Henry Morris KJV Study Bible

You seem to be biased against the idea that life arose without a need for magical interference..?
Of course, your steadfast desire to dismiss nature doesnt mean "magic poofing" becomes the default position.

 

When has vaunted science EVER shown to us life can arise by itself, from non living, with there being a Third Agent to cause it to happen?

 

You are falling into the same trap that doomed Intelligent design..
Life is here.. It arose.. Now YOU (and ID) are asserting that someone "intervened" in that formation..
Yet there is no evidence that such an intervention ever took place.
You cannot just invent the alleged interference of some entity without evidence to do so..
And so far, no one has ever presented any such evidence.

 

None have EVER shown ANY scientific reason why life arose....

 

That's because "why" denotes motive.
Science doesn't address motives when involving nature..

 

Nature by itself cannot bring living that which is inanimate!

 

Getting back to the topic...

1) As much as Henry Morris might have thought that the age of the earth is a central issue in the bible,

…as much as he though that that believing otherwise was an attack on central fundamental doctrines…​

It is really a peripheral issue.​

2) IN MY PERSONAL OPINION: If the topic ever came up when you were attempting to witness to an unbeliever, the witness will be ineffective. It will become an unwinnable argument session (sort of like here!).

3) Rather than searching for specific Study Bibles, you would be better served by reading books that delve into the topic you’re interested in.

4) WARNING: Don’t use old material, it will be dated.
Henry Morris died in 2006 and a lot has changed since then.
Quite a few arguments presented by YEC’s have dropped from use.

Rob

 

The real fight on this issue is NOT between young and old earth, but between those who believe in creation and atheistic evolutionists!

 

I’m not a young earth creationist, .... I know where I’d tell you not to go...

...those internet giants of creationism, Answers in Genesis, etc...​

In the past I read creationist literature widely, attempting to give balance to my scientific inclinations. I was always disappointed with young earth lit.; same tired arguments, bad science.

But if you’re looking for direction, I’d point you towards scholarly theological commentaries on Genesis, staying away from those that overtly advertise their young earth creationist stance.

One in particular you may enjoy and benefit from is “Creation and Blessing”, by Allen P. Ross.

Rob

 

why do you continue to pain tAnswers in genesis and other Young earth creationists as being somehow dumb hicks, while those espousing junk like myth in Genesis, extreme age days etc are doing "sound science?"
And why would any Christian holding to full inspiration and infallibility hold to evolution as in Darwinism view?

 

You will want to read those authors who hold to a literal view on Genesis, and who see Moses as its Primary author.

 

(1) “literal view of Genesis”
“Literal” is such a slippery term. It means different things to different people. Often “literal” simply means that the meaning is what the person already thinks it means...

"I shall now outline a method for the exegetical exposition of the Book of Genesis that is consonant with an orthodox, exegetical, and critical approach. By critical I mean that it satisfies the demands of literary-analytical investigation, with sound judgments on the nature, purpose, and composition of the text. By exegetical I mean that the basic investigation uses the Hebrew text and that the meaning is derived from the text. And by orthodox I mean that the integrity of the text as the inspired and authoritative Scripture is maintained." Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 37.
​

(2) “who see Moses as its Primary author”

In the broadest level, we may observe the difference in style between Genesis 1–11, 12–36, and 37–50, three very different sections. On a narrower level, we may observe differences in style between chapters themselves; the creation, for example, in Genesis 1:1–2:3 varies considerably from the style of Genesis 2:4–25. Sources were probably used in the writing of Genesis—sources that were brought by ancestors from Mesopotamia, sources and records of the ancestral families kept by the patriarchs, genealogical records, and the like. It is reasonable to suggest that Moses gathered ancient records and traditions, and it makes better sense for the message of the book in the Pentateuch. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 35.​

That Moses is the authority whose words are represented and that he was generating documents can be readily accepted. Moses was generating information (sermons, rulings, narratives) that would be considered important enough to preserve in written documents. Some undoubtedly would have been recorded in his time and under his supervision. Others may well have been produced by later generations after some time of oral transmission. It matters neither how much material is in each category nor which portions are which; the authority derives from Moses and he is inseparable from the material. John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: 2013), 60–61.​

Rob

 

I can answer that.
Its because places like AiG ignore literal mountains of evidence from countless scientific fields in order to adhere to their YEC philosophy.
For AiG's YECist position to be correct, every field of earth and life sciences we have would have to be incorrect.
Cosmology, Astrophysics, Geology, Paleontology, Zoology, Comparative anatomy, Genetics, Anthropology, Climatology, Petroleum Geology, etc etc..
The list is endless.. When one organization is forced to abandon so many fields of independent research just to cling to their beliefs, then they aren't doing anything even remotely related to science.

 

You mean like people on your end conveniently ignore anything that disproves their position?

 

I think I remember inheriting a John R. Rice Study Bible from an uncle. I looked but could not find it. May be boxed up somewhere (I don't have enough shelf space for my books). @John of Japan is his grandson. Maybe he will notice this and comment on his grandfather's study Bible.

While looking for that, I noticed another Bible that I have that probably qualifies in this genre -- The Companion Bible with notes by E. W. Bullinger. It is old enough to be found as an e-book on Google Books. Bullinger puts the creation of Adam at 3996 BC, and also writes:

Perhaps The Ryrie Study Bible (I have NASB, but appears to be available in KJV as well) also fits. I looked in Genesis 1 and Ryrie mentions that some believe in a "gap" between verese one and two, but that does not fit the construction of the language. He further notes on verse 5 that "Evening and morning cannot be construed to mean an age, but only a day..."

I haven't set my eyes in a Scofield Bible in some time, but if memory serves it has the odd construction of supporting a literal 6-day creation but denying a young-earth -- in that Scofield puts a gap between verses 1 and 2.

Just Ahead, hope this helps.

 

You've made this claim before... You'll need to be more specific.
What scientific evidence is being ignored by "people on my end" that disproves my position..?

 

Well let's talk about the unreliability of dating methods to start.