Henry Morris KJV Study Bible

Wrong sub-forum. This should be in the "versions" sub-forum.

 

Words of Christ in red... I’m out.

Rob

 

I would say correct forum since the KJV is not what is being discussed. The study Bible is a Young Earth study Bible. The YEC content is the major discussion point.

 

Yes, I love lists!

Not directly related to YEC Study Bibles, but I remember when I was young it seemed like a lot of Bibles had the James Ussher chronology in them, so that, for example, you would see 4004 BC in the first chapter of Genesis. While not a study Bible, the chronology of Ussher promoted a "young earth creation." Seems like you don't find many Bibles with this chronology anymore.

 

Perhaps this might be added to the list with the Henry Morris KJV Study Bible:

MacArthur Study Bible (apparently available in the ESV, NASB, NKJV, & NIV)

I do not have this Bible, but MacArthur is a young-earth creationist so I expect the notes to support that view. John R. Rice was a 6-day creationist, so his study Bible might fit as well. Others are likely more informed on these two Bibles than I.

 

Very

Very good notes in regards to understanding a literal viewpoint in regards to Genesis and Creationism in the Bible. Wished they had updated to Nkjv version with those notes!

 

If it advocates for a 6000 year old planet..? Then its a waste of paper..
Its the 21st century. Anyone still advocating for a 6000 year old earth in this day and age needs to spend more time in a library.
It's scientifically impossible for the earth to be "young".
We KNOW this.. Heck, geologists way back in the late 1700s figured this out.
Today, we have ice cores, river varves, magnetic pole reversals, radiometric dating, etc.
For the earth to be "young", EVERY field of earth and life science we have from Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Zoology, Genetics, Climatology and Ice Coring, Cosmology, Biogeography, Anthropology,, etc, would ALL have to be wrong.
These are but a few in a long list of independent fields of science that ALL show that the earth is NOT "young".

 

ITs not Billion and Billion of years old, either!

 

According to the testing of the earth, and also the moon, and meteorites from our solar system, the consensus age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years old..

 

Oh boy, here we go. So many assumptions with science. Let me ask you this, Adam, created as a baby or fully developed?

 

I would broaden this out a bit, as there might be some like me who while not holding to just 6000 years date, do not hold to millions, much less billions of years dating!

 

Based upon faulty aging techniques....

 

Neither.
We humans evolved from ancestral primates. The Adam story is not a literal part of human history. Its allegory.

 

And what tests have you conducted that show that all the previous tests are inaccurate..?

 

I am still waiting to hear from you on how life originated from non life!

 

Asked and answered.. Organic Chemistry
Of course, none of that matters to the age of this planet which we have ample data to show its long history.

 

There is no way that would support life forming out from n on living matter!