s/o of the Ken Ham convention thread - questions

[QuirkyKapers]

I However, when we had this discussion at a Mom's Night meeting, it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

 

Here's how I think this applies to me:

I don't believe this is a salvation issue or not takes away from seeing the Bible as literal. I think it is unfortunate it has become more so that way in some people's thinking. I think it is another good way for groups to "weed out" who they think aren't "proper Christians". The more the different religious groups split and argue among themselves, the less likely others will want to explore faith of any kind. Unity was a big thing with Jesus: This is my command: Love each other. (John 15:17) and this: "I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me. (John 17:21). It seems like weeding sheep from other sheep.

 

Does it really matter if I believe God created something, all the particulars surrounding it? Rhetrorical question. I know for some people it does. If someone feels strongly about it, than they should go with it. For me, unity takes a lot of talking and even sometimes agreeing that you just don't see it the same way when common ground isn't there, but it is always loving despite the differences. I just don't think this is where Jesus wants me to get stuck/focused: on intellecutal/theological debating over interpretation and words. Sure, do I like to read the different views and think for myself? Most certainly. I am not saying I should check my brain out at the door. His big thing was about relationships and that they are right with one another (I think that having a right relationship with someone, might be not having one at all depending on the cirumstances). However, for me, making sure I am loving myself and others like I do is a big task, let alone trying to figure out some of these intellectual/theological issues. (The other issue that comes to mind that I think is like the YE/OE is how different people view the rapture.) In the end, I just wonder what really will be the most important thing, how much time I spent trying to figure out something that in essence may be futile because it isn't that clear cut, or the amount of time I spent focusing on how I was right with God and how I was doing loving others as myself? (Again, rhetorical question).

 

These are my thoughts that I am applying to myself. This is not meant to be a judgement on what others think. Hopefully, it doesn't come across that way. That is why I rarely get into these discussions. :ph34r:

[Erin]

yes - I am disagreeing with you. you stated animals

 

you make it sound as though animals are just a shell of a physical body with nothing there, there. any animal owner will tell you, animals have emotion, they have loyalty, they have feelings,

. (I LOVE this video. :lol: )

 

You think animals CAN sin?

Because really that's the only thing I said about them one way or the other...

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Just FTR, my high school Honors English teacher believed that people evolved from monkeys. She literally laughed people out of the room by saying it so emphatically. Her exact words, which caused students to get up and leave the room, were, "Anyone who does NOT believe that humans were once monkeys is an idiot who does not belong in an Honors English class."

 

So the idiots got up and went out. Most of us weren't even religious.

[SarahW]

It may depend on your definition of literal. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in the sense that there are many types of literary genre and techniques and those should be understood in order to gain a clear understanding of scripture.

 

That being said, just because a passage is poetic doesn't mean that it is not also literally true. This is where it can get confusing and it's important to let the clear portions of scripture interpret those portions that are not as clear.

 

 

It may be helpful to remember, also, that 1400 (or so) years before Darwin was born the were major Church theologians who did not take Genesis 1 and 2 nearly as literally as Ken Ham does. The book Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives is a good overview of this subject.

 

imo, and I speak here as someone who went to enough AIG conferences and read enough of their materials and watched enough of their videos to remember the watermelon thing, and now disagree with all of it - Ken Ham is beholden to the Modern idea that for something to be true it must be real and literal. Before Modernism this idea was absolutely foreign (as the above book shows). I do not accept Modernism, and I do not accept Ken Ham's theological reasoning. Ham would probably call me a post-modern liberal for that, and I accept being called post-modern, but it's only because I'm anti-Modern. I actually prefer thinking pre-Modern-ly, but most people find that term confusing.

[JuanitaL]

 

 

imo, and I speak here as someone who went to enough AIG conferences and read enough of their materials and watched enough of their videos to remember the watermelon thing, and now disagree with all of it -

 

What is a watermelon thing? Usually I have a pretty good imagination, but I'm drawing a complete blank for a watermelon.

[gardenmom5]

You think animals CAN sin?

Because really that's the only thing I said about them one way or the other...

