tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post502015973521359274..comments2024-02-05T05:03:02.973-05:00Comments on Craig Cottongim: When the Stars align: Bill Nye the Science guy vs Ken Hamcraigcottongimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00044719143151067603noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-44917313806725517922014-07-22T01:48:28.914-04:002014-07-22T01:48:28.914-04:00Young Earth creationism came only in about 1960 al...Young Earth creationism came only in about 1960 along with many other naive lies at that time.<br />While Gap Creationism was the original creation account taught for more than 2000 years ,the 2nd earliest documents being in Targum of onkelos in 2nd century BC,the earliest being the Torah genesis account by Moses at about 1400BC.<br /><br />TO know more about gap creationism and fulfilled Bible prophecies which give credibility to Bible as God's word,please visit-yahwehword.wordpress.com/<br /><br />or-yah12.blogspot.in/Jan Zizkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05339580121954376004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-46578768008648984372014-07-22T01:28:09.702-04:002014-07-22T01:28:09.702-04:00In 1954, a few years before the re-emergence of Yo...In 1954, a few years before the re-emergence of Young Earth Flood geology eclipsed Gap creationism, influential evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm wrote in “The Christian View of Science and Scripture”.<br />The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-orthodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles.<br /><br />You can know more about why Gap creationism is the correct interpretation of Genesis creation and why only on that basis we can correctly interpret the whole bible at my site-yah12.blogspot.in/2014/04/gap-creationism-origin-of-universe.html<br /><br />or at -yahwehword.wordpress.com/<br />The site also includes many fulfilled bible prophecies and other truth abd reality which enhance our faith in God.Jan Zizkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05339580121954376004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-6538180755558205342014-02-07T19:56:38.181-05:002014-02-07T19:56:38.181-05:00Of course, since I have only watched the Network N...Of course, since I have only watched the Network News (a.k.a. Religious Authority approved Skippy Goebbels) report, I don't have that much info. I will not watch the entire debate until I'm gettin' as much money and/or publicity as Nye & Ham got. <br /><br />However, for Bill Nye to represent an Atheist POV...well.....I ain't viewed anything like that since Neville Chamberlin got back from Berlin.<br /><br />You don't get on PBS without being Religious Authority approved, TOO!https://www.blogger.com/profile/03037704048671379868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-73073029027782905502014-01-31T17:38:44.619-05:002014-01-31T17:38:44.619-05:00Some scholars also argue against translating hayah...Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2<br /> because they assume this interpretation came about only recently, after scientists determined the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1<br /> and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.<br />Yet this interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years, as pointed out by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2<br /> .<br />The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament, rendered Genesis 1:2<br /> with an Aramaic expression Dr. Custance translates as "and the earth was laid waste" (1988, p. 15). The original language evidently led them to understand that something had occurred which had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.<br />The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2<br /> that the original earth had been "cast downwards" ( Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).<br />In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2<br />, "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering...of it was taken in hand?' ( De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, part 1, chapter 6). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval of time between Genesis 1:1<br /> and 1:2.<br />According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology embraced an ancient origin for the earth.<br />These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1<br /> and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin—that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology—is groundless.<br />Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by Dr. Custance in his book. He states: "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen 1:2<br /> as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (p. 7).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360988154224869818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-87122721272614635402014-01-31T17:38:13.739-05:002014-01-31T17:38:13.739-05:00For those still open to the idea that the bible do...For those still open to the idea that the bible doesn't force us into a narrow inflexible perspective here's an article that explores the biblical gap of information:<br /><br /><br />We are introduced to the account of the creation of the earth in Genesis 1:1-2<br /><br /><br />: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep."