I’m getting calls from the ministry Answers in Genesis. Being we’re in Canada, I’m not so familiar with them. Who has engaged with their ministry, and: Would you recommend them? Thanks.
They’re a great organization run by Christians that are trying to help out with the current war over Creationism v Evolution. They break the complicated science down into something we can grasp, but also offer resources for those of us who want to go a bit deeper. They also have a Creation museum in Kentucky and built a life size replica of Noah’s ark using the dimensions listed in the Bible.
I would recommend them, especially “the answers” book series they’ve created.
Yes I recommend them!!! I have been using their resources for years and have been blessed by their ministry. I took an online class they offered last year on the foundations of creation apologetics. I encourage you to visit their website to learn more about them. They also have a scientific research journal you can find linked to their website.
This table, shared by @SeanO a long while ago helped me.
AnswersinGenesis.org and Creation.com are both Young Earth position (a position I’ve grown up with).
I believe Lennox’s position (whom I respect greatly and have read all his books) is Day-Age position.
I believe Hugh Ross is a progressive creationist (according to Wikipedia), but there are major differences between progressive creationist and day-age position (again just taking a cursory glance at wikipedia articles).
I think, but I’m not sure at all, that thebibleproject.com may be leaning towards some of the non-concordist interpretation ; although they do not say and their ministry is not to take a position or teach science but rather to get everyone to read more of the Bible (I love their videos!)
To help me also, where would you say that Hugh Ross (reasons.org) and biologos.org sit roughly in this table? Is progressive creation represented in the table under one of the ‘concordist’ categories or not covered at all?
this is not intended to place ministries in certain boxes, but just to try to get a rough overview level viewpoint, if that is even possible. thankyou
Hi, @matthew.western !
I have to say I am not very fond of labels either. Much of the important detail can be lost when we try to reduce a complex subject and try to fit it in a box. The definitions for terms used in this kind of conversation are nicely summarized in this article:
The above article has a broken link to their position on concordism as a response to John Walton, who aligns more with Biologos than Reasons to Believe. This article is good in comparing both positions. Here is the correct link:
I hope this helps!
Thank you I’ll definitely check those out.