Robert:
How can you be so certain that the 1000 years mentioned is not literal? I do not insist that it be literal, but I don't see any problem with there being a 1000 year period. It matters little at this point seems to me. We will know more when we get into that period. The Scriptures certainly give evidence of using literal periods of time, such as the 70 years in captivity, as well as symbolic time, such as the final week in Daniel. So, I can accept it either way.
Actually, being a geographer and acquainted with the geologic record of the earth and having taught at the university level, I am persuaded that the earth is much older than the strict creationists would hold to. I see no conflict with the geologic record and what is recorded in Genesis. So long as we all agree that GOD CREATED IT HIS WAY, we have no serious problem.
I do have a problem with 'brainwashing' kids to accept strict creationism because once they get into college and begin to study subjects such as geography, geology, astronomy, physics, they find themselves in very deep water indeed trying to reconcile these teachings with what they are confronting. This results often in the student 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater.'
I expect some interesting replies to this post.
Lee |
