A couple of weeks ago The Lord gave me a reminder from Colossians chapter 2, verses 6-8, that I posted on the Bulletin Board. Verse 8 says, " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Thursday night I was channel surfing and saw on TBN a guy teaching on creation verses evolution. His name was Dr.Hugh Ross PhD. He was coming against the evolution teachings, saying that Genesis was right and that God had created everything. Here's the way the deception was being set up...He was first, being given a platform to speak, on what most who watch believe to be a 'christian' station, thereby giving the impression that what he was teaching was true. Second, he started out by saying that he believed in the account given in The Bible of Creation by God. So those watching (including the Crouchs' son, who was doing the one-on-one interview) assumed him to be speaking the truth, given his credentials and confession of being a believing christian. But it didn't take long for him to start inserting his scientific, wisdom of man philosophy.( I believe it's known as progressive creation ) He stated that the earth was about 3 Billion years old, and that man was created by God about 50,000 years ago(give or take 20,000 years). He didn't think the Bible was meaning that a day was a literal day, but a very long period of time. I didn't watch the entire broadcast, but the genealogy given in Genesis of Adam to Noah was explained away with an air of authority as he had a degree and the esteem of the scientific community.He also said he believed the flood was just a localized flood. He was saying something about the 'Neanderthal Man' existed before God made Adam with a soul, but I missed part of that segment. He stated that life began with a 'Big Bang'...it was just God doing the 'banging'. Of course he used all the 'proof text' ways of determining all this info, such as carbon dating and other methods used by the 'experts',and built by man to PROVE that man is right...instead of just taking God at His Word. He had books he had written that the viewer could order that proved what he was saying...(how's that for proof, "let me quote the facts from MY book, to prove my point") What I believe The Lord would have us learn from this is, be discerning; just because someone says the name of Jesus and is on a 'Christian TV station'(I don't think TBN is 'Christian') and uses catch phrases that Christians use or quotes a scripture or two; doesn't mean they're speaking the TRUTH. How do we avoid these deceptions? Verse 6&7... " As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus The Lord, so walk ye in Him: Rooted and built up in Him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving." And by being AWARE....of the vain deceit and philosophy of men being used by the enemy, Satan.
I would agree with you. But a few words on Dr. Ross. He is an evangelical xian who has tried to align science with the bible. AS you probably know I don't agree with everything he has stated above. He has however written a very interesting book on physics and astronomy about bible related things. Very very interesting. He holds a PHD in astronomy. You're not going to get anything heretical in his books. Error as you've stated above - absolutely. But not heresy. My point here is to say this. That anyone well grounded in the scriptures (like most of us would be) might find a lot of interesting material in "some" of his books. I don't generally agree with taking the meat off the bones teaching but in this case I think it is worth it. He comments on a lot of science stuff. I absolutely do not agree with his opinions on our origins but where he deals with science from a 21st century perspective it is very interesting. Especially extra-dimensionality and astronomy Here's the book I have http://www.amazon.ca/Beyond-Cosmos-Extra-Dimensionality-Disc overies-Astronomy/dp/0891099646/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=boo ks&qid=1247353054&sr=1-1 Here's the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist) I can't get the url to set right so go to the page and click on the creationist Ross Here's a quote from the wiki page Ross accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, and he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.[1]
Hi Mark, Since I wrote that post this morning I've done some research on Hugh Ross and his beliefs. And also let me say that I don't doubt that there is 'interesting' stuff in his books, and from a scientific standpoint maybe enlightening. I admit I have little knowledge and understanding in the field of science, outside of basic 101 science. And I'm not discounting someone being able to glean some solid information from his books and teachings. I'm sure there's truth mixed in with the errors, I personally am just not willing to go digging through it, having to believe The Holy Spirit to keep me from the errors, to get what? There was several statements he made that run in the face of biblical teachings; but the one about 'our ancestor, the neanderthal man' being created by God over 50,000 years ago; but without a soul...and then when He, God, created Adam, then He gave him a soul so He could be saved, I totally disagree with that. So my point is this, this is a deception. Where did this deception come from and for what purpose? If something someone says doesn't line up with what God's Word says, then it doesn't matter who they are and what their credentials are...Astronomy PhD or Doctor of Divinity. Some of that extra dimensionality of God stuff he says is not backed up by scripture, that I can see. There is but one authority, The Bible. And God in His wonderful wisdom and mercy has, by grace, elected to grant unto us The Spirit of TRUTH, The Holy Spirit, to lead and guide us into all truth. Just because we don't have 'degrees' in subjects, doesn't mean God can't and won't reveal when error is being taught...Discernment is a gift given us, but we have to be yeilded an atuned to The Holy Spirit, trusting Him to give us seeing eyes and hearing ears. If you care to, and are able to go through his teachings and not be deceived or influenced, and feel it's worth it, then that's your call...
