-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)
- Thread starter Metal Minister
- Start date
thanks
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi MM,
Just stopped in to encourage. It's a tough fight and I don't think people realize the importance of whether or not we accept the Genesis account. I see it posted all the time around here that whether one believes that God created in 6 days or billions of years is not salvation affecting, however, if one is a child of God, then he has been born again. If one has been born again, then he has the Spirit of God through whom Jesus said we would know the truth. If the 'truth', the real actual 'facts' of how all this realm of creation got here is just exactly the way God revealed it through His Spirit to Moses; if it is true that when God said 'evening and morning' He fully intended that phrase to be included so that we would not sit around and say, "Hmmm, I wonder what a day is?"; if it is the 'truth' that God numbered the days in the Genesis account because He knew that thousands of years later Jews, the one's through whom the account came to us, would explain that anytime 'day' is enumerated it is a literal roughly 24 hour day; then that begs the question. Is the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to that person? If the Holy Spirit is not revealing the truth to that person, are they then a child of God?
Now, I know that so many will be offended by that comment and jump on the band wagon that I'm some cheeky guy to question one's position before God, but I'm just saying that this question is a valid question as I understand the Scriptures. I also understand that someone who has just begun trusting and believing in the Lord's testimony and seeking after God will surely pass through a period of learning. But for those who stand adamantly opposed to accepting what God seems to have clearly said after all of the study and research that obviously seems to have gone into so many of the discussions on these boards regarding the creation event, yes, I will not deny it, my mind, my spirit questions who is it that doesn't know the truth and why not?
Abraham was credited with righteousness because he believed God. Those of us who are born again are credited with righteousness in the exact same way - we believe God.
God has said that I'm a sinner/I believe Him.
God has said that Jesus is the only way of salvation/I believe Him.
God has said that He parted a sea/I believe Him.
God has said that He caused to impregnate a virgin girl/I believe Him.
God has said that He flooded the entire planet/I believe Him.
God has said that He, through His angel of death, killed all of the firstborn of Egypt/I believe Him.
God has said that He created this realm of existence in six days and lays out exactly why He did it and what the ultimate outcome is going to be/I believe Him.
God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted
Just stopped in to encourage. It's a tough fight and I don't think people realize the importance of whether or not we accept the Genesis account. I see it posted all the time around here that whether one believes that God created in 6 days or billions of years is not salvation affecting, however, if one is a child of God, then he has been born again. If one has been born again, then he has the Spirit of God through whom Jesus said we would know the truth. If the 'truth', the real actual 'facts' of how all this realm of creation got here is just exactly the way God revealed it through His Spirit to Moses; if it is true that when God said 'evening and morning' He fully intended that phrase to be included so that we would not sit around and say, "Hmmm, I wonder what a day is?"; if it is the 'truth' that God numbered the days in the Genesis account because He knew that thousands of years later Jews, the one's through whom the account came to us, would explain that anytime 'day' is enumerated it is a literal roughly 24 hour day; then that begs the question. Is the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to that person? If the Holy Spirit is not revealing the truth to that person, are they then a child of God?
Now, I know that so many will be offended by that comment and jump on the band wagon that I'm some cheeky guy to question one's position before God, but I'm just saying that this question is a valid question as I understand the Scriptures. I also understand that someone who has just begun trusting and believing in the Lord's testimony and seeking after God will surely pass through a period of learning. But for those who stand adamantly opposed to accepting what God seems to have clearly said after all of the study and research that obviously seems to have gone into so many of the discussions on these boards regarding the creation event, yes, I will not deny it, my mind, my spirit questions who is it that doesn't know the truth and why not?
Abraham was credited with righteousness because he believed God. Those of us who are born again are credited with righteousness in the exact same way - we believe God.
God has said that I'm a sinner/I believe Him.
God has said that Jesus is the only way of salvation/I believe Him.
God has said that He parted a sea/I believe Him.
God has said that He caused to impregnate a virgin girl/I believe Him.
God has said that He flooded the entire planet/I believe Him.
God has said that He, through His angel of death, killed all of the firstborn of Egypt/I believe Him.
God has said that He created this realm of existence in six days and lays out exactly why He did it and what the ultimate outcome is going to be/I believe Him.
God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Amen Ted, and I thank you for the support and kind words. I'm not sure I could've said it any better myself. Your brother in Christ, MM
Upvote
0
MM wrote:
Amazing.
MM, did you actually read my post? Did you check on the reference I gave? I ask because my references are not only made up of real, peer-reviewed scientists who've published in actual journals, but the whole site I listed as a reference (talkorigins.org) is also endorsed by the National Academies of Sciece, the Smithsonian, the Geological Society of America, and more. If that's not using "actual fact", then please inform me what is.
Please compare that in your mind with what you have done - posted videos from well known quacks and charlatans. You started with Bruce Malone, who has no background nor credentials in biology, geology, etc, and makes money from his many publications, which have been shown over and over to be filled with errors and the common methods of pseudoscience.
While it may be hard to do worse than that, you managed to top that by posting videos and sites from Kent Hovind, an even more well known scheister, who has bilked Christians out of millions of dollars, makes arguements so silly that even other creationists laugh at them, and is a convicted fraud who is now in federal prison.
Wow, MM, just wow.
I hope to sometimes reach people with the saving message of Christ. When they see a minister using Malone and Hovind, is it any surprise that they start to think that Christianity itself might be a hoax? Please, for the unsaved, use some better vetting of your sources.
No, as we've pointed out, Bible scholars who know hebrew and the ancient world much better than you reject the literal interpretation. Why do you think that we'll listen to some guy on the internet (who's shown he has no credibility by using Malone and Hovind), and ignore the Bible Scholars?
Did it ever cross your mind that we've heard those same "facts" hundreds of times before? Yes, I did listen, and even go to your videos. They show that you've been duped by arguments that have been refuted over and over - even on these fora. You might learn a lot by perusing old threads here - even several years back.
If you really think that, then your faith is already in trouble. It's like saying that if the earth really is round, then the whole Bible is hogwash.
Why do you speak about that which you are ignorant? Please consider looking into the literally hundreds of transitional fossils before repeating the falshood (no doubt learned from the likes of Hovind) that there aren't any. Instead of being offended when it is pointed out that you are ignorant, maybe learn so as to fix that ignorance? Look, we are all ignorant in many areas. I'm ignorant of computur programming, tree physiology, and dozens of other areas - but at least I know not to make statements about them.
Recommending that people actually know what they are talking about before speaking is "arrogant and self-righteous"? While at the same time saying that you know better than the experts, who have spent their whole lives studying the evidence is somehow not arrogant? Might you have that backwards?
There is no definitive proof of an old earth, or evolution would be called a fact.
Is not the fact that all the different dating methods confirm each other "proof" of an old earth? And, by the way, evolution is called a fact.
I'm not asking you to follow an "atheistic scientist". I'm asking you to listen to the millions of scientists who are Christians who agree that evolution is a fact.
Cool. If that's from a reputable University, then I commend you.
I apologize if I have sounded harsh. I've pointed out that you are talking about a field you are clearly ignorant of. Being ignorant is not an insult - as mentioned, we are all ignorant in many areas. Where did I call you stupid? Knowing you is not relevant - anyone who spouts obvious falsehoods as if they are truths, who displays ignorance of even the laughing stock arguments recognized by both sides, is clearly asking to be brushed off at best. Have I not been civil in pointing out these areas you need to address before you do even greater harm to the cause of Christ?
Don't you areadly recognize that many areas aren't literal, such as the song of solomon, the idea that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on birds, the idea that we live under a hard dome, and so on? Look at how you deal with those non-literal areas, and you already have your answer.
If you care about winning souls for the lord, you'll avoid citing known sheisters, and will at least try to be consisent with established facts. Failing in either of those repels potential Christians - Barna data has shown that literalism is one of the main reasons why millions of people are fleeing the church.
In His name-
Papias
Amazing.
MM, did you actually read my post? Did you check on the reference I gave? I ask because my references are not only made up of real, peer-reviewed scientists who've published in actual journals, but the whole site I listed as a reference (talkorigins.org) is also endorsed by the National Academies of Sciece, the Smithsonian, the Geological Society of America, and more. If that's not using "actual fact", then please inform me what is.
Please compare that in your mind with what you have done - posted videos from well known quacks and charlatans. You started with Bruce Malone, who has no background nor credentials in biology, geology, etc, and makes money from his many publications, which have been shown over and over to be filled with errors and the common methods of pseudoscience.
While it may be hard to do worse than that, you managed to top that by posting videos and sites from Kent Hovind, an even more well known scheister, who has bilked Christians out of millions of dollars, makes arguements so silly that even other creationists laugh at them, and is a convicted fraud who is now in federal prison.
Wow, MM, just wow.
I hope to sometimes reach people with the saving message of Christ. When they see a minister using Malone and Hovind, is it any surprise that they start to think that Christianity itself might be a hoax? Please, for the unsaved, use some better vetting of your sources.
No, as we've pointed out, Bible scholars who know hebrew and the ancient world much better than you reject the literal interpretation. Why do you think that we'll listen to some guy on the internet (who's shown he has no credibility by using Malone and Hovind), and ignore the Bible Scholars?
Did it ever cross your mind that we've heard those same "facts" hundreds of times before? Yes, I did listen, and even go to your videos. They show that you've been duped by arguments that have been refuted over and over - even on these fora. You might learn a lot by perusing old threads here - even several years back.
