>My question is, if one is a Christian and believes in the
>inerrancy of scripture, how does one defend one's belief in either
>or both of these ideas? I am particularly interested in the old
>earth arguments used by Christians who have training in geology.
In my experience with non-Christians, I've found that defending the primary
truth claims of Christianity (i.e., who was Jesus and why was He here?)
are more important than trying to show inerrancy (don't mistake me
-- I *do* hold to inerrancy). It's easier to deal with inerrancy with
Christians than with non-Christians (who aren't even buying the
notion of Jesus=God).
What is important is to show that the Biblical text is reliably close
to the original, that the Bible has repeatedly been shown to be
historically accurate, that Jesus must be one of lunatic, con man, or God.
While dealing with origins is important, too often it is a distraction
from the Gospel message. The important thing is: who was Jesus? -- this
matters much more than the issue of whether 6 literal days were used for
creation. In particular, the origins issue to press is that
many evolutionists are really inserting philosophy into their science,
and are pushing atheism, implicitly or explicitly. Johnson is very
good at pointing this out.
Authors re Biblical accounts and Jesus' identity who are good resources:
Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, James Sire, F.F. Bruce, Ronald Nash, etc.
_____\/
Ross / @=== Internet: rpavlac@mcs.com
/______/ CompuServe: 76636.1343@compuserve.com
___/ x x Pavlac WWW: TBA (coming soon to a web server
near you!)