| Author | Message | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 576 Registered: 3-2009 |
Wow, this thread is really hoppin' since I last checked  . Thanks Rick, Chris, Colleen, Martin, Jeremy, and Gabriel for all your insights. I love discussions like these where we explore honestly without disregarding science or the Bible. It helps me clear up my thinking and examine new possibilities. I like the commitment to precision (..For example drawing a distinction between ID and YEC is important. They're not synonymous). To those who believe this conversation and some of the ideas are from the Devil--well, I appreciate your concerns, and I've listened to your points of view. Try to trust God with your worries; and if it bothers you, choose another thread. I'm sure we'll all have plenty of surprises ahead when (and if) we get to hear about the details of creation from Jesus Himself. I'm going to close with a quote from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason on one of his radio shows recently:
Greg Koukl, Stand to Reason, Podcast Aug. 8th, 2011 (http://www.strcast2.org/podcast/weekly/080711.mp3, 1:17 mark). | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 632 Registered: 7-2005 |
Ric Those who have eyes to see are able to see what you see without any effort from your part to clarify the situation. Those who don't, well, aren't. I'm reading an interesting book on my Kindle, The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Holiest University. The guy is not a Christian and he enrolls at Liberty University in order to write a book through the eyes of an insider, going over the cultural barrier that separates evangelical Christianity from the secular society. At the end he came with a more positive view of evangelicalism than he had before , quite a positive view. There are two things in his book related to the subjects we talked. 1. One professor is a Christian scientist teaching YEC at Liberty. What raises some questions is the way he obtained his PhD:
2. Ergun Caner debates a group of atheists about Creation. Here is what happened:
When you're YEC but wrote your PhD dissertation from an OEC perspective and when, coming from a literalistic reading of Genesis 1 and 2 you're failing to persuade even your own camp about creation, sticking with a particular view is not the most wisest option. Gabriel | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 633 Registered: 7-2005 |
Dana The hands are the hands of Greg Koukl, but the voice is the voice of Francisc Schaeffer. Check the latest podcast, last hour, where he talks with the author of Doing Philosophy as a Christian. A gem. Gabriel | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 577 Registered: 3-2009 |
Yes, Koukl is carrying on the legacy of Schaeffer. I'm grateful that God raises up individuals in each generation to speak the truth clearly and persuasively and with epistemological integrity. I am so amazed at how we stand on the shoulders of great men of God, who were also incredible thinkers like Augustine, Acquinas, Pascal, Dostoyevsky, (and more recently) F. Schaeffer, J.P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, Gary Habermas, Os Guinness and William Lane Craig. When I was an SDA, I didn't know *any* of these folks existed, and now a whole new world is opened to me. These individuals were very divergent on many peripheral issues, but all of them were/are driven by a passion for developing the minds and hearts of ambassadors for Jesus as they head into the marketplace of ideas to make their case for Him. I did hear that latest STR podcast, Gabriel. So good!! It convinced me to buy "Doing Philosophy as a Christian". Gotta finish Dembski first... It's making my head spin in a wonderful way! | ||
| Handmaiden Registered user Username: Handmaiden Post Number: 231 Registered: 7-2008 |
i know how hard it is to discern a person's heart, tone and motive in written posts, when the facial expressions of the person you are writing to is not available to you. Communication is only a small part the words that we speak to each other. i have known Asurprise for several years. She is a very kind, loving, giving, compassionate and sensitive person. She is also tenacious and a little feisty at times stubborn too yes But she is not an angry person, nor have i ever known her to be dishonest. Truly she is just defending to the best of her ability what she believes and i also believe to be the truth of God's Word. i have not been feeling well the past few days and have not been on the forum. She and i were discussing cults in general and i made the statement that has caused such a reaction on this thread. i honestly did not intend it to attack anyone, specifically or in general on this thread. i apologize sincerely for any and all hurt and confusion and sidetracking of the discussion on this thread. i just needed to let you all know that Asurprise is innocent of the accusation that this statement was an intentional attack against a brother in Christ on this thread. Thank you for allowing me to explain this misunderstanding. Your forgiveness and understand is greatly appreciated on my part. handmaiden (Message edited by handmaiden on September 18, 2011) | ||
| Handmaiden Registered user Username: Handmaiden Post Number: 232 Registered: 7-2008 |
IN ALL OUR LEARNING GIVE US GRACE O God, You give to humankind a searching heart and questioning mind; grant us to find Your Truth and laws, and wisdom to perceive their cause. In all our learning give us grace to bow ourselves before Your face; as knowledge grows, Lord, keep us free from self destructive vanity. Sometimes we think we understand all workings of Your mighty hand; then through Your Son help us to know those truths which You alone can show. Teach us to joy in things revealed, to search with care all yet concealed; as through Christ's light Your Truth we find and worship You with heart and mind. E.J. Burns | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1228 Registered: 7-2004  |