If you really think that, then your faith is already in trouble. It's like saying that if the earth really is round, then the whole Bible is hogwash.
Why do you speak about that which you are ignorant? Please consider looking into the literally hundreds of transitional fossils before repeating the falshood (no doubt learned from the likes of Hovind) that there aren't any. Instead of being offended when it is pointed out that you are ignorant, maybe learn so as to fix that ignorance? Look, we are all ignorant in many areas. I'm ignorant of computur programming, tree physiology, and dozens of other areas - but at least I know not to make statements about them.
Recommending that people actually know what they are talking about before speaking is "arrogant and self-righteous"? While at the same time saying that you know better than the experts, who have spent their whole lives studying the evidence is somehow not arrogant? Might you have that backwards?
There is no definitive proof of an old earth, or evolution would be called a fact.
Is not the fact that all the different dating methods confirm each other "proof" of an old earth? And, by the way, evolution is called a fact.
I'm not asking you to follow an "atheistic scientist". I'm asking you to listen to the millions of scientists who are Christians who agree that evolution is a fact.
Cool. If that's from a reputable University, then I commend you.
I apologize if I have sounded harsh. I've pointed out that you are talking about a field you are clearly ignorant of. Being ignorant is not an insult - as mentioned, we are all ignorant in many areas. Where did I call you stupid? Knowing you is not relevant - anyone who spouts obvious falsehoods as if they are truths, who displays ignorance of even the laughing stock arguments recognized by both sides, is clearly asking to be brushed off at best. Have I not been civil in pointing out these areas you need to address before you do even greater harm to the cause of Christ?
Don't you areadly recognize that many areas aren't literal, such as the song of solomon, the idea that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on birds, the idea that we live under a hard dome, and so on? Look at how you deal with those non-literal areas, and you already have your answer.
If you care about winning souls for the lord, you'll avoid citing known sheisters, and will at least try to be consisent with established facts. Failing in either of those repels potential Christians - Barna data has shown that literalism is one of the main reasons why millions of people are fleeing the church.
In His name-
Papias
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi papias,
We speak again. You posted in answer to the validity of your claim: I ask because my references are not only made up of real, peer-reviewed scientists who've published in actual journals, but the whole site I listed as a reference (talkorigins.org) is also endorsed by the National Academies of Sciece, the Smithsonian, the Geological Society of America, and more. If that's not using "actual fact", then please inform me what is.
Do you believe that those without the Spirit of God understand the things of God?
Do you not have any understanding of what Paul was referring to when he wrote that 'the time is coming when men will surround themselves with a great crowd of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear?'
What do you believe Paul was referring to as 'basic principles' in this: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.
God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted
We speak again. You posted in answer to the validity of your claim: I ask because my references are not only made up of real, peer-reviewed scientists who've published in actual journals, but the whole site I listed as a reference (talkorigins.org) is also endorsed by the National Academies of Sciece, the Smithsonian, the Geological Society of America, and more. If that's not using "actual fact", then please inform me what is.
Do you believe that those without the Spirit of God understand the things of God?
Do you not have any understanding of what Paul was referring to when he wrote that 'the time is coming when men will surround themselves with a great crowd of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear?'
What do you believe Paul was referring to as 'basic principles' in this: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.
God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie
2 thessalonians 2:10-11
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie
2 thessalonians 2:10-11
Upvote
0
ted wrote:
Ted, I'm not going to be "Christianer than thou", and accuse those those who disagree with me of not being Christian enough. Do you recognize that practically all scientists who are Christians accept evolution and an old earth?
Sure I do. I see many creationists surrounding themselves with quacks who convince them to ignore mountains of evidence of evolution and an old earth, understood and explained by millions of scientists who are Christians, so as to say what their itching ears want to hear. Do you not have any understanding of Paul?
Paul was putting for a basic warning that applies to many ages and times, not just one. However, it does apply well to the modern creationist movement, which was started in the 20th century.
***********************************
MM wrote:
Papias
Ted, I'm not going to be "Christianer than thou", and accuse those those who disagree with me of not being Christian enough. Do you recognize that practically all scientists who are Christians accept evolution and an old earth?
Sure I do. I see many creationists surrounding themselves with quacks who convince them to ignore mountains of evidence of evolution and an old earth, understood and explained by millions of scientists who are Christians, so as to say what their itching ears want to hear. Do you not have any understanding of Paul?
Paul was putting for a basic warning that applies to many ages and times, not just one. However, it does apply well to the modern creationist movement, which was started in the 20th century.
***********************************
MM wrote:
*sigh*. I had hoped to help MM's ability to reach the unsaved. Instead, it's clear that all rational discussion has ceased when discussion is abandoned and substituted with a few scripture verses.
Papias
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi papias,
Why is that you allow yourself to get all worked up concerning others who don't answer your questions, but apparently have no problem in doing it to others? (that's a question)
I asked you: Do you believe that those without the Spirit of God understand the things of God?
You came back with some obfuscatory reply: Ted, I'm not going to be "Christianer than thou", and accuse those those who disagree with me of not being Christian enough. (It's a yes or no question, not an essay response test)
Do you recognize that practically all scientists who are Christians accept evolution and an old earth?
In answer to your question back to me: I don't really have any hard numbers on either how many scientists claim to be christians, and of that number how many believe in evolution. You will have to support that claim with some evidence if you want me to consider it.
However, let me also say, regarding the definition of terms. I consider that when Jesus told his disciples that on that day of judgment there would be many calling out to him saying, "Lord, Lord did we not prophecyand drive out demons in your name?" And then the Lord's response that he would turn to those very people who claimed to have done things in his name and say to them, "I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers'. Hopefully you might understand that when Jesus spoke of those who worked 'in his name', he was talking about 'Christ-ians'.
So, I want you to understand that I do not hold that one labeling themself a christian or signing up to answer 'christian only' questions is the same as those who are 'born again'. Jesus said that for anyone to enter into the kingdom of God, they must be born again. And quite honestly there is only one person on the face of the earth who knows whether or not they are born again and that is themselves.
'Christian' was first used in Antioch by unbelievers to mock and deride those who claimed to follow Christ. We look at all the people who bunch up into a congregation on Sunday morning and say they are Christians, but there is no more gaurantee that they are born again than was Nicodemus who was a man of great, great respect and certainly considered a man of God and yet, clearly didn't understand Jesus' teaching of being born again. A man can be labeled a christian about as easily as a member of the Lion's club can be labeled a lion or the Elk's club an elk. All they have to do is 'sometimes', go to worship services. Believe it or not, many, many people who walk around, especially in the US and label themselves 'christians' don't attend worship services or participate in a fellowship or share their testimony or tell others of the salvation that comes through Jesus any more than polar bear do. But, when the form says: RELIGION - they check off christian.
Now, I say all this because if you really want to impress upon me how foolish I am that I'm not in step with 'what most christian scientists believe'; well you'd first have to give me more than just your considered opinion of that and back it up with some numbers and facts of those who consider themselves to be 'born again' christians.
If, on the other hand you're not going to answer my questions, then I'd really appreciate that you'd stop with the 'oh look, they have ignored my questions so they must be wrong' attitude that you have.
You answered my second question:
Do you not have any understanding of what Paul was referring to when he wrote that 'the time is coming when men will surround themselves with a great crowd of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear?'
Sure I do. I see many creationists surrounding themselves with quacks who convince them to ignore mountains of evidence of evolution and an old earth, understood and explained by millions of scientists who are Christians, so as to say what their itching ears want to hear. Do you not have any understanding of Paul?
Hmmm, according to your calculations by the numbers (although you have yet to post them) the 'creationists surrounding themselves with quacks' is not a great crowd. It is, according to you, just a very, very, very small fringe group of -renegades? Which of your positions is the truth? Are we a great crowd? Or, just a mite on a camel's butt?
You asked: do you not have any understanding of Paul? I think I do. Is there something that you are able to reveal to me about him that would help in my understanding?
To my third question:
I'm really pretty dense, which I would think is quite obvious to you, could you repeat your response in easier to understand layman's terms? What do you mean that Paul was 'putting' for a basic warning that applies to many ages and times, not just one'. And again, I'd ask you to give some proof that the creationist movement was started in the 20th century. (Yes, when you qualify the term as 'modern' creationist movement you almost beg the question with the term.) However, I happen to believe that the basic 'young earth creation' concept has always been the majority understanding of born again believers in the Lord Jesus. However, it's not the type of thing that is easily quantified and so finding verifiable 'proof' of either position is difficult.
Most of those who would claim that all or most early christians believed in evolution don't even consider that evolution itself is a fairly new concept as a worldwide view. There have always been some who have postulated the development of men and creatures as necessarily some sort of evolutionary chain, but I'm firmly convicted that if you were to ask John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Jesus, Barnabas, Timothy, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Moses, Abraham and the many other men of the Scriptures going all the way back to Adam, you might be quite surprised how many of them believed in any kind of 'evolutionary' theory.
God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted
Why is that you allow yourself to get all worked up concerning others who don't answer your questions, but apparently have no problem in doing it to others? (that's a question)
I asked you: Do you believe that those without the Spirit of God understand the things of God?
You came back with some obfuscatory reply: Ted, I'm not going to be "Christianer than thou", and accuse those those who disagree with me of not being Christian enough. (It's a yes or no question, not an essay response test)
Do you recognize that practically all scientists who are Christians accept evolution and an old earth?
