I always figured Lindsell was the problem. comment on inerrancy blog:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I never read the book but things I have read makes me think that ‘The Battle for the Bible’ originated a hardening of the ‘inerrancy’ idea.
“Lindsell flatly argues that the Bible ‘does not contain error of any kind’ — that it may be absolutely trusted in all its references to history, cosmology, science and so forth.” (D.W. Congdon blog)
This makes people say things like the ‘days’ must be 24 hour days. Then if you learn anything about the science, you have the dilemma whether to face reality or not.
Another thing I read recently by Davis A. Young, ‘The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited’ talks about the antiquity of the human race as well as the idea of a local flood.
‘If the data in Genesis 4 are correlated with the cultural setting of the Neolithic Revolution in the ancient Near East about 8000 to 7500 B.C., then the biblical representation of Adam as Cain’s immediate father suggests that Adam and Eve lived only about 10,000 years ago. The fossil record of anatomically modern humans, however, extends at least 100,000 years before the present.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
11\/29\/06<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Adam and Eve did not live earlier than around 8000 B.C., that is, roughly 10,000 years ago but evidence of humans is much older … The fossil record of anatomically modern humans, however, extends at least 100,000 years before the present.” (The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited, Davis Young)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I always figured Lindsell was the problem. comment on inerrancy blog: I never read the book but things I have read makes me think that ‘The Battle for the Bible’ originated a hardening of the<\/p>\n