| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
| | * This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect. | | * This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect. |
| | * All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]]. | | * All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]]. |
| − | * Adam and Eve [[sin|sinned]], leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]]. | + | * Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]]. |
| | * A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]]. | | * A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]]. |
| | * The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17, 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref> | | * The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]].<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] December 17, 1999 (Christian Courier).</ref> |
| Line 45: |
Line 45: |
| | {{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}} | | {{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}} |
| | | | |
| − | For more than a century, the majority of conservative Old Testament scholars no longer accepted the chronological implications of the Genesis "chrono-genealogies" following the accommodation of the old Princeton Theology (“Primeval Chronology,” ''Bibliotheca Sacra'' 47 (1890): 285-303). However, Jeremy Sexton reexamined this hypothesis in 2015<ref>: "Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90?: A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green's Chronological Gaps." The Westminster Theological Journal 77, no. 2 (September 2015): 193-218.[http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2016/04/06/Who-Was-Born-When-Enosh-Was-90-A-Semantic-Reevaluation-of-William-Henry-Greene28099s-Chronological-Gaps.aspx]</ref> starting the process of returning Old Testament Scholarship to the consensus that held sway since before the coming of Christ ([[Earth age opinions of prominent Christians - pre-1800]]). | + | For more than a century, the majority of conservative Old Testament scholars no longer accepted the chronological implications of the Genesis "chrono-genealogies" following the accommodation of the old Princeton Theology (“Primeval Chronology,” ''Bibliotheca Sacra'' 47 (1890): 285–303). However, Jeremy Sexton reexamined this hypothesis in 2015<ref>: "Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90?: A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green's Chronological Gaps." The Westminster Theological Journal 77, no. 2 (September 2015): 193-218.[http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2016/04/06/Who-Was-Born-When-Enosh-Was-90-A-Semantic-Reevaluation-of-William-Henry-Greene28099s-Chronological-Gaps.aspx]</ref> starting the process of returning Old Testament Scholarship to the consensus that held sway since before the coming of Christ ([[Earth age opinions of prominent Christians - pre-1800]]). |
| | | | |
| | == Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview == | | == Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview == |
| Line 71: |
Line 71: |
| | {{main|Starlight problem}} | | {{main|Starlight problem}} |
| | | | |
| − | [[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]] | + | [[Image:Barry setterfield.jpg|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]] |
| | Anti-creationists often claim that [[star]]light from millions of light-years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]]. | | Anti-creationists often claim that [[star]]light from millions of light-years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]]. |
| | Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star-light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref> | | Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star-light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. Charles W. Misner.<ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creation.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref> |