How to lead with the discrepancy of a young earth described in Genesis, with deep time proposed by science ?
I endorse the same position as Arnold Fruchtenbaum: Genesis 1 and 2 , supported by Gen 20.11, point CLEARLY to an interpretation of literal days in the creation week, not long periods of time.
I do not try to distort Genesis and interpret my favored interpretation into it, just to please what science says.
I acknowledge the difficulty to explain some points, like the starlight problem, and, as Günter Bechly has brought forward, the age of Varves in Japanese lakes, amongst many other issues.
I can live with that. I firmly believe, that what today seems a discrepancy, one day finds its solution and explanation.
Based on difficulties, and ignorance or lack of understanding, or without having yet a solution at hand, reject the Bible altogether, as atheists do, or at least use as justification of rejection, seems unjustified to me.
The Bible has many things right, which science had wrong in the past, and had to correct afterward, and is in alignment with the Bible, today. Why can this not happen with still open questions again?
Atheists, before criticising the Bible, should first scrutinize if naturalism, a worldview without God makes sense. Honest thinkers will soon discover that naturalism is the most irrational position to hold.
I endorse the same position as Arnold Fruchtenbaum: Genesis 1 and 2 , supported by Gen 20.11, point CLEARLY to an interpretation of literal days in the creation week, not long periods of time.
I do not try to distort Genesis and interpret my favored interpretation into it, just to please what science says.
I acknowledge the difficulty to explain some points, like the starlight problem, and, as Günter Bechly has brought forward, the age of Varves in Japanese lakes, amongst many other issues.
I can live with that. I firmly believe, that what today seems a discrepancy, one day finds its solution and explanation.
Based on difficulties, and ignorance or lack of understanding, or without having yet a solution at hand, reject the Bible altogether, as atheists do, or at least use as justification of rejection, seems unjustified to me.
The Bible has many things right, which science had wrong in the past, and had to correct afterward, and is in alignment with the Bible, today. Why can this not happen with still open questions again?
Atheists, before criticising the Bible, should first scrutinize if naturalism, a worldview without God makes sense. Honest thinkers will soon discover that naturalism is the most irrational position to hold.