In answer to your question back to me: I don't really have any hard numbers on either how many scientists claim to be christians, and of that number how many believe in evolution. You will have to support that claim with some evidence if you want me to consider it.
However, let me also say, regarding the definition of terms. I consider that when Jesus told his disciples that on that day of judgment there would be many calling out to him saying, "Lord, Lord did we not prophecyand drive out demons in your name?" And then the Lord's response that he would turn to those very people who claimed to have done things in his name and say to them, "I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers'. Hopefully you might understand that when Jesus spoke of those who worked 'in his name', he was talking about 'Christ-ians'.
So, I want you to understand that I do not hold that one labeling themself a christian or signing up to answer 'christian only' questions is the same as those who are 'born again'. Jesus said that for anyone to enter into the kingdom of God, they must be born again. And quite honestly there is only one person on the face of the earth who knows whether or not they are born again and that is themselves.
'Christian' was first used in Antioch by unbelievers to mock and deride those who claimed to follow Christ. We look at all the people who bunch up into a congregation on Sunday morning and say they are Christians, but there is no more gaurantee that they are born again than was Nicodemus who was a man of great, great respect and certainly considered a man of God and yet, clearly didn't understand Jesus' teaching of being born again. A man can be labeled a christian about as easily as a member of the Lion's club can be labeled a lion or the Elk's club an elk. All they have to do is 'sometimes', go to worship services. Believe it or not, many, many people who walk around, especially in the US and label themselves 'christians' don't attend worship services or participate in a fellowship or share their testimony or tell others of the salvation that comes through Jesus any more than polar bear do. But, when the form says: RELIGION - they check off christian.
Now, I say all this because if you really want to impress upon me how foolish I am that I'm not in step with 'what most christian scientists believe'; well you'd first have to give me more than just your considered opinion of that and back it up with some numbers and facts of those who consider themselves to be 'born again' christians.
If, on the other hand you're not going to answer my questions, then I'd really appreciate that you'd stop with the 'oh look, they have ignored my questions so they must be wrong' attitude that you have.
You answered my second question:
Do you not have any understanding of what Paul was referring to when he wrote that 'the time is coming when men will surround themselves with a great crowd of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear?'
Sure I do. I see many creationists surrounding themselves with quacks who convince them to ignore mountains of evidence of evolution and an old earth, understood and explained by millions of scientists who are Christians, so as to say what their itching ears want to hear. Do you not have any understanding of Paul?
Hmmm, according to your calculations by the numbers (although you have yet to post them) the 'creationists surrounding themselves with quacks' is not a great crowd. It is, according to you, just a very, very, very small fringe group of -renegades? Which of your positions is the truth? Are we a great crowd? Or, just a mite on a camel's butt?
You asked: do you not have any understanding of Paul? I think I do. Is there something that you are able to reveal to me about him that would help in my understanding?
To my third question:
What do you believe Paul was referring to as 'basic principles' in this: See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Paul was putting for a basic warning that applies to many ages and times, not just one. However, it does apply well to the modern creationist movement, which was started in the 20th century.
I'm really pretty dense, which I would think is quite obvious to you, could you repeat your response in easier to understand layman's terms? What do you mean that Paul was 'putting' for a basic warning that applies to many ages and times, not just one'. And again, I'd ask you to give some proof that the creationist movement was started in the 20th century. (Yes, when you qualify the term as 'modern' creationist movement you almost beg the question with the term.) However, I happen to believe that the basic 'young earth creation' concept has always been the majority understanding of born again believers in the Lord Jesus. However, it's not the type of thing that is easily quantified and so finding verifiable 'proof' of either position is difficult.
Most of those who would claim that all or most early christians believed in evolution don't even consider that evolution itself is a fairly new concept as a worldwide view. There have always been some who have postulated the development of men and creatures as necessarily some sort of evolutionary chain, but I'm firmly convicted that if you were to ask John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, Jesus, Barnabas, Timothy, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Moses, Abraham and the many other men of the Scriptures going all the way back to Adam, you might be quite surprised how many of them believed in any kind of 'evolutionary' theory.
God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Actually it was simply a quote I enjoyed, not a response to you. That will be coming as soon as I have a few extra minutes to break down what you said.( your post is quite ling winded) and again in this statement you show arrogance and disdain for those that disagree with you. You automatically assumed our discussion had ceased because I dared post something not immediately pertaining to your response. This makes it appear as though you looking down your nose at a fellow Christian, and its things like this that drives people from a saving knowledge. As I said, I will be shortly responding to your previous post if you will be patient.Papias said:
Yours in Christ, MM
Upvote
0
ted wrote
Um, ted, I did answer all your questions, and your post here shows that you know that. I guess I don't understand your statement.
ted, it would be arrogant to say that because someone is not a Christian (or because you don't approve them as a Christian), then they are wrong. I don't know if a non-believe is right or wrong, or what they can understand, and it is arrogant for someone to presume to know that. So I can't give a yes or a no when I don't know.
Being that there are millions of scientists, practically all of whom support evolution, and that a majority of scientists believe in God, then simple math shows that there are millions of believing scientists who support evolution.
Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Sorry if I've confused you. Among those who are experts, who know the evidence, practically all support evolution, but among the non expert, general population, around 40 to 60% are creationist (depending on how you ask the question). So "creationists surround themselves with quacks" is indeed a great crowd. I've posted all those data many times in other threads, and can do so again here if you like.
Christianer than thou much?
and is that one person miamited? If not, then stop implying that those who disagree with you aren't TrueChristiansTM.
Yes, probably true. There have always been a diversity of views, but the young-earth view has, until modern times, probably been the majority among all Christians.
Creationism was a tenable view for a long time because there was little evidence available, just as a flat earth view was the majority view for a long time because there was little evidence available. That changed in the 17 and 1800s, when it became clear that creationism was incorrect. "Modern" creationism is the clinging to creationism despite the evidence, which really got started with George Price's book "the new geology" in 1923. It's call "NEW" because it was a new approach - the denial of evidence.
Most of those who would claim that all or most early christians believed in evolution don't even consider that evolution itself is a fairly new concept as a worldwide view.
Of course not. And none supported the theory of gravity, germs, or atoms. We don't deny those for that reason, so that's not a reason to deny evolution.
So they were literal creationists because ted would like to prefer to think that they were literal creationists? I hate to break it to you, but you don't know their views.
God Bless you
Papias
Um, ted, I did answer all your questions, and your post here shows that you know that. I guess I don't understand your statement.
ted, it would be arrogant to say that because someone is not a Christian (or because you don't approve them as a Christian), then they are wrong. I don't know if a non-believe is right or wrong, or what they can understand, and it is arrogant for someone to presume to know that. So I can't give a yes or a no when I don't know.
Being that there are millions of scientists, practically all of whom support evolution, and that a majority of scientists believe in God, then simple math shows that there are millions of believing scientists who support evolution.
Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Sorry if I've confused you. Among those who are experts, who know the evidence, practically all support evolution, but among the non expert, general population, around 40 to 60% are creationist (depending on how you ask the question). So "creationists surround themselves with quacks" is indeed a great crowd. I've posted all those data many times in other threads, and can do so again here if you like.
Christianer than thou much?
and is that one person miamited? If not, then stop implying that those who disagree with you aren't TrueChristiansTM.
Yes, probably true. There have always been a diversity of views, but the young-earth view has, until modern times, probably been the majority among all Christians.
Creationism was a tenable view for a long time because there was little evidence available, just as a flat earth view was the majority view for a long time because there was little evidence available. That changed in the 17 and 1800s, when it became clear that creationism was incorrect. "Modern" creationism is the clinging to creationism despite the evidence, which really got started with George Price's book "the new geology" in 1923. It's call "NEW" because it was a new approach - the denial of evidence.
Most of those who would claim that all or most early christians believed in evolution don't even consider that evolution itself is a fairly new concept as a worldwide view.
Of course not. And none supported the theory of gravity, germs, or atoms. We don't deny those for that reason, so that's not a reason to deny evolution.
So they were literal creationists because ted would like to prefer to think that they were literal creationists? I hate to break it to you, but you don't know their views.
God Bless you
Papias
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi papias,
Thanks for your reply: ted, it would be arrogant to say that because someone is not a Christian (or because you don't approve them as a Christian), then they are wrong. I don't know if a non-believe is right or wrong, or what they can understand, and it is arrogant for someone to presume to know that. So I can't give a yes or a no when I don't know.
What I am asking is what you believe. Everyone has their understanding or 'belief' on just about anything. I'm not asking you to make any kind of value judgment of someone else.
For example: If I were to ask you if you believe that Jesus is the only way to receive the promise of God's eternal life, what would you answer?
Would you honestly answer that you wouldn't want to offend muslims and hindus and therefore are going with 'I don't know'.
So, do you believe that without the indwelling Spirit of God one cannot fully comprehend the things of God?
What do you believe about that statement? Do you believe that it is a true statement or a false statement?
Then you responded: ted, it would be arrogant to say that because someone is not a Christian (or because you don't approve them as a Christian), then they are wrong.
Friend, lots of 'christians' are wrong. Most all of the epistles of the new covenant are written to address just that issue. They are all written to various fellowships around the areas that the first disciples traveled and pretty much each one addresses, at some point, a necessary correction for that fellowship. Then if we turn over to the letters of Jesus given to John in the Revelation we find that Jesus also addresses many, many corrections necessary in the practices and beliefs of the early church.
