Ham's Creation Museum

[vossler]

I'm curious about something now.

What do the creationists here think about the museum? Getting past the initial "Wow, we get our own museum!" high. Do creationists think that the museum will help reach more people than before? Can they foresee people who have never heard about creationism any other way coming to accept it through the Creation Museum?

I think this museum is the first one, that I'm aware of, that gives God all the credit for creation. I don't even know of another one that even gives Him partial credit. That in and of itself should cause every Christian to celebrate.

So without a doubt I'm excited about it and believe it is another tool that God can use to bring people to Him. Praise the Lord!

 

[shernren]

In this particular passage, God is reciting a litany of things where His knowledge exceeds Mans. In many (most? ALL?) He uses language that describes the things but does not purport to explain them. I'm not supporting the fire breathing dragon thoughts -- but trying to help you understand that conservative scholarship is not literalism in all cases no matter what.

So when God is describing a fire-breathing dinosaur, it is a literal description, but when God is describing a warehouse of snow, it isn't?

I'm not trying to say that conservatives interpret all parts of the Bible literally at all. But according to your views, the interpretation should be conditioned solely by textual characteristics and contexts - and since Job 38 with its warehouse of snow is tightly bound to Job 41 with its Leviathan, in fact being just two parts of the same speech, there should be no good textual reason to separate the interpretive rules used for both, according to your views.

Where is the rule that says if one part of it is figurative that it all is?

My point was that the notion is not as ridiculous as it may seem to some. I would not say it was fact, but I also couldn't say it was fiction. Regarding the fossils, I was trying to point out that there may not be evidence for a creature like that. This could be especially true if it lived in the water and not close to the conditions that tend to make fossils. Anyway, seeing the features that God's creatures manifest in today's world and knowing that there were many different ones in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if we could be surprised.

I'm trying to point out that if you are consistent, you wouldn't treat "warehouses of snow" in Job 38 any differently than you would treat the Leviathan in Job 41. You would have to argue that it really isn't ridiculous to suggest that snow is stored in huge warehouses in the sky. Wouldn't you?

 

[crawfish]

I think this museum is the first one, that I'm aware of, that gives God all the credit for creation. I don't even know of another one that even gives Him partial credit. That in and of itself should cause every Christian to celebrate.

I guess I'm just too busy surfing the internet for porn to celebrate it; at least, that's what the museum implies I will be doing because I believe evolution may be true.

 

[vossler]

I guess I'm just too busy surfing the internet for porn to celebrate it; at least, that's what the museum implies I will be doing because I believe evolution may be true.

Even though you say this in jest, it sadly does say a lot more. I really liked some of your other posts, but this one...

 

[Dannager]

Even though you say this in jest, it sadly does say a lot more. I really liked some of your other posts, but this one...

Man, that is what the museum says. You know it's ridiculous, and we know it's ridiculous, but that doesn't stop the guys who run this museum from passing it off on the ignorant.

 

[Digit]

I think this museum is the first one, that I'm aware of, that gives God all the credit for creation. I don't even know of another one that even gives Him partial credit. That in and of itself should cause every Christian to celebrate.

So without a doubt I'm excited about it and believe it is another tool that God can use to bring people to Him. Praise the Lord!

Ding! Pretty much what he said. That's exactly why this is great.

Digit

 

[The Lady Kate]

I think this museum is the first one, that I'm aware of, that gives God all the credit for creation. I don't even know of another one that even gives Him partial credit. That in and of itself should cause every Christian to celebrate.

I make a point not to celebrate rubbish... no matter how well-intentioned.

Partial credit, full credit... But is it giving Him accurate credit? If, as just about everything we've come to learn indicates, the world is larger and grander than something that was poofed together in six days, that there wasn't a global flood after all, and that the story of our origins is longer, more complex, and in the end, more awe-inspiring than we ever thought before, How much glory is God really getting?

If I thank God for the little men who live in my television who entertain me, is He really getting any credit?

So without a doubt I'm excited about it and believe it is another tool that God can use to bring people to Him. Praise the Lord!

