Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > The Christian room - For Christians about Christianity Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Anonymous
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Date Posted:19/11/2006 2:00 AMCopy HTML

How to explain dinosaurs and water and many other mysteries of the universe...

As Genesis starts out, "IN the beginning God created (bara) the heaven (literally, heavens) and the earth." This was a long long time ago. The Earth itself is very old. Then sometime later, but before Adam was created, "earth was (hajah, had become) "without form (tohu, ruin), and void (bohu, empty); and darkness was upon the face of the deep." This catastrophe was the result of divine judgment upon Satan and his angelic followers, the demons.

At that point, all landmasses were very different. No wonder seashells are scattered worldwide. The Concordant version translates the second verse in the Bible so it's meaning is apparent: "Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant, and darkness was on the surface of the submerged chaos." Even today, if the land was smooth, it would be drowned in a sea two miles deep.

since the catastrophe was at the time of the full moon, it might have been about two weeks before Adam's creation. In Genesis 1:2 (Concordant version), we see that as restoration began, the earth had become "a chaos and vacant and darkness was on the surface of the submerged chaos."

Genesis 1:2 in the New American Bible says that "a mighty wind swept over the waters." As God's restoration project began on Earth, it was still dark, extremely windy and the seas had not yet completed their mad dash for the Pacific Basin as the mountains rose. It was the third day when God said,

Let the waters under the heaven(s) be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas (KJV).

Therefore, this catastrophe might not have taken place very long before the restoration week of Genesis. The date on the Jewish Calendar could have been about Elul 14 (i.e., early September, 4043 B.C.).

Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:17/02/2009 8:51 PMCopy HTML

HAHAHA,

It was difficult not to laugh at moth's comments. First of all, quoting Darwin as his signature, hmmm, it kind of sums up everything!

I have a better one for you!

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).

A disproved fairy story at every scientific level, but most notably, the molecular 'dna' information level has shown macro-evolution to be one of the biggest frauds that Satan used to give people an excuse for their wilful ignorance.

As for the creation week, there was NO pre-adamic fall, the text simply does not allow for it and the whole basis of salvation is rendered at best chaotic and illogical and no professing Christian should ever hold to those views.

First of all, God clearly said that at the end of his creation week, everything was VERY GOOD. 

Gen 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

and that Satan was clearly in the Garden of Eden because he tempted Eve.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

Again, the scriptures clearly say that ALL the Sons of God shouted for joy at the laying of the foundations of the world.

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Job 38:5 Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,

Job 38:7 when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

As for your 'dinosaurs' bit coming later. No doubt you were going to try and fit them into a 'gap theory'. Again, this would be nonsense. Everything that was created was made in that 24hr 6 day week.

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

No dead bones were laid under the ground. God clearly said his creation was VERY GOOD. The wages of sin = death. Death entered the world through Adam, so there was NO DEATH prior to this event. The whole point of salvation is that Jesus pays the penalty for that sin, which included both physical and spiritual death.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

In other words, NO pre-adamic fall, no gaps and no seperate age of dinosaurs.

If you held such convoluted views about the creation, then your ears must have been closed to the truth, which makes for little surprise that you are now a pagan.


http://www.werner-gitt.de/down_eng.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:17/02/2009 9:51 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Jez.

Well, I wouldn't be placing too much stock in either Ken Ham or the "Answers in Genesis" crowd if I were you. That what is presented by this group is bad science seems to be a reasonable conclusion. That such presents very bad theology; however, is certain. And just in case you weren't aware of the fact, the so-called "Creation Science" movement as a movement had its genesis in the teachings of the Seventh Day Adventist 'prophet', Ellen G. White. Such is the importance of understanding the background, or contextual information when it comes to issues such as this one (this is information that you could've discovered for yourself). Then, of course, there is the issue of content: the nature of the Hebrew text of Genesis chapters one and two, and what such teaches (this stuff you probably couldn't discover for yourself). The salient feature, though, is that neither context or content really supports the views you offered in your post.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:17/02/2009 10:53 PMCopy HTML

Good evening,

Sorry Ian, but you are wrong on this.