Now, there are, of course, some issues in which faith in God are not required to determine that someone is wrong or right. If I build a mousetrap and the wire latch is too weak to hold the spring load and so therefore the trap cannot be set, well, I don't need a christian to tell me that I've built the trap incorrectly.
Now, we are a visual creature. We are best able to see and understand those things which we can see. If I am blind I might know that someone is walking towards me by the sound of their steps, but I have no idea if they are coming towards me to shake my hand or attack me. I have no idea if they are wearing a green shirt or a red shirt or even have their pants on backwards. Yes, I can figure some things out by my more acute hearing, but I can't understand completely what is going on. If I am taken into a strange home and I ask for a drink of water I would have no idea that there is a glass of water sitting on the coffee table before me unless I hear someone set it down and they announce that it is water.
Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, will they not both fall into the pit?" However, I think the most telling of Jesus' comments about our understanding the things of God was in his discussion with Nicodemus. He spoke these words to him, "I tell you the truth! Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Yes, any man might make claims or theories about what he thinks the things of God are like, but if that man is born again, then he can see what is true concerning God's kingdom.
Then the Lord even gets more precise and says, "I tell you the truth! Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Now, I'd ask you to think that through. Someone walks upon this earth today thinking that they understand the things of God, but they have not been born again of the Spirit of God, and will apparently in no wise enter God's kingdom. They spent their entire life upon the earth proclaiming that they know God and have received the promise of God's salvation through Jesus, but when that day comes when God says to those on His right, "Come, enter into my eternal rest." They stand outside, having been invited to the wedding feast but not putting on the appropriate clothing, it literally screams the question: Did they understand?
Isaiah writes that God said to him: "The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand." Now, surely we know that God, in referring here to 'my people' was speaking of the descendents of Abraham. But, I think it abundantly clear through the letters and instructions of Paul and Peter and Jesus, that that same problem exists in the 'church' today. Those who call themselves God's children do not, all of them, understand.
But, this causes a delimma. If, all those who call themselves God's children today have the promised gaurantee of the indwelling Holy Spirit through which Jesus said we would know all truth and be able to 'see' the kingdom of God - why don't they understand?
If one man has the Holy Spirit of God indwelling him and believes and acknowledges to all men that God used evolution and billions of years to get mankind and the earth to where it is today, and another man has the Holy Spirit of God indwelling him and believes and acknowledges to all men that God created all the things, both seen and unseen, in this realm in six evenings and mornings and at the end of that period of creation created man and marched out a list of that first man's geneology so that there would be no misunderstanding of when that first man lived, two complete contradictory understandings that cannot possibly both be true - Then is the Holy Spirit doing that for which Jesus said he would accomplish? Do they both 'see' the kingdom of God and the One who sits enthroned there and understand the power, majesty and wisdom of Him who created all things?
Now, friend, most of the questions I have asked here are pretty much rhetorical and so I'll give you a pass on answering them unless you would like to. I'd much prefer that you give them serious consideration as to whether there is any validity to the argument.
Cont.
Thanks for your reply: ted, it would be arrogant to say that because someone is not a Christian (or because you don't approve them as a Christian), then they are wrong. I don't know if a non-believe is right or wrong, or what they can understand, and it is arrogant for someone to presume to know that. So I can't give a yes or a no when I don't know.
What I am asking is what you believe. Everyone has their understanding or 'belief' on just about anything. I'm not asking you to make any kind of value judgment of someone else.
For example: If I were to ask you if you believe that Jesus is the only way to receive the promise of God's eternal life, what would you answer?
Would you honestly answer that you wouldn't want to offend muslims and hindus and therefore are going with 'I don't know'.
So, do you believe that without the indwelling Spirit of God one cannot fully comprehend the things of God?
What do you believe about that statement? Do you believe that it is a true statement or a false statement?
Then you responded: ted, it would be arrogant to say that because someone is not a Christian (or because you don't approve them as a Christian), then they are wrong.
Friend, lots of 'christians' are wrong. Most all of the epistles of the new covenant are written to address just that issue. They are all written to various fellowships around the areas that the first disciples traveled and pretty much each one addresses, at some point, a necessary correction for that fellowship. Then if we turn over to the letters of Jesus given to John in the Revelation we find that Jesus also addresses many, many corrections necessary in the practices and beliefs of the early church.
Now, there are, of course, some issues in which faith in God are not required to determine that someone is wrong or right. If I build a mousetrap and the wire latch is too weak to hold the spring load and so therefore the trap cannot be set, well, I don't need a christian to tell me that I've built the trap incorrectly.
Now, we are a visual creature. We are best able to see and understand those things which we can see. If I am blind I might know that someone is walking towards me by the sound of their steps, but I have no idea if they are coming towards me to shake my hand or attack me. I have no idea if they are wearing a green shirt or a red shirt or even have their pants on backwards. Yes, I can figure some things out by my more acute hearing, but I can't understand completely what is going on. If I am taken into a strange home and I ask for a drink of water I would have no idea that there is a glass of water sitting on the coffee table before me unless I hear someone set it down and they announce that it is water.
Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, will they not both fall into the pit?" However, I think the most telling of Jesus' comments about our understanding the things of God was in his discussion with Nicodemus. He spoke these words to him, "I tell you the truth! Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Yes, any man might make claims or theories about what he thinks the things of God are like, but if that man is born again, then he can see what is true concerning God's kingdom.
Then the Lord even gets more precise and says, "I tell you the truth! Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Now, I'd ask you to think that through. Someone walks upon this earth today thinking that they understand the things of God, but they have not been born again of the Spirit of God, and will apparently in no wise enter God's kingdom. They spent their entire life upon the earth proclaiming that they know God and have received the promise of God's salvation through Jesus, but when that day comes when God says to those on His right, "Come, enter into my eternal rest." They stand outside, having been invited to the wedding feast but not putting on the appropriate clothing, it literally screams the question: Did they understand?
Isaiah writes that God said to him: "The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand." Now, surely we know that God, in referring here to 'my people' was speaking of the descendents of Abraham. But, I think it abundantly clear through the letters and instructions of Paul and Peter and Jesus, that that same problem exists in the 'church' today. Those who call themselves God's children do not, all of them, understand.
But, this causes a delimma. If, all those who call themselves God's children today have the promised gaurantee of the indwelling Holy Spirit through which Jesus said we would know all truth and be able to 'see' the kingdom of God - why don't they understand?
If one man has the Holy Spirit of God indwelling him and believes and acknowledges to all men that God used evolution and billions of years to get mankind and the earth to where it is today, and another man has the Holy Spirit of God indwelling him and believes and acknowledges to all men that God created all the things, both seen and unseen, in this realm in six evenings and mornings and at the end of that period of creation created man and marched out a list of that first man's geneology so that there would be no misunderstanding of when that first man lived, two complete contradictory understandings that cannot possibly both be true - Then is the Holy Spirit doing that for which Jesus said he would accomplish? Do they both 'see' the kingdom of God and the One who sits enthroned there and understand the power, majesty and wisdom of Him who created all things?
Now, friend, most of the questions I have asked here are pretty much rhetorical and so I'll give you a pass on answering them unless you would like to. I'd much prefer that you give them serious consideration as to whether there is any validity to the argument.
Cont.
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Being that there are millions of scientists, practically all of whom support evolution, and that a majority of scientists believe in God, then simple math shows that there are millions of believing scientists who support evolution.
Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
I looked at your link and according to the findings it shows that about 1/3 of all scientists profess to have a belief or understanding of a god. You must read the questions very carefully in these polls if you intend to use them to support a position. According to the first question it is asked whether they believe in a god or a higher power. Friend, all muslims believe in a god. Many people believe in some kind of 'higher power', but do not ascribe that 'higher power' to be the God of the Scriptures. So, the 33% number here cannot be used to support your position unless you further weed out among them, those that believe in the God of the Scriptures and those that believe in some other god or 'higher power'. The survey repeatedly claims that belief in either is much, much lower than the general public.
However, nothing in this poll supports your position that of those scientists who believe in the God of the Scriptures, the majority of them believe in the theory of evolution as to how man appeared upon the earth. Keep searching, friend.
Then you responded: Sorry if I've confused you. Among those who are experts, who know the evidence, practically all support evolution, but among the non expert, general population, around 40 to 60% are creationist (depending on how you ask the question). So "creationists surround themselves with quacks" is indeed a great crowd. I've posted all those data many times in other threads, and can do so again here if you like.
Sorry, friend, but again this poll doesn't 'prove' that 'among those who are experts, who know the evidence, practically all support evolution'. As far as I can tell evolution doesn't even come into the equation in this poll. Yes, if you have other data that supports your position, I'd be interested in reviewing it.
To the part of my post that pointed out Jesus' speaking to his disciples of that great day of God's judgment you responded: Christianer than thou much?
No, just discerning of what Jesus was saying and understanding that even Jesus made the claim that not everyone who claims to do things in his name are known of him.
To my claim that there is only one person on the face of the earth who knows that they have been born again you asked: and is that one person miamited? If not, then stop implying that those who disagree with you aren't TrueChristiansTM.