 

no - animals don't go against God, the ability to is what is required to sin. but you said animals dont' have a consciousness. which is defined by websters as self-awareness. no where does websters define consciousness as free will. that is what is what is required to be able to 'sin'. freedom to make good or bad choices - not the same thing as consciousness at all.

[WishboneDawn]

I don't want to start a huge debate, and I didn't want to ask in the thread since it was really pretty lighthearted and I didn't want to bring it down, but I have a question or two.

 

I really have no real staunch position on YE vs OE, though I do tend to go with a YE just based on my faith. However, when we had this discussion at a Mom's Night meeting, it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

Now idk if I really buy into an OE position, and I definitely do not believe in evolution; I'm for sure a creationist. Can one be an OE creationist? If so, what does that belief system look like? And if you are a YE, must you believe that what Ken Ham is spouting is 100% truth? Is there any middle ground?

 

Is there any possible way we could have a rational discussion regarding my confusion on this topic?

 

 

I see two things that probably deserve further thought in this post.

 

1) What is truth?

 

2) Idolatry

 

I say idolatry because I think that once a person has put a literal reading of the Bible ahead of accepting Jesus as their saviour in terms of what constitutes a Christian then they've put the book, however sacred, above God. Jesus is the Word, the Bible is the witness to the Word. It's also good to remember that there were Christians long before there was a Bible. Pinning a person's Christianity on how they read the Bible denies the faith and salvation of those who came first.

 

Also, when you're talking about truth then it's good to separate it from facts. A literal reading of the Bible is one in which you take the accounts as factual but that doesn't necessarily mean there's any more truth attached to them then a metaphorical (I hesitate to say that because someone who isn't a literalist doesn't necessarily think it's all metaphorical) reading. One can believe in the truthfulness of the creation story in Genesis, that creation is good and our world is an ordered world, without thinking that it's a factual account. Indeed, that's generally been the position of Christianity prior to the fairly recent movement of Fundamentalism and a little later, literalism. Think about the stories of Aesop. They communicate core truths about ethics and how to be a good person without asking the reader to believe that turtles and rabbits really talk. Fiction can often communicate deep truths that a simple recounting of facts can miss. Jesus himself taught with parables. He didn't stand by and watch the man in the ditch until the Samaritan came by to help the poor man out, he constructed a story that would illustrate his message. Facts and details often cloud truth. Fiction can bring it to life.

 

This idea that fictions are somehow akin to lies is a pretty modern one as well and, to my mind, a harmful one.

[SarahW]

What is a watermelon thing? Usually I have a pretty good imagination, but I'm drawing a complete blank for a watermelon.

 

This.

 

It's what derailed the other thread. For which I take full responsibility. :coolgleamA:

[Shahrazad]

What is a watermelon thing? Usually I have a pretty good imagination, but I'm drawing a complete blank for a watermelon.

 

This is what some people felt was being mocked in the other thread. The reference is to Ham saying that dinosaurs needed their sharp, pointy teeth not because they were carnivores but because they needed to eat watermelons (and pumpkins!). A picture was then posted from another book on the subject that featured T-Rex chowing down on watermelons.

 

Eta: SarahW beat me to it :).

[Erin]

no - animals don't go against God, the ability to is what is required to sin. but you said animals dont' have a consciousness. which is defined by websters as self-awareness. no where does websters define consciousness as free will. that is what is what is required to be able to 'sin'. freedom to make good or bad choices - not the same thing as consciousness at all.

Oy. Use whatever word you prefer.

 

My point was, and is, that man can sin. Animals can not.

[WishboneDawn]

It may be helpful to remember, also, that 1400 (or so) years before Darwin was born the were major Church theologians who did not take Genesis 1 and 2 nearly as literally as Ken Ham does. The book Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives is a good overview of this subject.

 

imo, and I speak here as someone who went to enough AIG conferences and read enough of their materials and watched enough of their videos to remember the watermelon thing, and now disagree with all of it - Ken Ham is beholden to the Modern idea that for something to be true it must be real and literal. Before Modernism this idea was absolutely foreign (as the above book shows). I do not accept Modernism, and I do not accept Ken Ham's theological reasoning. Ham would probably call me a post-modern liberal for that, and I accept being called post-modern, but it's only because I'm anti-Modern. I actually prefer thinking pre-Modern-ly, but most people find that term confusing.

