changed their webpage about BioLogos!

(Casper Hesp) #1

Continuing the discussion from Christian website seriously mistaken on the Biologos position:

A long time ago, I got worried because had a pretty abusive description of BioLogos on its website.

Now, it seems @jstump’s diplomatic efforts really helped! The updated article about BioLogos on is a very gracious formulation of what BioLogos means from the perspective of a conservative YEC Christian. Although I take issue with some of their characterizations, I’m still really impressed:

This could be a good resource if you want to tell people about BioLogos but they are too sceptical to hear you out… Especially their conclusion:

“While we disagree with the conclusions of BioLogos, in particular those related to evolution and the precise nature of God’s role in creation, their views are not incompatible with a high view of Scripture. We reject some of their argumentation on scientific issues but appreciate their acceptance of Scripture and the truths of Christianity.”

My journey through faith/introduction

Thanks for this Casper.

This is the first I heard of “Got Questions”. I was underwhelmed by the acedemic credentials of the person “ultimately accountable” for the content of the website’s answers. For me at least, This underlines the importance of the phrase, know your source.

All of our answers are reviewed for biblical and theological accuracy by our staff. Our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann, is ultimately accountable for our content, and therefore maintains an active role in the review process. He possesses a Bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary University and a Master’s degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO).

(Christy Hemphill) #3

Calvary is one of only seventeen seminaries approved by Ken Ham because their presidents, deans, and Bible or science chairpersons have affirmed in writing AIG’s tenets of creation. So, considering the perspective the author is coming from, the revised entry is pretty charitable.


Well I guess that means we can’t trust everything g we read on the Internet :grinning:

But just think of the people who assume the website has a strong acedemic foundation.

FYI. AIG Wants to tighten up the dating of creation. A 10,000 year old creation is no longer good enough.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #5

They’ve got a fairly tight proposal on the table already: It was 9 am, October 23, 4004 BC. As one scholar was quoted (by Ramm): “Closer than this, as a cautious scholar, the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University did not venture to commit himself.”

If they want to work on tightening up anything, they should be working on if it happened at the top of the hour or not – and for that matter was that Greenwich Mean Time?

(George Brooks) #6

This is a marvelous exhibit on the lifespans of the Patriarchs !!!

It tells us that the Flood arrived 1,656 years after Creation. And it tells us that Methuselah was the oldest Patriarch to die in the Flood. And what a life he had!!!

Born a mere 687 years after Adam’s creation, he knew all the movers and shakers of the Earth!

He knew Enoch, but probably didn’t get a chance to say Bon Voyage as Enoch departed to the upper limits on the whirlwind.

Methuselah knew Jared, and Mahalalel, and Cainan, and Enosh, and Seth.

And Methuselah knew Adam!!! And he knew him for a very, very long time!: 243 years!

But there must have been some kind of major rift in the family … because it would seem nobody talked to Adam, or at least none of the Genesis texts suggests that anybody cared about what Adam said - - for no ripe old anecdotes, or Words of Wisdom from the First Man exists in the narratives.

Such a pity. I’d wager that Adam was quite a cut up! I have it on good authority that the one thing he said that was not explicitly cited as his was: "Hey Methuselah!, how long can you tread water?

According to the family story I heard as a child, Methuselah would often tell the story of this quip to Noah – and that nobody quite understood what was so funny about that question…

(George Brooks) #7

I looked through GotQuestions.Org, to see how it handles “Old Earth” scenarios.

Frankly, I was impressed by their moderate position! Take a look at how mellow they can be!:

"So, in the old earth vs. young earth debate, who is correct?

“As a ministry, definitely leans toward the young earth perspective. We believe that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are meant to be read literally, and young earth creationism is what a literal reading of those chapters presents.”

"At the same time, we do not view old earth creationism as heresy. We are not going to question the faith or motives of our brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us on this issue."

“Ultimately, one can hold to views other than young earth creationism and still have an accurate understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.”

Well, God Bless them all the Children !!!

(Casper Hesp) #8

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