Handmaiden, Thank you for your comments. Asurprise, It is still clear that you have a hard time distinguishing between personal attacks and disagreement on a subject, this time by trying to bring the Rapture thread discussion into the mix. Your explanations of this thread do not fit your actual words on this thread. If you were accurate in the words you chose, it would seem from the explanations that either you and handmaiden were gossiping about other former SDAs and concluding that the devil was leading them back into error, or that you were saying this of handmaiden (which doesn't make sense). Perhaps it was the case of very poorly chosen words that do not convey anything like what you were thinking. Gabriel, A most unfortunate story. I'm not convinced that it is possible, or even beneficial, to try and prove the existence of God by science. Knowledge is not the same thing as faith. And I don't say this to promote anti-rationalism. Our belief shouldn't hinge on how well we, or someone else, can explain the apparent discrepancies between the accounts of Scripture and our understanding of science. Exploring this area, even in great detail, can be a fun and challenging intellectual pursuit, but it isn't a critical pursuit or one that fits all personality types well. It would be nice to have some room for speculative answers without running into a wall of accusations from our brothers and sisters. But it is useful to have trusted friends who will challenge you on how Scripturally consistent your speculations may be. I find that some of the stock Christian answers on this subject are lacking. Some even call for a deceptive creator. That doesn't fit my understanding of God, nor does it bring me comfort as a good way to reconcile faith and science. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2131 Registered: 7-2007 |
If you cannot accept that a poster means just what they say and that they don't have some sort of hidden agenda - whatever. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 578 Registered: 3-2009 |
There are times in all our lives when we're misunderstood by others, and they let us know. What then do we do? Do we keep insisting that they're the only ones with the problem? Do we take no responsibility for understanding their side, but simply blame them for bringing up the issue? Or, do we respond and something like this: "I certainly didn't intend to offend you, and I regret any hurt I caused. I will listen to your interpretation of what you heard from me and try my best not to repeat the behavior that bothered you". I know which response works better from past experience. My dear hubby and I have had many 'test cases' of this in our marriage, lol! :D | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1614 Registered: 7-2003  |
I would just like to affirm, as others already have, that just because a person might think the universe is older than a few thousand years that in no way necessitates a denial of a literal Adam and Eve formed by God's own hand followed by a literal fall and subsequent spiritual and physical human death. Nor does believing that the earth is as old as it appears necessitate a belief in Darwinian macro evolution. Nor does it require a denial of a single thing in scripture. Nor does it require anything less than a literal interpretation (unless you think that English is the inspired text). The age of the earth is not an issue of orthodoxy and never has been. It's most definitely in the secondary nonessentials category and we all do well to remember that as we discuss. | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 250 Registered: 9-2006 |
I would also like to affirm everything Chris said above. It has been a joyful liberation from confusion to realize that the eternal purposes of God have never been delayed or thwarted by Satan, sin, or death. In fact, these serve the counsels of His will just as surely as life and peace do. If you trust in the crucified Christ for your life, you are in the "Lamb's book of life" who was slain before creation. Now that creaturely time has become less important for my faith, I'm complaining less about suffering any "delays" in relief from my light and momentary afflictions. I can be grateful for troubles too, for they are troubles He felt with us, and now sends to us. Though He causes us grief..."he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men." Lam. 3:32,33 Martin C | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1237 Registered: 7-2004 |
Well stated, yet again, Chris. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12977 Registered: 12-2003  |
Thank you, Chris and Martin. Very well-said. Martin--that amazing fact that "creaturely time" has so much less to do with faith than it used to is increasingly comforting to me as well. In fact, seeing that eternity is completely outside of time, and that from an eternal perspective, time is much more limited than I used to understand it to be, has given a great deal more depth to the concept of "TODAY" in Hebrews. As I explained on another thread, I realized that having "NOW", the moment I'm in, with no anxiety and dread or regret, is a gift of the Holy Spirit. I never used to be able to really relax and LIVE in "now". I always had a past I had to correct, and a future that was uncertain. The "present" was always about being prepared for that uncertain future and having my ducks in a row, so to speak. But the Holy Spirit has given me now, and I'm seeing that gift of "now" as related to the "TODAY" of Hebrews 4—and also as related to being transferred into eternal life. Having NOW without constant regret or existential anxiety for the future is, it seems to me, a "creaturely" experience of being a citizen of eternity in Christ. Not sure it that makes sense to anyone reading it, but it's a pretty compelling thing to me... Colleen | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 386 Registered: 7-2010  |
Having just finished reading the "Anisotropic-Synchrony-Convention" article, I'm left a little puzzled. In the process of proposing an alternate convention to the one Einstein used for synchrony, the author appears to assert that his hypothesis can't be proven wrong because it is untestable. However, he appears to be applying testing methods from the Einstein model to his alternate model when this claim is made. This appears to be the incorrect testing methodology for what is being proposed. The article almost entirely omits discussion on the consequences for shifts in wavelength, which on the surface appears to be the first place to look when constructing a way to test this hypothesis. Am I missing something obvious here? Michael | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 251 Registered: 9-2006 |
