• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Do Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged baboons...?

Mikecpking

Senior Member
Aug 29, 2005
2,389
69
60
Telford,Shropshire,England
Visit site
✟25,599.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
"My position is, after many years of prayer and studying the Bible, that the theory of evolution does not weaken the authority and truthfulness of the Bible when the Bible is prayerfully and carefully studied, and that when witnessing to people who believe in evolution, the gospel should be presented to them in a manner that is in harmony with their belief if evolution."

I believe that statement is untrue. In the Book of Genesis, the creation of Adam and Eve and their fall talks about the creation of man in God's image. Is that image one of an amoeba or even an ape? I don't think so.

Evolutionists preach their version of creation and Christians preach creation by God. The two just won't fit together regardless of how much we wish to appear intellectual in our arguments on the Holy Bible and our belief in God and the Holy Bible.

Once, people begin to pick and choose what they want to believe in the Holy Bible, the entire thing had might as well be tossed out. If scoffers and "intellectual believers" want to appear intelligent, they begin throwing in bits of doubt about parts of the Holy Bible. I want to stress one important thing for those who want to change what is clearly taught in the Holy Bible and that is,

Revelation:

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
book.

No one is throwing doubt on the holy scriptures, but in the light of massive evidence for evolution and an ancient earth; our INTERPRETATION needs to change.
Be careful not to condemn or judge us fellow believers that we do not have the same interpretation as you.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi PG,

You responded:

If one interprets the first eleven chapter of Genesis to be an accurate, literal account of historic events, it would be impossible for any of the trees in the garden to have any growth rings because growth rings in trees are the result in fluctuations in rainfall and other climatic conditions over a period of years.

Then might I also consider that you wouldn't have believed Adam to be a fully formed man since the only way a man becomes app. 6' tall with a hairy chest and underarms and a heart that weighs app. 5 lbs. is after several years of eating good and being nurtured and growing in reasonably good health?

No, friend, you and I don't understand miracles the same. You're saying that a miraculously created tree can't have rings because that supercedes the natural laws that create them and I'm saying yes they can because a miracle does supercede all of the natural laws that create them.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
"My position is, after many years of prayer and studying the Bible, that the theory of evolution does not weaken the authority and truthfulness of the Bible when the Bible is prayerfully and carefully studied, and that when witnessing to people who believe in evolution, the gospel should be presented to them in a manner that is in harmony with their belief if evolution."

I believe that statement is untrue. In the Book of Genesis, the creation of Adam and Eve and their fall talks about the creation of man in God's image. Is that image one of an amoeba or even an ape? I don't think so.

Evolutionists preach their version of creation and Christians preach creation by God. The two just won't fit together regardless of how much we wish to appear intellectual in our arguments on the Holy Bible and our belief in God and the Holy Bible.

Once, people begin to pick and choose what they want to believe in the Holy Bible, the entire thing had might as well be tossed out. If scoffers and "intellectual believers" want to appear intelligent, they begin throwing in bits of doubt about parts of the Holy Bible. I want to stress one important thing for those who want to change what is clearly taught in the Holy Bible and that is,

Revelation:

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
book.

The conclusion that I do not believe the entire Bible because I do not agree with your interpretation of the entire Bible is based upon the false premise that your interpretation of the entire Bible is correct. I believe the entire Bible, but I do not interpret it the way that you do.

Furthermore, the “book” referred to in Rev. 22:18-19 cannot possibly be a reference to the Bible because the Bible did not yet exist. Therefore, the “book” referred to in Rev. 22:18-19 was necessarily the scroll containing The Revelation of John.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
Hi PG,

You responded:

If one interprets the first eleven chapter of Genesis to be an accurate, literal account of historic events, it would be impossible for any of the trees in the garden to have any growth rings because growth rings in trees are the result in fluctuations in rainfall and other climatic conditions over a period of years.

Then might I also consider that you wouldn't have believed Adam to be a fully formed man since the only way a man becomes app. 6' tall with a hairy chest and underarms and a heart that weighs app. 5 lbs. is after several years of eating good and being nurtured and growing in reasonably good health?

No, friend, you and I don't understand miracles the same. You're saying that a miraculously created tree can't have rings because that supercedes the natural laws that create them and I'm saying yes they can because a miracle does supercede all of the natural laws that create them.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I believe in miracles in the same manner that you described your belief in them. Where I disagree is that God would have had a reason to create the trees in the garden with growth rings when the cause of growth rings did not yet exist and God had every hope that the cause would not come about.

