During this debate, professors Gilmour and Wakefield discussed the contrasts between biblical interpretation and modern scientific findings. They started by defining the concept of God in Scripture: his character, and motives to create both life and the universe. While Professor Gilmour defended a more conservative interpretation the Scriptures, Professor Wakefield is in favor of a more liberal one; this was noticeable all throughout the duration of the conference.
The discussion revolved mostly around the issue of the age of the Earth as evidenced by fossil records, radiocarbon (14C) dating, and potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating; Dr. Gilmour sees the flaws most commonly associated with these as means to advocate for the possibility of a younger Earth, Dr. Wakefield contrarily holds fast to the fact that many of the first fathers of Christendom did not interpret the accounts found in the book of Genesis as literal historic events, but rather as a metaphorical way to demonstrate that the hand of God was behind each and every of the most intricate mysteries of the world around us. …show more content…
Wakefield. Why? Am I discrediting the authority of the biblical canon? The short answer is no. My personal position is that many of the accounts in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally, but as a life lesson, a way for God to reveal himself to us through literature. As Dr. Wakefield expressed during his interventions, the Bible is mainly a book of lessons, its main purpose is not to convey a historically accurate message, rather it is a work intended to make the people of God know Him better, and recognize Him as the ultimate and only author of
The discussion revolved mostly around the issue of the age of the Earth as evidenced by fossil records, radiocarbon (14C) dating, and potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating; Dr. Gilmour sees the flaws most commonly associated with these as means to advocate for the possibility of a younger Earth, Dr. Wakefield contrarily holds fast to the fact that many of the first fathers of Christendom did not interpret the accounts found in the book of Genesis as literal historic events, but rather as a metaphorical way to demonstrate that the hand of God was behind each and every of the most intricate mysteries of the world around us. …show more content…
Wakefield. Why? Am I discrediting the authority of the biblical canon? The short answer is no. My personal position is that many of the accounts in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally, but as a life lesson, a way for God to reveal himself to us through literature. As Dr. Wakefield expressed during his interventions, the Bible is mainly a book of lessons, its main purpose is not to convey a historically accurate message, rather it is a work intended to make the people of God know Him better, and recognize Him as the ultimate and only author of