First of all, it is not about holding AiG as the authority in matter of biblical creation, it is simply an easy to digest link for those who still have the deceptive TRF doctrine of long ages, pre-adamic men etc in their thinking, which is unscriptural.

Your comments of who supported the literal creation interpretation should not detract from its truth because the first point of reference is what scripture says rather than if 'this or that' group upholds it to be true.

Your comment, which infers the creation science movement being a recent idea is not true. A simple reading of the 'church fathers' commentaries back in circa 300 AD on the creation and 'where did Cain get his wife' clearly show they understood what the Bible taught. Another point would be the many Bible believing scientists through the ages who clearly showed their support of the literal reading and correct interpretation of the Hebrew. Your comment seems to indicate that you have read one or two anti-creation articles, which gave false information, then you have held to these views.

As for saying it is bad science. You are not a scientist (Yes, neither am I), but your comments clearly show you have not studied the issue, probably because your revival days are still in the back of your thinking somewhere. Bad science is something untested and founded on blind faith despite facts to the contrary. Yes, the theory of evolution is bad science. The difference is that we have a God who was there and revealed His creation (the big picture) in clear and distinct Hebrew. It is through his written word that we can interpret the facts that we find in our world today. No, this is not bad science, but merely a confirmation of what our faith already tells us - that the written word is true.

You might be a Greek scholar, but certainly no Hebrew scholar. Trusted Hebrew academics who aren't even believers assert that the words used in the Hebrew clearly give a literal 24hr 6 day creation week with no gaps and a global flood. Aside from this, the theology of the Bible and its consequences make no sense for any other interpretation. Either way, the interpretation of the wording is blatant.

Another point would be that even if you proof read the text in English, the only way would ever come up with a local flood or a long ages and a gap theory would be through external influences, namely secular science, which changes its opinions every year. Yes, now they talk of a mitochondrial eve and a catastrophe model. yes one day they might just open their eyes and accept what the Bible tells us...

There is an abundance of material out there for personal research, both scientific and linguistic.

I believe that you have already arrived at your conclusion, however and that this would be pointless. In saying  this, if you actually wish to go into the above, then I'll post all the relevant quotes/links/resources so you can do an in-depth study on the matter. This goes for anyone reading this thread who wishes to uphold biblical Christianity.

You might do well to have a read of the following though, written by a very intelligent German information scientist http://www.werner-gitt.de/down_eng.html The book, 'In the beginning was Information' is rather compelling!

 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:18/02/2009 12:05 AMCopy HTML

Hi again, 'Jez'.

Sorry Ian, but you are wrong on this. That's certainly possible, but unlikely. Consequently, I reckon it might be far wiser for you to suspend judgment until we've considered the matter adequately. I've found such an approach to be generally the best when considering contentious issues such as this one.

First of all, it is not about holding AiG as the authority in matter of biblical creation, it is simply an easy to digest link for those who still have the deceptive TRF doctrine of long ages, pre-adamic men etc in their thinking, which is unscriptural. Personally, I don't for one moment believe it ever appropriate to be replacing one fiction with another. Far better indeed is it to research a matter exhaustively in an attempt to ferret out the facts. After all "all truth is God's truth", as the saying goes.

Your comments of who supported the literal creation interpretation should not detract from its truth because the first point of reference is what scripture says rather than if 'this or that' group upholds it to be true. I think it prudent that we read Scripture literarily before we go reading it literally. Failing to do this invariably lead to mistaken assumptions, which invariably lead to mistaken conclusions. Your beliefs being a salient case-in-point.

Your comment, which infers the creation science movement being a recent idea is not true. A simple reading of the 'church fathers' commentaries back in circa 300 AD on the creation and 'where did Cain get his wife' clearly show they understood what the Bible taught. Another point would be the many Bible believing scientists through the ages who clearly showed their support of the literal reading and correct interpretation of the Hebrew. Your comment seems to indicate that you have read one or two anti-creation articles, which gave false information, then you have held to these views. I have studied in quite some detail, what certain of the Fathers thought on this matter. But your comments lead me to question if you are a critical or uncritical reader of their various points-of-view. If, of course, you've read them at all. To begin with the Fathers, being products of their time and Greco-Roman heritage, were occasionally prone to philosophical flights of neo-Platonic fancy. In any case the views of pre-moderns (whether theologians, scientists or whatever) can often be revealing as to the way matters were understood during certain periods of history, but such doesn't automatically infer a sense of correctness in what they believed and/or proposed. For example, you might not be aware that Augustine often disagreed with the teachings of Origen, or that Augstine also disagreed with Jerome, who himself disagreed with Cyprian, whose views were often dissimilar to the Basils, et cetera, ad infinitum. It would be a significant mistake to naively assume that there was some sort of monolithic agreement between fully orthodox theologians on a wide range of issues.