<br />The original Hebrew wording, combined with a comparison to other passages of Scripture, has led some to conclude that a considerable time interval is indicated between these two verses. If such an interval is indeed intended, there is no discrepancy between the Bible record and scientific determinations that the earth is up to several billion years old. If, on the other hand, there is no such gap, then the earth itself must be only around 6,000 years old—which most scientists consider an impossibility.<br />Do other passages, as well as history, shed any light on this question?<br />Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2<br /> can or should be translated "Now the earth became without form, and void... " as opposed to the common rendering "The earth was without form, and void... " Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah must be translated "was" and then assume the earth was originally created in this disorderly way.<br />However, as can be seen from many Bible helps, both translations of the term are possible. Only the context of the chapter and book can determine which one is correct. Gleason Archer, professor of biblical languages, comments: "It should be noted in this connection that the verb was in Genesis 1:2<br /> may quite possibly be rendered 'became' and be construed to mean: 'And the earth became formless and void.' Only a cosmic catastrophe could account for the introduction of chaotic confusion into the original perfection of God's creation. This interpretation certainly seems to be exegetically tenable..." ( A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 1974, p. 184).<br />In a footnote Archer adds, "Properly speaking, this verb hayah never has the meaning of static being like the copular verb 'to be.' Its basic notion is that of becoming or emerging as such and such, or of coming into being... Sometimes a distinction is attempted along the following lines: hayah means 'become' only when it is followed by the preposition le ; otherwise there is no explicit idea of becoming. But this distinction will not stand up under analysis. In Gen[esis] 3:20 the proper rendering is: 'And Adam called the name of his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all living.' No le follows the verb in this case. So also in Gen[esis] 4:20: 'Jabal became the father of tent dwellers.' Therefore there can be no grammatical objection raised to translating Gen[esis] 1:2: 'And the earth became a wasteness and desolation'" (ibid.).<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360988154224869818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-81053129079475942972014-01-29T07:52:21.405-05:002014-01-29T07:52:21.405-05:00Joanne, first of all, the devil is revealed as a s...Joanne, first of all, the devil is revealed as a serpent in the Garden in Gen 3, not as a perfect angel. Also, Ezk 28:2 & :12 it is clear the being referred to in the Garden is the Prince/King of Tyre. Sorry.<br /><br />Secondly, I never once have said I am an evolutionist. Quit trying to tie my beliefs to Darwinism. <br /><br />Third, do some research in the Hebrew language. Gen 1:2 isn't simply an empty earth. It's in chaos. craigcottongimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00044719143151067603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-7016763339143752382014-01-28T22:07:24.932-05:002014-01-28T22:07:24.932-05:00Craig - regarding your January 21 2014 at 3:12 PM ...Craig - regarding your January 21 2014 at 3:12 PM respoonse to me:<br /><br />Craig - I will concede that my interpretation of that judgement passage differs from yours. I will also state that neither the belief in a young earth nor the performance of good works is necessary for salvation. Our behaviour post-salvation should show fruit, that is a given. As such YEC’s do not make their young earth beliefs a hinge pin for salvation.<br /><br />You asked "Please give me a book chapter and verse…" concerning the young age of the earth. I can’t but if I ask you the same question - give me a book, chapter & verse that states that the earth is millions of years old, could you? Neither of us can. So we have to ask what makes more sense in the clear teaching of Scripture? not a perceived interpretation of science, but ONLY Scripture. It’s not just an age issue but one of the trustworthiness of all of Scripture.<br /><br />You ask me to “read between the lines” as God does not tell us exactly when Satan’s fall took place. If we can read between the lines here can we then legitimately read between the lines elsewhere in Scripture? Say whenever something doesn’t suit us? <br /><br />You did not get the idea of millions of years from Scripture. You got it from a humanistic world-view & because it seems to explain history, like many others before, you are trying to combine that idea with what Genesis really says. Even Richard Dawkins sees the inconsistency of such an effort. He stated in 2011 “I think the evangelical Christians have really got it right, in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas, what shall we say, the more ‘sophisticated theologians’ are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think that the evangelicals have got it right in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I realised that about the age of 16.”