A new book called "Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!" by someone calling themselves Ephraim is getting some attention around the internet. It's a new concept regarding origins called "Biblical Reality" and is defined as "the ordained marriage of Biblical Truth, and Scientific Reality."
However, I don't think it's deserved because not only is it incorrect, the preface and first chapter that I read reveal it to be a rather juvenile attempt to say the Bible doesn't say what it plainly says, and that we should automatically believe the modern contention that the earth and humanity are billions and millions of years old, respectively. It also makes some pseudo-science-fiction claims of life elsewhere in the universe which, while not contrary to the Bible, is not a claim you can support in any way from what the Bible tells us.
This book is like every other book that tries to harmonize modern interpretations of scientific reality with what the Bible says: it automatically presupposes that evolutionists and claims of a 4.5 billion year old earth are true. In other words, it doesn't approach the question from an objective standpoint, but one that already presumes that what atheists and evolutionists claim is correct: that our planet is incredibly ancient, and that God didn't really mean what He said in the Bible. Here's an illustration:
Perhaps you are one of the many of us that still have trouble trying to make sense of the differences between the scientific and religious explanations of the origins of mankind, of Earth, and of the universe. After reviewing the discoveries of science (scientific reality), you then wonder about the credibility of creationism and the theological views of the beginning of our existence.
These scientific discoveries that the author calls "scientific reality" are presented to the public through the lens of an old-earth/evolution worldview, not in their raw, unbiased form, so it's no wonder you might "wonder about the credibility" of what the Bible says.
It also isn't just "theologians" who have told us God created the universe and everything in it in six days--He told us that himself in Genesis. It's there, plain to see for anyone who has eyes to see. The successive generations outlined in those boring, dry genealogy chapters also help us determine the approximate age of the earth and the human race; these genealogies are what Archbishop Usher used when he developed the chronology commonly referred to when creationists say earth is about 6,000-10,000 years old.
The beliefs upon which atheists and evolutionists found their theories are themselves often flawed, and explainable within a Biblical framework.
For instance, radiometric dating, which is the evolutionists strongest evidence, is itself based on many unverifiable
assumptions (that decay rates have been constant in perpetuity, that the samples tested are uncontaminated by parent or daughter elements, etc.), and has rendered multiple, verifiably inaccurate readings such as the 30-year old lava dome at Mount St. Helens being dated at 2.8 million years old.
Also, the geological formations which evolutionists tell us took thousands and millions of years to form can be easily explained by the global cataclysm of Noah's
flood. In fact, some of the geological features which were formed around Mount St. Helens after the 1980 eruption prove that geology like that of the Grand Canyon can be formed in hours and days, without the need for thousands or millions of years.
Then there are the man-like species fossils always trotted out as "proof" of evolution and an ancient earth. These are usually proved decades later to simply be monkey fossils, if they aren't outright fakes. And the Neanderthals could have easily been people who were suffering from malnutrition and rickets; their DNA is very close to that of modern man (even in a Biblical framework of a few thousand years, there would be some genetic drift--in genetic tendencies and dominant traits, not new genetic information), and there is much evidence to support the contention that they suffered from disease and malnutrition.
What the majority of the modern scientific community and the media present to us as "science" is in fact just theories that have some support based on a particular interpretation of the evidence at hand. Theories which surmise evolution and an ancient earth start, just like creation science, with a presupposition and the viability of that presupposition is tested by the evidence.
The interesting thing is, within the framework of each argument, evolution theory comes up woefully short, with myriad contradictions and essential elements that are impossible within its framework which excludes anything that doesn't conform to the modern observation of natural law; meanwhile, within the framework of creation theory, the evidence comes in heavily on its side, which already presupposes supernatural causation and occasional supernatural intervention.
In short, there are many theories that are both scientifically viable and fit within the framework of the Bible. But if you start with the presupposition that an ancient earth is true and the Bible doesn't really mean what it plainly says, then you will automatically reject these theories, and even their viability.
This book is just a continuation of the rejection of Biblical truth in favor of belief that modern scientists are correct in their theories. It is just another attempt to harmonize two ideas that can never be harmonized. The theological and historical claims of the Bible cannot be made to agree with an ancient earth, an ancient humanity, previous hominid species, and/or evolution. Likewise, the claims of an ancient earth and evolution cannot be made to agree with the claims of the Bible. One supposition will always remain subordinate to the other, and since the Bible claims to be absolute truth, any claim contrary to that of the Bible is completely incompatible.
This book brings nothing new to the table, just more "the Bible doesn't really mean what it says."