How many creationists practise what they preach?

[AV1611VET]

Interesting. Have you always been a Baptist?

Yup.

I started out American Baptist, then switched to Independent Fundamental Baptist.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not at all the way it works in the academic world of scholarship, which is where I am coming from, Dad. The church fathers had their strengths and weaknesses. Our goal is to dump the weaknesses and retain the strengths.

 

[OzSpen]

If Augustine was saved, he went to Heaven.

If Augustine was not saved, he went to Hell.

As to where I think he went, I'm not his judge, but if I had to take a guess, I would guess Hell.

And you provide not one shred of evidence. Is this how you engage in discussion on a Christian forum? You make an allegation about the eternal destiny about a leading church father and then you have a 'guess' where he went at death.

You are not engaging in constructive conversation to encourage me to continue with you in discussion. Yours is a shallow conclusion when you provide zero evidence.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz, you didn't address any of the points in my post, nor even answer simple questions. You didn't explain why there is no mention of gaps (an idea that has to be made up and inserted into the text), nor did you explain why you suggest gaps when they do almost nothing to help the problems with a literal reading, such as the problem that just lengthening the days of creation week doesn't change the fact that the order still makes no sense, when read literally, etc.

God gave us a brain to use. It's called the Christian mind in action that thinks about what is in the OT and whether the OT is complete in its genealogies. It is NOT, and I've provided you with the evidence.

Seems like you don't want to think much about this issue and the biblical evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The only gaps Bible scholars have is between their ears, and they haven't discovered those yet.

I took a calculator and worked out the genealogies once on my own, independent of Bishop Ussher, and came up with a variance of only some 100 years.

That's close enough that I just use his dates for the sake of Occam's razor.

Ah, but nobody thinks that Bishop Ussher did his math wrongly; rather, that the numbers in the Bible are something other than literally accurate.

For example, they could be numbers of honor instead of numbers of literal years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but nobody thinks that Bishop Ussher did his math wrongly; rather, that the numbers in the Bible are something other than literally accurate.

For example, they could be numbers of honor instead of numbers of literal years.

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Does that sound to you like it's saying ...

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam was honored were nine hundred and thirty years: and his honor ceased.

 

[Hoghead1]

Oh, C'mon, AV1611. That is precisely the kind of remarks that I am talking about. It is not at all a solid criticism of Augustine, just you doing some name-calling. If you want to criticize Augustine, then get busy and focus on specific arguments he made and why and provide your counterarguments. I am well aware that Baptists are critical of Calvin and also other Reformers, as they really took out after the Anabaptists. However, many others of Calvin's teachings are fundamental in many Christian denominations, from the Reformed Church to the Baptist churches, for example, his concepts of predestination, election, God as passionless, static, and aloof, Sola Scriptura, etc. Indeed, the whole so-called TULIP approach of teh Reformed is right out of Calvin. Now, if you want to be truly critical of Calvin, you should be aware many theologians thoroughly reject the TULIP approach, plus predestination, the static image of God, etc.

 

[Hoghead1]

That doesn't answer or serve as a viable rebuttal to any of my claims about Genesis. Also, you jumped too quickly into wanting to attack my character, specifically background, and so missed the mark. I don't think, I know I am solid ground about Scripture. I have a doctorate in theology and that means loads of serious study time and education on Scripture. Again, you have the right to object to anything I or anyone else has to say. But you should play by the rules and go through their case, point by point, showing how you can offer a solid rational rebuttal to their points. Frankly, I don't think you even bothered to read anything I said. If you want to make an impression or me or make me feel truly challenged, then don't tell me, show me. Take each of my points about Genesis as contradictory and show me how you have definitive evidence that proves otherwise.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Does that sound to you like it's saying ...

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam was honored were nine hundred and thirty years: and his honor ceased.

Not that he was honored 930 years, rather he was honored by ascribing 930 years to him. The 930 years, as you read it, causes the reader to be impressed by his life. That's the meaning of the figure, not that he actually lived 930 years.

And the 930 years is only one version of the number of his years.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are laboring under a popular misconception, AV1611. Ussher never argued the world as made in 4004BC. His followers did that.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not at all a solid criticism of Augustine,

I don't need a solid criticism of Augustine.

He's nothing to me: zero, zip.

Augustine can take a hike.

God can raise up better theologians than Augustine -- like my pastor.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't answer or serve as a viable rebuttal to any of my claims about Genesis. Also, you jumped too quickly into wanting to attack my character, specifically background, and so missed the mark. I don't think, I know I am solid ground about Scripture. I have a doctorate in theology and that means loads of serious study time and education on Scripture. Again, you have the right to object to anything I or anyone else has to say. But you should play by the rules and go through their case, point by point, showing how you can offer a solid rational rebuttal to their points. Frankly, I don't think you even bothered to read anything I said. If you want to make an impression or me or make me feel truly challenged, then don't tell me, show me. Take each of my points about Genesis as contradictory and show me how you have definitive evidence that proves otherwise.

My friend, your church heroes can all take a hike.

What's this conversation about anyway?

Did I step on one of your precious heroes of the faith or something?

Just who exactly is this Augustine anyway?

I don't know him from Adam -- and don't care to, either.

If he even mentions that he believes in sacraments, that puts him in danger of hellfire in my opinion.