<br /><br />Scripture tells us 2 Corinthians 6:14 “… what fellowship has light with darkness?” I know this is speaking of believers and unbelievers but it can also be applied in this instance. You cannot marry the light of Scripture with the darkness of the world. It is not a battle for the belief of a young earth but rather a battle for the authority of Scripture. That’s what Ken Ham and a multitude of others like him are all about.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016424068916381198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-81808304174602204192014-01-28T22:02:03.632-05:002014-01-28T22:02:03.632-05:00The debate between Nye and Ham will be interesting...The debate between Nye and Ham will be interesting because it will concern two points of views. What Nye does not understand is that what happened in the past, before it could be observed & tested, is historical science.As such, any facts from that history, not being able to speak for themselves, need to be interpreted. Nye will present an interpretation of the facts from an evolutionary hypothesis coming out of his humanistic worldview. Ham will present using the same facts coming out of a literal, biblical worldview. The exhibits at the Creation Museum make this point time and again. For example if they consider fossils: Nye will discuss them as being millions of years old using the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence; Ham, will show how the processes of the Flood could have produced the same thing in a much shorter period of time. So who is right? <br /><br />I believe the literal view taken by Ham and this is why:<br />I came out of a billions of years world view & probably would have jumped the faith ship had it not been for the book “The Genesis Flood.” This spurred me into research & I found out that there was another world out there, a biblical creationist world, that had an apologetic that matched what I read in Scripture with science to back it up. According to the Gap Theory God created a perfect earth, Satan fell, was banished to earth producing a cataclysmic devastation for millions of years, God wiped the slate clean with Satan’s Flood & He then started again. Some of the questions I faced were:<br />*Except for what Lucifer was like and what he became, none of the rest of the Gap theory is found in Scripture. Why should I believe it?<br />*How then does Ezekiel 28:13 where it states that before he fell, Lucifer was in the Garden, fit in with this theory? <br />*Why would God go through the whole creation process a second time? Did He not learn His lesson the first time?<br />*If millions of years of evolution in Satan’s fallen world included death, how could death be the result of the curse on Adam’s sin according to Gen.3 & Rom.5? <br />*As John attributed everything that was made to Christ, does that “everything” include death? <br />*If so would that not contradict His character? But is not one of Christ’s character trait’s the fact that He cannot contradict Himself?<br />*Why would He come & die for something He created in the first place? <br /><br />These are only some of the questions I faced.<br /><br />Now look at another perspective:<br />Gen.1:1-God’s opening statement was that He created the heavens & the earth.<br />Gen1:2-God then described how He followed through on His opening statement. “Thohu” used to describe the earth at this time, refers to empty places & undeveloped things. “Wabhohu” is also used to describe the earth, as empty or unfilled. Earth was first formless consisting of water with nothing living in it. It wasn’t until the 3rd day that God brought dry land out of that water & proceeded to furbish it. 2Pet. 3:5 attests to this fact. God told us what He did on each day & by the end of day 6 proclaimed that it was all “very good.”<br /> <br />In Gen.4 we have man’s fall. Between God’s “very good” & the beginning of ch4 is a undetermined period of time, probably not too long because no children of Adam & Eve are mentioned. They weren’t born until after the expulsion from the Garden. Lucifer was present in the Garden in his perfection & I believe it was during this time that he fell, making him in the right place for the temping of Adam & Eve. So we have God’s “very good,” Lucifer in the Garden, Lucifer’s fall, the temptation of man & man’s fall. I didn't have to read between the lines for any of this.<br /> <br />The fossil record, death of dinosaurs, etc. can all be explained through the process of Noah’s Flood which was a huge, geologically catastrophic event rearranging & changing forever the face of the earth. It all fits with the genealogies & a literal view of Scripture in both the Old & New Testaments & one does not have to add any humanistic interpretations to sort it out. <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016424068916381198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-78482550877773860842014-01-25T11:28:23.693-05:002014-01-25T11:28:23.693-05:00LOL, you sure seem to be a negative, pessimistic p...LOL, you sure seem to be a negative, pessimistic person based on your blog link you just posted.<br /><br />1. First, you do not need to be heavily credentialed to point out the falicies of evolution or the age of the Earth. Give me a break.