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.
That's interesting. Could you elaborate on what you find offensive about Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe folks. To me it is something of genius. Wouldn't you say that bringing others to Christ, as they have done for many, is a good example of the way that the Lord is showing His favor on this ministry?Hugh Ross nonsense is offensive to the intelligence and the bible far as I am concerned.
Another way to look at this, however, is that if the Bible were truly inspired by the Creator of all (including language) then He would have no problem in giving the language multiple layers of meaning that those who earnestly seek the Truth in every generation could find truth and meaning in, including our present generation that values science for the good things that it can do.Genesis was written for ancient people to understand, we should not expect the author wrote in current astronomy's terms.
Here are some things I googled on his beliefs.That's interesting. Could you elaborate on what you find offensive about Hugh Ross and the Reasons to Believe folks. To me it is something of genius. Wouldn't you say that bringing others to Christ, as they have done for many, is a good example of the way that the Lord is showing His favor on this ministry?
Here are some things I googled on his beliefs.
"
To accomplish this harmonization of the Bible and science, Ross has embraced much of what modern science has to say about origins. In short, Ross supports the big bang theory, the 4.6 Ga (1 Ga = 109 years) age of the earth, and virtually all of what establishment paleontology claims about the history of life on earth including the order of appearance of different groups. In fairness to Ross, it should be emphasized that he does reject the concept of biological evolution, opting instead for progressive creation.
Ross argues that science alone can drive men to the correct understanding of our origin and hence see the necessity of a Creator.
...Van Bebber and Taylor have reported on the questionable biblical teachings of Ross.10 While this work has alerted some to Ross’s theological problems, many in the church resist that message, primarily because they are convinced that Ross has overpowering scientific arguments for an old earth and universe to which the Bible must be accommodated. Of course, accommodating the Bible to science is the exact opposite of what many intend, but this is what I have observed.
... Ross has expanded the dual revelation theory to the point of likening nature to the sixty-seventh book of the Bible."
The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross - creation.com
Basically, I do not respect folks that trust man more than God and His word.
While I agree with your comments for the most part, I don't think you have characterized the present conflict correctly. The issue is not quite whether the Earth is old or young, or whether the present diversity of life emerged by evolution or by Special Creation. Instead, I believe that it is a conflict between a particular view of the Bible held by Protestant Fundamentalist YECs and everybody else, whether they accept an old Earth and evolution or not. As an example, I give you the Copts (and other Oriental and Orthodox churches) who reject Sola Scriptura and the notion that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of Plenary Verbal Inspiration, who indeed have never held such beliefs about the Bible and are reviled and hated for it by our present crop of YECs even though these churches also reject evolution.So I would like to suggest having the understanding that alternatives to YEC that are held by sincere, Bible-believing Christians. In this way, if someone should ask us about whether one has to reject current scientific theories to become a Christian, we can honestly say that there are viable alternatives to YEC that are consistent with most of the current theories of science as well as still consistent with the Scriptures, and that science should not be stumbling block to anyone for further examination of the Scriptures and obedience to Christ.
That tells us there is a problem with those things. Having looked into what the proble was, I have diagnosed it to be the very basis and belief system they use to build models of the past on. All of the thing you mention use the same foundational belif in a same nature in the past. In the case of cosmology, they use the belief that time itself and space and the spacetime we know on earth exists all through the universe. Using the word science for those beliefs is wrong. Religion or belief would be better words to use.Thank you for taking the time to reply. And I agree that we should we respect and obey the Lord more than men (as Peter said in Acts 5:29 as an example of one of numerous places in the Scriptures with this theme).
To me, what I see happening is a feud between Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and Old Earth Creationists (OEC). No doubt that the YEC have been the main doctrine for most of the history of Christianity, although some could point out exceptions. And so your quotes are from those that hold the YEC viewpoint and are reluctant to give up their viewpoint. They feel that it is a betrayal of their faith in the Scriptures and thus a betrayal to Christ. And hopefully no sincere Christian would want to lead a fellow believer towards a crisis of faith unless it were well warranted, which I don't believe is the case concerning science.
After your response, I was curious and so read some of your responses to previous posts and think that I understand your perspective a little better. I could probably not say anything more eloquently than other posters have done to try to sway you into an OEC perspective. And I do not believe that OEC beliefs or YEC beliefs or something in between is critical to salvation. So I would hope to stand in unison of basic Christian faith with those with all perspectives and trust that the Lord will bring us all to a better understanding of the Truth in His good time as He would have us know it.
I will share an essay below that I wrote on this subject for a Christian men's group that I am a part of, which explains my take as well as anything, with the understanding that others may not agree. But hopefully some people can gain something from it.
Thanks again for sharing your perspective and may the Lord bless us all as we strive to serve, love and know Him better as we grow in the unity of the church for which Christ prayed in John 17.