 

I completely get you. :D I blame Joseph Campbell and also the most excellent EFM course I took for that. We've mostly lost the understanding of the importance of myth that we had for most of human history.

 

ETA: That somehow follows from your comment. I had a whole conversation with you in my head that I did not type out apparently.

[ScoutTN]

Using a 6 24 hour day, YE interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as a litmus test of orthodoxy is wrong and dangerous. But I think so is compromising on the Bible as inspired, inerrant and infallible.

 

I heard a sermon long ago about these things and the pastor emphasized that 1) God made the world, 2) God made the world out of nothing, 3) God made the world by verbal fiat, 4) God made the world perfectly good, with no evil in it.

 

 

For some interesting related reading, check out:

Last Things First by J.V. Fesko

He is a very conservative, Reformed scholar who thinks that the scientific details of creation are not the essential content of the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

Also, WORLD magazine currently has an article in its website by Vern Poythress (sorry I can't seem to post a working link!) about why Darwinism is not compatible with Christianity and why a historical Adam and Eve are non- negotiable.

 

FWIW, I do not like Ken Ham's attitude and behavior with regard to this issue and as another poster has said, I think he does more harm than good.

[Erin]

about why Darwinism is not compatible with Christianity

CS Lewis, arguably one of the most influential Christian writers of modern time, had no trouble meshing the two...

[ScoutTN]

[/size][/font][/color]

CS Lewis, arguably one of the most influential Christian writers of modern time, had no trouble meshing the two...

 

 

 

I love Lewis, but disagree with some of his theological positions. He is clearly superb in/on literature and generally very good on applied theology, e.g. The Screwtape Letters, but not always so strong on formal theology.

 

I love Lewis and have read most of what he's written many times each, but he's not my authority for faith and life, the Bible is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

.

[Erin]

I didn't say he was.

I was just pointing out that many of us, including CS Lewis, have no trouble whatsoever reconciling evolution and the Bible.

 

You appealed to expertise by citing some article in World magazine, and I just pointed out there are others who disagree. :)

[LucyStoner]

I think that reading Genesis as literal history and science totally strips the books of their power and wisdom.

 

If Ken Ham doesn't want to be mocked, he better stop spreading so many fabrications that are worthy of nothing but comic relief. No one that I am aware of used to believe this literal version or that to be infallible, something must never use allegory. If they did, Christians wouldn't have started searching for fossil evidence of early life. Most all of the 19th century paleontologists and other scientists were men of faith.

[SarahW]

I completely get you. :D I blame Joseph Campbell and also the most excellent EFM course I took for that. We've mostly lost the understanding of the importance of myth that we had for most of human history.

 

ETA: That somehow follows from your comment. I had a whole conversation with you in my head that I did not type out apparently.

 

It's cool. I do that a lot, too. :thumbup1:

 

And...I see my post got pretty convoluted, so glad it apparently makes a little sense!

[TechWife]

 

In Hebrew, the word day is used in several different ways (literal day, part of a day, a longer, unspecified period of time). There are some I've talked to who have told me that if I "just studied the meaning of the word day, I would know without a doubt that the correct interpretation was 24hrs." However, studying the various uses of the same word throughout the OT has led me to the belief that it could be one or the other -- and both are legitimate.

 

This.

[AdventureMoms]

Just FTR, my high school Honors English teacher believed that people evolved from monkeys. She literally laughed people out of the room by saying it so emphatically. Her exact words, which caused students to get up and leave the room, were, "Anyone who does NOT believe that humans were once monkeys is an idiot who does not belong in an Honors English class."

 

So the idiots got up and went out. Most of us weren't even religious.

 

So no matter what, there was always at least one idiot left in the room....

 

Most of the time, the only people discussing humans evolving from monkeys are creationists, IME.

[StaceyinLA]

I have so much to read I don't know if I'll ever get back on the boards just for fun! ;-p

 

Seriously though, thank you all for the thought-provoking discussion, and the reading material. I have a bunch of new links bookmarked and have started reading!