Genesis 6:5. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

I do not believe that God is a deceiver who created the earth to make it appear to be old in order to deceives us into believing that which is not true. The earth appears to be old because God created it a very long time ago.
 
Upvote 0

faceofbear

Veteran
Aug 3, 2009
1,380
99
Texas
✟24,739.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others

Bear,

For most of us, we are merely countering what we were falsely taught in school. Those concepts of evolution were neither intellectually sound nor very deep into science. They were, to quote you Bear, quite pitiful.

Therefore, since some of our beliefs were influenced or even molded by this elementary, pitiful, incorrect, and void of scientific evidence material, we are not trying to dissuade the Richard Dawkins's of the world, nor do we need to appeal to their level of learning.

We need to merely understand enough of the argument to counter this shallow defense of evolution that most of us were exposed to. And leave it to the intellectually giant Christians to debate the intellectually giant evolutionists.

In other words,

A simple argument is enough when the science used to establish the premise is simple, and fraudulent in many cases.

When I stopped to think about the process, creature with no eyes evolving into creature with fully formed eyes, that was enough for me. I can go on and get a PhD in optometry and one in Creation Science; but it doesn't change the fact that a fully functional eye is the only eye that works. A partly formed eye is no good, and brainless Nature would not favor it. It's easy to start with a fully formed eye and conclude it must have evolved. The problem is starting with no eye and trying to get where we are.

A partly formed nub is no good; only a fully formed limb is any good and non-intelligent Mother Nature would not favor the growth and progress of a nub toward becoming an arm or leg, one small permutation and lengthening at a time, no bones to part bones, part bones to bone marrow, you get the picture.

Having PhD's would be great; but sometimes it only makes one blinder in what one wants to believe. "knowledge puffs up" (somewhere in scripture). And all I need to do is slow down my thought process enough to see the implausibility and even ridiculousness of what they are proposing. The fact that a smarter man can come up with a biased way to explain that doesn't change things.

No matter how smart, people believe what they do because of need, inner needs that drive them.

The evidence is important; but you will never convince someone who has an emotional need to believe they are not responsible to a Creator. Those that break through that barrier will be open to true science, creation science. The more they know & smarter they are, the more they will need. But what they mostly need is humility and an attitude of being open to the truth.

The argument for macroevolution is ridiculous, and always was. Eventually this theory will be replaced with the theory that life was seeded here from space, and conveniently ignored as to where it came from before that.

The fact is, for myself I just don't have enough blind faith anymore to believe evolution.

Blessings,
Former Theistic Evolutionist,
Currently Creationist,
H.

Bill,

I agree for the most part. However, I do not believe that understanding the basic principles of evolution can be found in Christian books. Regardless of what people want to believe about Christians, they unfortunately, to our shame, misrepresent information and make our whole community look like fools by arguments that can't beheld up against any freshman in college. The reason why I keep mentioning college, etc. is that is when most people stop believing in God and accept evolution (not realizing that evolution still doesn't remove God -- many people I've talked to never really thought of that for whatever reason).

The reason, I believe, that one should at all read Richard Dawkins is because he is the primary go-to among many new agnostics and atheists (mostly the latter). Dawkins has written books that the general public can understand without getting a PhD, and simply analyzing Dawkins claims with any thought, will be able to refute what he is saying. Granted, if you have any experience at all in biology or philosophy. Unfortunately, most people just read it and put it down without thinking about it and just take it at face value. The same that Christians do with theists "disproving" evolution.

I'm not saying we should be able to debate Richard Dawkins, but if one wants to debate at all against evolution, they should read Dawkins because he is highly respected in that field. It'd be similar to a Atheists recommending John Piper, John MacArthur, or (don't hate) Rick Warren. Whether we agree with any of those three is a different story, but the truth is they speak for a large crowd of professing Christians in this age. If you were atheist and wanted to understand Christianity, it'd be unintelligible to rely on an atheist to provide you with that information, as informed as they may be, as opposed to an actual Christian.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist

When I stopped to think about the process, creature with no eyes evolving into creature with fully formed eyes, that was enough for me. I can go on and get a PhD in optometry and one in Creation Science; but it doesn't change the fact that a fully functional eye is the only eye that works. A partly formed eye is no good, and brainless Nature would not favor it. It's easy to start with a fully formed eye and conclude it must have evolved. The problem is starting with no eye and trying to get where we are.