As for saying it is bad science. You are not a scientist (Yes, neither am I), but your comments clearly show you have not studied the issue, probably because your revival days are still in the back of your thinking somewhere. Bad science is something untested and founded on blind faith despite facts to the contrary. Yes, the theory of evolution is bad science. The difference is that we have a God who was there and revealed His creation (the big picture) in clear and distinct Hebrew. It is through his written word that we can interpret the facts that we find in our world today. No, this is not bad science, but merely a confirmation of what our faith already tells us - that the written word is true. Really? You believe my understanding of this matter is as superficial as your own? However, your comments regarding "clear and distinct Hebrew" bears some teasing out. Do you claim to being able to read Hebrew? Are you qualified and/or competent to be making pronouncements as to what Genesis 1 and 2 actually states in Hebrew? Let me say I have my doubts.

You might be a Greek scholar, but certainly no Hebrew scholar. Trusted Hebrew academics who aren't even believers assert that the words used in the Hebrew clearly give a literal 24hr 6 day creation week with no gaps and a global flood. Aside from this, the theology of the Bible and its consequences make no sense for any other interpretation. Either way, the interpretation of the wording is blatant. First, I read Hebrew and Greek equally well. It's true that I'm a New Testament/Greek specialist, however, I'm perfectly capable in Old Testament/Hebrew too. For what it's worth I presented a paper on the Hebrew text, structure and theological purpose of Genesis 1 and 2 at a conference of biblical scholars several years ago. The fact remains that the complex of scholarly positions on this particular issue is much broader than your mind is narrow, so you would do well to not simply assume that the error rests with those who disagree with you.

Another point would be that even if you proof read the text in English, the only way would ever come up with a local flood or a long ages and a gap theory would be through external influences, namely secular science, which changes its opinions every year. Yes, now they talk of a mitochondrial eve and a catastrophe model. yes one day they might just open their eyes and accept what the Bible tells us... Two points: the mitochondrial 'Eve' is neither new nor novel. Science has always posited the existence of an exemplar for the human species. However, I could care less given that I personally believe the evidence clearly points to special Creation. I simply disagree with your naive views of the same. Second, I have studied the relevant biblical passages in Hebrew, in Greek and in English many times; your understanding isn't the only (nor even the best) way to legitimately interpret the texts without caving in to the secularists.

I believe that you have already arrived at your conclusion, however and that this would be pointless. In saying  this, if you actually wish to go into the above, then I'll post all the relevant quotes/links/resources so you can do an in-depth study on the matter. This goes for anyone reading this thread who wishes to uphold biblical Christianity. You would do well to avoid simply presuming that your view accurately reflects biblical Christianity. In point of fact, your view best reflects theories that were propounded during the late 1950s and early 1960s. My own view comports perfectly well with the views maintained and defended within orthodox Judaism, and historic and orthodox Christianity. To sum up, my position on the matter is fully and perfectly biblical.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:18/02/2009 5:57 AMCopy HTML

HAHAHA,It was difficult not to laugh at moth's comments. 

How very patronising of you... Pleasant. That's set the tone for the limited reply I'm prepared to give you.

First of all, quoting Darwin as his signature, hmmm, it kind of sums up everything! I have a better one for you!"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy". (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).

I don't know if it's a better quote, but I agree it's just as good and sensible a quote, and one that swings both ways.

A disproved fairy story at every scientific level, 

Who told you this? Ken Ham of AiG? Maybe you should ask the scientific community again whether they believe the theory has been disproven. I myself haven't read or understood enough of Darwin's work to even begin to criticize his theories. In truth, I don't believe them, but I'm not ignorantly and fully discrediting the body of scientific evidence and research that is continuously under scrutiny by the scientific community at large.