<br /><br />2. One side of this debate is obviously right, since there are only 2 known possibilities of the origin of the Earth. Assuming you believe the Bible, why in the world would you enter into a debate where the other side is saying the Bible isn't true, with an open mind? How do you expect this debate will create more division exactly? This is by no means the first debate of this type. Search youtube, and you will find dozens more. Typically the evolutionist debater and evolutionists in general are so disparaging to Creationists, that I don't see how any more division is possible. On the other hand, the hope and prayer here is that some who may have never heard the evidence for a creator, can be moved by that.<br /><br />3. The stated topic is not narrow at all. Are you kidding me? The time allotted is not nearly enough time to cover - age of the earth, organic evolution, origin of life, big bang theory, etc. All of these "scientific" principles scream the Bible isn't true, and hopefully will all be addressed. They are all on topic, and trust me, they will run out time discussing these.<br /><br />4. Of course both will declare themselves winners. What's your point? We should agree with the one who declares himself a winner? Do you not think people are able to think for themselves?<br /><br />5. Duh. Also, don't let bloggers form your opinon for you.<br /><br />Lastly, as is typical for someone who does not have a good answer, you have refused so far to answer the question you apparently are not able to answer. Does the age of the Earth matter to people who have left their faith because of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-72759593397420426102014-01-25T11:13:02.224-05:002014-01-25T11:13:02.224-05:00What everyone needs to consider before watching th...What everyone needs to consider before watching the debate:<br /><br />http://craigcottongim.blogspot.com/2014/01/what-you-need-to-know-before-watching.htmlcraigcottongimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00044719143151067603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-67976648023767814072014-01-22T12:36:56.240-05:002014-01-22T12:36:56.240-05:00Well, we agree on one thing. I am not a Trinitaria...Well, we agree on one thing. I am not a Trinitarian either, namely because the Bible does not support this idea, and in fact speaks the other way. That is why I included that.<br /><br />Anyway, the earth being formless and empty and God hovering over it was all on day 1. Not a problem.<br /><br />I am very interested in your point of the original language leaving open the possibility of a revival or re-creation. I would like to hear more on that.<br /><br />Except for the opinion on the evidence for Gap Theory, I only called fact facts. No other opinion here. Re: Gap Theory, what I should have said was that there was no proof of a Gap Theory. The point being, why create a theory that cannot be proven, in order to explain what God did not say.<br /><br />Regarding the appearance of stars, this article explains that way better than I can.<br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n1/starlight<br />I do not think God is a trickster, but yes Satan is, and he is doing it quite well with Evolution and the Age of the Earth. <br /><br />I don't catch your meaning with the rainbow. There was the first one mentioned, after the Ark came to rest, and it was meant to be a sign of a Covenant that God would never destroy the Earth with water again. Before the flood, it had never rained.<br /><br />You still have not answered it you still think the age of the Earth is irrelevant for those that have left the faith because of it and similar issues.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-40617413381256699792014-01-22T12:06:37.427-05:002014-01-22T12:06:37.427-05:00Fact: Facts are not formed from speculation, Fact,...Fact: Facts are not formed from speculation, Fact, the Earth was already in a state when God hovered over the waters.<br /><br />Fact: The Roman Catholic theory of the Trinity as a way to explain Jesus's deity is no more fact than evolution, it's a theory with more pagan routes than Biblical ones. <br /><br />Fact: Being so sure of your opinions that you call them facts leads to seeing even more dimly through the 'glass' of reality.<br /><br />Fact: God created all things, but the original language DOES leave the concept of a recreation or revival as a possibility.<br /><br />Fact: There is evidence for the Gap theory but of course it's a theory that reconciles biblical teaching with some of the clearly seen qualities of the stars and more. <br /><br />Tell us, did God create a grand illusion in the skies so we'd think stars died and exploded while in reality He just created light 6,000-10,000 light years away jus so we could see a 'star' disappear? Does God's nature allow for such a grand lie? That type of creator sounds a little more like Satan. This and many other reasons (the flood? Was there a previous flood that the rainbow was needed to be a sign that a third wouldn't happen?) lead a thinking man to say "I don't know it all so I won't push my ideas as fact' because they're just ideas that might fill in the scriptural gaps.<br /><br />Once again if you can't read the lexicons and Strongs #s and see the gaps that were left ...