A partly formed nub is no good; only a fully formed limb is any good and non-intelligent Mother Nature would not favor the growth and progress of a nub toward becoming an arm or leg, one small permutation and lengthening at a time, no bones to part bones, part bones to bone marrow, you get the picture.


Evolutionists do have some hurdles to overcome to explain things that are difficult to explain, but the evolution of the eye and the evolution of limbs are not at all difficult to explain. Indeed, both processes are used in university classrooms to illustrate the basic processes of evolution.

We have today animals with everything from the simple ability to perceive light to animals with fully formed eyes and the ability to very accurately perceive colors of light and to very finely focus that light. The brains of the latter group of creatures enable them to interpret that data to form images in their minds. The evidence very strongly suggests that the eye and the mind evolved simultaneously in those creatures that have good vision.

There is very substantial evidence that creatures with limbs evolved from creatures with fins, and the evolution of very simple fins is not at all difficult to explain—especially when one examines the creatures alive today with very simple fins.

Arguments based upon a lack of information are not very good arguments.
 
Upvote 0

Hupomone10

Veteran
Mar 21, 2010
3,952
142
Here
✟27,471.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Evolutionists do have some hurdles to overcome to explain things that are difficult to explain, but the evolution of the eye and the evolution of limbs are not at all difficult to explain. Indeed, both processes are used in university classrooms to illustrate the basic processes of evolution.

We have today animals with everything from the simple ability to perceive light to animals with fully formed eyes and the ability to very accurately perceive colors of light and to very finely focus that light. The brains of the latter group of creatures enable them to interpret that data to form images in their minds. The evidence very strongly suggests that the eye and the mind evolved simultaneously in those creatures that have good vision.

There is very substantial evidence that creatures with limbs evolved from creatures with fins, and the evolution of very simple fins is not at all difficult to explain—especially when one examines the creatures alive today with very simple fins.

Arguments based upon a lack of information are not very good arguments.
I appreciate your response, but that was my point. There are fully functional animals with fully functional forms of sight. There are no fossils with partially formed eyes or forms of eyes. These wouldn't even be useful. And that aside, only an intelligence could cause such a thing. Brainless nature could never predispose animals toward some future useful end, pushing through all the useless evolutionary iterations.

That's a good attempt, but a circular shaft of metal doesn't mean that it is the ancestor of a screw, and it is useless in trying to function as a screw. In fact, it IS the ancestor of a screw, but only because there is a designer making it so.

H.
 
Upvote 0

Hupomone10

Veteran
Mar 21, 2010
3,952
142
Here
✟27,471.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Bill,

I agree for the most part. However, I do not believe that understanding the basic principles of evolution can be found in Christian books. Regardless of what people want to believe about Christians, they unfortunately, to our shame, misrepresent information and make our whole community look like fools by arguments that can't beheld up against any freshman in college. The reason why I keep mentioning college, etc. is that is when most people stop believing in God and accept evolution (not realizing that evolution still doesn't remove God -- many people I've talked to never really thought of that for whatever reason).

The reason, I believe, that one should at all read Richard Dawkins is because he is the primary go-to among many new agnostics and atheists (mostly the latter). Dawkins has written books that the general public can understand without getting a PhD, and simply analyzing Dawkins claims with any thought, will be able to refute what he is saying. Granted, if you have any experience at all in biology or philosophy. Unfortunately, most people just read it and put it down without thinking about it and just take it at face value. The same that Christians do with theists "disproving" evolution.

I'm not saying we should be able to debate Richard Dawkins, but if one wants to debate at all against evolution, they should read Dawkins because he is highly respected in that field. It'd be similar to a Atheists recommending John Piper, John MacArthur, or (don't hate) Rick Warren. Whether we agree with any of those three is a different story, but the truth is they speak for a large crowd of professing Christians in this age. If you were atheist and wanted to understand Christianity, it'd be unintelligible to rely on an atheist to provide you with that information, as informed as they may be, as opposed to an actual Christian.
Oh. I gottcha. Go to the authority, understand where he's coming from and look for the holes. I misunderstood your previous.