After I wrote that I gave it a little more thought. I certainly do agree that deception is spiritual and it works through mens teaching. I guess I thought the book I mentioned above was just so good on some stuff. I have heard him speak on radio about human origins and stuff like that and totally disagree with him. I find science very interesting. Whether xian oriented or not. I just don't take science very seriously. It's just interesting stuff to me. I haven't looked at any of his material on our origins and don't plan on it. To me it is just nonsense. As I said though I do agree that deception is spiritual and we do need to be careful. The extra dimensionality I was referring to was mainly about our universe.
Well, I'm glad to hear you say that, I don't want to come across as the final authority on stuff, but error and deception being taught to millions through TBN should be exposed, regardless of who is doing it... Satan is subtle, and unrelenting; we must be ever vigilant. And although we might be able to resist these untruths(by God's grace), not everyone has been taught the truth, we are so blessed. ~ II Timothy 2:15
This could be a case of someone getting outside of their calling or realm of authority. Dr. Ross might be called of God to show that we did not evolved from amoebas, but overextended himself and tried to develop a theology that included a "soulless neanderthal", which is clearly unscriptural. If he has stuck with the former and not tried to be a theologian, maybe he would not have gotten off into the strange doctrine. Francis Collins is another one. I love his apologetic stuff. He advances convincing arguments to the existance of a creator. He had been an atheist at one point, saw the reality of God in light of the creation he was studying, and eventually got saved. He helped to crack the code of the human genome several years ago. He debated Richard Dawkins, the best-known atheist in the world, and was so convincing that at the end Dawkins had to admit that there might be a God. But Collins also believes in theistic evolution. It might be that it is just a phase in his growth as a Christian, and eventually he will abandon the notion of evolution. However, he currently holds that position. Therefore, when we read his stuff we have to keep that in mind and disregard any part of it that advocates evolution. Pray for those in the field of science who serve Jesus. They need wisdom on how to be the best scientists that they can be without compromising the truth of God's word. It can be difficult and lonely in that position sometimes, and as they grow they will make mistakes. They will get hammered from someone no matter what they do or say. Let's not shoot them down. Pray for them and take a stand on the word of God with meakness. We would desire that kind of support if we were in their position.
Jiz, I wasn't hammering Hugh Ross down as a person, I was coming against the deception he was perpetrating on the body of Christ using TBN as his platform( and reaching millions of people who would assume him to be correct just because TBN was endorsing him; although we know, they will endorse most anything if it seems exciting or will raise money ) You mentioned praying for scientists to be the best they can be and serving Jesus without compromising the truth of God's Word...That really got me to thinking, and maybe you can enlighten me, what useful purpose does a scientist serve and how can one be a scientist without believing what science teaches? Because we know that they start off under the assumption that evolution is fact and that the solution to problems is through mans' wisdom, not Gods'. And I agree with your statement concerning being meek, BUT not when exposing false teachings that undermind the Word of God...I think we should be as bold as a lion when confronting error.
James, look around you. The computer in front of you, the walls of your room, the clothes on your back, etc... are all a product of the work of scientists. Scientists simply study God's creation, even if they don't realize it. They go out of bounds when they try to explain what they have discovered in terms of their unbelief. But science can bring much glory to God when subjected to His lordship. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2. "With all your getting, get understanding." Proverbs 4:7. Solomon had such wisdom that he was able to understand the ways of animals and trees and other aspects of creation (I Kings 4:33-34). The Lord wants to us to learn, and that includes studying the physical world around us. For example, I believe that the Lord created the really far off stars for people in our times. The stars we see with the naked eye are but a small fraction of the stars in the universe. For most of world history, people did not know how big the universe is. But nowadays, with the Hubble telescope and the like, we can see billions and billions of more stars. Mankind can gaze into the universe and grasp how huge it is, and thus how much more infinite God is. We can learn about his infinite power that way. Science is also used to help people. We can fly to Afganistan to bring the good news to them there (and risk being killed) because scientists studied drag, lift, thrust and aerodynamics, and we eventually developed the passenger airplane. We can grow crops in formerly unfertile ground in Israel because of agricultural technology. It all belongs to the Lord, and He governs the learning of scientists, but it is appropriate for us to study it. The important thing is that we start with faith. Our presupposition is that God owns it all, and that His revelation is completely true, and therefore all of our learning needs to be subject to Him. That is why we need to pray for scientists who are Christians. They are called by God to study in their field just like you are called by God to help people with their taxes. They need wisdom and an anointing in their work, just like you do.
