Reformed works on Genesis 1-3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Except that modern science has not proven to be "fact" either the Universe/earth Billions of years old, not evolution was used as a process here on earth. So again, he seems to be trying to have "accepted scientific facts" and the scriptures trying to agree, when they really do not in Genesis as to origins/dating etc...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question is really are the scriptures infallible to us from God, and to be taken at " face value", or must we accept that so called scientific facts such as extreme age/evolution are somehow supported by them?
 
Except that modern science has not proven to be "fact" either the Universe/earth Billions of years old, not evolution was used as a process here on earth. So again, he seems to be trying to have "accepted scientific facts" and the scriptures trying to agree, when they really do not in Genesis as to origins/dating etc...
Who exactly is the "he" you are referring to? VanDoodewaard? Walton?
 
Last edited:
Except that modern science has not proven to be "fact" either the Universe/earth Billions of years old, not evolution was used as a process here on earth. So again, he seems to be trying to have "accepted scientific facts" and the scriptures trying to agree, when they really do not in Genesis as to origins/dating etc...
Who exactly is the "he" you are referring to? VanDoodewaard? Walton?

Walton no doubt.

Also just for a good measure I think the majority of us here were advocating caution with certain books. We tended to disagree on how much error to imbibe and how much meat vs. bone was in particular books. The more bone the less useful hence, my problem woth Walton. Then,of course, Romans 922 disagreed with my touting of Jack Collins.
 
Then,of course, Romans 922 disagreed with my touting of Jack Collins.

Of course, because he espouses a non-reformed view, like many others who have been recommend here. It isn't about how much or little error to imbibe. It is about the OP looking for "solid Reformed resources" not solid "reformed" authors.
 
I also have read differing points of view, and there is something to be gleaned from other authors, but just think some have tilted too far towards trying to accommodate evolutionary theory into Genesis account...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top