In fact, that is similar to what I did regarding Jehovah's Witnesses years ago. I found out the hard way that "Kingdom of the Cults" was insufficient for preparation to combat a knowledgeable JW. However, once I had their
translation of the Bible, the New World Translation, with all their works included in the back of it, a whole world of opportunity opened up for me.

I was having a discussion one time with a younger JW lady, and next time she brought back a veteran missionary with her. I used what their own translation said concerning the meaning of one word that they changed, showed them both where they didn't change it in another place, and the young lady was speechless. The older lady changed the subject, a strategy frequently used on these threads as well, I've noticed. :D

Blessings to you, and hang in there,
Bill
 
Upvote 0

Hupomone10

Veteran
Mar 21, 2010
3,952
142
Here
✟27,471.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If I'm wrong on this eye-example, someone please walk me through it, from no eye to first-forming eye (or its many permutations) to partially formed eye, to fully formed eye.

If this is a bad example, although I've already used it I need to know before I use it with a non-believer who refutes it.

Thanks,
H. (Bill)
 
Upvote 0

phoenixdem

Newbie
Nov 28, 2010
1,158
34
South Dakota
✟24,080.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The conclusion that I do not believe the entire Bible because I do not agree with your interpretation of the entire Bible is based upon the false premise that your interpretation of the entire Bible is correct. I believe the entire Bible, but I do not interpret it the way that you do.

Furthermore, the “book” referred to in Rev. 22:18-19 cannot possibly be a reference to the Bible because the Bible did not yet exist. Therefore, the “book” referred to in Rev. 22:18-19 was necessarily the scroll containing The Revelation of John.

Fundamentalists have a certain quirk. We believe that God wrote the Holy Bible and preserved it. We also believe that He guided the establishment of the Holy Bible. If God is all-knowing and we think He is, He would certainly know the future. By that, I mean that God knew how His words would be put together and in what books. Fundamentalists are strange in that way. We believe in the power of God even in the world of today. If He wanted the specific books to be in His Holy Bible, He would arrange it. It is interesting that the Book of Revelation was likely the last Book of the Holy Bible that was written. The third Book of John was written about the same time.

You say that I interpret the Holy Bible in my own way. There are many Christians in the past and today that "interpret" the Holy Bible in the same way. I don't make up things along the way that change the plain words of the Holy Bible as do many compromisers of today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeaconDean
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
I appreciate your response, but that was my point. There are fully functional animals with fully functional forms of sight. There are no fossils with partially formed eyes or forms of eyes. These wouldn't even be useful. And that aside, only an intelligence could cause such a thing. Brainless nature could never predispose animals toward some future useful end, pushing through all the useless evolutionary iterations.

That's a good attempt, but a circular shaft of metal doesn't mean that it is the ancestor of a screw, and it is useless in trying to function as a screw. In fact, it IS the ancestor of a screw, but only because there is a designer making it so.

H.

If I'm wrong on this eye-example, someone please walk me through it, from no eye to first-forming eye (or its many permutations) to partially formed eye, to fully formed eye.

If this is a bad example, although I've already used it I need to know before I use it with a non-believer who refutes it.

Thanks,
H. (Bill)

The evolution of the eye has fascinated evolutionist as far back as Darwin himself. Regarding the evolution of the eye he wrote in the first edition of his On the Origen of Species (1859),
Organs of extreme perfection and complication.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
In the sixth edition (1872) of the same work he wrote,
Organs of extreme perfection and complication.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
In both of these editions, Darwin proceeds to lay out his understanding of the mechanism by which the evolution of the eye took place. The mechanism is given in more detail in the sixth edition than it is in the first edition.


150 years of study of the evolution of the eye have proved that Darwin was correct, we do see in nature animals with everything from the simple ability to perceive light to animals with fully formed eyes and the ability to very accurately perceive colors of light and to very finely focus that light. Furthermore, the mechanism by which the evolution of the eye could have taken place is now much better understood.

We very seldom find in the fossil record fossilized soft tissues such as eyes because they decay much more rapidly than fossilization can normally take place. Instead, we typically find fossilized bones and teeth. Therefore, we cannot expect to find in the fossil recorded a full spectrum of the evolution of the eye. We do find, however, this full spectrum in living animals. Indeed, we have today animals with everything from the simple ability to perceive light to animals with fully formed eyes and the ability to very accurately perceive colors of light and to very finely focus that light. Even having the simple ability to perceive light is a huge advantage over no sight at all, and all that is necessary for an animal to perceive light is cells in their body that are sensitive to light. With every improvement in vision come further advantages.