Hmm, you put the word 'truth' in the same vicinity as the link to the 'Answers in Genesis' website. Shame on you. "Woooosh...!" What was that sound? It was your credibility rushing out the window. If I were a demon I'd be tempted to say "Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, and I'm familiar with this Ian guy, but who the heck are you?"
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:18/02/2009 12:59 PMCopy HTML

First of all

Moth,

The scriptures do say, 'where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth, tell me if you have understanding'... Another scripture, 'Let God be true and every man a liar' is quite applicable also.

So going back to your comment of the 'scientific community' it sways little in the direction of ultimate truth. The fact is there is a significant number of God believing scientists out there; also creationists in the Biblical sense. It might do you well to study the significant number of secular scientists who ridicule the theory of evolution. True, they are not God-believing either, but the walls have long ago cracked, which contained the myth of evolution. it is only because of the MEDIA and who runs the media and its political and social agenda that you and others actually believe it to be so correct. I assume you are aware that the media continuously lies and portrays many untruths and conspiracy cover-ups. Needless to say, this is one of them and blatant when you look at the facts in hand, which are available to all peoples of differing opinions.

Ian,

To keep this simple. Like in other instances, you have not actually given your 'view', which you say fits in with biblical Christianity.

As for your comments about reading of Hebrew and so forth. I am sure you are aware of the vast numbers of books, commentaries and other information sources, which support the creation reading I have mentioned in previous posts. I have to say that after reading all the arguments from all sides, (yes, including all the varying gap theories/day age/theisitc evolution/literal days etc) and analysing it with what the Bible reads and the theological implications, I now hold to the view displayed in my previous post. I have done extensive study on this, so it's not just a view taken lightly. It's probably the biggest topic I studied and to be honest it is also the first issue people have when they laugh at Christianity, ie 'Evolution has proved the Bible to be false, how can you still believe it' type of mockery. Now I am ready to give an answer!

My current pastoral team are also learned in Greek and Hebrew, (like you profess to be), so it doesn't hold much weight because the argument is very strong on this side. At the end of the day, you are simply going to believe 'your scholars and choice of commentary' and others will believe their commentaries. There are different opinions and also some which bend the rules and try putting things in there because of 'outside influences'

Your idea that special creation is a modern enterprise of sorts is very baffling when considering all the writings through the ages, from scientists and theologians.

Either way, it's what scripture says anyway, but you also have arrived at your conclusion.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:18/02/2009 11:14 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Jez.

To keep this simple. Like in other instances, you have not actually given your 'view', which you say fits in with biblical Christianity. Yes I did. I very clearly stated that I believe in special Creation in an earlier post. As for your comments about reading of Hebrew and so forth. I am sure you are aware of the vast numbers of books, commentaries and other information sources, which support the creation reading I have mentioned in previous posts. I have to say that after reading all the arguments from all sides, (yes, including all the varying gap theories/day age/theisitc evolution/literal days etc) and analysing it with what the Bible reads and the theological implications, I now hold to the view displayed in my previous post. I have done extensive study on this, so it's not just a view taken lightly. It's probably the biggest topic I studied and to be honest it is also the first issue people have when they laugh at Christianity, ie 'Evolution has proved the Bible to be false, how can you still believe it' type of mockery. Now I am ready to give an answer! I am well acquainted with the commentaries and monographs supportive of your perspective about Creation. Unlike you, however, I'm also aware of the exegetical and theological weaknesses in various of the arguments they present (by dint of you lacking the necessary skills, you're pretty much limited to the more popularist commentaries; I'm not). You say that you've read widely on the subject, perhaps; but have you read critically? I think not. And whilst the answer that you're prepared to give might satisfy you and other similarly unsophisticated/uncritical readers, I doubt it would satisfy the audience that I regularly minister to. Something far more robust is required.

