Why not? OEC and GAP are both true at the same time. Even though GAP says a day is 1000 years and OEC says a day could be billions of years.
I was referring to YEC and OEC as I clearly pointed out. I cannot see how those two could be simultaneously correct.
YEC is talking mostly about the Garden of Eden.
YEC is "Young Earth Creationism" in which the earth was created 6-10,000 years ago. That means "Old Earth Creationism" (which allows, depending on variety) for significantly more actual time.
I wasn't aware there was a variant of YEC in which the earth was allowed to be more than a few thousand years old.
Anyways it would be so easy for you to prove us wrong. All you have to do is show that there was not a neolithic revolution that took place 12,982 years ago.
What did I say I needed to prove wrong or right? I merely point out that I cannot find a way in which one "hypothesis" which says the earth was created about 10,000 years ago or less and an alternate hypothesis which says the earth can be much much older can be equivalent.
If one
limits the time to 10,000 years or less and the other allows for >10,000 years I cannot see how they can both be true.
When you think about how easy it would be to prove the Bible wrong and no one can prove the Bible wrong.
Of
course no one can prove the bible wrong! If words have no technical or fixed meaning it is
impossible to prove the bible wrong! Jesus can have two dramatically different genealogies and the Bible is still right! A prophecy that clearly states one thing but does not occur can be interpretted to mean something the words themselves didn't even say. A literal book made up of metaphors is an almost perfectly unfalsifiable text!
Of course it makes me wonder if there is "meaning" that is actual within its pages, because of so much "fungibility" of the terms, but that's for another time and place.
If you choose to understand the written word of God & God's message for you today. You have that choice, it is up to you to choose life and live.
Seems that this renders the Bible pretty much unneeded. If I have to choose to understand the Bible in such a way that it can never be wrong (because I'm busy making whatever inconvenient terms match whatever I need it to to keep the Bible from being incorrect) why not just eliminate the written word in the first place?