I knew when I posted that I should have been more specific in what I was saying. I was thinking about the evolution/creation debate(I've been following along a discussion about this on another board) and all the 'proof' scientist give in their argument concerning evolution. My bad, Yes, I'm aware of the inventions man has made and the convience those inventions bring to our daily lives.( including computers and communication technology...planes, trains, and automobiles...and even the hybrid corn I planted and harvested this year.<i'm thankful for them all, especially the corn and computers>) George Washington Carver discovered and invented many of his breakthroughs in a town not far from me, so yeah, when I asked what useful purpose does a scientist serve, I wasn't thinking about the inventions and discoveries; my thoughts were on how they came against God's Word. Thanks for steering me back into focus...
james wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 15:22 I knew when I posted that I should have been more specific in what I was saying. I was thinking about the evolution/creation debate(I've been following along a discussion about this on another board) and all the 'proof' scientist give in their argument concerning evolution. My bad, Yes, I'm aware of the inventions man has made and the convience those inventions bring to our daily lives.( including computers and communication technology...planes, trains, and automobiles...and even the hybrid corn I planted and harvested this year.<i'm thankful for them all, especially the corn and computers>) George Washington Carver discovered and invented many of his breakthroughs in a town not far from me, so yeah, when I asked what useful purpose does a scientist serve, I wasn't thinking about the inventions and discoveries; my thoughts were on how they came against God's Word. Thanks for steering me back into focus... Thanks for clarifying. Speaking of George Washington Carver, he would be the kind of scientist I was referring to. He was a committed Christian, and as much a man of prayer as he was a scientist. He believed that the Lord had called him to his tasks and trusted the Lord to guide his work. There are certainly Christians in the fields of astronomy, biology, etc... who have to tread carefully around the majority of scientists around them who have no tolerance for integrating faith with their work. Christians who have the Word of God as the starting point will inevitably clash with those who do not.
Its very interesting branches of science that have been open to the gospel. There have been large numbers of physicists (sp?) that have turned to the Lord. I think because one got saved and had a burden for his fellows and started praying. Biology is a discipline that has been very resistant to the gospel.
We should all thank God for G W Carver. The world would be a much poorer place if we didn't have peanut butter.
A young, Christian astronomer is responsible for the astronomy program and show at the Creation Science Museum in Cinn., Ohio. It was an awesome production and I highly recommend anyone going to this place for vacation, education, etc. Blessings, GWB
That's true, did you know that out of the 100's of inventions Carver made, he only patented 3 of them. His belief was that God had freely given him the knowledge and understanding to make the inventions, why should he charge others for them? He had character that we see missing in so many today; once Thomas Edison offered him $100,000 a year to come work with him up north, he was too commited to his work at Tuskegee to take up the offer. We benefit daily from his inventions with peanuts, sweet potatoes, pecans, and soy beans. He was instrumental in the state of Alabama becoming a leader in agricultural production. Simple things that farmers do today to increase yeild, was first used by GWC...crop rotation, returning the nitrogen from peanuts back into the soil to produce bumper crops of cotton the following year. He was quite a man, truly blessed with extraordinary gifts, which he freely shared with mankind.
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Hardbones wrote: > > > We should all thank God for G W Carver. The world would be a much poorer place if we didn't have peanut butter. :) > -- > Blessing or curse? Feminism could have never gotten a foothold and become entrenched in our society without the invention of the peanut butter & jelly sandwich...
Careful there William, you don't want to get Gloria Steinem all riled up. She might come out of retirement and try to convert the women of 'DeeperLifeWomen.com', then you'd be back on P&J yourself...
Too funny James! I learned, the hard way, that women were not made to do what Ms. Steinem preached. All it has caused is a lot of discord in families and a lot of exhausted women!!! Years ago, we tried Dr. Freeman's brand of peanut butter. It was awful, but we never did tell anyone! You just can't keep the stuff mixed up. The oil seperates from the base and it was one horrible mess! It would even tear the bread. Maybe mixing up all of that peanut butter all of the time was what He used to help purify June Freeman and give her patience! Blessings, GWB
I grew up on PB &J. If we are what we eat, then I'm one, big peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Thank you, George. If I ever meet Gloria Steinem I will offer her one!
