I still believe the Bible is
not unclear about what it says re. the universe, earth's origin, the beginning of the biosphere and its inhabitants, and man's special creation. I adhere to the Bible's own internal timeline, which I think puts a severe limit on any massive extension of the age of the earth, to anything close to approximating naturalistic theories.
In other words, the most optimistic compatibilist theorizing--short of the "gap" theory (which is infinitely elastic, intentionally so)--are still essentially antagonistic to naturalism's dogmas. There is no "peace" with the religion of naturalism for anyone who sincerely believes the Bible as given contains a true account of "the beginning," and connects it seamlessly to the rest of recorded history.
As I have matured, I have become tolerant of those who place less stock (than I have previously) in whether the Bible's "prehistoric," or its antedeluvian and postdeluvian chronology was given to the church so that we'd know the number of years its been since the clock started.
I haven't stopped worrying about men who seems to pick a convenient hermeneutic, one that dehistoricises (to some degree) the earliest parts of the Bible that "don't fit well" with various
a priori certainties; because I wonder what other "certainties" brought to the Bible will encourage them (or others) to jettison other "history" in the Bible that just doesn't "fit" with the "facts."
On the other hand, I consider the history that flows out of God's dealings with Abraham, the patriarchs, then the children of Israel to be
more important than the previous chronology and events (NOT that I think Gen.1-11 is
unimportant). I consider the doctrine of man's need of a Savior, and the provision of that Savior, to be of
first importance. I consider the Savior's Personal history to be of
utmost importance. I consider the doctrine that is taught in Scripture about the nature of God and salvation and the church and the end of all things to be primary.
I accept that people can be right about the main things, and be wrong (if possible) about how old the earth is; or whether the chronology of Genesis 1-11 is meant to be taken at face value; or whether the flood was universal. I can accept that men who do take the greater part of the Bible as I do, think they take the earlier portions just as seriously as I do, yet come up with alternate interpretations.
I look at men like Warfield, or WHGreen, and many others, and I say they were admirable men, defending the chief articles. I do not believe they would accept the criticism that they were weak on biblical authority in the early part of Genesis. Whatever we may think now, we are not free to impose a 21st century perspective (and there is more than one) on their vision of their own battlefield.
I can't accept if someone treats Adam as the first subhuman given a soul; now he's the first human. Eve (and womanhood) is treated even worse in that view, in my opinion. [If you ask me, the abuse of women is incompatible with a biblical view of the female, but quite in keeping with evolutionary dogma.] I can't accept if someone regards Abraham as a composite ancestor. I can't accept if someone regards the plagues on Egypt and Israel's Exodus, together with the conquest of Canaan, as mythical as Greek gods-and-hero tales.
The line of faith has to be drawn (the more it conserves, the better): where a man says, "History is firm here in the Bible; and I don't care what you 'know' from other sources. This Book is my preferred and reliable source. I have good reason to think God cared enough to get the facts down in order for all future generations." Because, that conviction WILL come under fire. The Bible's version of events, its predictive prophecies, its doctrines and ethics--all of that gets subjected to challenges.
The Defense of Duffer's Drift http://www.sfi-sfmc.org/downloads/The_Defense_of_Duffers_Drift.pdf is an old book about military defense. It is the Principles of Defense set forth in story form. Here's something it can teach us about defending biblical authority: You have to defend the Bible itself. If you decide only to defend some "key aspect" of your assignment, you will probably keep what you're defending; but you will lose the rest, and possibly outmaneuvered in your "redoubt," and so end up retreating from there too.
I don't think I'm wise enough to challenge the Princetonians' earlier defensive strategies. You can apply principles of defense right by the book, and still be forced out of your position. And who never makes any mistakes? The conceit of
Duffer's Drift is that the young defender dreams about his defense, and endures many possible failures and misapplications of the Principles, and only after he's awake and recalls what to do/not do in his case does he perfectly execute his mission.
I don't think those old heroes were surrendering Gen.1-11, even temporarily, like DMacA leaving the Philippines, promising, "I'll be back." I don't agree with all the modern defenders' tactics, which often seem to me like versions of the dream-sequences in
DD. But the fact is that we are all on similar missions, defending our assignment. I shouldn't be overly worried about how some other unit's efforts are going to impact my area of responsibility. Let us praise the men who have earned respect from their doughty defense, and bear the scars of suffering. The battle is the Lord's.