There's an old West African proverb: "Lying will get you a wife, but it won't let you keep her." If these people come to God based on what this museum teaches, and they later learn that the museum is teaching nonsense, how quickly will they run away from God?

 

[Galle]

Man, that is what the museum says. You know it's ridiculous, and we know it's ridiculous, but that doesn't stop the guys who run this museum from passing it off on the ignorant.

Nor does it stop the creationists who DO know better from applauding the museum's honesty and godliness.

It seems to me that one of the reasons that creationists have the reputation they do is that they are all but incapable of correcting or criticizing each other, no matter how blatant the errors, no matter how unethical the actions. laptoppop's support for Floodnut's irrational hatred is another example.

 

[shernren]

I think this museum is the first one, that I'm aware of, that gives God all the credit for creation. I don't even know of another one that even gives Him partial credit. That in and of itself should cause every Christian to celebrate.

So without a doubt I'm excited about it and believe it is another tool that God can use to bring people to Him. Praise the Lord!

But I'm more curious about what creationists think about it from a logistical point of view. If you had $27 million and wanted to spread creationism with it, how would you do it? Granted, paying off a bunch of researchers to come up with breakthrough scientific papers is the most un-sexy option anyone could possibly think of, but I'm not convinced that logistically speaking building a big squat building in the middle of a vaguely half-creationist country is really the best way to go about it.

 

[Mallon]

Even though you say this in jest, it sadly does say a lot more. I really liked some of your other posts, but this one...

That's what Ken Ham -- the man whom you support -- teaches, vossler. This is a basic tenet of AiG -- that all the world's ails are due to the teaching of "godless evolution."
In Ham's own words:

"These are challenging days. On the whole, society is becoming more anti-Christian. We are seeing steady increases in homosexuality, support for abortion on demand, unwillingness to obey authorities, unwillingness to work, marriage being abandoned, clothing being abandoned, an increase in pornography, and an increase in lawlessness, to name but a few areas. Christians are fighting for their freedom even in so-called “Christian” nations... It is my contention that this spiritual conflict is rooted in the issue of origins (creation/evolution)."

If this saddens you, don't blame crawfish. His was a simple satire of Ham's very unbiblical position on the origin of evil. Perhaps someone can verify 1 Tim 6:10 for me in their KJV Bible: Does it really say that "evolution is the root of all evil"?

 

[crawfish]

Even though you say this in jest, it sadly does say a lot more. I really liked some of your other posts, but this one...

I'm a little curious at what else you think the post said. I think I have a right to be miffed at the implications of that particular exhibit. They are demonizing not just atheists and unbelievers, but a huge number of faithful Christians. They are drawing the battle lines, and putting me firmly on the side of the enemy.

I see no reason for joy in this.

 

[keyarch]

I'm trying to point out that if you are consistent, you wouldn't treat "warehouses of snow" in Job 38 any differently than you would treat the Leviathan in Job 41. You would have to argue that it really isn't ridiculous to suggest that snow is stored in huge warehouses in the sky. Wouldn't you?

Just an "off the cuff" response: In your example, the "warehouses" would be the figurative part, and the snow would be the real element. In another example, "Fountains of the deep", the fountains are the figurative part, and the "deep" is the real object. I think foundations of the earth was mentioned. The "foundations" are figurative and the "earth" is the real object.

I think the Leviathan was a real creature. How it is described is mostly figurative, but we should consider each one to relate to some kind of reality about it.

The four corners of the earth could be a figurative way of saying North, South, East and West. It doesn't mean that they thought the earth was flat and rectangular.

Now my response did not actually come "off the cuff", but you know what I mean, and it is a response.

 

[Mallon]

In your example, the "warehouses" would be the figurative part, and the snow would be the real element. In another example, "Fountains of the deep", the fountains are the figurative part, and the "deep" is the real object. I think foundations of the earth was mentioned. The "foundations" are figurative and the "earth" is the real object.

But the question remains, keyarch: How do you know that "warehouses" and "fountains" and "foundations" were meant figuratively, while "snow" and "deep" and "earth" were meant literally???