[Mrs Mungo]

I really have no real staunch position on YE vs OE, though I do tend to go with a YE just based on my faith. However, when we had this discussion at a Mom's Night meeting, it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

*Nobody* takes every word of The Bible literally. It is not meant to be taken literally. How have those verses historically been interpreted? By Judaism? By early Christians?

 

Now idk if I really buy into an OE position, and I definitely do not believe in evolution; I'm for sure a creationist. Can one be an OE creationist?

 

There are lots of Old Earth Creationists. They may mean something different by it than what you are implying here.

 

http://www.oldearth.org/old.htm

 

[albeto]

Also, WORLD magazine currently has an article in its website by Vern Poythress (sorry I can't seem to post a working link!) about why Darwinism is not compatible with Christianity and why a historical Adam and Eve are non- negotiable.

 

I happen to agree that science (evolution) and Christianity are not fully compatible, but not for the reasons put forth by this WORLD article.

[Cricket]

 

 

I happen to agree that science (evolution) and Christianity are not fully compatible, but not for the reasons put forth by this WORLD article.

 

That link isn't to a WORLD mag article. I think a pp was referring to this article? http://www.worldmag.com/2013/05/a_biblical_and_scientific_adam

[mytwomonkeys]

I don't want to start a huge debate, and I didn't want to ask in the thread since it was really pretty lighthearted and I didn't want to bring it down, but I have a question or two.

 

I really have no real staunch position on YE vs OE, though I do tend to go with a YE just based on my faith. However, when we had this discussion at a Mom's Night meeting, it was said that if you rejected the YE position, and the literal 7-day creation, you were basically not taking the Bible as literal and, therefore, not really "believing" what it says. Their position seemed to be that if you'd question that, you could question other foundational things in the Bible (and I can see that point).

 

Now idk if I really buy into an OE position, and I definitely do not believe in evolution; I'm for sure a creationist. Can one be an OE creationist? If so, what does that belief system look like? And if you are a YE, must you believe that what Ken Ham is spouting is 100% truth? Is there any middle ground?

 

Is there any possible way we could have a rational discussion regarding my confusion on this topic?

 

 

i am YE creationist in my beliefs. i've seen this topic come up over and over on the forums, and the opinions divide greatly among christians. i do not agree that other christians that believe in OE or evolution are anti-bible. imo, one's salvation isn't hinged upon the interpretation of genesis. to answer your question, no, i don't feel all christians need to embrace ken ham as an authority on the topic. for me, i am very comfortable embracing my belief as being faith based and not scientific. the bible simply has far too many "stories", that if literal (which to me they are), can't be backed by science. that is what makes the bible miraculous in so many ways to me. i think there are literal passages in the bible, as well as allegorical. for me, genesis is literal. i realize that puts me in an intellectual cul de sac by some's standards, but it is how i reconcile my faith. i did not grow up in a christian home & was not raised with a creationist world POV. i came to the conclusion myself after becoming a christian & reading the bible. other christians draw other conclusions.

[JuanitaL]

 

This.

 

It's what derailed the other thread. For which I take full responsibility. :coolgleamA:

 

This is what some people felt was being mocked in the other thread. The reference is to Ham saying that dinosaurs needed their sharp, pointy teeth not because they were carnivores but because they needed to eat watermelons (and pumpkins!). A picture was then posted from another book on the subject that featured T-Rex chowing down on watermelons.

 

Eta: SarahW beat me to it :).

 

Thanks.

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

 

i am YE creationist in my beliefs. i've seen this topic come up over and over on the forums, and the opinions divide greatly among christians. i do not agree that other christians that believe in OE or evolution are anti-bible. imo, one's salvation isn't hinged upon the interpretation of genesis. to answer your question, no, i don't feel all christians need to embrace ken ham as an authority on the topic. for me, i am very comfortable embracing my belief as being faith based and not scientific. the bible simply has far too many "stories", that if literal (which to me they are), can't be backed by science. that is what makes the bible miraculous in so many ways to me. i think there are literal passages in the bible, as well as allegorical. for me, genesis is literal. i realize that puts me in an intellectual cul de sac by some's standards, but it is how i reconcile my faith. i did not grow up in a christian home & was not raised with a creationist world POV. i came to the conclusion myself after becoming a christian & reading the bible. other christians draw other conclusions.

