I actually have to go by the library this weekend to swap some books out, and the one I go to (it's the one I used to work at, actually) stocks the first of those, if not both. I'll offer some thoughts on those articles next week.
As to the OP, I wasn't impressed. As expected, his story boils down to this: "I was YEC because that is what I was first taught. Then I found out that scientists aren't stupid, and that science really does seem to show that the earth is young. But doesn't that mean the Bible is wrong? I was worried about it until I discovered that the Bible can be read from an OEC standpoint."
So, as usual, the story is simply that this guy is reading his Bible in light of modern scientific interpretation. To which I say, *yawn.*
edit:
I do want to comment specifically on this section, though:
- For me it was surprising to find out that very few of the early Jewish interpreters or church fathers held to the six consecutive twenty-four-hour day interpretation of Genesis 1. In Creation and Time, Ross has documentedthat Philo, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandra, Origin, Augustine, Basil, and others all held to other interpretations. In the same book (chapter 17), Ross goes on to discuss the results of a1982 summit of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy which gathered to discuss, among other things, the matter of the ages of the universe and the earth. After hearing papers representing various interpretations of Genesis and after deliberating over these issues for many hours, this group of theologians and other scholars concluded that belief in six consecutive twenty-four-hour creation days is nonessential to belief in inerrancy. Everyone present except Henry Morris signed the concluding statement, thus demonstrating the isolation of the extreme position of the ICR.
Ah, this sounds so impressive, but if you have actually studied either of these subjects (I have both) rather than just read Ross' terrible misrepresentation of them (and I have read Ross as well), then you can see why this kind of "research" is little more that parroting old and discredited ideas. In short, it is somewhat true that the ECFs didn't interpret to mean six literal days. But then again, they didn't believe in a literal interpretation of pretty much anything. They, along with the "early" Jewish interpreters were heavily influenced by Platonism and, like Philo, tended to read the Bible allegorically. But Ross doesn't mention this. Now, he insists that his interpretation is a "literal" interpretation of Scriptures. But that standard, though, the ECFs don't back his view, either, because, again,
they did not interpret the text literally. In fact, when we look at ECFs and Jewish interpreters, two salient facts stand out:
First; every single interpreter who did take the text literally believed creation happened in six literal days; and second, there are no instances of a single ECF or Jewish interpreter who took a day-age approach to interpretation (either from a literal or allegorical perspective).. In fact, that view came into existence only after geologists suggested the earth was much older than originally thought!
As to the ICBI, Ross makes all sorts of false claims. For instance, he says that Morris and Archer both presented full length papers at that conference, which is simply not true. They did offer discussions on a paper presented by a scholar named Bradley, but neither presented a "full length" paper. What Ross doesn't tell you is that if you actually
read the ICBI, you'll find that it is so watered down that even theistic evolution is considered supporting inerrancy. As it turns out, if you go back and look at the history of this debate and who was involved in the ICBI, you would not be surprised by that since you would find that it was by design. Mainline denominations and their seminaries had come to accept both an old earth and, by and large, evolution as a given. They did this, however, on the basis of science, not Scripture. For those of you interested, you should look into the history of Princeton Theological Seminary and the movement that caused Machen and co. to leave the faculty and form Westminster. That debate, especially when you look at the writings of the major players (particularly Warfield, Hodge, and Machen) is all very informative. The bottom line here is that the ICBI was stacked with people who were theistic evolutionists or had great sympathy for that interpretation (Archer being no exception). Thus Sinclair's comment applies: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Ross, of course, doesn't believe in evolution, but he leaves his readers with the impression that the ICBI didn't require YEC
because they thought that OEC was a valid interpretation. But that's just misleading his readers. In fact, the ICBI rejected the necessity of a YEC reading because they were theistic evolutionists. It hardly, then, does Ross any favors to appeal to evolutionists in defense of his claim that YEC is not required to sustain biblical inerrancy!
I really wish OECs would do a better job of defending their position
on the merits. This constant revisionist history they offer is tiresome, and frankly, it makes them come across as mere bullies.
So it would be interesting to know if you find an issue there, as a believer in an innerant Bible (myself also).
Jac, you do know while G&S is Day-Age that it just isn't acceptable to bag YECs here? 
Or, if I could put it another way . . .
