Before I say this, let me preface something that should be obvious. I
believe the Bible. But lets assume that we find out that the Bible is
false. Is that a disaster? NO IT IS TRUTH in that case. If we fear the
truth to the extent that we will allow a false book to be believed as true
then we are creating the disaster. It means that we are willing to believe
the Bible regardless of whether or not it is true. What kind of religion is
Such attempts to provide the
>Bible with an evidential foundation - as surly concordism does - actually has
>the effect of undermining Biblical truth assertions by conceding the
>man at the outset; i.e. the notion that human intellect is able to discern
>reality without the work of The Holy Spirit ( a la Dutch Reformed
>This is the fallacy of the YEC movement too.
No, the fallacy of the YEC movement is to preach a false science. The
fallacy of the theological liberals is to preach a false Bible.
>A less stringent hermeneutic, which allows for myths to be embedded in the
>-- not to compose it as this thread's subject title implies -- along with
>historically accurate and factual accounts supported by scientific
>does not suffer the potential for complete biblical rejection.
If the Bible is false, then it deserves to be rejected as does phlogiston
theory, geosynclinal theory, and the theory that rags give rise to mice.
You want a bible that is true regardless of how false it might be. No
amount of wishing can make the Bible true if it is false.
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Lots of information on creation/evolution