My current pastoral team are also learned in Greek and Hebrew, (like you profess to be), so it doesn't hold much weight because the argument is very strong on this side. At the end of the day, you are simply going to believe 'your scholars and choice of commentary' and others will believe their commentaries. There are different opinions and also some which bend the rules and try putting things in there because of 'outside influences'. Please forgive me, but I seriously doubt your pastoral team is 'learned' in Greek and Hebrew by any responsible definition of the word. As I understand it you attend an Elim Pentecostal church. Their ministers aren't well known for their academic training. Most Elim pastors have little to no formal theological education, certainly not at the same level as mine. Besides even if your ministers had received bachelor degrees in theology, Hebrew isn't generally a requirement, and the level of Greek that's needed to graduate is rather modest. Statistically 90% of people who study Greek in their first degree don't maintain it's use after graduating; the statistics are even worse for Hebrew, which stands at about 98%. I'm in the 10% and 2% who've taken their language skills to a much higher level of competence. In short, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the biblical languages, and this sets me apart from you (and your anonymous pastoral team).

Your idea that special creation is a modern enterprise of sorts is very baffling when considering all the writings through the ages, from scientists and theologians. That isn't what I said. I said your particular viewpoint of special Creation is a modern enterprise. My own, however, is not. I fully believe that God created. But I also acknowledge that Genesis chapters one and two don't purport to teach any sort of scientific theorem. Rather, they were written as rebuttals of the various Canaanite creation stories that the Hebrews encountered; further, that they are written in poetic form. The implications of these facts directly impacts upon the theologies the chapters promote.

God bless,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:19/02/2009 9:55 AMCopy HTML

Reply to NJ

The scriptures do say, 'where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth, tell me if you have understanding'... Another scripture, 'Let God be true and every man a liar' is quite applicable also.

Then I call Ken Ham the biggest liar since Lloyd longfield tried his hand at theology.

So going back to your comment of the 'scientific community' it sways little in the direction of ultimate truth. The fact is there is a significant number of God believing scientists out there; also creationists in the Biblical sense. 

A significant number in the young earth circles of fundamentalist apologetics maybe, but an insignificantly small group and overall embarrassment to reputable and reasonable biologists, geologists, paleantologists, et al., who don't appreciate the festering backward science of Ken Ham and his misinformed buddies. And yes, there's puh-lenty of sensible Christian scientists 'out who don't try to justify a 'young' earth theory resulting in Fred Flinstone running with the Velociraptors.

I think, for the sake of others, it is better focussing on the salvation doctrinal issues of TRF rather than absorb so much of our own time on this. 

Yes, well... Your's and Ken Ham's strategy for restoring belief in the authority of the Bible focuses on the parts of it that are the most easily disproved. It certainly would be more effective to admit that parts of the Bible are allegorical, and not a science textbook (as Ian said)... focus on the message instead. 

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:19/02/2009 12:15 PMCopy HTML

embarrassment to reputable and reasonable biologists, geologists, paleantologists, et al.,

Men pleasers have had their reward! God's Word remains true forever. The sujectivity in your comments is quite clear.

Yes, well... Your's and Ken Ham's strategy for restoring belief in the authority of the Bible focuses on the parts of it that are the most easily disproved.

The above is completely untrue, but you are entitled to your own opinion

It certainly would be more effective to admit that parts of the Bible are allegorical, and not a science textbook (as Ian said)... focus on the message instead. 

I'm glad the Bible is not a 'science' book, IT REMAINS THE SAME,, unlike science books that change each year! The Bible gives us the bigger picture, which is then visible in the world around us and ties in with the theological implications. Your comments or desires to wish-wash the parts you don't like into an allegorical category are quite intriguing considering you are now a non-believer,hmm.

As I said, let it be that you disagree. I do have a lot of time for this topic, but at the request of a friend in Christ, I will not push it and would rather focus ex-revivalists on the other false TRF teachings, so when they first find their new life in Christ, they will grow without fear.

MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:19/02/2009 2:14 PMCopy HTML

Reply to N-Jay

Men pleasers have had their reward! God's Word remains true forever. The sujectivity in your comments is quite clear.

I've always preferred myself to be a woman pleaser actually... Ohh, lighten up big guy. The subjectivity in my comments is that the Bible is inspired and Ken Ham is not... 

Yes, well... Your's and Ken Ham's strategy for restoring belief in the authority of the Bible focuses on the parts of it that are the most easily disproved. The above is completely untrue, but you are entitled to your own opinion

As are yours, no matter how naive I believe them to me.