 

This is the creationist perspective I rarely see but really respect. Thank you.

[albeto]

That link isn't to a WORLD mag article. I think a pp was referring to this article? http://www.worldmag....scientific_adam

 

Thanks!

[Guest Kipper]

I'm not going to read all the posts, so maybe this was mentioned somewhere.  But Expelled with Ben Stein was excellent.  It helped me understand why so many Christians have a problem simply believing what the Bible says.   
Challenge yourself to be open minded and watch it.

I really hate reading all the Ken Ham bashers.  The man stands for Truth and I applaud him.  Not many Daniels in today's churches.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not going to read all the posts, so maybe this was mentioned somewhere.  But Expelled with Ben Stein was excellent.  It helped me understand why so many Christians have a problem simply believing what the Bible says.   

Challenge yourself to be open minded and watch it.

I really hate reading all the Ken Ham bashers.  The man stands for Truth and I applaud him.  Not many Daniels in today's churches.

 

Ken Ham proclaiming that one must believe in YE to be a true Christian is not speaking "The Truth".  It is simply a somewhat dimwitted man spouting off about something he clearly does not fully understand.

[Mrs Mungo]

Ken Ham proclaiming that one must believe in YE to be a true Christian is not speaking "The Truth".  It is simply a somewhat dimwitted man spouting off about something he clearly does not fully understand.

I'd advise just reporting the person as a troll. They aren't a real member of this forum. They googled this topic and are posting as an apologist.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'd advise just reporting the person as a troll. They aren't a real member of this forum. They googled this topic and are posting as an apologist.

 

I didn't notice the one post. oops!

[Slartibartfast]

This.

 

It's what derailed the other thread. For which I take full responsibility. :coolgleamA:

 

 

I was going to post serious to this very serious thread but instead I am  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:

[GSOchristie]

I am not YE, but am an evangelical Christian. After really starting to think about what I was going to teach my children about creation (I spent the first 35 years of my life not really thinking about creation, so I really don't think it's a theological hill to die on), I found a book called Genesis unbound. I can't remember the author, but John Piper suggested it, so I thought I would give it a try. Wow! I never really thought that what Ken Ham said sounded plausible, but this book made so much sense. The theory is called historical creationism, if you are interested in investigating it. This is what we're using to teach our kids about creation.

[DianeW88]

Zombie thread, people.  Just move along.

[*Lulu*]

Zombie thread, people.  Just move along.

  

 

Except, it gives us the awesome opportunity to resurrect a thread with one of the funniest pics in board history. (IMNSHO :) )

 

We should thank random pot stirrer for giving us the chance to laugh at it all over again!

 

This.It's what derailed the other thread. For which I take full responsibility. :coolgleamA:

[Guest Kipper]

Well, here's post #2.  ;)

If someone doesn't take the 6 days literally, it is not a salvation issue (which Ken Ham has himself said...I heard him in person and it's also written in an AIG magazine article), but it is very much a spiritual growth issue.  The whole point is that so many Christians are fooled into thinking that unless we believe what "scientists" are telling us, we are "uneducated." 

I'm curious to know if anyone here has ever watched Expelled.  I haven't had a chance to research the various people on there, but it really makes a whole lot of sense....the whole idea of it, I mean. 

 

I would think that if one's spiritual growth were of great importance to him (not just knowing he is saved), then he would really dig more deeply into God's Word as the starting point, and then research and see how true science (observable science) really does give evidence to a Creator.  Not just an OE Creator, but a Creator who says what He means and means what He says.  If you continue reading in Genesis, it just makes no sense unless "day" means 24 hours. 

Instead of running to today's scientists, I think it would be wisest for Christians to start with...well, the Bible first, obviously...but then, a very good theologian.  John MacArthur is excellent. 

I've heard of several well-known theologians buying into OE.  (Well, I can think of 3 off hand).  One of them was asked in an interview how old the earth was.  His answer was, "I don't know...however old scientists say it is."    I don't know why this man answered in such a thoughtless way.  But, just because he did, it doesn't mean we other Christians have to assume scientists are telling the truth.

