|
|
Post by morningstar on Feb 14, 2014 15:06:24 GMT
Great article, Rev. Mark H. Creech made some excellent points in defense of Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye, and in referring to Pat Robertson's attack on Ken Ham, Rev. Creech says " those that have given away a portion of the truth in order to defend the rest of it – are no real friends to true religion or the Bible."
The Christian Post
By Rev. Mark H. Creech, Christian Post Columnist
Pat Robertson: Ham's Contentions No 'Joke'-
Last week, approximately 3 million people tuned into to watch the debate on evolution between Bill Nye, "The Science Guy," and Ken Ham of the Creation Museum. Ham did a stupendous job articulating the creationist view and contributed greatly to raising awareness to the legitimacy of its claims regarding origins.
Enter Pat Robertson via his appearance on "The 700 Club" television program. During a recent broadcast, Robertson attacked Ham's assertions regarding a Young Earth, more specifically, that the world is approximately 6,000 years old. Robertson concluded the view makes a "joke" of Christians.
Referring to Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish clergyman, who first argued the earth was created in 4004 BC, Robertson said, "Let's face it, there was a bishop … who added the dates listed in Genesis and he came up with the world had been around 6,000 years. There ain't no way ... Let's not make a joke of ourselves." [1]
Robertson went on to say, "And we have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back to 65 million years. And to say that it all came around 6,000 years ago is nonsense." [2] "So there was a Big Bang," he added. "So? That doesn't mean it came spontaneously. Nobody knows what caused it, the Big Bang. But I say God did it. God caused all of this. He is the author of all life. I don't believe in so-called evolution as non-theistic. I believe that God started it all and He's in charge of all of it. The fact that you have progressive evolution under his control, that doesn't hurt my faith at all." [3]
One can appreciate Robertson's acknowledgement of God's sovereignty in the earth's beginnings. But as I once contended in an interview with Seed Magazine, "Clergy … those that have given away a portion of the truth in order to defend the rest of it – are no real friends to true religion or the Bible." [4] Robertson's remarks represent a concession to evolution that has profound negative ramifications for sound theology.
Full Article:
www.christianpost.com/news/robertson-hams-contentions-no-joke-114319/
Fair Use for Discussion & Educational Purposes
|
|
Becka
Numbers' Donkey
Spurgeon Addict
Posts: 169 
|
Post by Becka on Feb 14, 2014 15:57:04 GMT
I find this article is highly ironic, considering Robertson has been making a "joke" out of Christianity for as long as I can remember.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2014 18:13:38 GMT
Amen becka, call me naive,I have been called a lot worse! I will go home with the One who brought me to this dance. If I am wrong, I will apologize in glory.If you can't accept Genesis 1,you have trouble with the rest of the Bible. Also,Jesus himself when referring to marriage noted that from the beginning it was not so. Matt 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so
.
JOB 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
So what is a behemoth, an elephant does not have a tail like a cedar? Created with thee? Sounds more like a dinosaur to me?
question?
Could Job have lived before the flood, it's possible. His longevity alone brings that into question.
Jesus also made mention of Adam & Eve, Jonah and the great fish! Did the Lord know these questions would arise? I think so....
Beginning, that to me means starting point!
p.s if all this was covered in the debate, (which I did not watch) maybe this post will encourage others who didn't to search the scriptures.
|
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Feb 14, 2014 19:14:48 GMT
Pat Robertson's type of thinking is what happens when you take the Bible as all allegory or symbolic which causes confusion to the point where they contradict themselves repeatedly.
When taken in a literal sense, with allegory having a literal meaning and with a dispensational view, Scripture flows from Genesis through to Revelation with a clearer understanding of God's Word and His Outline of the History mankind and His Redemptive work. God's Word is Life itself, how these men are willing to compromise it, is beyond my comprehension.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth on Feb 14, 2014 22:23:51 GMT
I want to find the video and watch this debate. Here is a short blurb about it that was interesting, so I thought I'd post it.
