that theory, but books won't tell you that.

Really, God did create it, who are we to say the earth is not young when He has left compelling evidence to prove it is? Because we can not wrap our minds around a God who spoke and it happened does not mean it was not so because it's uncomfortable to believe that. If we don't believe the Genesis account as it is written then that really blows all of the rest of the bible out of the water. God would not start the Bible with a lie to discredit everything that would come after.

[Elizabeth in WA]

1 1/2 Years a Theistic Evolutionist

10 Years as Evolution Teacher

He did refer to time at Berkley although I don't see it listed

You can have a Doctorate in the Sciences with an emphasis on Evolution

Thus giving one a Doctorate gotten by the study of and decidation to evolution. All that aside and a bit petty and ugly,

 

Except he has no doctorate at all except in theology and and provides no information about where that teaching took place.

 

I am not getting into an argument about Creationism here (because I don't think it would be profitable and is not related to the thread topic), just clarifying the credentials of an individual which were brought up to support a particular position.

 

ETA: I do see the D. Litt but the school is not accredited to issue doctoral degrees and the degree is therefore, I believe, honorary in nature.

Mid-Continent is accredited to award Baccalaureate Degrees and Associate Degrees by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033-4097)

Edited May 26, 2011 by Elizabeth in WA
Left out second listed doctorate first time.

[ejeanes]

If you scroll down his own link you will see in his credential that he did indeed teach what I listed in his last post.

http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp

This is not someones blog but his own website.

Regardless of weather or not I misunderstood. There is quite a lot to learn from his site and from him. He's no dummy, he's MENSA and he did believe hardcore in OE and Evolution.

 

• B S, University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture
  
• M S, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science
  
• D D, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
  
• D Litt, Mid-Continent University, Mayfield, Kentucky
  
• Past Regent of the School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
  
• Adjunct Professor, School of Theology, Columbus, Georgia
  
• Florida Christian College, Guest Lecturer
  
• 10 Years a Teacher of Evolution
  
• 1 1/2 Years a Theistic Evolutionist
  
• 35 Years a Biblical Scientific Creationist
  
• Ordained Minister
  
• Church Elder
  
• Expert School Board
  

Edited May 26, 2011 by ejeanes
add on

[momma aimee]

My go-to website is Krista Bontrager's blog at Old Earth Creation Homeschool. She has lists of Old-Earth Creation-friendly homeschool material divided by age group (links at the top of her blog). Here is her K-5th grade page. Many of the things listed are neutral rather than specifically Old Earth, but they are listed because they do not subscribe to a specifically Young Earth view. I really like the God's Creation Series books she has listed there to use as supplements.

 

She has also written a handbook called Teaching Science from a Christian Worldview that looks really interesting, but I haven't yet bought it.

 

There is also an Old Earth Creationism google group if you're interested.

 

The most important thing I've done since my dd is only 8 is to inform myself as much as possible--mostly by reading articles and listening to podcasts on the Reasons.org site. I've used the Apologia Astronomy book, but we're still at the stage where I read the material out loud, so I can easily skip over what I want.

 

THANKS so much -- I had no idea i was missing it -- but I was -- so perfect

[ejeanes]

My point is, while looking for OE material it is good as a teacher of our children to be informed and study both sides to determine if we really know enough about where our ideas come from and how valid or invalid our opinion is based on facts. It's not an argument on some guys credentials but on his the scientific way he as approached going from and old world to a young world view. That's the point thus making it a valid one although a bit OT.

[TheAutumnOak]

My point is, while looking for OE material it is good as a teacher of our children to be informed and study both sides to determine if we really know enough about where our ideas come from and how valid or invalid our opinion is based on facts. It's not an argument on some guys credentials but on his the scientific way he as approached going from and old world to a young world view. That's the point thus making it a valid one although a bit OT.

 

This is good advice no matter what the situation is...

[plansrme]

If we don't believe the Genesis account as it is written then that really blows all of the rest of the bible out of the water. God would not start the Bible with a lie to discredit everything that would come after.

 

This is not true. I want to suggest that you read Origins: a Reformed Look at Creation, Design and Evolution. Even if your theology is not reformed, this is an excellent and balanced look at the pros and cons of various schools of thought on old earth creationism. Written by two scientists (who are sisters, I believe), it is a short, quite readable book. The focus is on starting with the belief that God created the world, and then presenting both sides of the young and old earth positions on the "how." They admit that, while they believe that the weight of the evidence is on the old earth side, that YEC'ers may be right. And YECs need to do the same: admit that one's stance on young versus old earth is not an element of salvation, that one or the other side is wrong, and while I think I am right, I might not be.

 

Adamant young earthers do their children a disservice by so closely tying young-earth beliefs to salvation. The first time that child hears a non-Christian make a bang-up criticism of young-earth creationism, which the child will, eventually, it will cause the child (who may now be an adult) to question all of the fundamentals of his faith. If young-earth is right up there with the resurrection in being critical to my faith, and I don't believe in a young-earth any more, my entire faith goes down the drain, quite unnecessarily.

 

Terri

[mom24boys]

Not trying to convince anyone of anything just thought this was another interesting viewpoint to point out. And I agree that Jesus is the only way to heaven and am excited to find out the REAL answer when Jesus explains it all in heaven. Can't wait for that!