If it is made by an exhausted woman, maybe she will take it! Blessings, GWB
Years ago, we tried Dr. Freeman's brand of peanut butter. It was awful, but we never did tell anyone! You just can't keep the stuff mixed up. The oil seperates from the base and it was one horrible mess! It would even tear the bread. Not sure what his brand was but we use the natural stuff. Skimpys or whatever the store brand is too full of sugar for us. We buy it at a bulk place. It is ground up peanut butter and nothing else. It must be well mixed these days cause the oil doesn't seperate in the container. We have to keep it in the fridge which makes a little difficult to spread but if necessary I put it in the microwave for a minute. Each to his own I guess but I don't think I could go back to store bought PB. Boy are we off topic Sometimes a big thick layer of PB between 2 pcs of buttered bread. No jam or jelly. I mean a thick layer. Really does the trick. Not sure what the trick is but it really does it.
"Boy are we off topic " Sounds like somebody's ready for a snack... Guess next we can talk about a hot baked sweet potato with some real butter , nutmeg, and cinnamon... That is semi-on topic; G.W. Carver did do a lot with sweet potatoes. But back to creationism, God DID create peanuts and sweet potatoes...but the question is; did He create PB&J sandwiches? or did they evolve over millions of years...
I think they definitely evolved over millions of years. Carbon-14 dating has shown that PB@J existed as a primitive organism during the Paleozoic period. A fragment of bread was found in a layer of rock that has been determined to be a PB@J sandwich. It evolved to that state from less complex forms. Given enough time, the 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000 of this happening must have eventually resulted in the formation of a small kind of sandwich, which somehow reproduced on its own to form bigger sandwiches. Therefore, we need not believe that an intelligent mind somehow designed it. Since this absolutely conclusive evidence is accepted by the scientific community, anyone who disagrees must not be a good scientist. We need to make sure that we teach the evolution of the PB@J in the schools.
create- to bring into existence out of nothing; to originate; to make. creation- the act of creating, of bringing the world into being. Creator- God. evolve- to develop gradually; to unfold; to develop by natural process. evolution- the scientific theory according to which the higher forms of life have gradually developed from simple and rudimentary forms. satire- literary composition holding up to ridicule vice or folly of the times; use of irony, sarcasm, or wit. Scientist say that at one time the PB&J was peanut butter and jam but with time it smoothed out into jelly.(somewhere between 10 and 15 million years ago)
james wrote on Sun, 02 August 2009 06:50 create- to bring into existence out of nothing; to originate; to make. creation- the act of creating, of bringing the world into being. Creator- God. evolve- to develop gradually; to unfold; to develop by natural process. evolution- the scientific theory according to which the higher forms of life have gradually developed from simple and rudimentary forms. satire- literary composition holding up to ridicule vice or folly of the times; use of irony, sarcasm, or wit. Scientist say that at one time the PB&J was peanut butter and jam but with time it smoothed out into jelly.(somewhere between 10 and 15 million years ago) It's conclusive, then. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are a part of the evolutionary chain. Goodness, that means that we have evolved from them! They are our ancestors. We should stop eating PBJ sandwiches because they are our distant cousins. To get the word out, we need to start a campaign. Hire a few celebrities to champion the cause. Make sure to label people as being unprogressive and backward if they eat PBJ. Dominate the discussion with so much data from studies that it will make people's head spin. Then only those who are well-versed in scientific inquiry and language can decipher all of the gobbledygook enough to challenge our position, and we will write them off as "extremists". It will be hard work, but it will be worth it if we can make our world a better place. Next step: prove to all those dumb fundamentalists that my computer actually evolved. Even though the chance that an intelligent being designed it is far greater than the chance of it evolving, we are going to have to go with it evolving because we believe in science.