Michael, thanks for looking at this for us. Good questions you raise about testing Lisle's model. The model is supposed to solve the light-distance problem that has always plagued the young universe doctrine. Has a qualified person reviewed and critiqued Lisle, or are we left with just trusting Ken Ham and his friends? On the other hand, if it is untestable, why bother? What we have here is the language of science without a core principle of science--testability. They want us to know that they can have their scientific cake and eat it too. Martin C | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1242 Registered: 7-2004 |
Michael, My take away from that article, and I don't think it was the author's main intention, was that scientists use untested, and even untestable, theories as supporting evidence for their "doctrines" of the beginning. Why shouldn't a YEC be able to do these same things. It isn't too hard to accept that there might be variation between the one-way speed of light and the two-way speed. But I'm not sure how many people could accept the underlying premise that source to destination is instant and the return speed is nearly 2x the two-way speed of light. That sounded like a stretch to me, although I couldn't explain what little I know about string theory without resorting to words like magic and SciFi. So perhaps it makes more sense to one who grasps the concepts of string theory better. I at least like his explanation better than the idea that God created the perception of light having eminated from the star but really starting much closer. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 634 Registered: 7-2005 |
The article was brought by YEC as proof that a young Universe (and earth) is compatible with science. But do the YEC proponents understand its scientific arguments, or not? I'm truly hoping that this is not the case, but I'm afraid that the answer is negative, and the article was brought only because it endorses YEC, apart from any assessment of its intrinsic value as a piece of science (which it truly is). If I'm mistaken, and I hope to be mistaken, I invite those of YEC persuasion to engage Michael, Martin, and Ric and evaluate the article exclusively on the scientific merits found in it. I remember very well how people in adventism who still consider me an apostate were unable to articulate a defense of the Investigative Judgment, but referred me to articles and books written by others. The great irony is that we were on the same page, neither of us had good biblical reasons to believe the IJ, still they believe it. It seems to me that a similar attitude is with regard with YEC scientific proofs: they are endorsed, but neither are they understood, if left by themselves YEC are not be able to use scientific arguments to back up their view. They can only trust the arguments brought by others without being able to give a reason why they find them persuasive. Of course, beside the fact that they make a case for their view against the other. If this is the basic and almost the only reason why they are persuaded by articles like above, if they trust the article's scientific arguments without truly understanding them and being able to assess their scientific value, they are in a similar position of mindless trust like adventists who trust their theologians to make the case for them. After living with the label "apostate" on my chest given by people who have no good reasons for their views, I find distasteful the practice of claiming to have scientific arguments without truly understanding them and their value. I find this practice a little bit odd, trying to remove the speck from my eye without removing the beam from his eye. I truly hope that the situation will improve and we will hear from those of YEC persuasion why they think the Anisotropic article makes a good scientific argument. Gabriel | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1247 Registered: 7-2004 |
Actually I would probably fit in the YEC camp; although they might make me pitch my tent on the outskirts. However, the longer I have studied this subject the more I have concluded that there has to be some room for different conclusions within the family of Christ. I find that the "sterotypical" YEC is more dogmatic than the Scriptural evidence dictates. I also find myself a little frustrated at some YEC "scientific" explanations. I appreciate the work of scientists attempting to reconcile their beliefs with their knowledge of science. But their theories should not become sacrosanct. I hate feeling like a heretic or "apostate" raising questions about the gaps that I see in either the theology or the science presented. Truth can withstand honest, hard questions. In fact, truth thrives on the light that these questions create. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 2918 Registered: 8-2004  |
Speaking of the age of the earth, has anyone here had experience with Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr and his books about the flood and Greek myth? In the new shipment of books for my store (www.merryhillbooks.com), I got a copy of "Noah in Ancient Greek Art." It makes for interesting and thought provoking reading, though I wish he had done a more scholarly job of presenting his evidence (yes, I'm a History/Religious Studies Major. I want the point to be as close to proved as it can be, and footnoted, and documented and . . . !). I'm interested to learn more. At the same time, at the end of the book after a lot of fairly straight forward, if unproven, presentation, he waxes caustic against the sinister schemes of those in the 'mainstream' who are 'willfully blind' to his conclusions. The website on the back of the book is: http://solvinglight.com/ I'd love to hear your thoughts! | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2139 Registered: 7-2007 |
Here's a link to a Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm Check out the Hebrew for "day" in Genesis 1:5 ("God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day" and compare it to the word "day" in Genesis 33:13 "But Jacob said to him, "My lord knows that the children are frail, and that the nursing flocks and herds are a care to me. If they are driven hard for one day, all the flocks will die." You can see that they are the exact same Hebrew characters, pronounced "ium." For a day to mean an eon doesn't make sense. Why would a Christian compromise with evolutionists, except to look good in their eyes? God is a God of miracles. Evolutionists deny God and His miracles. But God is not bound by science. |