Four Prominent Issues From The Ken Ham/Bill Nye Creation Debate
February 14, 2014 | Wil Fisher
Share this article
Many news outlets have covered the recent creationism/evolution debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye at the Creation Museum Tuesday on Feb. 4, 2014, in Petersburg, Ky., but few are pointing to particular arguments that were made. While many issues were left out in the debate, there were four that played most prominently in the debate.
1. "Observable vs. Historical Science"
Ham reiterated throughout the debate the difference between scientific processes that can be observed, and the way in which science seeks to reconstruct methods by which changes took place in the past. Ham stated that scientific attempts to theorize past events are much more prone to error than the scientific processes that can be observed and tested today.
He referenced scientific methods of dating, saying that such methods are often faulty. He offered another basis for evaluating historical claims: "I claim there's only one infallible dating method—a witness who was there and who knows everything and who told us—that’s the Word of God."
Nye downplayed the difference between observable and historical science. He portrayed science as being accurate in both its ability to draw conclusions from processes observed as well as make conclusions about processes that are no longer taking place. "When [scientists] make assumptions, they're making assumptions based on previous experience," he argued.
2. Six-Day Creation
Ham tackled the arguments against a six-day creation based on scientific dating. "All these dating methods actually give all sorts of different dates, even different dating methods on the same rock," the creationist said. Ham also mentioned a situation where wood, dating back 45,000 years, was found in rock dating back 45 million years.
Nye referred to the limestone underneath the state of Kentucky, claiming that the sea creatures buried in it lived their entire lives and form millions of layers of fossils. "There isn't enough time since Mr. Ham's flood for this limestone to come into existence." Nye also mentioned the Grand Canyon. "If this great flood drained through the Grand Canyon, wouldn't there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent?"
3. Mutually Exclusive?
Nye argued for “pure scientific education” as necessary for American classrooms, focusing on scientific and technological advances. "If we stop driving forward, stop looking for the next answer to the next question, we in the United States will be outcompeted by other countries, other economies," he declared. "I am a patriot, so we have to embrace science education." Nye expressed his view of belief in a higher power and science being separate issues.
Ham argued that the basis for science, logic, and reason lie in a Christian worldview, as well as a suitable explanation for the origins of the universe. "If the universe came about by natural processes, where did the laws of logic come from?" he asked. He claimed that Christianity gives a basis for the rules of logic and the order of nature, both of which are necessary for science. "There's a book out there that does document where consciousness comes from – God made man in His own image," Ham said.
4. Was the Ark Plausible?
Nye attacked the idea of the flood from a few different angles. "Is it reasonable that Noah and his family were able to maintain 14,000 animals and themselves, and feed them, aboard a ship that was bigger than anyone's ever been able to build?" he asked. Nye also suggested that, if the animals from the flood landed in the Middle East, there should be “skeletons of kangaroos between Ararat and Australia.”
Ham cited a January 2014 study which argued for "a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations." According to Ham it was these kinds, not each species, which travelled with Noah on the Ark. Because of this, Ham claimed, there would have been need for many fewer animals to be on the Ark than Nye assumed.
To assist you in further study of this important topic we highly recommend our featured DVD - "The Master Designer"
click here
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Feb 19, 2014 16:23:58 GMT
I'm not trying to cut down another brother or sister in Christ and I used to watch Pat Robertson a long time ago. Is it just me, or does is seem like Pat Robertson's gone off the deep end in some areas? The reason I ask is because the last time my husband and me watched him, we both had the exact same reaction. He seemed "off the wall" in much of his thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Feb 19, 2014 16:43:13 GMT
It's not just you Shiloh, he's been edging towards the deep end now for the past several years. His theology bears a lot of scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Feb 19, 2014 16:54:03 GMT
It's really sad for me to hear this. I'll always be thankful for his ministry, as it was instrumental in helping me decide to leave the RCC years ago.
|
|