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360988154224869818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-35093244685217458022014-01-22T09:48:45.125-05:002014-01-22T09:48:45.125-05:00Fact - The Bible says the Earth and everything in ...Fact - The Bible says the Earth and everything in it was created in 6 days.<br /><br />Fact - God based man's 6 day work week and 1 day of rest on the 6 days of creation and one day of God's rest.<br /><br />Fact - References to the first few chapters as fact, not allegory, are made in multiple books of the NT, including by Jesus himself.<br /><br />Fact - Until man created the idea of ancient ages, based on the mostly made up geologic column, using completely made up dates, people thought the earth was a few thousand years old, which the Bible indicates by doing a bit of simple math.<br /><br />Fact - the Bible does NOT give a date the earth was created. It also does not clearly spell out multiple other things, and yet we take them as true. One example is the Trinity.<br /><br />Fact - there is no evidence to support the Gap theory.<br /><br />Fact - the Gap theory goes against what the Bible clearly says<br /><br />Fact - every piece of evidence that ancient earthers point to for the age of the earth and universe, are based on assumptions, and almost every one has been shown to be incorrect. The rest are based on those unprovable assumptions.<br /><br />Fact - there is a mass of scientific information that points to a young earth, from such as disciplines as Geology, Astronomy, Physics, Archaeology, Biolgy, and Mathematics.<br /><br />Fact - You do not need to understand the age of the earth to be saved.<br /><br />Fact - Many, many, many people have left their Christian fatih, and thus salvation, because of the confusion that has been stated multiple times above.<br /><br />Fact - The truth of the age of the earth does matter for those people, whether it matters for you or not.<br /><br />That last fact is the WHOLE POINT of this, which you cannot seem to get into your head, and have not addressed at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-74090751932568912942014-01-21T23:07:57.744-05:002014-01-21T23:07:57.744-05:00This discussion is like chasing ones own tail, if ...This discussion is like chasing ones own tail, if you don't see the massive gaps in detail that God left in the original languages concerning creation and all its timing then, around and around the discussion will go. Like Craig said, making your outreach based on speculation is unwise.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14360988154224869818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-52822022176458443942014-01-21T22:53:39.630-05:002014-01-21T22:53:39.630-05:00Ok, add to equation the order of creation by day a...Ok, add to equation the order of creation by day and the description of water covering the earth. Geological evolution assumes it all happened at once, stars, space, planets, galaxies etc. and a lot of heat. Why would God mislead us so much and give the order of what He described creating on each of the 6 days? Completely different that what evolution believes and teaches. Now if you say that the Bible is not historical , then you undermine (in my opinion-humbly)<br />your stated purpose of reaching people. Why bother with other "unscientific myths". Now if that is your position, let's just agree to not agree. I don't want to do the out shout each other deal. I am trying to understand your thinking. I am going to quit for this evening, but would love to continue. Not necessarily on this issue, but more on reaching others for Christ. I can see that you are adamant on how you see it. I am too! But I am also adamant about reaching out to others as the church seems to have lost its way there. Perhaps we could not discuss on this forum. Let me know!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02550029135935737880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-29585005996868829422014-01-21T22:47:45.384-05:002014-01-21T22:47:45.384-05:00Talking snakes, burning bushes, seas parting, fier...Talking snakes, burning bushes, seas parting, fiery furnaces, fish swallowing men, virgin births, rising from the dead. You believe all that? Why? Because it says so in the Bible? You mean that book that says the earth was created in 6 days, and all the worlds species were preserved on an ark after a global flood? Oh, you believe some of that...what's that, not all if it? Ok, resurrection....gotta keep that. But rock ages don't matter. Ok, so if the age of rocks is correct, then there was death before sin according to fossils, so that means there was no original sin, so we don't need a savior.....wow, this Bible is very confusing. No wonder people think Christians are crazy. I'm glad there are people like Ken Ham that have devoted their lives to showing how science supports a straight forward reading of the Bible that actually makes sense to anyone with an open heart to listen. Your brand of compromise evangelism only works for those who have abandoned reason, or have never thought the implications through to their logical ends.icarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05399153897515140028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-10127925445877814782014-01-21T22:13:43.965-05:002014-01-21T22:13:43.965-05:00Terry, Heb 