I once called a Wesleyan school and asked the receptionist if the Lord's Table was a sacrament or an ordinance, and she had to go ask one of the teachers.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are laboring under a popular misconception, AV1611. Ussher never argued the world as made in 4004BC. His followers did that.

Then Ussher can take a hike.

I did the calculations myself, and they came close enough to Ussher's that I just use his calculations for the sake of Occam's razor.

His calculations are much more universal than mine.

And they are easy to find, since the Scofield Reference Bible uses them.

 

[dad]

You are laboring under a popular misconception, AV1611. Ussher never argued the world as made in 4004BC. His followers did that.

Oh, so what did he think?

 

[dad]

Not that he was honored 930 years, rather he was honored by ascribing 930 years to him. The 930 years, as you read it, causes the reader to be impressed by his life. That's the meaning of the figure, not that he actually lived 930 years.

What rubbish. So Adam was not 30 something when a son was born either? Jesus was not 33 years old or so when He died? If big numbers are how we are impressed, Jesus should have been billions of years old! Gong!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What rubbish. So Adam was not 30 something when a son was born either? Jesus was not 33 years old or so when He died? If big numbers are how we are impressed, Jesus should have been billions of years old! Gong!

Didn't Jesus say "Before Abraham was, I am?" Isn't Jesus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world? I think Jesus has that honor.

 

[Papias]

God gave us a brain to use. It's called the Christian mind in action that thinks about what is in the OT and whether the OT is complete in its genealogies. It is NOT, and I've provided you with the evidence.

Didn't you read my post? I've asked about a lot more than just whether or not the genealogies are complete. The "evidence" you supplied does nothing to address the questions I asked. So this is the second or third time you've simply evaded the questions instead of answering them. Here they are again - after being mentioned in both post #402 and #366, this time in numbered form for your convenience :

1. If there are "gaps", why isn't there some verse somewhere saying that? If there is, why haven't you posted it after being asked for it? Why would a view that claims to preserve a "literal" reading be based on "gaps" that aren't literally mentioned anywhere?
2. If there are "gaps", why didn't anyone think so until now? Why have centuries of Christian study of the scriptures "just happened" to miss that, until the data from reality showed us that the times were much longer, after which you "just happened" to suddenly notice that there were "gaps"?
3. If there are "gaps", then how come the Jewish calendar is 5776 for this year, as if there were no "gaps"? Is the entire Jewish community, as well as practically all Christians, who don't see evidence for "gaps", wrong? Well, I guess you answered this one, by calling both faith groups "dishonest".

even if there are "gaps", then these questions apply:

4. Since humans have been around for at least 100,000 years, and the chronology shows 5,776 years, then about 94% is "gap". So you are proposing that the OT shows just ~6% of actual time. Which 6% is chosen to show? The start? The middle? the end? Random? Why would any chronology mention only 6% of the time , and not even say it is doing so?
5. Why is the gap idea proposed to reconcile a literal reading of the OT with reality, when it doesn't do so? Specifically,
5.a. The "gap" chronology idea has humans at the very start of earth's history (1 week into 100,000 years, = 0.00002 %), yet reality shows that humans didn't appear to the very end (after 99.9998%). So the gap idea doesn't help reconcile the chronology.
5.b The order and other facts of the chronology are filled with errors if taken literally, regardless of how many "gaps" are put in.

I guess I just don't see any benefit to claiming "gaps".

God gave us a brain to use. It's called the Christian mind in action ..... I've provided you with the evidence.

Seems like you don't want to think much about this issue and the biblical evidence.

So far you've evaded the questions above multiple times, and then I'm the one you accuse of not wanting to think about the issues and the evidence? Hmmm.....

In Christ-

Papias

 

[dad]

Didn't Jesus say "Before Abraham was, I am?" Isn't Jesus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world? I think Jesus has that honor.

Yes Jesus was before Abraham, but not the man Jesus. Your age twisting attempts are refuted.

 

[ScottA]

Creationists ask that the schools should 'Teach both sides' meaning teach creationism along with evolution in the science class.

How many creationists here teach their home schooled children both sides?
How many creationists here are happy that their children are taught about evolution in school then teach them about creationism at home?

Those are good questions, but they assume that the truth is an unknown.

The only reason to teach both sides, would be if each were based on sound (but unproven) theory, or if they each had value as independent studies. Creationists, indeed do teach science, for its great value in many areas.

Creation is, however, a known fact. Granted, it is not "known" by all, and is limited to those who have access and capacity for such knowledge. But sense when is it best to go with the lessor truth? No measure of skepticism out weighs any fact. And it is ironic that those so hell-bent on evolution would not welcome the idea of evolving beyond the physical sciences. What's with that?

One thing is for certain: It is not reasonable to continue to teach an old theory when it is dispelled by a new truth.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't follow you ScottA, when you say those hell-bent on evolution won't evolve beyond the physical sciences. For example, I and many other theologians believe that God works in and through evolutions. However, we also recognize that the whole question of God is not a scientific question to begin with. Science as science is neutral on the existence of God. It takes much different intellectual and metaphysical equipment to be brought in to address the question of God. That's why I believe science classes would be about the worst place to get into questions of God, as this would take the class way off its intended subject and require extensive review of material outside the realm of scientific studies. For example, it is not a simple matter of proving or disproving God. It is also a matter of determining what kind of God you are speaking about. That in itself is a very complex issue. That's why academia has a division of labor, with questions of God assigned to the theology and philosophy departments.