No, I think I made it clear that it is the person themself. No man, no man knows the heart of another. We may, by outward evidence make some judgments about another person's heart, but we can't know that other person's heart. There are scam artists all across the face of the earth who invest all of their efforts and time in trying to convince others that their heart is to do them good and then they steal or rob from them. Because we can't know the thoughts of another. We can ask them, "what are your thoughts on this..." and we take their response, if they haven't deceived us before, at face value. No, I can't know if someone else is born again, but I think the Scriptures are clear that we should be, and need to be, discerning about this. Peter speaks of those among us who are wolves in sheeps clothing. How are we to know them, if we don't use any form of discernment? Should we follow them because they say they are christians and do what they do and approve of that which they approve?
To my unsupported claim that I believe most born again christians, since the days of Jesus' ascension, believed in young earth creationism. You responded: Yes, probably true. There have always been a diversity of views, but the young-earth view has, until modern times, probably been the majority among all Christians.
Friend, as far as I am concerned that singular aggreement supports my belief in what we are to believe.
If I want to know how I am to live and what I am to believe about God and what it means to be a born again believer, I have always looked to the days of Paul, Peter and, of course, Jesus. I think the Scriptures are clear that as we move further away from the beginning point we will not become more faithful but less. There are a number of Scriptural examples to support this. The Scriptures speak of a great apostasy that will come over the 'church'. The Revelation speaks of the lie being so strong and deceiptful that even the elect must be careful. Paul in the very passage of his letter to Timothy that we are discussing says that 'A time will come...'. Not that it was happening then in his present day, but it is coming.
As I have read and studied the Scriptures I find that in every instance where God has made himself known to men and begun a new beginning, mankind has, without any exception moved away, not towards God. Adam knew God better than any man has probably known God, but if we move out just a few generations we find that it was then in the days Enosh that men began to call on the name of the Lord. Now there are, I'm aware, a couple of different understandings of what exactly that statement means and why it was written to us. I happen to believe that it is in these days that men found themselves so separated from God that they had to then call on his name. We can understand that God was still here among men as He will be after the judgment because it is told that Enoch 'walked with God'. So, somewhere between Adam, Enoch and Enosh God began to distance himself from mankind because of their great sin, and, of course, this then becomes abundantly apparent in the days of Noah when God himself says that the wickedness of mankind has become so great that He was grieved that He had ever made mankind. So, I think it very, very clear that between Adam and Noah, the entire world turned away from God.
Then, God sets himself to be known by Abraham and God speaks to him and deals with him personally and makes several covenants with him, but we find that shortly after all those descendents of the promise come out of Egypt, they too, were distancing themselves from God and had very little understanding as Abraham had had. This becomes even more apparent as we read passages such as Isaiah's account of God's claims.
Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth!http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 For the LORD has spoken:http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 "I reared childrenhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 and brought them up, but they have rebelledhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 against me. The ox knowshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 his master, the donkey his owner's manger,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 but Israel does not know,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 my people do not understand.http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15" Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 a brood of evildoers,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 children given to corruption!http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-18 They have forsakenhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 the LORD; they have spurned the Holy Onehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-20 of Israel and turned their backshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-21 on him.
Jeremiah proclaims God's words against his people: I will pronounce my judgmentshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-28 on my people because of their wickednesshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-29 in forsaking me,http://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-30 in burning incense to other godshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-31 and in worshipinghttp://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-32 what their hands have made.
God speaks to Ezekiel in this way: He said: "Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn.http://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says.' And whether they listen or fail to listenhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8--for they are a rebellious househttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9--they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, do not be afraidhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thornshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. You must speakhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious.
Obviously from Abraham to the days of these prophets God saw that His people were not obedient; did not understand; did not know Him. I think it clear that when we then read of these, at that time prophetic, writings of mankind's march into the later days, that the same 'rinse and repeat' continues. Jesus, at one point, questioned his disciples thusly: Will the Son of Man find faith upon the earth when he returns?" A clear prophecy, to me, that true faith, the faith that saves a man's soul, is going to be pretty hard to find when Jesus returns and will have gradually worked its way to that point throughout the later days.
So, yes, today in the year 2012 I want to be very, very careful what I believe. I understand that those wolves that Peter wrote of have been deceiving the children of God now for some 2,000 years and a lot has gotten stretched and explained and misunderstood and passed off as 'truth' I understand that those warnings and cautions that Jesus had John write to the early churches are now probably a lot worse and the threads of their deceipt run deep and are hard to ferret out.
So, friend, when you write to me that, yes, I'm probably correct that the very early 'church' believed in young earth creationism; that's exactly where I want to be because I know that the closer to the source the more apt I am to know the truth. It has been proven over and over and over again in God's dealing with His created.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Scientists and Belief - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
I looked at your link and according to the findings it shows that about 1/3 of all scientists profess to have a belief or understanding of a god. You must read the questions very carefully in these polls if you intend to use them to support a position. According to the first question it is asked whether they believe in a god or a higher power. Friend, all muslims believe in a god. Many people believe in some kind of 'higher power', but do not ascribe that 'higher power' to be the God of the Scriptures. So, the 33% number here cannot be used to support your position unless you further weed out among them, those that believe in the God of the Scriptures and those that believe in some other god or 'higher power'. The survey repeatedly claims that belief in either is much, much lower than the general public.
However, nothing in this poll supports your position that of those scientists who believe in the God of the Scriptures, the majority of them believe in the theory of evolution as to how man appeared upon the earth. Keep searching, friend.
Then you responded: Sorry if I've confused you. Among those who are experts, who know the evidence, practically all support evolution, but among the non expert, general population, around 40 to 60% are creationist (depending on how you ask the question). So "creationists surround themselves with quacks" is indeed a great crowd. I've posted all those data many times in other threads, and can do so again here if you like.
Sorry, friend, but again this poll doesn't 'prove' that 'among those who are experts, who know the evidence, practically all support evolution'. As far as I can tell evolution doesn't even come into the equation in this poll. Yes, if you have other data that supports your position, I'd be interested in reviewing it.
To the part of my post that pointed out Jesus' speaking to his disciples of that great day of God's judgment you responded: Christianer than thou much?
No, just discerning of what Jesus was saying and understanding that even Jesus made the claim that not everyone who claims to do things in his name are known of him.
To my claim that there is only one person on the face of the earth who knows that they have been born again you asked: and is that one person miamited? If not, then stop implying that those who disagree with you aren't TrueChristiansTM.
No, I think I made it clear that it is the person themself. No man, no man knows the heart of another. We may, by outward evidence make some judgments about another person's heart, but we can't know that other person's heart. There are scam artists all across the face of the earth who invest all of their efforts and time in trying to convince others that their heart is to do them good and then they steal or rob from them. Because we can't know the thoughts of another. We can ask them, "what are your thoughts on this..." and we take their response, if they haven't deceived us before, at face value. No, I can't know if someone else is born again, but I think the Scriptures are clear that we should be, and need to be, discerning about this. Peter speaks of those among us who are wolves in sheeps clothing. How are we to know them, if we don't use any form of discernment? Should we follow them because they say they are christians and do what they do and approve of that which they approve?
To my unsupported claim that I believe most born again christians, since the days of Jesus' ascension, believed in young earth creationism. You responded: Yes, probably true. There have always been a diversity of views, but the young-earth view has, until modern times, probably been the majority among all Christians.
Friend, as far as I am concerned that singular aggreement supports my belief in what we are to believe.
If I want to know how I am to live and what I am to believe about God and what it means to be a born again believer, I have always looked to the days of Paul, Peter and, of course, Jesus. I think the Scriptures are clear that as we move further away from the beginning point we will not become more faithful but less. There are a number of Scriptural examples to support this. The Scriptures speak of a great apostasy that will come over the 'church'. The Revelation speaks of the lie being so strong and deceiptful that even the elect must be careful. Paul in the very passage of his letter to Timothy that we are discussing says that 'A time will come...'. Not that it was happening then in his present day, but it is coming.
As I have read and studied the Scriptures I find that in every instance where God has made himself known to men and begun a new beginning, mankind has, without any exception moved away, not towards God. Adam knew God better than any man has probably known God, but if we move out just a few generations we find that it was then in the days Enosh that men began to call on the name of the Lord. Now there are, I'm aware, a couple of different understandings of what exactly that statement means and why it was written to us. I happen to believe that it is in these days that men found themselves so separated from God that they had to then call on his name. We can understand that God was still here among men as He will be after the judgment because it is told that Enoch 'walked with God'. So, somewhere between Adam, Enoch and Enosh God began to distance himself from mankind because of their great sin, and, of course, this then becomes abundantly apparent in the days of Noah when God himself says that the wickedness of mankind has become so great that He was grieved that He had ever made mankind. So, I think it very, very clear that between Adam and Noah, the entire world turned away from God.
Then, God sets himself to be known by Abraham and God speaks to him and deals with him personally and makes several covenants with him, but we find that shortly after all those descendents of the promise come out of Egypt, they too, were distancing themselves from God and had very little understanding as Abraham had had. This becomes even more apparent as we read passages such as Isaiah's account of God's claims.
Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth!http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 For the LORD has spoken:http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 "I reared childrenhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-10 and brought them up, but they have rebelledhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 against me. The ox knowshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 his master, the donkey his owner's manger,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 but Israel does not know,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 my people do not understand.http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15" Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-16 a brood of evildoers,http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-17 children given to corruption!http://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-18 They have forsakenhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-19 the LORD; they have spurned the Holy Onehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-20 of Israel and turned their backshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/isaiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-21 on him.