11:3 doesn't give a time, not of 7 ...Terry, Heb 11:3 doesn't give a time, not of 7 days either. There's nothing to fill in, in between Gen 1:1 & 1:2, from Heb 11, Heb 11 is merely saying the tangible/material universe was spoken into existence out of nothing. I agree that's how it happened, God spoke creation into existence from no-thing. craigcottongimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00044719143151067603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-28605064148679816042014-01-21T21:54:20.763-05:002014-01-21T21:54:20.763-05:00I had a couple things in mind. The 1st is that ver...I had a couple things in mind. The 1st is that verse 3 seems as a commentary on how long it took to create the universe. It says it was created by the word of God, which I see no time inferred. It fills your time between Gen. 1:1 & 2. I don't see how you can create billions of years out of an instantaneous act if time even existed when He spoke it. I have another thought also, but I'd like to go back and forth with ideas rather than degrade the discussion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02550029135935737880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-11516591784746331372014-01-21T20:48:57.079-05:002014-01-21T20:48:57.079-05:00Tom Scott, I do take the Bible literally. And, I ...Tom Scott, I do take the Bible literally. And, I do not read it to suit myself. YEC shut the doors to the Kingdom to thinking people, plain and simple. You can die on that hill all day long, good luck. The rest of Christendom will focus on reaching people. The Bible nowhere gives a date, nor a command to argue for a date. If you choose to be a champion of speculation, not an objective black and white issue, that's your choice. To say the world is 6,000 years old is misguided and inaccurate, but I don't care, because that issue will not lead people to Jesus. Please give me a book chapter and verse, not your attempt at math that adds up genealogies, no, I want a book chapter and verse that says the earth is 6,000 years old. I'm not the one "pushing" my view, I only share my view so people reading my blog know where I'm coming from as I share my opinion of the debate. Since you and all of the YEC are so convinced the Bible teaches this date, and science backs it up, it shouldn't be too hard to find a direct, clear, unambiguous passage of Scripture that gives us the exact date. I'd like the year, month and date, since this is so vital.craigcottongimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00044719143151067603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-67952309859256222762014-01-21T20:28:46.588-05:002014-01-21T20:28:46.588-05:00Terry, to save me from rambling on & on, what ...Terry, to save me from rambling on & on, what in particular about my understanding are you wanting to know, in light of Heb 11? craigcottongimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00044719143151067603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-21553208847419705432014-01-21T20:06:44.299-05:002014-01-21T20:06:44.299-05:00Pastor, Could you explain your position in light o...Pastor, Could you explain your position in light of Hebrews 11:1-3<br /><br />11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02550029135935737880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-17352735181370932252014-01-21T19:43:36.330-05:002014-01-21T19:43:36.330-05:00I disagree. I believe that Ken Ham will easily def...I disagree. I believe that Ken Ham will easily defeat Bill Nye. I also believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years old and don't see any evidence that demonstrates a billions of years old universe or Earth. All evidence, in fact, demonstrates a young universe. And it does matter. If you don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis then you are inclined to change the Bible wherever it suits you, which then becomes a salvation issue. After all, if you are not worshiping the God who said he did it in 6 days then you are not worshiping the God of the Bible.<br /><br />If you think that there is a distant starlight problem for a young universe then think again. If all things were created in a local space and God stretch out the heavens as he indicates in Jeremiah 51:15 "He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding." then the light from the created celestial objects was also stretched out across the entire universe. It fits the evidence and shows there is no problem with distant starlight. Radiometric dating methods all rest on unverifiable assumptions as well. <br /><br />I think it is shameful that a pastor of any church would deny God's Word in favor of man's opinion based on misinterpreted evidence. I pray that you will come to accept all of God's Word. Jesus asserted Genesis was truth, why can't you?Tommy Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09150716981620675891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-51070754855039845792014-01-21T15:12:28.044-05:002014-01-21T15:12:28.044-05:00Joanne, as for the mind of God, we have some insig...Joanne, as for the mind of God, we have some insight: “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16, ESV) A<br /><br />And as for what He will say on Judgment day, we do know: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’<br />41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46, ESV)<br /><br />craigcottongimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00044719143151067603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-63302770353967874532014-01-21T15:03:47.142-05:002014-01-21T15:03:47.142-05:00Craig - You said: “In the end, God will not say to...Craig - You said: “In the end, God will not say to you on judgment day,"Great job on trying to convince everyone of the chronological truths of the universe." He will ask about how well we loved and served mankind. He will ask if we fought the same battles Jesus fought.”