It certainly would be more effective to admit that parts of the Bible are allegorical, and not a science textbook (as Ian said)... focus on the message instead. 

I'm glad the Bible is not a 'science' book,

I'm glad you agree.

 IT REMAINS THE SAME,, unlike science books that change each year! 

Such is the nature of Science, but oh... you woudn't get that seing as though you're subscribing to 'Ham' science. The bible certainly does remain the same, but if our view of it didn't then we'd still all be gargling in tongues at Revival meetings. 

See quote:

"Science is a truth-seeking process. It is not a collection of unassailable "truths." It is, however, a self -correcting discipline. Such corrections may take a long time -- the medical practice of bloodletting went on for centuries before its futility was realized -- but as scientific knowledge accumulates, the chance of making substantial errors decreases."

The Bible gives us the bigger picture, which is then visible in the world around us and ties in with the theological implications. Your comments or desires to wish-wash the parts you don't like into an allegorical category are quite intriguing considering you are now a non-believer,hmm.

Ha ha... this is a hoot. It is difficult not to laugh at Daniel-no-Jezebel's comments. I was raised a Catholic, and I remain a Catholic after many and varied diversions (so says my mum - lol - and I somewhat agree, although it's been a while between Sunday masses). I believe lots of things and my beliefs are always evolving (te-he), but I don't dig Pentecostalism, or the hard-core eye-glazed fundamentalism that sprouts forth the sort of Answers-in-Genesis tripe that give good religion a bad name and makes god look ridiculous. 

I'm also well read on this particular subject and will hopefully become more critical of what I read so as to not fall into the sort of traps you have. During my two years in a Baptist church, by closest friend was a speaker who toured churches preaching directly from AiG. We had good discussions, but thank god, I have an open mind. Sort some 'subjectivity' out of that.

As I said, let it be that you disagree. I do have a lot of time for this topic, but at the request of a friend in Christ, I will not push it and would rather focus ex-revivalists on the other false TRF teachings, so when they first find their new life in Christ, they will grow without fear.

"Singing words of wisdom, let it be". It's nice that you're loyal to your friend's request, but don't stress... the droves of ex-revivalists coming to this site don't gather all that much in these topics and it's actually very helpful for them to see that the search for truth, like that of science, is to always explore and question what you think or know to be reality.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:19/02/2009 5:41 PMCopy HTML

"Science is a truth-seeking process. It is not a collection of unassailable "truths." It is, however, a self -correcting discipline. Such corrections may take a long time -- the medical practice of bloodletting went on for centuries before its futility was realized -- but as scientific knowledge accumulates, the chance of making substantial errors decreases."

That really is wishful thinking and a naive train of thought because history might record some blatant errors, but when it comes to the 'philosophical' history of science, which is purely based on a desired world view, then it falls in even more fantasy laden territories. eg Evolution.

Ha ha... this is a hoot. It is difficult not to laugh at Daniel-no-Jezebel's comments. I was raised a Catholic, and I remain a Catholic after many and varied diversions (so says my mum - lol - and I somewhat agree, although it's been a while between Sunday masses). I believe lots of things and my beliefs are always evolving (te-he), but I don't dig Pentecostalism, or the hard-core eye-glazed fundamentalism that sprouts forth the sort of Answers-in-Genesis tripe that give good religion a bad name and makes god look ridiculous.


Catholicism is quite the religion that puts a bad name on Christianity with its idolatry and unscriptural teachings. There is a difference between defending the word and totally twisting it. 'Pentecostalism' is quite a subjective term. Even the Anglican church in England is diversified now. You can no longer lump people together with such terms, so jumping ahead to the comments you made at the end of your passage of 'having an open mind', I assume you might change your tact on this way of labelling people.

I'm also well read on this particular subject and will hopefully become more critical of what I read so as to not fall into the sort of traps you have.

If you were God, then yes I would humbly accept anything you said, but a rebuttal from you about what you infer as 'traps' is bemusing.

During my two years in a Baptist church, by closest friend was a speaker who toured churches preaching directly from AiG. We had good discussions, but thank god, I have an open mind. Sort some 'subjectivity' out of that.