Jiz wrote: "To get the word out, we need to start a campaign. Hire a few celebrities to champion the cause." "It will be hard work, but it will be worth it if we can make our world a better place." You sure you're not a political strategist for Barack Obama? Sounds like you're working your way toward using that C word..................CHANGE
Hmmm...Change...After the news today it sounds like serious change. Change like America, possibly, not backing up Israel anymore? Scary thought. If this happens, I pray for grace and mercy upon our land, and our President. Blessings, GWB
james wrote on Sun, 02 August 2009 22:43 Jiz wrote: "To get the word out, we need to start a campaign. Hire a few celebrities to champion the cause." "It will be hard work, but it will be worth it if we can make our world a better place." You sure you're not a political strategist for Barack Obama? Sounds like you're working your way toward using that C word..................CHANGE Yes, change I can believe in. Like the change into the image of the Messiah day by day. The change from glory to glory. The transformation by the renewing of my mind. The change that comes from being born again. If even 1/4 of the nation got a hold of it, it would change the country radically from the inside out. "Your goodness so great, I can't understand, but dear Lord I know that all this was planned. Savior you came and opened all the right doors, and I thank you and praise you from Earth's humble shores. Take me, I'm yours." --Marsha Stevens, "For Those Tears I Died"
I read through this thread again and had to laugh at some of what was said. To get back to the original point though of Dr. Ross . . . Right after we talked about him - see top above - I was at my local thrift store where I buy most of my reference and theological works and I found a brand new copy of his book " The Genesis Question” I am usually the type of person that is always listening to God's still soft voice especially when it smacks me right upside the head. So I bought the book. It only cost 2$ anyway. I got around to reading it this week when I was up north with a free evening. So here are some thoughts concerning his beliefs on Gen 1- 11. In just a word I was appalled. I had no idea. This was someone who wrote a book dealing with some of the orthodox questions of the faith in an interesting very clear fashion. Who explained some of the modern findings of science and left me really interested. I guess I never really picked up on what James was saying above. I also agree with James that his teaching on these issues is more than just sincere error but actual deception. I believe there is a deceiving spirit working through the ministry. And that is not something I say lightly. Another thing I noticed that I'm sure he would vociferously deny is he seems to place science on an equal par with scripture. Obviously that is my impression and opinion in reading it but I can't get away from it. Its just everywhere in the book. Another thing is he says so much that is right. That all of us would agree with. Quote "According to Genesis 1/1 the entire universe came into existence brand new a finite time ago by the creative action of God. This statement reverberates throughout the pages of scripture. No other Holy book makes such a claim on its own. The concept appears only in those books that borrow from the bible such as the Koran and Mormon writings” I think almost all of his teaching on this subject stands or falls on the day question. Was it 24 hours or long periods (millions thousands) of yrs? He believes that the DAY of Gen 1 & 2 is day ages. I believe they are 24 hour days. It is very difficult to see how any reasonable person reading in a simple reasonable fashion could get anything else out of "And evening and morning were the first/second etc day.” Except a 24 hour day" I would also like to add that on all the fundamentals of the faith - virgin birth ressurection etc. He is completely orthodox. As far as I am aware. As such he needs to be treated as bro in the Lord. Even if there is something demonic working through his ministry.
"He believes that the DAY of Gen 1 & 2 is day ages. I believe they are 24 hour days. It is very difficult to see how any reasonable person reading in a simple reasonable fashion could get anything else out of "And evening and morning were the first/second etc day.” Except a 24 hour day" Hi Mark, I agree with you, in reading the Word, and just taking the scripture at what it says, how can anyone come up with anything different than 24 hour days. I worked in a restaurant that had a variety of people who regularly came in, and one time I did a poll. There were some very intelligent people, who were professors at a local christian college, pastors, church members and some that weren't christians. The more education a person had the more likely they were to say creation by a long period of time, but the others said 24 hour days. I think the best answer came from someone who wasn't even a believer. "Of course it was just 24 hour days, after all, all God had to do was speak and it happened." The result of my poll came to about 50/50 of who believed in a 24 day, and those who believed a creation over a long period of time. There are those who say what came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, I believe the chicken since God spoke and created the animals and birds.
According to the Creator of chickens, and the author of the 'offical' record of their origin, chickens did come first. On the fifth day of creation He created 'every winged fowl after his kind'[Gen.1:21]. And He told them 'to be fruitful and multiply' [v22]. So the chicken went and lay eggs and multiplied. And no, they didn't later 'evolve' into dinosaurs... Since seeing that presentation by Dr. Ross about three months ago, I've notice when flipping through the channels, that quite a few 'christian experts' believe the theory of a day equals a VERY long segment of time(usually millions of years). I still can't get over the Neanderthal man created first without a soul, then Adam was created with a soul so God could save mankind, story Ross that told on TBN. And people nodding in agreement, just because he had a bunch of capital letters following his name and was on 'christian TV'.