<br /><br />I think this is a rather flippant statement with respect to the fact that you do not know the mind of God or what He will say. The one great battle that Jesus fought was for the truth, was it not? Did He not say that He was the Truth? So what He said in Gen 1:1 is just as important as what was said in Rev 22:21. Christ affirmed that all of scripture was about Him in John 5:39 “You search the scriptures…and it is these that bear witness of Me.” It all comes back to Christ. <br /><br />You said: “I believe in the 7 days of creation & yes I believe the earth is billions of years old … God wasn't bound by time, or limited in acting by time.”<br /><br />Ah the great compromise between young earth & millions of years-God isn’t bound by time. How often is that flawed reasoning used to bolster this belief. Just where did you get the idea of millions of years from in the first place? From Scripture or was the idea planted in your mind by a humanistic belief system with you trying to marry the two together? If the earth was millions of years old by the time creation week came about there are several implications that perhaps you have not considered. <br /><br />*There must have been suffering & death around if the earth is millions of years old. Therefore death was not part of the curse, the judgement on man’s disobedience<br />*John 1:3 tells us Christ created everything “All things were made by Him & without Him nothing was made that was made.”<br />*Logically then, if all things were made by Christ, then He is the cause of death. <br />*Carrying this though further, ask why would He come to die for something He created in the first place? He came to fix what Adam broke. If it was already broken just what did Christ come to fix?<br />*There are those who say that the curse of death was only spiritual. If this is so why was a physical death necessary for a spiritual act? <br />* Ask yourself, where did cancer, tumours, chaos, etc. come from? Satan? Adam’s sin? believing in millions of years credits entropy in creation to God Himself which is an attack on the character of God.<br /><br />Why is this all important in the first place? To paraphrase Pastor Don Landis:<br /> “The strongest theological argument about a young earth & the truth of Genesis comes from understanding the truth of Christ at the cross & understanding the person, attributes & character of God. When it comes down to it Satan is not known as the anti-bible or as the anti-creator but he is the anti-christ. The spirit of the antic-christ is to add or subtract from the person of Christ. His goal of centuries, to destroy the truth about God & His work. Since this is our strongest argument it is the greatest focus of Satan’s attention. The ultimate goal is to get young people to believe a doctrine of creation that would allow things about Christ’s work & character that are not true. It is an attack on Christ.” He concludes with "Look at the cause & effect, the generation that will apply this kind of hermeneutic. Once the Old Testament is incorrectly interpreted there is an effect on the New Testament & eventually we can apply our views wherever we want on Scripture." And that lack of consistency is why young people walk away from their faith and the church.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016424068916381198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3485893249976008151.post-18310151663110972262014-01-21T13:07:22.876-05:002014-01-21T13:07:22.876-05:00Greg - “A poll was done asking twenty-somethings, ... Greg - “A poll was done asking twenty-somethings, who had grown up in the church, yet had left their faith what were the reasons, and the age of the Earth was at or near the top. We need to stop trying to twist and conform God's Word to what the world is saying.”<br /><br />Why was the age of the earth one of the reasons those young people left their faith? I would venture to say that it was because, as Ken Ham stated in reference to recent research “… churches and Christian homes were by and large not teaching children and young people how to defend the Christian faith.” They were being taught Sunday School stories without any connection to the real world so when public school taught them evolution as fact, it filled a void left by the home and Church. To twist God’s Word to what the world is saying is Eisegesis and that is not what creationists are doing. They are in fact using the method of exegesis which is explaining the world in light of the Word. And it does make much more sense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08016424068916381198noreply@blogger.com