According to the theory of evolution, evolution is taking place throughout the plant and animal kingdoms, but much faster in some plants and animal than others. For example, in Horsetail plant (Equisetum telmateia), still looks very much like it did 100 million years ago. The same is true of the the American cockroach Periplaneta americana (even though its resistence to the poisons that we use to control it is evolving rapidly). On the other hand, some of the species of plants in the genus Clarkia are rapidly evolving, as is the Maliaria Mosquito (Anopheles gambiae). The causes of these different rates of evolution are complex, but they are mostly due the need, or the absence of the need, to adapt to environmental changes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MichaelKelley

Sinner Saved By Grace
Jul 28, 2010
455
18
35
Eads, TN
Visit site
✟23,186.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Ken Ham was a guest speaker in my Church not too long ago, and several of us were shocked by how very little Ken Ham knows about either Genesis or the theory of evolution. Indeed, when arguing against evolution, he mostly argued against things that evolutionists do not even believe. When he argued against things that evolutionist do believe, his arguments from science betrayed the fact that he has very little knowledge of science. Any middle school science teacher could very easily point out fatal flaws in his arguments. When he argued from the Bible, it was all too apparent that his knowledge of the Bible would not qualify him to teach a Sunday school class in my Church. Ken Ham was never invited back.

Ken Ham had been invited to my church especially for the benefit of the high school kids in our congregation in order to help them better understand the weaknesses in the theory of evolution, but when I saw that he knew virtually nothing at all about evolutionary biology, I inquired about what, if any, formal education he had beyond high school. I learned that his only formal education in biology was not in general biology in which one is taught a little bit about evolution, but in the area of applied environmental biology, an area of biology in which he was taught virtually nothing at all about evolutionary biology. Most of the middle school science teachers in my community know more about evolutionary biology that does Ken Ham—and of course, Ken Ham has no education at all in geology.

I suppose that Ken Ham means well, but I believe that Christians have an obligation before God to get a good education before they go about teaching others.

I don't feel like arguing points on Ken Ham, so I'll just ask you to go to:
www.khouse.org
This is Dr. Chuck Missler's website, who is one of the smartest men living today. He's done so much that whenever people are introducing him they don't know where to start:

Chuck Missler received a Congressional appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy and then served in the U.S. Air Force. After leaving active duty, he became Branch Chief of the Department of Guided Missiles at Lowry Air Force Base. Chuck has earned a Masters Degree in engineering from UCLA and a Ph.D. from Louisiana Baptist University. Chuck has worked as a systems engineer at TRW, followed by a Senior Analyst position serving both the intelligence community and the Department of Defense.

He also worked for the Ford Motor Company where he established the first international industrial computer network. He has served as a consultant to the Board of Directors of Rockwell International for corporate acquisitions and has also participated in over 100 business ventures as a principal, strategic advisor, or turnaround specialist. During the past 30 years, Chuck has also served on the Board of Directors of over a dozen public companies, and was Chairman and CEO of six of them. In addition, Chuck is the author of over sixty publications, including Learn the Bible in 24 Hours, Cosmic Codes - Hidden Messages From the Edge of Eternity, and "Alien Encounters."

As the result of a merger -- he found himself the chairman and a major shareholder of a small, publicly owned development company known as Phoenix Group International. The firm established an $8 billion joint venture with the Soviet Union to supply personal computers to their 143,000 schools. Due to several unforeseen circumstances, the venture failed. The Misslers lost everything, including their home, automobiles and insurance.

It was during this difficult time that Chuck turned to God and the Bible. As a child he developed an intense interest in the Bible; studying it became a favorite pastime. In the 1970s, while still in the corporate world, Chuck began leading weekly Bible studies at the 30,000-member Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, in California. He and Nancy established Koinonia House in 1973.