Well, God also gave people over to a debased mind and I'm quite sure they think they have an open mind too. Seek Him in all humbleness and your confidence might be justified by the peace within and the love of Christ manifest in you.

"Singing words of wisdom, let it be". It's nice that you're loyal to your friend's request, but don't stress... the droves of ex-revivalists coming to this site don't gather all that much in these topics and it's actually very helpful for them to see that the search for truth, like that of science, is to always explore and question what you think or know to be reality.

You wouldnt really know though would you! Many people will browse and you don't have a census on thought. It's just another opinion, which puts you right back in the same place you are trying to put me.


Anyway, there is not much going on in the forum, so I don't want this thread being the current highlight of this site for ex-revivalists. So, that's it from me on this. People are free to email however and discuss further.

God bless.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:19/02/2009 9:43 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Jez.

You are making big assumptions about the fellowship I am at and also the pastoral team. On this issue, even if I could photocopy their 'qualifications', say, a doctorate in Biblical Hebrew and Greek, I think this would not be enough for you to take notice. Perhaps I am, but in any case you couldn't as they more than likely don't, which makes your entire point moot. The principle issue is that my reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis chapters one through three doesn't support what you assume is the case.

You've made quite a few assumptions, but none of them seem to rest on anything approaching a first-hand understanding of the issues.

I think, for the sake of others, it is better focussing on the salvation doctrinal issues of TRF rather than absorb so much of our own time on this. However, if anyone reading this wishes to know a bit more, then send me a message/email. Are you backing down? As I recall it was you who resurrected this stagnant thread, and you who went on to claim that I was wrong in my beliefs when I interjected against your nonsense. You've probably guessed by now that I'm prepared to discuss theological subjects in excruciating detail. I wonder, then, if it's the fear of losing the debate publicly which now stands behind your decision to withdraw, a la the recent attempt at back-pedalling.

(Moth) "Science is a truth-seeking process. It is not a collection of unassailable "truths." It is, however, a self -correcting discipline. Such corrections may take a long time -- the medical practice of bloodletting went on for centuries before its futility was realized -- but as scientific knowledge accumulates, the chance of making substantial errors decreases."

That really is wishful thinking and a naive train of thought because history might record some blatant errors, but when it comes to the 'philosophical' history of science, which is purely based on a desired world view, then it falls in even more fantasy laden territories. eg Evolution. I would suggest you've made the very same mistake that you charge Pete with: of confusing 'scientism' (the philosophy of science) with the practice of science. Further, what you've apparently failed to appreciate in all of this is that your particular brand of special Creation is no better than the folly that you contrast it with. It too is nothing but a tendentious human philosophy, one which attempts to force the facts into conformity to particular system of contrived beliefs. How, then, is your theory any better?

(Moth) Ha ha... this is a hoot. It is difficult not to laugh at Daniel-no-Jezebel's comments. I was raised a Catholic, and I remain a Catholic after many and varied diversions (so says my mum - lol - and I somewhat agree, although it's been a while between Sunday masses). I believe lots of things and my beliefs are always evolving (te-he), but I don't dig Pentecostalism, or the hard-core eye-glazed fundamentalism that sprouts forth the sort of Answers-in-Genesis tripe that give good religion a bad name and makes god look ridiculous.

Catholicism is quite the religion that puts a bad name on Christianity with its idolatry and unscriptural teachings. There is a difference between defending the word and totally twisting it. 'Pentecostalism' is quite a subjective term. Even the Anglican church in England is diversified now. You can no longer lump people together with such terms, so jumping ahead to the comments you made at the end of your passage of 'having an open mind', I assume you might change your tact on this way of labelling people. Clearly your understanding of Roman Catholic belief and teaching is about as advanced as is your understanding of the history of interpretation of Genesis chapters one and two: you parrot the same misinformed biases that you were fed during your time in Revivalism. Speaking personally, when it comes to the issue of gross doctrinal error I don't think a Pente is in any position to be hefting rocks at others :)

(Moth) I'm also well read on this particular subject and will hopefully become more critical of what I read so as to not fall into the sort of traps you have.