 

[Jase]

But the question remains, keyarch: How do you know that "warehouses" and "fountains" and "foundations" were meant figuratively, while "snow" and "deep" and "earth" were meant literally???

And to add even further, why are creationists allowed to decide those words are figurative and still consider the Bible literal and truthful, and yet when Theistic evolutionists consider 6 days figurative, they are ridiculed and called liars of the devil?

 

[theFijian]

And to add even further, why are creationists allowed to decide those words are figurative and still consider the Bible literal and truthful, and yet when Theistic evolutionists consider 6 days figurative, they are ridiculed and called liars of the devil?

The Fall.

 

[vossler]

But I'm more curious about what creationists think about it from a logistical point of view. If you had $27 million and wanted to spread creationism with it, how would you do it? Granted, paying off a bunch of researchers to come up with breakthrough scientific papers is the most un-sexy option anyone could possibly think of, but I'm not convinced that logistically speaking building a big squat building in the middle of a vaguely half-creationist country is really the best way to go about it.

Knowing what I know about people, I think this is an incredible way to reach them. It will show God and His creation in a very real and effective way. His glory and honor will be properly shown and His Word will be promoted. I can't think of how any scientific papers could ever effectively accomplish that.

As for the amount of money, well I believe the return on investment will be tremendous and I'm not really talking about dollars either. I've read many testimonies at AiG where their material has had a dramatic effect on people's lives. I think a museum such as this will only magnify the effect.

 

[vossler]

In Ham's own words:

"These are challenging days. On the whole, society is becoming more anti-Christian. We are seeing steady increases in homosexuality, support for abortion on demand, unwillingness to obey authorities, unwillingness to work, marriage being abandoned, clothing being abandoned, an increase in pornography, and an increase in lawlessness, to name but a few areas. Christians are fighting for their freedom even in so-called “Christian” nations... It is my contention that this spiritual conflict is rooted in the issue of origins (creation/evolution)."

I have absolutely no problem with this statement, I agree with it. If we can't get our origins straight which God plainly and simply told us about in the first chapter of our life instruction manual called the Bible; well then it shouldn't be any surprise that we can't get the rest of the book right either.

 

[Deamiter]

I have absolutely no problem with this statement, I agree with it. If we can't get our origins straight which God plainly and simply told us about in the first chapter of our life instruction manual called the Bible; well then it shouldn't be any surprise that we can't get the rest of the book right either.

So my rejection of your factual interpretation of Genesis makes me more susceptable to pornography even though I fully accept the spiritual truth in Genesis? Would you similarly support the message of a display with a wrecking ball marked "Millions of years" next to a boy at a computer who we are told is looking at pornography?

You don't find such an insinuation rather dishonest -- that an interpretational position on not the truth of Genesis but the age of the Earth and universe will drive children to pornography?!?

And you admonish a fellow Christian for being insulted by the clear insinuation?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Knowing what I know about people, I think this is an incredible way to reach them. It will show God and His creation in a very real and effective way. His glory and honor will be properly shown and His Word will be promoted. I can't think of how any scientific papers could ever effectively accomplish that.

"Show God and His creation in a very real and effective way..." But is it an accurate way?

"His glory and honor will be properly shown..." But will His achievements be properly shown?

Or do these things not matter?

 

[vossler]

So my rejection of your factual interpretation of Genesis makes me more susceptable to pornography even though I fully accept the spiritual truth in Genesis? Would you similarly support the message of a display with a wrecking ball marked "Millions of years" next to a boy at a computer who we are told is looking at pornography?

You don't find such an insinuation rather dishonest -- that an interpretational position on not the truth of Genesis but the age of the Earth and universe will drive children to pornography?!?

No I don't find that dishonest, my own personal experiences back that up. Does that mean that everyone who doesn't accept Genesis as truth will become a homosexual, want an abortion, surf for pornography, etc., obviously no. It does however, I believe, make people more susceptible to doing those things. I personally believe think the association is fair and is born out when you look at society.