 

I'm new to posting ....am I seriously going to be "reported" for what I said?  :crying:  

[mytwomonkeys]

No you won't be reported, but you may be ignored. If you are truly new to the forum, it's jus strange to resurrect an old thread about a hot topic. Creation, youth groups, crockpots, smoking in public -- all hot buttons! 😊

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, here's post #2.  ;)

If someone doesn't take the 6 days literally, it is not a salvation issue (which Ken Ham has himself said...I heard him in person and it's also written in an AIG magazine article), but it is very much a spiritual growth issue.  The whole point is that so many Christians are fooled into thinking that unless we believe what "scientists" are telling us, we are "uneducated." 

I'm curious to know if anyone here has ever watched Expelled.  I haven't had a chance to research the various people on there, but it really makes a whole lot of sense....the whole idea of it, I mean. 

 

I would think that if one's spiritual growth were of great importance to him (not just knowing he is saved), then he would really dig more deeply into God's Word as the starting point, and then research and see how true science (observable science) really does give evidence to a Creator.  Not just an OE Creator, but a Creator who says what He means and means what He says.  If you continue reading in Genesis, it just makes no sense unless "day" means 24 hours. 

Instead of running to today's scientists, I think it would be wisest for Christians to start with...well, the Bible first, obviously...but then, a very good theologian.  John MacArthur is excellent. 

I've heard of several well-known theologians buying into OE.  (Well, I can think of 3 off hand).  One of them was asked in an interview how old the earth was.  His answer was, "I don't know...however old scientists say it is."    I don't know why this man answered in such a thoughtless way.  But, just because he did, it doesn't mean we other Christians have to assume scientists are telling the truth.

 

I'm new to posting ....am I seriously going to be "reported" for what I said?  :crying:  

 

I do love how you talk about "scientists" as if they are opponents of Christianity.

[Guest Kipper]

oh...thanks

[albeto.]

I'm new to posting ....am I seriously going to be "reported" for what I said?  :crying:  

 

 I think because the thread was months old, your post looked like a "drive by" post - you know, making a comment out of sync with the others, never to return. But you've returned.

 

:)

 

I suspect you'll find some support here, and some who disagree. I'll disagree with you, but I have to admit, in my opinion, your view is every bit as valid as any Christian's. Once a person decides there exists information that can only be gained through divine revelation, and that what we see cannot necessarily be trusted, the line where they separate knowledge based on faith from observable evidence can be effectively drawn anywhere. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Not just an OE Creator, but a Creator who says what He means and means what He says. If you continue reading in Genesis, it just makes no sense unless "day" means 24 hours.

Instead of running to today's scientists, I think it would be wisest for Christians to start with...well, the Bible first, obviously...but then, a very good theologian.

Have you ever read any experts on Jewish beliefs? Day in Genesis is yom. Yom does not generally mean a literal 24 hour period of time. If you had actually read the entire thread, then you would have seen some excellent informational links.

 

http://www.oldearth.org/word_study_yom.htm

 

 

I'm new to posting ....am I seriously going to be "reported" for what I said? :crying:

Did you stumble into this classical homeschooling forum while looking for homeschooling info or by googling Ken Ham? Ken Ham said some very nasty things about *the owner of this forum* at a homeschooling convention. Those things are quoted in plenty of places online. People here are wary of Ken Ham apologists. I reported your post. The moderators may choose to see you as a troll and may not, hard to say.

[*Lulu*]

Well, here's post #2. ;)

If someone doesn't take the 6 days literally, it is not a salvation issue (which Ken Ham has himself said...I heard him in person and it's also written in an AIG magazine article), but it is very much a spiritual growth issue.

 

See that is not consistent with the first hand accounts and written works of one Mr. Ken Ham that I have run across. Yes, he does sometimes say that it isn't a salvation issue, but then again, he frequently calls those who do not share his YE position enemies of the faith. Search his name on these boards and read the linked articles and information and you begun to see a different side of the man.

 

 

The whole point is that so many Christians are fooled into thinking that unless we believe what "scientists" are telling us, we are "uneducated."