If you were God, then yes I would humbly accept anything you said, but a rebuttal from you about what you infer as 'traps' is bemusing. The problem as I see it is that you appear to be over-impressed with your own cleverness; that you've lost any capacity for objectivity. Add to this moral failing an intellectual one (the inability to analyse and evaluate information dispassionately), and what we see is what you present us with: misinformed, naive nonsense masquerading as Christian truth. I doubt that if God himself were to correct you, you'd find reason not to listen.

(Moth) During my two years in a Baptist church, by closest friend was a speaker who toured churches preaching directly from AiG. We had good discussions, but thank god, I have an open mind. Sort some 'subjectivity' out of that.

Well, God also gave people over to a debased mind and I'm quite sure they think they have an open mind too. Seek Him in all humbleness and your confidence might be justified by the peace within and the love of Christ manifest in you. Would you please try rebutting Pete's arguments, rather than resorting to simple dimissiveness. From my perspective he has shown a much greater openness to considering and evaluating Christian truth claims than I've witnessed from you. This is likely the result of him possessing a more open mind than you, coupled with him apparently being better at recognising a sound argument when he sees one. Finally, I wouldn't be presuming to be making judgments concerning Pete's eternal state if I were in your shoes. You don't have access to all the facts, you certainly aren't God, and to be quite frank you have no right to doing so in any case.

(Moth) "Singing words of wisdom, let it be". It's nice that you're loyal to your friend's request, but don't stress... the droves of ex-revivalists coming to this site don't gather all that much in these topics and it's actually very helpful for them to see that the search for truth, like that of science, is to always explore and question what you think or know to be reality.

You wouldnt really know though would you! Many people will browse and you don't have a census on thought. It's just another opinion, which puts you right back in the same place you are trying to put me. In his defence Pete has been around this place for far longer than have you. Consequently, his opinion on the matter is likely to be far better informed than yours, and more likely to garner a welcome reception too.

Anyway, there is not much going on in the forum, so I don't want this thread being the current highlight of this site for ex-revivalists. So, that's it from me on this. People are free to email however and discuss further. Given that there isn't much happening at the forum right now, why not continue to develop this particular line of inquiry? Doing so would certainly demonstrate something in the way of moral courage on your part, and would also potentially be of some little interest to the site's browsers.

God bless,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:Creationism

Date Posted:20/02/2009 7:18 AMCopy HTML

Reply to: Woosh!

I've been responding in kind to the patronising tone you entered this debate with, but I'm finding it more than a bit tedious if you intend to continue the rapport. Are you going to keep up the smarmy act or is this you normally? Not that other readers are going to get a lot out of two laymen prattling on about the origins of life and who start copying and pasting paragraphs and diagrams from science blogs.Educated Christians are embarrassed by Ray Comfort. Educated Atheists are embarrassed for the embarrassed Christians.
Educated Christians are ebarrassed by Young Earth Creationists. Educated Atheists are embarrassed for the Embarrassed Christians. What is even more embarrassing is when the religious layman hits the likes of Ian - lol - Pwnage ensues.
What has also been revealed is your equally offensive attitude towards traditional churches and your erroneous opinion that they are an unbelieving people. Amazing... You really can take the man out of Revival, but sadly not the reversal. This is sad for you and sad for any poor soul who finds you convincing... but judging from the tripe you've unloaded on us thus far, I need not fear. Ian has more than adequately addressed some of your short-comings, and although we all enjoy your tit-for-tat replies, you really do have some issues, and the Catholic hate far surpasses your inability to recognise which parts of the bible were written as literal events and which were written with rich symbolic literary mechanisms.
Ken Ham and his cronies have recently spent tens of millions of dollars to promote a justification of scripture that didn't need to be defended. Millions of years are given in scant bible passages (time being irrelevant for god anyway) and You may as well start trying to convince people of the existence of a literal ten horned beast in Revelation. This AiG justification is actually very similar to the way Revival have built their house of tongues on the very loose sand of shallow interpretation.
This thread will need to be renamed or moved to a relevant topic as it's gone way off track. Hmm, let me guess... I hope you don't find me too judgemental but I bet you're a Tim Lahaye fan too. In this case, I hope I'm wrong, but you're fitting the profile as someone who is waiting for the 'rapture' and for a Pope anti-christ to force wrist/forehead marking.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.