Young Earth Creationism - A Cultural Perspective
What’s Going On
What is Young Earth Creationism (YEC)? In short, the most commonly held YEC perspective is the belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth was created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago. It is primarily based on the belief that the Lord created the Earth in six 24 hour days, and secondarily that the genealogical account in Genesis 11 is a fairly complete description of the history of mankind. Although not universally accepted throughout Christian history, YEC has been the most popular view, espoused by numerous theologians (e.g., Calvin and Luther) and other luminaries of culture (e.g., Shakespeare), with the result that most of the teaching literature in Christian churches have either explicitly or implicitly been taught from this perspective. In our current society, it is upheld by organizations like the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Historically this view saw renewed interest in the 20th century as a way to reject the tenets of evolution. Polls between 1982 and 2014 show between 40% and 47% of adults in the USA are inclined to agree with this view.
Both Sides Now
Are there any negative repercussions of this perspective? The biggest negative aspect to this perspective is that it is in strong contradiction with many currently accepted scientific models, such as those in geology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, anthropology and botany, among others.
To lost sheep, yes. Not to people advocating other ways and religions.So concerning dialog within the Christian community about these subjects, we can remember the Scripture's admonition to speak with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2).
The Times They are a Changin'
A final thought concerns speaking of these matters to those outside of the Christian faith. Many proponents of YEC take the stand that to reject their interpretation is a slippery slope to rejecting belief in the inerrancy of the Bible and that it could even lead to a disbelief in Christ. The corollary could then be made that to accept Christ means that one would have to accept YEC and thus reject many of the current theories in the sciences. I would suggest that we be careful about this attitude and just as we do not want to put a stumbling block in the way of a brother in Christ, we should also not put a stumbling block in the way of someone outside of the church.
That can be said about many false doctrines, deceptions, sins, and habits of Christians.So I would like to suggest having the understanding that alternatives to YEC that are held by sincere, Bible-believing Christians.
N, you cannot say that. I have seen none. Name one?In this way, if someone should ask us about whether one has to reject current scientific theories to become a Christian, we can honestly say that there are viable alternatives to YEC that are consistent with most of the current theories of science as well as still consistent with the Scriptures, and that science should not be stumbling block to anyone for further examination of the Scriptures and obedience to Christ.
That is what it is about. Are we special, and really created...or some little blue meaningless speck in a vast universe that came from a hot little speck o soup? Are we created by a God who loved us enough to die for us? Or are were animals that came from some animal womb?While I agree with your comments for the most part, I don't think you have characterized the present conflict correctly. The issue is not quite whether the Earth is old or young, or whether the present diversity of life emerged by evolution or by Special Creation.
That doesn't stop many of your coreligionists. For example, it didn't stop Fundamentalist organizations from going into Iraq under the protection of our invading army to convert indigenous Christians on the grounds that they were not "real" Christians by reason of their not subscribing to the Bible doctrines listed above. You have your on view of it of course, but to me, looking at it from the "outside" so to speak, it looks like a conflict between Protestant Fundamentalism and all other Christians, no matter what they believe about evolution and an old Earth.I have heard the name Copts but do not know anything much about them...let alone hate them.
Source?That doesn't stop many of your coreligionists. For example, it didn't stop Fundamentalist organizations from going into Iraq under the protection of our invading army to convert indigenous Christians on the grounds that they were not "real" Christians by reason of their not subscribing to the Bible doctrines listed above. You have your on view of it of course, but to me, looking at it from the "outside" so to speak, it looks like a conflict between Protestant Fundamentalism and all other Christians, no matter what they believe about evolution and an old Earth.
God has unbreakable covenants with Israel. Israel is the only nation that God has done this with. Israel will never be replaced, and will be in existence forever.Elvis has left the building.
I agree 10,000%. But this has nothing to do with the post I was replying to.God has unbreakable covenants with Israel. Israel is the only nation that God has done this with. Israel will never be replaced, and will be in existence forever.
The astronomers say the visible universe is 13.8 billion years old,
the vast distance can prove that.
Then, how valid is the Church to insist it is only 6000+ years old?
Umm, no.
Strikingly, some biblical manuscripts feature differences from the standard Masoretic biblical language and spelling. Additions and deletions in certain texts imply that the writers felt free to modify texts they were copying.
Source
It has not raised the pacific plate above North America... no matter the billions of years of "cm-per-year" uplift.
Plates are spreading in the mid-atlantic rift meanwhile they subduct on the other side. the result is that we do not have north america - "all under water" nor all the oceans "all above land'.
Obviously,.
So then - back to our limestone covered mountains and sea life fossil remains at the tops.
If this made any sense in standard English I would attempt to respond but ...
"oceans above all water"? Seriously?
They got there via geological uplift over long periods of time. Exactly as they are moving today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?