I'm curious to know if anyone here has ever watched Expelled. I haven't had a chance to research the various people on there, but it really makes a whole lot of sense....the whole idea of it, I mean.

 

I would think that if one's spiritual growth were of great importance to him (not just knowing he is saved), then he would really dig more deeply into God's Word as the starting point, and then research and see how true science (observable science) really does give evidence to a Creator.

 

Full stop. What exactly makes you think that those of us who profess faith in Christ and hold a non YE position have not done EXACTLY what you are suggesting?

 

 

Not just an OE Creator, but a Creator who says what He means and means what He says. If you continue reading in Genesis, it just makes no sense unless "day" means 24 hours.

Instead of running to today's scientists, I think it would be wisest for Christians to start with...well, the Bible first, obviously...but then, a very good theologian. John MacArthur is excellent.

I've heard of several well-known theologians buying into OE. (Well, I can think of 3 off hand). One of them was asked in an interview how old the earth was. His answer was, "I don't know...however old scientists say it is." I don't know why this man answered in such a thoughtless way. But, just because he did, it doesn't mean we other Christians have to assume scientists are telling the truth.

 

I'm new to posting ....am I seriously going to be "reported" for what I said? :crying:

Nothing you said warranted reporting, but I will agree with pp that starting out by resurrecting an old thread about a hotly debated topic is a great way to get ignored out of the gate.

 

This board has a lot of members whose views are anything but lock step. Respectful debate is encouraged, pot stirring raises hackles.

[LucyStoner]

The brains taste soooooo good. More braaaaaaiiiiiiinnnssssss please.

 

-signed, a hungry zombie

[Cricket]

I've heard of several well-known theologians buying into OE. (Well, I can think of 3 off hand). One of them was asked in an interview how old the earth was. His answer was, "I don't know...however old scientists say it is." I don't know why this man answered in such a thoughtless way. But, just because he did, it doesn't mean we other Christians have to assume scientists are telling the truth.

 

I don't think we need to assume that scientists are telling the "truth" but they are trying to find the best explanation to match what is observed. I don't know any Scripture that specifically references the age of the earth or universe so I don't think "however old scientists say it is" is a thoughtless answer from a theologian.

[albeto.]

I don't think we need to assume that scientists are telling the "truth" but they are trying to find the best explanation to match what is observed. I don't know any Scripture that specifically references the age of the earth or universe so I don't think "however old scientists say it is" is a thoughtless answer from a theologian.

 

The genealogies of Jesus would provide a time frame if the creation of the world were accurately portrayed in the book of Genesis (as is Ken Ham's argument).

[Guest Kipper]

I meant to say thanks to mytwomonkeys, but I can't even figure out how to copy your quote in order to post under it. 

I would really like to know if anyone who is OE here has ever watched Expelled...and what they might think of it.

But, I guess I'll take that...somewhere...else....

?

[Cricket]

The genealogies of Jesus would provide a time frame if the creation of the world were accurately portrayed in the book of Genesis (as is Ken Ham's argument).

Yes, I've heard that argument. I disagree that it is safe to assume we can simply add years together and calculate the earth's age. That's making some big assumptions!

[Jean in Newcastle]

I meant to say thanks to mytwomonkeys, but I can't even figure out how to copy your quote in order to post under it. 

I would really like to know if anyone who is OE here has ever watched Expelled...and what they might think of it.

But, I guess I'll take that...somewhere...else....

?

If you search this board for "Expelled Stein" you will find that lots of people here have watched Expelled.  I'm sure that some of them are OE.  But the threads on that movie were made in 2009 and that era because that is when people were watching this movie and discussing it.  Since it was so long ago, people aren't going to be all that enthused about you resurrecting those threads.  But it might be helpful to read those for your own edification.  Also - since it was so long ago, the threads were probably on the "General Education" board because we did not have the "Chat board" at that time.  

[Mrs Mungo]

I meant to say thanks to mytwomonkeys, but I can't even figure out how to copy your quote in order to post under it.

I would really like to know if anyone who is OE here has ever watched Expelled...and what they might think of it.

But, I guess I'll take that...somewhere...else....

?

http://www.expelledexposed.com

[albeto.]

 That's making some big assumptions!

 

Yep.

 

:)