Keith & Martha Crawford

New Post

I’m feeling the need to post something new since it is way past Jen’s Birthday, but my life is pretty boring right now, so I don’t have much to post. I downloaded FireFox the other day and am playing with it and the themes. It’s a pretty cool program and I am quickly learning to like it more than Safari. I especially like the tabs feature.

I’ve also been looking up scholarships on the web for teachers, or history, or anything else that may pertain to me, so if anyone would like to contribute, I’ll write an essay to you too. 🙂 Just give me the topic, I’ll add it to my list.

I have a kind of lull in school right now. Midterms are past, and I chose to do all of my semester projects early in the year, so that I don’t really have a lot to do for school other than maintain and keep up with the reading. Maybe even catch up a little, since I was so busy a couple weeks ago. I guess thats all for now.

Martha

martha

,

4 responses to “New Post”

  1. Bored eh? Well I have something that’ll keep you busy. Answer the following questions. Which is a more plausible estimate for the age of the earth, 4.7 billion years or 6,000 years. Why?

    Does that post a problem for your theology? Why or why not?

  2. First of all, let us set the record straight. I said my life was boring, not that I was bored. I have plenty to do. I just don’t know how much people can take hearing about my homework. 😀

    The more plausible estimate for the age of the earth is 4.7 billion years. This does not pose a problem for my theology. If it poses a problem for you, I suggest you read Lee Strobel’s “A Case for the Creator”.

    2 Peter 3:8 – But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    Martha

  3. Your answer is based upon solid evidence and a better hermeneutic than is taught by most Evangelical christian leaders. So, we know that the earth was not created in six literal days, based on the evidence God left us.

    Further, we also know that the flood that covered ‘all the earth’ needs to be read from the perspective of Noah. So, in order to cover ‘all the earth’, and all the mountains ‘under the heavens’ means all of them than Noah and his contemporaries could see. This is explained in detail here.

    Further, we also know that human civilizations existed over 11,000 years ago (Egypt) and human hunter-gathers existed at least 40,000 years before that (Germany, Australia, and Africa). In fact, you have to go back that far in the DNA to link the early Australians to their common ancestors in Africa.

    So, the account of man’s creation in Genesis 1-2 cannot be literally historical. This isn’t surprising, since creation and the flood aren’t literal. The follow up question is, “What is a good hermenuetic for reading the account of man’s creation?” Is there justfication for the doctrine of original sin based on that hermeneutic? (and now you see the theological basis for the original question). 🙂