That was what I meant about putting science on a equal footing with scripture. He talks in the book about neanthertal man being a distinct creation apart from humanity. Because they checked their DNA and it is distinct from humans. Lots of stuff like that. He makes the statement that the bible doesn't tell us if sickness and sin were part of the world before adam but probably. I looked for the quote but couldn't find it off hand. Another thing he says - Gen 1. "and it was so" I would read that and say God made . . . and the job was done. His interptretation is that it was more of artistic license than interpretive signifigance. He says theologically it emphasizes what God says will be done. But scientifically "it denotes the completion of some aspects of creation while other aspects continue to undergo prepartation or transformation" I guess we will have to disagree with him on what "and it was so" means For someone with some obvious gifts in teaching and understanding nature and science he sure is mixed up. I think his big problem is trying to align science with scripture. The bible doesn't try. Too much of what God does is simply supernatural and defies explanation by what we know of science. My question would be . Why can't we just leave it there? He makes the point that some would be open to looking at the bible if it didn't make such perposterous (his word) claims. My answer would be people get saved by hearing and believing the gospel not Gen 1 -11
Hardbones wrote on Sun, 18 October 2009 18:54 He makes the point that some would be open to looking at the bible if it didn't make such perposterous (his word) claims. My answer would be people get saved by hearing and believing the gospel not Gen 1 -11 If Ross is saying that what God's Word says is 'preposterous', then he's on dangerous ground. That's such a humanistic statement, it goes right along with the mindset of 'don't tell people that Jesus is the only way into The Kingdom', it offends those who believe differently. That's the exact approach much of the denominational system has adopted, don't offend people by preaching against sin, they might not come back, and then how would they pay for the mortgaged church buildings? I'm reminded of what Paul wrote unto the Galatians about how he marveled at how soon they were removed from Him who had called them into the Grace of Christ...unto another gospel. And he goes on to say, let anyone who preaches any other gospel, be accursed. And I know Ross is not speaking about the fundamental doctrines of salvation, but still, he is explaining away the Truths of Gods Word and like Mark said, trying to align science and mans wisdom with scripture, rather than just believing and taking God at His word. Man just seems to HAVE TO be able to explain everything...yet their standard of measurement is always changing based on their latest gaget's 'proof'. Thank God that we have an unchanging God, forever the same, an anchor for our souls...Hallelujah!
I don't want to give any misunderstanding so here is the preposterous quote "Few is any if any other issues today generate as much animosity between christians and secularists as does this doctrine of a recent 144 hour creation week. The idea that the beginning of the universe,Earth and life on earth dates back only a few thousand years makes mockery of all the sciences and infuriates scientists. Some who might be open to considering alternatives to the naturalistic, gradualistic,nontheistic evolutionary scenario cling tenaciously to that theory for fear of giving way or even seeming to give way, to this preposterous notion. The creation-date controversy has grown into a huge stumbling block for unbelievers." All of my objections and responses I have made to this doctrine could be based on that quote alone. I have taken a very strong view that we as xians on "non-essential" doctrines should debate rather than divide. When you read this kind of stuff though it can be difficult.
I agree, Mark. But what actually is happening is, they're making a mockery of God and His Word. They're saying that because of their wisdom and understanding of the universe, God's Word(at best, assuming some of them actually believe it, and surely some do) has to mean something different than what it says. I believe that many of them are blinded by their intellect and pride; God's Word is designed to be received and understood by faith, revelation of truth only comes to those who ask of God in faith. The quote from Ross about 'the creation-date controversy' causing a huge stumbling block for unbelievers...to me is a preposterous statement for a Christian to make. Does not the Word speak of why some have fallen over stumblingblocks? They're stumbling because of unbelief, they can't take God at His Word, it must fit into something they can wrap their natural minds around. I Corth.1:21-25
I was researching something and ran across references to Dr. Hugh Ross again and got interested in what was being presented. I found a web site that published an article written in 1993 that exposed the false/deceptive teachings of Dr. Hugh Ross. And what I liked about the introduction was that the author took the time to say that he considered Hugh Ross to be a fine Christian man, but that what he taught was a deception. (which was the conclusion some of us had came to earlier) Anyway, I knew Hardbones had been interested and had done some reading on him and I did as well and this is a lot more detailed in exposing some of the false teaching. I know... I'm 'supposed to' only be a reader of Hobart Freeman...O well! hate to disappoint. Here's the link if anyone wants to read it... http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm Also as I was reading in II Peter 3 these verses seemed to be describing those who don't believe God's Word, especially HIS account of creation in Genesis. "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." II Peter 3:3-8
I wanted to comment on the big bang theory. I believe it belongs in this section. If not, let me know. “The Big Bang Theory” is better known in scientific circles as Evolution by Endosymbiosis. Since I cannot transpose the information I want to share directly from a particular microbiology book, due to copyright laws, I have provided a site below that explains this theory. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Zoology/AboutZo ology/SymbioticTheory/EndosymbioticTheory/EndosymbioticTheor y.htm This all sounds very scholarly and scientifically elegant. However, I thought it was hysterical, that within two paragraphs in a science book, used at a local college as of last spring, these words were used (in no particular order) to explain this theory: Perhaps Probably …fairly easy to imagine… Suggested Presumably Suggests Unknown …might have become… Plausible Probably Apparently ….seeded in by a meteorite…(I kid you not!) You would think they would be embarressed! I think their intellect blinds them, which is a trap within itself. Personally, I would rather be counted as a simpleton if this is the kind of garbage that is produced! Blessings, GWB "Be still and know that I am God."
