quote:
2. Calls into question perhaps, but not disproves. As I said earlier, there are a number of books that explore the archaological and historical evidence for the Bible and its accuracy.
For all we know, the universe could have been created in 7 days.
I've read news articles in the recent past that confirm Biblical statements about the time of the fall of Jericho, that the Biblically prescribed number of days after birth for an infant's circumcision coincides with the most recent biological findings of when an infant's blood development makes him physically ready for that ritual, the forseen "army in the east" of 300 million men, which is foretold, and China now boasts a reserve of exactly that number.
Uh, what are we talking about now? The prophetic vision of the Bible?!?

quote:


And that there are plans for damming of the river Euphrates, exactly as predicted for the end times, that would make an invasion of Israel possible from the far East.
So who is to say that the world wasn't created in 7 days?
My attitude on this fact has been, despite the fact that it doesn't seem possible with my present knowledge, that it should be taken as literal until proven beyond a doubt to be only symbolic.
Whereas I prefer a "balance of probabilities" rule. The Earth is certainly more than 4,000 years old or whatever the Bible says on the subject... hang on let me find it. Here we go:

quote:

A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago. Standing in firm opposition to that view is the suggestion of atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and so-called “old-Earth creationists” that the current age of the Universe can be set at roughly 8-12 billion years, and that the Earth itself is almost 5 billion years old. Further complicating matters is the fact that the biblical record plainly indicates that living things were placed on the newly created Earth even before the end of the six-day creative process (e.g., plant life came on day three). The evolutionary scenario, however, postulates that early life evolved from nonliving chemicals roughly 3.5-4.0 billion years ago, and that all other life forms gradually developed during the alleged “geologic ages” (with man arriving on the scene, in one form or another, approximately 1-2 million years ago).

Even to a casual observer, it is apparent that the time difference involved in the two models of origins is significant. Much of the controversy today between creationists, atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and old-Earth creationists centers on the age of the Earth. The magnitude of the controversy is multiplied by three factors. First, atheistic evolution itself is impossible to defend if the Earth is young. Second, the concepts mentioned above that are its “theistic cousins” likewise are impossible to defend if the Bible is correct in its straightforward teachings and obvious implications about the age of the Earth. Third, there is no possible compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the gulf separating the biblical and evolutionary views in this particular area simply is too large...

Thus the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no small matter, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical cosmology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but is central to the very integrity of scriptural theology (1984, p. 115).
In the earlier quote from Dr. Wysong, it was suggested that “we must query if vast time is indeed available.” That is exactly what I intend to do in this series of articles. Indeed, a million-fold mistake is no small matter. How old is the Earth according to God’s Word?

...Arphaxad begat Salah in his thirty-fifth year; however, Luke 3:36 complements the chronological table of Genesis 11 with the insertion of Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, which indicates that likely Arphaxad was the father of Cainan. Proceeding forward, one observes that Terah was born in 1879 A.A., and bore Abraham 130 years later (in the year 2009 A.A.). Simple arithmetic—2166 B.C. added to 2009 A.A.—would place the creation date at approximately 4175 B.C. The Great Flood, then, would have occurred around 2519 B.C. (i.e., 1656 A.A.).

....There have been those who have objected to the suggestion that God is concerned with providing information on the age of the Earth and humanity. But the numerous chronological tables permeating the Bible prove that theirs is a groundless objection. God, it seems, was very concerned about giving man exact chronological data and, in fact, was so concerned that He provided a precise knowledge of the period back to Abraham, plus two tables—with ages—from Abraham to Adam. The ancient Jewish historians (1 Chronicles 1:1-27) and the New Testament writers (Luke 3:34-48) understood the tables of Genesis 5 and 11 as literal and consecutive. The Bible explains quite explicitly that God created the Sun and Moon to be timekeepers (Genesis 1:16) for Adam and his descendants (notice how Noah logged the beginning and the ending of the Flood using these timekeepers, Genesis 7:11; 9:14).
This article then goes on to dismiss geological theories as inaccurate in ways that would enrage my sister's father in law (a professor of geology).

But lets pick an example which you might have more acceptance of: the earth's movement through space.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Or astrophysics: we contend that the stars are merely burning balls of hydrogen:

"...the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted aloud (Job 38:7).”

Deuteronomy 4:15-19 recognizes the god-like status of stars, noting that they were created for other peoples to worship. In the Apocrypha, specifically, 1 Enoch 88:1, a star that fell from the sky is seized, bound hand and foot, and thrown into an abyss. A few verses later, other stars “whose sexual organs were like the organs of horses” are likewise bound hand and foot and cast “into the pits of the earth (1 Enoch 88:3).”

Some stars never set, and Enoch was shown their chariots (1 Enoch 75:8). Stars that do rise and set do so through openings in dome, just like the sun and moon. God, according to 1 Enoch, runs a tight universe, and stars that do not rise on time are thrown into the celestial slammer. Showing Enoch a hellish scene, the angel Uriel explains:


This place is the (ultimate) end of heaven and earth: it is the prison house for the stars and the powers of heaven. And the stars which roll over upon the fire, they are the ones which have transgressed the commandments of God from the beginning of their rising because they did not arrive punctually (1 Enoch 18:14-15).
Enoch was not told the sentence for tardy rising, but Uriel later shows him other stars “which have transgressed the commandments of the Lord,” for which they were doing ten million years of hard time (1 Enoch 21:6). Enoch also was shown an even more terrible place, a fiery prison house where fallen angels were detained forever (1 Enoch 21:10).

Bear in mind that the Book of Enoch was only thrown out of the canon in 325AD by the Council of Nicea (not God, but humans editing His work): it has been found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, and is considered canon by Coptic Christians.

There is a lot on the internet about the inaccuracies of the Bible. To be honest, I never really looked into it: I figured that all Christians save for radical fundamentalists would simply see the Bible as allegorical, not literal.

quote:

For me, the Bible and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I hold them as two theories, until one can be proven absolutely over the other.
But science has not disproven the Bible.
You've cited Occam's Razor before as a logic tool: how does the Bible fare against the razor?

God himself generally doesn't do well: the Bible, with its detailed history of development, does even more poorly. Why believe it is the word of God when it has been so thoroughly edited on so many occasions?