Jeremiah proclaims God's words against his people: I will pronounce my judgmentshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-28 on my people because of their wickednesshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-29 in forsaking me,http://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-30 in burning incense to other godshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-31 and in worshipinghttp://www.biblestudytools.com/jeremiah/1.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-32 what their hands have made.
God speaks to Ezekiel in this way: He said: "Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn.http://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 Say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says.' And whether they listen or fail to listenhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8--for they are a rebellious househttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9--they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, do not be afraidhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 of them or their words. Do not be afraid, though briers and thornshttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. You must speakhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/ezekiel/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious.
Obviously from Abraham to the days of these prophets God saw that His people were not obedient; did not understand; did not know Him. I think it clear that when we then read of these, at that time prophetic, writings of mankind's march into the later days, that the same 'rinse and repeat' continues. Jesus, at one point, questioned his disciples thusly: Will the Son of Man find faith upon the earth when he returns?" A clear prophecy, to me, that true faith, the faith that saves a man's soul, is going to be pretty hard to find when Jesus returns and will have gradually worked its way to that point throughout the later days.
So, yes, today in the year 2012 I want to be very, very careful what I believe. I understand that those wolves that Peter wrote of have been deceiving the children of God now for some 2,000 years and a lot has gotten stretched and explained and misunderstood and passed off as 'truth' I understand that those warnings and cautions that Jesus had John write to the early churches are now probably a lot worse and the threads of their deceipt run deep and are hard to ferret out.
So, friend, when you write to me that, yes, I'm probably correct that the very early 'church' believed in young earth creationism; that's exactly where I want to be because I know that the closer to the source the more apt I am to know the truth. It has been proven over and over and over again in God's dealing with His created.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Amazing. MM, did you actually read my post? Did you check on the reference I gave? I ask because my references are not only made up of real, peer-reviewed scientists who've published in actual journals, but the whole site I listed as a reference (talkorigins.org) is also endorsed by the National Academies of Sciece, the Smithsonian, the Geological Society of America, and more. If that's not using "actual fact", then please inform me what is.
**********
I will start here. talkorigins.org is an evolutionists site. I've been there several times. Also, the places you've mentioned as "reputable" are organizations bent on proving evolution. As a matter of fact, the smithsonian has been duped twice with fake fossils from China supposedly proving the dino/bird link. They were so eager to prove the idea of evolution that they skipped science and took the fakes at face value. It wasn't until after they'd made the claims that some actually took a close look at them as saw they were obvious forgeries. I'm sorry but groups of fallible people bent to disprove God do not garner any weight with me.
*********
Please compare that in your mind with what you have done - posted videos from well known quacks and charlatans. You started with Bruce Malone, who has no background nor credentials in biology, geology, etc, and makes money from his many publications, which have been shown over and over to be filled with errors and the common methods of pseudoscience.
While it may be hard to do worse than that, you managed to top that by posting videos and sites from Kent Hovind, an even more well known scheister, who has bilked Christians out of millions of dollars, makes arguements so silly that even other creationists laugh at them, and is a convicted fraud who is now in federal prison.
Wow, MM, just wow.
**********
Do you even know the story behind Kent Hovind's "conviction"? He was convicted of "structuring" not lying about his evidence, or stealing, he was convicted under a law designed to stop drug dealers. Over the many years, Kent Hovind's wife would withdraw money to pay ministry bills and compensate the people serving in the ministry. In 2002 this stopped. On July 13, 2006, with no warning or notice of any kind that there was or had been a problem, about 20 armed IRS agents swarmed onto the ministry property as Kent Hovind was preparing for staff devotions and his wife was sleeping. Four armed agents surrounded her bed and woke her up to handcuff her in her nightgown. She was not allowed to get dressed, put on a robe or go to the bathroom even though she begged for these simple courtesies.
They were taken to the Federal courthouse and indicted for "structuring". They had no clue what that even was let alone that it was against some law or that they had broken it. They banked at the same bank and normally at the same teller for over 10 years. They learned later that laws had been passed years ago to try to slow or stop drug dealers from moving large amounts of cash. Any transfers over $10,000 would require the bank to fill out a form and notify the government. Although 4 times Kent Hovind's wife did take out over $10,000, the bank filled out their form. No problem.
They had also made it illegal to "break down" a large sum into smaller amounts to "evade" this reporting requirement. For example: if you had $25,000 to deposit but broke it down into 3 deposits of less than $10,000 and made 3 deposits at the same or even different banks on the same day you could be found guilty of one count of "structuring" and sentenced to 5 years in prison! As it turns out, the IRS had cherry picked 45 times out of hundreds of transactions over the years that were under $10,000 and charged each one as a separate count of structuring even though they averaged 12 days apart (not same day), were not part of a large amount being "broken down", were not from drugs or any other illegal trade and were not trying to evade anything. It was money donated or earned in legitimate ways and spent on legitimate ministry bills. Your ad hominem attacks don't change his evidence. Yes, there are sites that try to attribute others words to him, but he actually spent several of his radio shows debunking these.
**********
I hope to sometimes reach people with the saving message of Christ. When they see a minister using Malone and Hovind, is it any surprise that they start to think that Christianity itself might be a hoax? Please, for the unsaved, use some better vetting of your sources.
**********
You mean like you did with the smithsonian?
**********
No, as we've pointed out, Bible scholars who know hebrew and the ancient world much better than you reject the literal interpretation. Why do you think that we'll listen to some guy on the internet (who's shown he has no credibility by using Malone and Hovind), and ignore the Bible Scholars?
**********
The Hebrew word for day, yom, as in English, is used both for a literal, twenty-four-hour day and also for an indefinite period of time, such as in the expression "For the day of the LORD is at hand" (Joel 1:15). However, the word, yom, always means a twenty-four-hour literal day when it is used with a numeral--day one, day two, first day, second day, etc. There are no exceptions to this rule. In the Genesis Creation account, yom is used with a numeral, indicating that it intends the reader to understand that these are literal days of twenty-four hours.
2. When the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, God supplied food--manna--every morning. They were to gather only enough for one day's use. Anything more than that would spoil by the next morning. However, on Friday, they were to gather twice the usual amount of manna, because none would be available Sabbath (Saturday) morning. When they gathered extra manna on Friday for use on Saturday, the extra manna did not spoil (see Exodus 16:11-26). This illustrates that the weekly Sabbath, marking each cycle of seven literal days, continued to be a memorial of Creation week. Thus the weekly cycle is evidence that the days of Creation were literal days of twenty-four hours.
3. As a unit of time, the week has no basis in the natural movements of earth, moon, or sun as do the day, the month, and the year. Other than the week of creation as described in Genesis, there seems to be no basis for the week as a unit of time. This, too, argues that the Creation week in Genesis was a week of seven literal days.
4. God set aside the seventh day of Creation week as a holy rest day. The Israelites kept the Sabbath in the wilderness and continued to observe in the time of Christ (see Luke 4:16; 23:55, 56) and in the time of Paul (see Acts 17:2). Orthodox Jews continue to observe the seventh-day Sabbath even today. The changes made to the calendar from time to time through the centuries has not affected the weekly cycle of seven days. The integrity of the weekly cycle continues and is an evidence for Creation week being composed of seven literal days.
5. The view that each day of the Genesis Creation account is actually an extremely long period of time--rather than literal days of twenty-four hours --causes problems. For example, Genesis says that plants were created on the third day (see Genesis 1:11-13) and that sunlight was created on the fourth day (see verses 14-19). If the third day is actually a long period of time, how could plants have existed without sunlight? Likewise, many plants require insects for pollination. How could these plants have survived and reproduced without insects which were not created until the sixth day (see Genesis 1:24, 25)--if these days were actually long periods of time?
6. The fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) clearly links the seventh day (the Sabbath) with the weekly cycle. The word "remember" at the beginning of this commandment cannot have meaning if the days were long eons of time (much longer than human lifespans). The admonition concerning days of labor and day of rest would also be meaningless.
7. The wording of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis is best understood as meaning literal days. Such expressions as "day and night," "evening and morning," "light and darkness" can hardly be understood as indefinite periods of time.
**********
Did it ever cross your mind that we've heard those same "facts" hundreds of times before? Yes, I did listen, and even go to your videos. They show that you've been duped by arguments that have been refuted over and over -even on these fora. You might learn a lot by perusing old threads here - even several years back.
**********
The same could easily be said of evolution. We've heard the same tired excuses for a lack of evidence but we're supposed to put our faith in fallible humans many of whom want to disprove God.
**********
Why do you speak about that which you are ignorant? Please consider looking into the literally hundreds of transitional fossils before repeating the falshood (no doubt learned from the likes of Hovind) that there aren't any. Instead of being offended when it is pointed out that you are ignorant, maybe learn so as to fix that ignorance? Look, we are all ignorant in many areas. I'm ignorant of computur programming, tree physiology, and dozens of other areas - but at least I know not to make statements about them.
**********
And yet by your own assertion you believe on faith what you do not know. Is it possible you've let your faith slip by the words of men? The point is that for evolution to be even remotely true there needs to be billions if not trillions of intermediary fossils. A handful of bones that we cannot even date accurately does not support evolution. If a whale gets buried above a dolphin, does that mean he evolved from that dolphin? They have some very similar structures, and are the only creatures that breathe through a blow hole. The whole idea of using fossils is based on the ASSUMPTION of the geologic time scale which doesn't exist anywhere in the world, is based on circular reasoning, and was dreamed up by people trying to sell the idea that the earth was millions of years old.
