So I stumbled across this timeline from an organization that claims to believe the Bible:
See if you can note the obvious problems with this timeline before I get into them. It’s okay. I’ll wait…
As noted in the About link on this blog, “This blog exists to share the trustworthiness of God’s Word, the Bible.” Let’s start our evaluation of this timeline when compared to God’s Word.
- I’m going to start on the foot-notes of the timeline. “All dates are approximate and subject to change, and reflect the best established evidence.” What have we said time and again about evidence? Everyone interprets evidence according to their worldview. Evidence, by itself, cannot convince someone of their need for a savior. The BEST EVIDENCE is the eye-witness account of the Almighty in his special revelation not the priests of Darwin claiming the universe to be billions of years old.
- “Earth forms (4.5662 bya)” This timeline would have you believe that after more than 9,000,000,000 years, the earth formed. This is in direct conflict with the 1st verse of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Think of how different the very beginning of this timeline would look if they started with Genesis 1:1 rather than Stephen Hawking’s theories.
- “Moon forms (~4.5 bya)” The moon forms?????? How about Genesis 1:16 where God MADE the moon on day 4. And yet, you can clearly see on this timeline, that the authors put the creation of the moon on Day 1 in direct opposition to the Bible. Timeline trustworthiness meter: Waning. Far side of the moon.
- “Oceans become permanent (~3.8 bya)” They say Day 1, but the Bible says Day 3 in Genesis 1:9-10. Timeline trustworthiness meter: Lost at sea. Abandon ship! Somewhere in the Bermuda triangle.
- “first land plants…(650 mya)” On day 5? This timeline continues to show that they would rather uphold the interpretations of Dawkins, Hawkings, and Bill Nye than to trust what God has written in his word. Plants were not created on day 5 as incorrectly shown on the timeline. The eye-witness testimony of Almighty God says in Genesis 1:11 that Day 3 is when plants were created. Timeline trustworthiness meter: Wilted. Barren. Full-of-fertilizer
- “Animals, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals – Day 5” Wait a minute, Mr. Timeline! The Bible tells us that these animals were all created on day 6. Timeline trustworthiness meter: Dry bones. Extinct.
- “Modern humans” According to the timeline 13,700,000,000 after the beginning – man arrives. According to Jesus (Mark 10:6) “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Timeline trustworthiness meter: Do you really want to go against the words of Jesus? Genesis 3:1 “Did God REALLY say…?”
Can you find more than that?
The inaccuracies in this timeline can be fixed with a correct understanding of God’s revelation in scripture. Specifically, the group at reasons.org have butchered the exegesis of the worldwide flood. If one reads the eye-witness testimony of the worldwide flood and looks at the world around us, we see clearly that there is no need to mythologize the Bible to accommodate atheistic interpretations of evidence. Studying God’s word can fix these inaccuracies.
We can trust what God has revealed about history, and our faith in his revelation about the future is secure. Praise Him!
UPDATE: I found that Reasons.org removed this timeline from their website, so I’m glad I saved a copy of the picture. To see it better, see below:
ApoloJedi 
I like the title- Timeline Tragedy. That’s exactly what it is. Just another glaring example of compromise within the church, and there’s soooo much wrong with it.
The description of the timeline, including the definition of Concordism is loaded. I’m glad they admit it’s an imperfect and imprecise belief system filled with assumptions, but what are these ‘facts of nature’ they’re referring to? Are the facts of nature man-made conclusions and interpretations of the evidence, or are they the evidence, such as fossils and rock? Is the claim that the “Earth forms” 4.5 bya a fact of nature, or is it an interpretation, and how is that consistent with Scripture? The belief that the first fish appeared on Day 1 certainly isn’t a fact of nature, but is an interpretation inconsistent with the Bible’s claim that fish appeared on Day 5. So, do the ‘facts of nature’ include the age of the earth and order of life, or is it basic chemistry and the scientific laws? Whose scientific investigation will be accepted or rejected, and based on what criteria? And how are these facts of nature discernably consistent with Scriptural statements when the timeline is evidence to the contrary?
Interesting how they label it an ‘integrative’ and ‘interactive’ approach. This seems to provide justification for altering their assumptions and beliefs upon recognition that they’re incorrect. But, if they were truly consistent with Scripture, then no adjustments or corrections should be necessary. It seems like they shoot down their own philosophy before they even get started. How flexible is Scripture that any interpretation of secular science is acceptable, while any Biblical scientific claims (YEC) are outright rejected?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Is Hugh Ross Teaching Inaccuracies? | ApoloJedi
It’s unfortunate that Young Universe Clowns try to convince the scientific community that the ‘scars’ of the universe and this planet are ONLY ‘recent scratches’. Any evidence that points outside of 6,000 years is thus labeled speculative science. Genesis demands literary context – just like Revelation and everything in between. If you research Ross’s books, you’ll find the Young Universe model is lacking in consistency and worth abandoning. If a Young Universe is what the Bible ‘proclaims’, we should all find another religion whose author is the same author of all that is.
LikeLike
We will note that you have made wild claims and engaged in name calling rather than bringing rational arguments to the table.
Ross has been very consistent at poor exegesis and inability to account for (among many other things) thorns (curse of mankind’s sin) in deep fossil layers.
https://creation.com/the-dubious-apologetics-of-hugh-ross
Sadly, if you rely on the ever-changing world of scientism as your ultimate standard of truth, rather than God’s revealed word, you’ll find that your worldview becomes more and more chaotic with inconsistencies.
LikeLike
Pingback: Trust, but Verify! | ApoloJedi
Pingback: No More Eisegesis | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Why Old Earthism Divides | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Review – A Matter of Days – Chapter 21 | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Psalm 104 Confirms Young Earth Model | ApoloJedi