It looks like a logical way to approach it. But what I can’t agree with with respect to these Creationists is that the Bible is scientific text. I think that is absurd. It may be historic as it presents historic events, but its not a history text.
Its a guidebook to salvation - about God, man, morality, human failure and triumph, Redemption, the way to treat people and society. And when people start looking to it as something else, they get into problems.
It is a book of truth which touches on all those things. It is not purely a book of history but where it touches on history it is correct. It is not a book of science but where it touches on scientific matters it is correct. It is inerrant in all things. How could anyone say it contradicts "science" until we know all the "science" there is to know?
Well said.
The Bible told us the earth was round when most men believed it to be flat (Isaiah 40:22).
I fully agree. What I found fascinating about the article I linked to was how Jewish sages of old understood the original language of the creation account as pointing clearly towards big bang cosmology. Subsequent translators did not recognize the nuances of the original texts and therefore failed to carry over significant amounts of information.
Kind of makes me wonder what else was lost in translation through the ages?