Chuck had enjoyed a longtime, personal relationship with Hal Lindsey, who upon hearing of Chuck's professional misfortune, convinced him that he could easily succeed as an independent author and speaker. Over the years, Chuck had developed a loyal following. (Through Doug Wetmore, head of the tape ministry of Firefighters for Christ, Chuck learned that over 7 million copies of his taped Bible studies were scattered throughout the world.) Koinonia House then became Chuck's full-time profession.
The Book of Genesis, Day 2 - Chuck Missler
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
Five months after I accepted Christ as my savior, God called me to prepare for the pastoral and teaching ministry. During the next several months, my financial situation rapidly deteriorated. My house was broken into and burglarized four times. I did not have the money to replace anything that was stolen; indeed, I did not even have the money to replace the glass in the window through which the burglars entered my home. My gas and electric service was turned off because I could not pay the bills. I had no money at all to purchase food, so I ate all of the catsup, mustard, margarine, and other edible things in the house. I got so hungry that I experimented with eating the plants in my yard, but I found that none of them were edible. A cherry tomato vine came up from a seed that happened to fall in my yard, and I was very grateful for the three tomatoes that began to form on the vine.

Two of them ripened well before the third one, and they were the most delicious things that I have ever eaten. Everyday after that, I checked the third tomato, hoping that it would ripe enough to eat it, having had nothing at all to eat since I ate the second tomato. One day, I saw that it was almost ripe, and I was looking forward with all of my heart to the following day because I had decided that would be the day to eat it. But alas! I walked outside the following day to eat it—but it was gone! I diligently searched for it, and I finally found it so badly squashed into the dirt in my backyard that I was not able to eat it. Never in my life had I experience such anguish and despair! I wanted that little cherry tomato with every ounce of my being, but it had been destroyed!

I prayed earnestly on my knees day after day for something to eat, but my prayers for food were not answered. I lost so much weight that when I lay down at night, my nerves pressed against my bones causing me horrible pain. Nonetheless, I spent the daylight hours reading my Bible, and each night I left my Bible open to the 25th Psalm where David wrote, “O my God, in You I trust….” so that, should I die of starvation during the night, I would leave those words as my testimony to whoever might find my body. I had not paid my water bill for four months, and one morning I saw through my living room window a man from the water department turn off my water and padlock the meter. I had no water to drink, and I could not flush my toilet! I went to bed that night hoping that God would mercifully take me home, but He did not.

During this horrible ordeal, that lasted for months, I had no way to get to my church where I had been faithfully attending every Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, but no one, no one at all, came from my church to see if I was alright. My faith in God, however, was not shaken and miracles began to happen—miracles so wonderful that I dare not write of them lest I be thought to be a liar. God enabled me to prepare for the pastoral and teaching ministry, and then He blessed me with a wonderful congregation of loving people who loved the word of God.

Today, my knowledge of the Book of Genesis far surpasses Chuck Missler’s, but I do not know it well enough to teach it. My favorite chapters in Genesis are chapters 1-11, and I have read extensively about those eleven chapters in very scholarly commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis, as well as articles in academic journals, expository and homiletic commentaries on Genesis, and in a host of other places. Therefore, I occasionally post comments about Genesis chapters 1-11, but I do not presume to teach those chapters. I have a much better education in New Testament exegesis and translation theory, and that is what I teach.

The home in which I nearly starved to death was foreclosed upon. I did not have a car to be repossessed, but all of my good clothes were stolen by burglars. Does this make me qualified to teach Genesis? No, of course it does not. Do the thousands of hours that I have spent studying Genesis make me qualified to teach it? No, it does not. The academic literature on Genesis is enormous and extremely technical, and a good understanding of it requires not only a thorough knowledge of Hebrew, but also a good knowledge of the other ancient oriental languages in which literature pertinent to the interpretation of Genesis is written. God has raised up a number of very fine scholars of Genesis, but I am most certainly not one of them.

How does losing one’s home in a foreclosure and having one’s car repossessed make anyone qualified to teach a subject that one knows nothing about. I am very much more familiar with the book of Genesis than is Chuck Missler, but it would be very arrogant of me to believe that I know it well enough to teach it.

By the way, Hal Lindsey was an assistant pastor of a church in my community until he was fired for insubordination. He took up a collection during a Sunday night service even though he knew that the senior pastor prohibited collections being taken up during any service other than the Sunday morning services.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MagusAlbertus

custom user title
Aug 25, 2003
1,019
24
Edinburg TX
Visit site
✟1,310.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Here is a suggestion for you when you do feel called by God to teach Genesis. The Theory of Evolution is still a theory and Christians are to follow the word of God, not Charles Darwin.
except that God does not contradict Darwin; so it's not a problem.

I think maybe you didn't read the thread.

PG:

When people actually know what they are talking about they are humble; When they are as ignorant as possible they think they know everything.