I tried reading it, I really did... Endosymbiosis? Now there's a word I was looking for just this morning, to describe something I saw growing on the side of a dead tree... I liked the more definitive words like, probably, perhaps, plausible, presumably, they sound scientific to me.(simpleton? that's kinda like an ameba, right?) Actually Hugh Ross believes in the 'Big Bang' as well...Maybe, perhaps it's pausible or possible that there was a big bang when God created everything... but who was there to hear it?
I'm 'supposed to' only be a reader of Hobart Freeman...O well! hate to disappoint. You shouldn't be admitting that outloud James. If you feel the need to speak just whisper quietly to me.
Right you are, Mark...What I say could be misconstrued, if one had ulterior motives.
That was a good article James. We have to contend for the faith. Evolutionary theory is in conflict with basic Christian doctrine. If evolution is true, we are improved animals instead of fallen sinners in need of redemption. If evolution is true, we have no need of the Savior, there is no occasion for the Redeemer. That really sums it up
Speaking of 'The Big Bang', God does say that there will be a great noise when He returns. "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a GREAT NOISE, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." II Peter 3:10 But I've never read anything about a 'great noise' or Big Bang when God created everything... Maybe one of those Bibles that has a running commentary with an exposition of what God 'really' meant would be helpful. 'In the beginning [there was a great noise], and God created the heaven and the earth. [And a few billion years went by] and then God said, Let there be light...[and a few more billion years went by, and God said, that's enough for now, let's call it a day.]'(I made the commentary up to make a point) I know that's a bit extreme, but it does show that when man gets to explaining God with his own intellect, he gets in trouble. I'm thankful that a full understanding of how God did everything is not a prerequisite to a relationship with Him, but that He is looking for faith in Him. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb.11:6
Stephen Hawking, who is thought to have the answers to many questions regarding the universe and how we got here, has now written a new book in which he has concluded that God wasn't involved in the creation of the universe. He is a mathmatical wiz, but this just proves how important faith in God's Word is, and how we're NOT to lean to our own understanding. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_S T_N.htm
Puts me in mind of Romans 1:22 (New International Version) 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
As a Christian I believe in the big bang theory. GOD spoke, and BANG!!!!!! it happened.
Just an article I came across confirming just how 'smart' some people are... The 30,000 year old girls pinkie... "The 3 billion-letter genome derived from the child's finger SHOWS that the ice-age population of early humans was more diverse than previously thought." See! There ya go...PROOF...3 billion-letter genome...Whatever! http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/23/siberia.human.an cestor.discovery/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
The universe is expanding and the expansion is still speeding up. Which is one of the reasons why the original (mocking) term "big bang" was coined. Which may or may not be an accurate representation of what happened. I have no real problem with the term. Here's why. Most of our universe including us is empty space. If you compressed all matter and left out all space it would be smaller than a nickel. Actually much smaller. I can easily see God in original creation creating all matter in a small compressed form and then exploding it out to form the universe. In six days of course. The angels then (and other personalities) forming the galaxies stars and whatnot out of that matter. Job 38/4-7 says they were there. There is so much interesting stuff going on in science. If we could just get away from their evolution point of view. Something else interesting is the speed of light. Heard a report that there has been very little research done on "its constancy" The little that has been done has shown it to be deteriorating. Not sure how true it is. That would take care of "billions of years"
Hardbones wrote on Thu, 23 December 2010 14:20 Something else interesting is the speed of light. Heard a report that there has been very little research done on "its constancy" The little that has been done has shown it to be deteriorating. Not sure how true it is. That would take care of "billions of years" Normally I don't get into astronomy/astrology too much, frankly because I just can't seem to wrap my brain around it...too much, too big...too many numbers for me to get a handle on, though it is fascinating. But I clicked on God TV a few minutes ago and Chuck Missler(know nothing about him) was talking about hidden codes in the genealogies of the OT. He mentioned the speed of light and the controverial conclusions reached by a guy named Barry Setterfield. Well that reminded me of your post and statement about it(speed of light slowing down). So I did some looking around and found that Barry Setterfield from Australia, in 1981 released a finding that he believed that the speed of light was decreasing fast. But based on what I was able to find, his beliefs weren't received very well. The Institute of Creation Research rejected his finds in 1988, saying that his hypothesis was lacking in plausibility. I don't know if others are studying this or not and what other findings are 'out there', but I find it mind boggling to be able to calculate the speed of light to begin with.