 

I recently ran into a Christian scientist that thought the creation of the Universe and physical earth (Genesis 1:1-2) occurred much earlier (before) "the creation account" starts with day 1 in verse 3. We know some sort of creating occurred prior to the six days of creation as the angels were already created and were watching the foundations of the earth in Job 38:4-7.

 

He still believed in literal 6 day creation of earth, that it was a whole earth flood, and was anti-evolution. He suggested this website: http://www.crev.info/. Very fascinating website.

[ejeanes]

This is not true. I want to suggest that you read Origins: a Reformed Look at Creation, Design and Evolution. Even if your theology is not reformed, this is an excellent and balanced look at the pros and cons of various schools of thought on old earth creationism. Written by two scientists (who are sisters, I believe), it is a short, quite readable book. The focus is on starting with the belief that God created the world, and then presenting both sides of the young and old earth positions on the "how." They admit that, while they believe that the weight of the evidence is on the old earth side, that YEC'ers may be right. And YECs need to do the same: admit that one's stance on young versus old earth is not an element of salvation, that one or the other side is wrong, and while I think I am right, I might not be.

 

Adamant young earthers do their children a disservice by so closely tying young-earth beliefs to salvation. The first time that child hears a non-Christian make a bang-up criticism of young-earth creationism, which the child will, eventually, it will cause the child (who may now be an adult) to question all of the fundamentals of his faith. If young-earth is right up there with the resurrection in being critical to my faith, and I don't believe in a young-earth any more, my entire faith goes down the drain, quite unnecessarily.

 

Terri

 

We should not tie our salvation to the issue but we can prove how amazing God is and that what He says is true. This is a quote about the scripture being God breathed and above reproach. God is not a man that he should lie. He would gain nothing by telling us a nice little story about

Adam and Eve and the fall of man then say it wasn't true when we get to heaven, that is the reason Jesus had to die. Again OT but here's the quote.

The Bible verse, “All Scripture is God-breathed†(2 Timothy 3:16), tells us that the entire Bible from its very first verse to its very last verse, all of which is Scripture, is God-breathed. Having been breathed by God, the Bible is inspired. The verses of, “Your word is truth†(John 17:17) and “God is not a man, that he should lie†(Numbers 23:19) tell us that God does not lie. He speaks only the truth. This being true, the entire Bible is the truth in everything it says, including what it says about miracles, historical events, and persons’ and places’ names. Everything the Bible says is accurate and trustworthy. Since God speaks only the truth and he does not lie, and since the Bible is God’s inspired Word, the Bible is without mistakes, errors, and contradictions. Unbelieving critics of the Bible, however, assert that it has numerous contradictions. They then charge that the Bible cannot, therefore, be the inspired, God-breathed Word of God, and that therefore the Bible is not without mistakes and errors.

It must be remembered that the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments as written by the original writers were the texts that were breathed and inspired by God. We do not have those original texts anymore. What we have is only copies of those Hebrew and Greek texts and translations of those copies. The copies and the translations are not inspired. We must allow for the possibility of copying mistakes to have crept into the texts in places and also allow for an improper translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts in some instances.

While the copies of the Hebrew and Greek texts and the translations of those texts are not inspired, the fact remains that so far as the copies of the texts agree with the original texts and the translations are faithful translations of those texts, the copies and the translations are the infallible Word of God. Throughout the ages God has guarded both the original text and the translations, thus preserving his Word in spite of an occasional copying error or a word that has been translated less than satisfactorily. Such occasional errors have not changed any doctrinal content of the Bible. Indeed, we can hold our Bible in our hand with the divine assurance and confidence that it is God’s inerrant, infallible Word without any mistakes, errors, and contradictions.

We must admit, however, that the Bible does have some statements that appear to be contradictions. But being apparent contradictions does not mean that they are actual contradictions that cannot be explained, harmonized, and resolved. The Bible remains true even in the face of the alleged and so-called contradictions. It is the inspired Word of God – the God who speaks only the truth and does not lie. He makes no mistakes.

[plansrme]

The Bible remains true even in the face of the alleged and so-called contradictions. It is the inspired Word of God – the God who speaks only the truth and does not lie. He makes no mistakes.

 

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not even agree with each other as to the order in which the world was created. For your children's sake, please, no matter how strongly you believe in a young earth, don't equate old earth creationism with a belief that the Bible is wrong.

 

Terri

[laughing lioness]

Has anyone mentioned Reasons to Believe?

[WishboneDawn]

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not even agree with each other as to the order in which the world was created. For your children's sake, please, no matter how strongly you believe in a young earth, don't equate old earth creationism with a belief that the Bible is wrong.

 

Terri

 

I'm a liberal Christian who accepts evolution. I don't believe the Bible lies, I simply don't accept that the only definition of truth in relation to the Bible is literal fact. It seems to me Truth would be a tad bigger then mundane facts.

 

But I've never gotten far with some very literal believers in helping them understand my perspective. IME there's often a mental roadblock there somewhere where what I'm saying just doesn't translate. I think there may well be, as you fear, too much invested in that YE view for some (definitely not all) and that faith does in large part rely on it.