See teenagers.


Many of us never grow past teenager status as Christians.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think maybe you didn't read the thread.

PG:

When people actually know what they are talking about they are humble; When they are as ignorant as possible they think they know everything.

I'm gonna keep my mouth shut on this even though I want to say something so bad.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟174,098.00
Faith
Baptist
except that God does not contradict Darwin; so it's not a problem.

I think maybe you didn't read the thread.

PG:

When people actually know what they are talking about they are humble; When they are as ignorant as possible they think they know everything.

See teenagers.


Many of us never grow past teenager status as Christians.

My first wake-up call was when I first stepped into an immense university library and walked through the miles of stacks full of books on every conceivable subject. Today, I have a much better education than I had back then—but I am still a midget among giants that tower over me.

My second wake-up call was when I got saved and became acquainted with the infinitely knowledgeable and wise God. Today, I have a much better education than I had back then—but I am still a mere mortal, and the little knowledge that I possess, I posses only by the grace of God.

My third wake-up call still awaits me—and with everything within me, I am looking forward to the bright and glorious morning when I shall come face to face with the infinitely knowledgeable and wise God, and drop to my knees before Him.


As I journey through the land, singing as I go,
Pointing souls to Calvary—to the crimson flow,
Many arrows pierce my soul from without, within;
But my Lord leads me on, through Him I must win.

Oh, I want to see Him, look upon His face,
There to sing forever of His saving grace;
On the streets of glory let me lift my voice,
Cares all past, home at last, ever to rejoice.

When in service for my Lord dark may be the night,
But I’ll cling more close to Him, He will give me light;
Satan’s snares may vex my soul, turn my thoughts aside;
But my Lord goes ahead, leads whate’er betide.

Oh, I want to see Him, look upon His face,
There to sing forever of His saving grace;
On the streets of glory let me lift my voice,
Cares all past, home at last, ever to rejoice.

When in valleys low I look toward the mountain height,
And behold my Savior there, leading in the fight,
With a tender hand outstretched toward the valley low,
Guiding me, I can see, as I onward go.

Oh, I want to see Him, look upon His face,
There to sing forever of His saving grace;
On the streets of glory let me lift my voice,
Cares all past, home at last, ever to rejoice.

When before me billows rise from the mighty deep,
Then my Lord directs my bark; He doth safely keep,
And He leads me gently on through this world below;
He’s a real Friend to me, oh, I love Him so.

Oh, I want to see Him, look upon His face,
There to sing forever of His saving grace;
On the streets of glory let me lift my voice,
Cares all past, home at last, ever to rejoice.

R. H. Cornelius, our Baptist brother in Christ
 
Upvote 0

joshua41

Junior Member
Jun 25, 2007
142
10
36
the south
✟22,824.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
PrincetonGuy,

I also find this topic quite intriguing, perplexing, and discomforting. Often times I ask the very same questions that you do. This topic is also much deeper than just evolution--it includes the historicity of the Bible in general.

At this current time I actually find my beliefs very much in agreement with yours.

I would also like recognize the fact that you have obviously taken a very unbiased look into this topic.

With that said, I have also taken a very long look into this subject:

At the end of the day, I am not justified by works. I am justified for my faith in Jesus Christ. Faith that he came down to earth, as stated, and rose again. Man, unless I humble myself like a child and believe like a child I will not be able to make it into heaven.

What else can we possibly base our faith on other than the Bible? Absolutely nothing. It is, with out a doubt, the link to God. And, if we believe this with the faith of a child, how can we doubt one bit?

What is the problem if the some of the arguments here are simplistic yet Biblically based? I will yield to you that there is a problem with people manipulating science for their own view points.

This may not be so obvious, but everyone from the YEC to the Christian Evolutionist feels obligated to unite their religion and science into one union.

I would speculate that the difference between you and the YEC is that you are not willing to manipulate science to fit your predetermined means. This is to be appauded.

I would also speculate that, if you are anything like myself, you are posting here because you do not find the Bible to have any real power by the time you factor in a more scientific view point.

If I were to try and factor in all the recent Catholic declarations on the Bible I might as well just throw the whole book in the garbage.

For me, the answer has to be faith. Faith moves mountains, raises the dead, heals the sick. A person could easily spend their whole life researching this subject and still return nothing conclusive. Is that a fruitful endeavor?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0