Evidence for God from Science

Came across this interesting article by noted theologian and Bible scholar Gleason Archer, concerning supposed discrepancies between implications of the fossil record and the Creation accounts: http://www.reasons.org/articles/reading ... ssil-lines

Philip wrote:Came across this interesting article by noted theologian and Bible scholar Gleason Archer, concerning supposed discrepancies between implications of the fossil record and the Creation accounts: http://www.reasons.org/articles/reading ... ssil-lines

Maybe you could give a summary of how he reconclies the discrepancies, other than saying there aren't any?

Philip wrote:
Came across this interesting article by noted theologian and Bible scholar Gleason Archer, concerning supposed discrepancies between implications of the fossil record and the Creation accounts: http://www.reasons.org/articles/reading ... ssil-lines

Audie: Maybe you could give a summary of how he reconciles the discrepancies, other than saying there aren't any?

Archer has written about all manner of supposed discrepancies with Scripture: https://www.amazon.com/Gleason-Archer-I ... fficulties



And here's a good companion book: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Book-Bible-D ... fficulties

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:Came across this interesting article by noted theologian and Bible scholar Gleason Archer, concerning supposed discrepancies between implications of the fossil record and the Creation accounts: http://www.reasons.org/articles/reading ... ssil-lines

Maybe you could give a summary of how he reconclies the discrepancies, other than saying there aren't any?

What discrepancies must he reconcile? Archer isn't YEC, but is a first-rate scholar in Biblical Hebrew and Greek. He is quite forceful that belief in YEC, doesn't just challenge science but undermines Scriptural inerrancy. I wrote more about Gleason Archer's beliefs here.

If Gleason Archer was open to Day Age creationism, it must've been because he was reading science into the text. The part about him being one of the best Hebrew and Greek scholars, is irrelevant.

"Clearly", nobody can get day age out of scripture, by just reading scripture. That would go against all that we've been told by certain YECs.

Perhaps I shouldn't entertain you Rick and help poke the stick further...

BUT, you're overlooking the fact the many non-Christians and lay people who aren't Day-Age (or should I say RTB fanatical Rossists, although Progressive Creation beliefs by no means originates with such); you're over looking the fact that such lay people actually can read for themselves and clearly understand that a plain reading of Genesis results in a YEC interpretation. Any erudite scholars in Biblical language, if they're Day-Age or something other, they're not interested in what Scripture actually says so we should defer to others who are more honest and know better.

Archer isn't YEC, but is a first-rate scholar in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

Actually, Archer is no longer on earth!

Philip wrote:

Archer isn't YEC, but is a first-rate scholar in Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

Actually, Archer is no longer on earth!

Yes, sad that, should have written "was" rather than "is" -- but then I'm sure he's still alive albeit no longer on earth.

Philip wrote:

Philip wrote:
Came across this interesting article by noted theologian and Bible scholar Gleason Archer, concerning supposed discrepancies between implications of the fossil record and the Creation accounts: http://www.reasons.org/articles/reading ... ssil-lines

Audie: Maybe you could give a summary of how he reconciles the discrepancies, other than saying there aren't any?

Archer has written about all manner of supposed discrepancies with Scripture:



And here's a good companion book: [

That is more of a gish than it is specific.

"Gish" seems to be your favourite new word.

Kurieuo wrote:"Gish" seems to be your favourite new word.

Not really. Its not like I just discovered it.
I'd be happy to never see no stinkin' gish, and never use
the word again.

How about "document dump"? Takes longer to write.

What does "gish" mean? I searched online and only see it used in fantasy rpg contexts... but that doesn't seem to fit.

Kurieuo wrote:What does "gish" mean? I searched online and only see it used in fantasy rpg contexts... but that doesn't seem to fit.

Think "Duane Gish". I think a Gish has something to do with pseudo-scientific arguments.

Honestly! So retro you guys are!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... h%20Gallop

Audie wrote:Honestly! So retro you guys are!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... h%20Gallop

Seems you're more current with Creationist people than myself.
Archer doesn't do gish, although Gish might think otherwise.