A new book addressing AiG (mis)use of the Bible, archaeology and folklore

A few days ago, Ben Stanhope, a fairly popular youtuber, with an MA in Manuscript cultures from the University of Hamburg released a new book which addresses the (mis)use of the Bible, and the humanities by Answers in Genesis. Check it out:

I’ve read it, it has some interesting stuff, particularly on Genesis 1, the ages of the patriarchs, the firmament, and also, flood myths from around the world, alongside other stuff.


Are there books by those, like me, who have been lifted out of such delusion? The best emergent Christian writers all come from conservative backgrounds.

Thanks for the recommendation, Reggie! Looks very interesting and helpful.

Yes, he is one of them

1 Like

I am keenly interested in the subject of “the ages of the patriarchs.” Is it possible for you to give a very brief synopsis of his argument on that subject? I am trying to decide whether or not it’s worth purchasing. What he has to say on this will influence my decision.

Thanks for this recommendation.

Again the title, my use of delusion, is provocative to no ‘positive’ effect but in the converted. It just reinforces wherever we’re at. Does the book adress the psychological causes of belief? Does it help those in the twilight world between literalism and rationalism?

Hi John,

A few years ago, Jim Stump of Biologos wrote an article on the ages of the patriarchs that you might find interesting:

Whether Stump’s article should have used Bayesian rather than frequentist probabilities was discussed on this forum as well. (TLDR: Stump’s conclusions are not altered. ) If you want a link to that thread, I can find it for you.


1 Like

Thanks for the link. I just finished reading it. Unfortunately, it was interesting but not that helpful. He basically said, it seems to me, “The numbers are probably symbolic, but we don’t know what they were intended to communicate.”

Right, well, I already suspected as much. What I am super curious to know (and haven’t seen anyone address) is what those numbers mean. When dealing with young-earth creationists, I would like to say something more helpful than, “It’s not literal ages.” That will fall on deaf ears, and understandbly so. Before attempting to turn over idea X, one should have a better idea Y to replace it—rather than nothing (otherwise idea X will be retained for lack of anything else).

I shall have to give that 2003 article by Carol Hill a read sometime. I no longer remember what occasioned my suspicion about her, but I vaguely recall something she wrote turning me off once. I’ll have to give her another chance. My views have probably changed since then.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.