I have been tinkering with a creationism vs evolution web page although I must admit I have lost interest in the last few months. An ancient "faster speed of light" is one of my web topics found at the bottom of the following page on my site: http://evolution.memorize-chess.com/Starlight.htm I think the faster ancient speed of light theory breaks down because the higher speed of light messes up other things such as energy of mass particles and momentum calculations. On the web site I am trying to be absolutely scientific and answer fair and square each topic for both sides from a science only standpoint. It is brutally difficult on some topics but I think so far I have a science answer for most if not all the evolutionist's favorite topics. I figure the evolution types will only pay attention if it is an obviuosly fair site and I figure the truth will win out in any fair debate. Jman
WOW, now I understand why you'd say that I'd be amazed at how many topics are of no interest to you at this current time. I thought the discussion between C head & E head about the vomeronasal organ was interesting. Just this morning I was wondering where mine had went... And I like your legal disclaimer, I think you covered most of the bases with that. I think I know what Mark will spend his afternoon (and extra spare time) doing...I'll probably check more of it out as time allows. It is an interesting format, are you getting any positive results that you're aware of?
Hi James, Positive results - I wish. I had only about 20 or so on the RSS and then I re-did the domain name which lost about 10 followers. I think people sold on evolution see it as too simple and people sold on creationism do not really want to wade through the details. I think a more than a few bookmarked it as a reference page but need not return visit often. I think it is a religious passion on both sides so no one sends their kids/students there. Sort of a disappointment so I have lost interest. Jman
Moulder, References are of course appreciated. Check out this page on the site. It is a bit of a last resort for the creationist when the science overwhelms him. http://evolution.memorize-chess.com/Scientific-Theory-Might- Change.htm It is a logically valid scientific position with which to take a stand against the science onslaught. No science type can overcome this web page but still the evolutionist's science come out looking pretty good sometimes. Them's the facts, I cannot help it. Before people send their homeschoolers to the site they should know that the science can seem overwhelming and could sew doubt to young minds. Jman
I think that they can handle it... course I could get lambasted as well! Blessings, William
I find this amazing, when I went to the web site and began to read I thought of Mark and his interest in this subject. Then I remembered William's line of work and thought he would be interested and could either use it or recommend to Jman things to do to make it more sucessful. Before I could finish reading a few things that caught my eye (Carbon dating and speed of light), William had already noticed and was making the offer to steer people to the site. I do agree concerning being cautious about the maturity (both spiritually and mentally) of young students. I've already learned things I didn't know...though that's not supprising, beings there is so much that I don't know. I believe education is a good thing as long as what's being taught doesn't distract from the Knowledge of God or contradict His Word. I don't think we must choose only one as long as we always know what the final authority is.
I just whipped up this banner, but if you have something else, I'll be happy to use it. Blessings, William
WOW that is really good Use it Thanks, Jman
Interesting website. I prefer of course to read science that doesn't challenge my ideas. I think that Aust fellow in 1980 is the one I heard. I didn't know that about his theory about light speed not being accepted by creationists. The argument made on J's page put paid to it too I guess. Its possible that the early universe had physical attributes that no longer apply. More energy for eg. with a faster speed of light. Gen 1 says he spent the whole day making it so it wasn't just instantaneous. Who knows! There is always someone who knows more about it so I don't speak too loudly I don't hold to the 6000 yr old universe. I think it is about 50,000 yrs old and the flood occurred about 7000 bc. I don't get dogmatic about it though. Looking at the genealogies in the OT it is very difficult to come up with 6000 yrs. To do that Noah's grandchildren would be living in the time of Abraham, Noah's dad died the year of the flood and a lot of other stuff. My personal disclaimer is that while I find this stuff interesting it is definitely peripheral.