**********
Recommending that people actually know what they are talking about before speaking is "arrogant and self-righteous"? While at the same time saying that you know better than the experts, who have spent their whole lives studying the evidence is somehow not arrogant? Might you have that backwards?
**********
And yet you admit to me you don't know most of this as well, but will preach to me that I need to be more educated. No I'm sure I've got that correctly. My whole point to begin with was to have a THEOLOGICAL discussion of old and new earth creation. You stepped in and assumed I knew nothing of what I was speaking of, and chose to assert your scientific superiority. That is what turns people away. When they get dose after dose of this type of attitude.
**********
Is not the fact that all the different dating methods confirm each other "proof" of an old earth? And, by the way, evolution is called a fact.
**********
Actually wrong on both counts. All forms of "dating" have major flaws, and use assumption on most every point. In fact its documented proof that if a scientist finds a date that doesn't fit with the evolutionary time table, its simply discarded. This is not science. And evolution is only asserted as a fact by fools and athiests.( one in the same really) There are far too many holes in evolution to call it a fact. It is an assumption at best.
**********
I'm not asking you to follow an "atheistic scientist". I'm asking you to listen to the millions of scientists who are Christians who agree that evolution is a fact.
**********
I believe Ted obliterated this argument nicely, but in point of fact, since when did the majority decide truth? The majority of "Christian" scientists believed in things like blood letting, geo-centrism, and flat earth, in direct contradiction to what the bible teaches.
**********
Cool. If that's from a reputable University, then I commend you.
**********
I believe it could be from Harvard and evolutionists would still call it fake.
**********
Cont
**********
I will start here. talkorigins.org is an evolutionists site. I've been there several times. Also, the places you've mentioned as "reputable" are organizations bent on proving evolution. As a matter of fact, the smithsonian has been duped twice with fake fossils from China supposedly proving the dino/bird link. They were so eager to prove the idea of evolution that they skipped science and took the fakes at face value. It wasn't until after they'd made the claims that some actually took a close look at them as saw they were obvious forgeries. I'm sorry but groups of fallible people bent to disprove God do not garner any weight with me.
*********
Please compare that in your mind with what you have done - posted videos from well known quacks and charlatans. You started with Bruce Malone, who has no background nor credentials in biology, geology, etc, and makes money from his many publications, which have been shown over and over to be filled with errors and the common methods of pseudoscience.
While it may be hard to do worse than that, you managed to top that by posting videos and sites from Kent Hovind, an even more well known scheister, who has bilked Christians out of millions of dollars, makes arguements so silly that even other creationists laugh at them, and is a convicted fraud who is now in federal prison.
Wow, MM, just wow.
**********
Do you even know the story behind Kent Hovind's "conviction"? He was convicted of "structuring" not lying about his evidence, or stealing, he was convicted under a law designed to stop drug dealers. Over the many years, Kent Hovind's wife would withdraw money to pay ministry bills and compensate the people serving in the ministry. In 2002 this stopped. On July 13, 2006, with no warning or notice of any kind that there was or had been a problem, about 20 armed IRS agents swarmed onto the ministry property as Kent Hovind was preparing for staff devotions and his wife was sleeping. Four armed agents surrounded her bed and woke her up to handcuff her in her nightgown. She was not allowed to get dressed, put on a robe or go to the bathroom even though she begged for these simple courtesies.
They were taken to the Federal courthouse and indicted for "structuring". They had no clue what that even was let alone that it was against some law or that they had broken it. They banked at the same bank and normally at the same teller for over 10 years. They learned later that laws had been passed years ago to try to slow or stop drug dealers from moving large amounts of cash. Any transfers over $10,000 would require the bank to fill out a form and notify the government. Although 4 times Kent Hovind's wife did take out over $10,000, the bank filled out their form. No problem.
They had also made it illegal to "break down" a large sum into smaller amounts to "evade" this reporting requirement. For example: if you had $25,000 to deposit but broke it down into 3 deposits of less than $10,000 and made 3 deposits at the same or even different banks on the same day you could be found guilty of one count of "structuring" and sentenced to 5 years in prison! As it turns out, the IRS had cherry picked 45 times out of hundreds of transactions over the years that were under $10,000 and charged each one as a separate count of structuring even though they averaged 12 days apart (not same day), were not part of a large amount being "broken down", were not from drugs or any other illegal trade and were not trying to evade anything. It was money donated or earned in legitimate ways and spent on legitimate ministry bills. Your ad hominem attacks don't change his evidence. Yes, there are sites that try to attribute others words to him, but he actually spent several of his radio shows debunking these.
**********
I hope to sometimes reach people with the saving message of Christ. When they see a minister using Malone and Hovind, is it any surprise that they start to think that Christianity itself might be a hoax? Please, for the unsaved, use some better vetting of your sources.
**********
You mean like you did with the smithsonian?
**********
No, as we've pointed out, Bible scholars who know hebrew and the ancient world much better than you reject the literal interpretation. Why do you think that we'll listen to some guy on the internet (who's shown he has no credibility by using Malone and Hovind), and ignore the Bible Scholars?
**********
The Hebrew word for day, yom, as in English, is used both for a literal, twenty-four-hour day and also for an indefinite period of time, such as in the expression "For the day of the LORD is at hand" (Joel 1:15). However, the word, yom, always means a twenty-four-hour literal day when it is used with a numeral--day one, day two, first day, second day, etc. There are no exceptions to this rule. In the Genesis Creation account, yom is used with a numeral, indicating that it intends the reader to understand that these are literal days of twenty-four hours.
2. When the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, God supplied food--manna--every morning. They were to gather only enough for one day's use. Anything more than that would spoil by the next morning. However, on Friday, they were to gather twice the usual amount of manna, because none would be available Sabbath (Saturday) morning. When they gathered extra manna on Friday for use on Saturday, the extra manna did not spoil (see Exodus 16:11-26). This illustrates that the weekly Sabbath, marking each cycle of seven literal days, continued to be a memorial of Creation week. Thus the weekly cycle is evidence that the days of Creation were literal days of twenty-four hours.
3. As a unit of time, the week has no basis in the natural movements of earth, moon, or sun as do the day, the month, and the year. Other than the week of creation as described in Genesis, there seems to be no basis for the week as a unit of time. This, too, argues that the Creation week in Genesis was a week of seven literal days.
4. God set aside the seventh day of Creation week as a holy rest day. The Israelites kept the Sabbath in the wilderness and continued to observe in the time of Christ (see Luke 4:16; 23:55, 56) and in the time of Paul (see Acts 17:2). Orthodox Jews continue to observe the seventh-day Sabbath even today. The changes made to the calendar from time to time through the centuries has not affected the weekly cycle of seven days. The integrity of the weekly cycle continues and is an evidence for Creation week being composed of seven literal days.
5. The view that each day of the Genesis Creation account is actually an extremely long period of time--rather than literal days of twenty-four hours --causes problems. For example, Genesis says that plants were created on the third day (see Genesis 1:11-13) and that sunlight was created on the fourth day (see verses 14-19). If the third day is actually a long period of time, how could plants have existed without sunlight? Likewise, many plants require insects for pollination. How could these plants have survived and reproduced without insects which were not created until the sixth day (see Genesis 1:24, 25)--if these days were actually long periods of time?
6. The fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) clearly links the seventh day (the Sabbath) with the weekly cycle. The word "remember" at the beginning of this commandment cannot have meaning if the days were long eons of time (much longer than human lifespans). The admonition concerning days of labor and day of rest would also be meaningless.
7. The wording of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis is best understood as meaning literal days. Such expressions as "day and night," "evening and morning," "light and darkness" can hardly be understood as indefinite periods of time.
**********
Did it ever cross your mind that we've heard those same "facts" hundreds of times before? Yes, I did listen, and even go to your videos. They show that you've been duped by arguments that have been refuted over and over -even on these fora. You might learn a lot by perusing old threads here - even several years back.
**********
The same could easily be said of evolution. We've heard the same tired excuses for a lack of evidence but we're supposed to put our faith in fallible humans many of whom want to disprove God.
**********
Why do you speak about that which you are ignorant? Please consider looking into the literally hundreds of transitional fossils before repeating the falshood (no doubt learned from the likes of Hovind) that there aren't any. Instead of being offended when it is pointed out that you are ignorant, maybe learn so as to fix that ignorance? Look, we are all ignorant in many areas. I'm ignorant of computur programming, tree physiology, and dozens of other areas - but at least I know not to make statements about them.
**********
And yet by your own assertion you believe on faith what you do not know. Is it possible you've let your faith slip by the words of men? The point is that for evolution to be even remotely true there needs to be billions if not trillions of intermediary fossils. A handful of bones that we cannot even date accurately does not support evolution. If a whale gets buried above a dolphin, does that mean he evolved from that dolphin? They have some very similar structures, and are the only creatures that breathe through a blow hole. The whole idea of using fossils is based on the ASSUMPTION of the geologic time scale which doesn't exist anywhere in the world, is based on circular reasoning, and was dreamed up by people trying to sell the idea that the earth was millions of years old.
**********
Recommending that people actually know what they are talking about before speaking is "arrogant and self-righteous"? While at the same time saying that you know better than the experts, who have spent their whole lives studying the evidence is somehow not arrogant? Might you have that backwards?
**********
And yet you admit to me you don't know most of this as well, but will preach to me that I need to be more educated. No I'm sure I've got that correctly. My whole point to begin with was to have a THEOLOGICAL discussion of old and new earth creation. You stepped in and assumed I knew nothing of what I was speaking of, and chose to assert your scientific superiority. That is what turns people away. When they get dose after dose of this type of attitude.
**********
Is not the fact that all the different dating methods confirm each other "proof" of an old earth? And, by the way, evolution is called a fact.
**********
Actually wrong on both counts. All forms of "dating" have major flaws, and use assumption on most every point. In fact its documented proof that if a scientist finds a date that doesn't fit with the evolutionary time table, its simply discarded. This is not science. And evolution is only asserted as a fact by fools and athiests.( one in the same really) There are far too many holes in evolution to call it a fact. It is an assumption at best.
**********
I'm not asking you to follow an "atheistic scientist". I'm asking you to listen to the millions of scientists who are Christians who agree that evolution is a fact.
**********
I believe Ted obliterated this argument nicely, but in point of fact, since when did the majority decide truth? The majority of "Christian" scientists believed in things like blood letting, geo-centrism, and flat earth, in direct contradiction to what the bible teaches.
**********
Cool. If that's from a reputable University, then I commend you.
**********
I believe it could be from Harvard and evolutionists would still call it fake.
**********
Cont
Upvote
0
I apologize if I have sounded harsh. I've pointed out that you are talking about a field you are clearly ignorant of. Being ignorant is not an insult - as mentioned, we are all ignorant in many areas. Where did I call you stupid? Knowing you is not relevant - anyone who spouts obvious falsehoods as if they are truths, who displays ignorance of even the laughing stock arguments recognized by both sides, is clearly asking to be brushed off at best. Have I not been civil in pointing out these areas you need to address before you do even greater harm to the cause of Christ?
Don't you areadly recognize that many areas aren't literal, such as the song of solomon, the idea that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on birds, the idea that we live under a hard dome, and so on? Look at how you deal with those non-literal areas, and you already have your answer.
**********
You are talking about the Song of Solomon (which was written as a song or more likely a play ) and comparing that to the eye witness testimony of the other parts of the bible?
**********
If you care about winning souls for the lord, you'll avoid citing known sheisters, and will at least try to be consisent with established facts. Failing in either of those repels potential Christians - Barna data has shown that literalism is one of the main reasons why millions of people are fleeing the church.
In His name-
Papias
**********
Yes, because the fallen soul will reject the truth, unless it is brought to them in loving kindness. Asserting that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant, or has been duped (another way to say too stupid to know better) is what will push people away. Besides, what good is "winning a soul" who does not change or follows God's word because they believe the whole thing is not literal. What kind of corner do you paint yourself into if you tell them that most of the bible isn't literal? How are people supposed to feel about Jesus's death for them if they don't think its literal?
I must say Papias, its very frustrating to discuss anything with you if you're willing to dismiss what you hear because it doesn't mesh with evolution. As I said, I started this thread here to discuss the theological points behind old and young earth creation, not get into a verbal tussle with a fellow Christian over scientific issues. I again apologize if I offend or insult, it is not my intention. For the most part I've stepped away from the evolution/creation threads because evolutionists are generally quite nasty and vicious, and would rather troll than have an adult conversation. I would love to discuss the theological standpoint of oec/yec, but honestly I don't have the time to Chase every scientific rabbit down every trail. There are literally dozens of counter arguments to every scientific idea or theory. If you wish to continue the theological aspect, then please by all means, let's. Otherwise I have no choice but to skip over the scientific posts I simply don't have the time, I'm sorry.
Your brother in Christ, MM
Don't you areadly recognize that many areas aren't literal, such as the song of solomon, the idea that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on birds, the idea that we live under a hard dome, and so on? Look at how you deal with those non-literal areas, and you already have your answer.
**********
You are talking about the Song of Solomon (which was written as a song or more likely a play ) and comparing that to the eye witness testimony of the other parts of the bible?
**********
If you care about winning souls for the lord, you'll avoid citing known sheisters, and will at least try to be consisent with established facts. Failing in either of those repels potential Christians - Barna data has shown that literalism is one of the main reasons why millions of people are fleeing the church.
In His name-
Papias
**********
Yes, because the fallen soul will reject the truth, unless it is brought to them in loving kindness. Asserting that someone who disagrees with you is ignorant, or has been duped (another way to say too stupid to know better) is what will push people away. Besides, what good is "winning a soul" who does not change or follows God's word because they believe the whole thing is not literal. What kind of corner do you paint yourself into if you tell them that most of the bible isn't literal? How are people supposed to feel about Jesus's death for them if they don't think its literal?
I must say Papias, its very frustrating to discuss anything with you if you're willing to dismiss what you hear because it doesn't mesh with evolution. As I said, I started this thread here to discuss the theological points behind old and young earth creation, not get into a verbal tussle with a fellow Christian over scientific issues. I again apologize if I offend or insult, it is not my intention. For the most part I've stepped away from the evolution/creation threads because evolutionists are generally quite nasty and vicious, and would rather troll than have an adult conversation. I would love to discuss the theological standpoint of oec/yec, but honestly I don't have the time to Chase every scientific rabbit down every trail. There are literally dozens of counter arguments to every scientific idea or theory. If you wish to continue the theological aspect, then please by all means, let's. Otherwise I have no choice but to skip over the scientific posts I simply don't have the time, I'm sorry.
Your brother in Christ, MM
Upvote
0
Romans 1:18-25 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen
This is unfortunately what I feel is happening, and will happen because mankind is taking God's truth and twisting it to fit a corrupt theory.
This is unfortunately what I feel is happening, and will happen because mankind is taking God's truth and twisting it to fit a corrupt theory.
Upvote
0
MM - you couldn't parse scientific technical material to save your life. The hogwash you post when you address such things is testament to this.
A typical example being:
A typical example being:
How the heck would you know what science is?MM said:
Upvote
0
- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hi ngc,
You posted:MM - you couldn't parse scientific technical material to save your life. The hogwash you post when you address such things is testament to this.
A typical example being:
Originally Posted by MM
I'm confident that MM can defend his own position, but I'd just like to point out that your 'example' doesn't give any proof of your claim. I cannot understand how you would consider that a claim made that an obvious fallacy exists in dating methods and then the claim that 'scientists' just discard what they consider 'bad' dates, could possibly determine whether or not MM has any ability to know what science is.
Your claim is based on inconclusive evidence. If, for example, someone with a degree and lifelong work in the field of 'science' made such a claim, and they have, would you also claim that they just don't know what science is? You see, I've researched the same claim and I didn't get if from papers written by MM. There are actually degreed scientists with years of work in their fields that support this claim. Do they not know what science is?
What you are doing, my friend, is attacking the messenger with groundless claims in hopes that they will obfuscate the issue and show you as correct in this. It probably works for a lot of people. There are many scientists who question the basic assumptions of dating methods. Is it a majority? Probably not. But the Scriptures are clear that those who seek after God will not follow after the wisdom of the world, so, unless the majority of scientists are born again believers, then one surely would not expect that the majority would know and understand the truth.
I think one of the clear truths of the Scriptures is that among the world, God's people will never be the majority. We shall always be only a remnant and as we move closer to the end of these days, I find the Scriptures clearly explain that it will only become worse and worse. Jesus asked a very poignant question of his disciples. "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith upon the earth?"
What do you think? Will he?
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted
You posted:MM - you couldn't parse scientific technical material to save your life. The hogwash you post when you address such things is testament to this.
A typical example being:
Originally Posted by MM
Actually wrong on both counts. All forms of "dating" have major flaws, and use assumption on most every point. In fact its documented proof that if a scientist finds a date that doesn't fit with the evolutionary time table, its simply discarded. This is not science
How the heck would you know what science is?
I'm confident that MM can defend his own position, but I'd just like to point out that your 'example' doesn't give any proof of your claim. I cannot understand how you would consider that a claim made that an obvious fallacy exists in dating methods and then the claim that 'scientists' just discard what they consider 'bad' dates, could possibly determine whether or not MM has any ability to know what science is.
Your claim is based on inconclusive evidence. If, for example, someone with a degree and lifelong work in the field of 'science' made such a claim, and they have, would you also claim that they just don't know what science is? You see, I've researched the same claim and I didn't get if from papers written by MM. There are actually degreed scientists with years of work in their fields that support this claim. Do they not know what science is?
What you are doing, my friend, is attacking the messenger with groundless claims in hopes that they will obfuscate the issue and show you as correct in this. It probably works for a lot of people. There are many scientists who question the basic assumptions of dating methods. Is it a majority? Probably not. But the Scriptures are clear that those who seek after God will not follow after the wisdom of the world, so, unless the majority of scientists are born again believers, then one surely would not expect that the majority would know and understand the truth.
I think one of the clear truths of the Scriptures is that among the world, God's people will never be the majority. We shall always be only a remnant and as we move closer to the end of these days, I find the Scriptures clearly explain that it will only become worse and worse. Jesus asked a very poignant question of his disciples. "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith upon the earth?"
What do you think? Will he?
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted
Upvote
0
Similar threads
