| Author | Message | ||
| Goldenbear Registered user Username: Goldenbear Post Number: 119 Registered: 12-2004 |
Hey Guys, I have started teaching the Youth Sunday School lesson at our church. After years of teaching science at SDA schools, I was unprepared for the desire of these jrs and srs to study this topic. I am looking for good source material, illustrations and other material that might make the study interesting. I know about Kent Hovind, but what other choices are out there that might be relevant to believing teens attending school where they teach evolution as gospel | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2547 Registered: 12-2003  |
Hugh Ross, who believes in an "old earth", has some great materials. I had one student who read one of his books and bounded into my classroom afterward saying, "I now have reasons to believe in God!" Ross has a website--AnswersInGenesis.org. You should know, though, that Ross is highly controversial in the creationism community which is pretty hotly divided between "old earth" and "Young earth" creationists. The young earth creationists actually consider him to be a heretic. I still think he has some fascinating and compelling material--and he's definitely a creationist. Colleen | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 59 Registered: 6-2005 |
Colleen - you surprise me with the idea that you might even consider anthing other than a literal 7 day creation possible. I mean - how could anything else be possible if the Bible is infallible? Bill | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 661 Registered: 7-2004 |
Bill, didn't I see you use the word "allegory" on one of the other threads? There is absolutely nothing about the Genesis creation story that indicates it is a scientific treatise, and everything about it screams that God is telling his created creatures that he is in control of all creation. The earth itself is infinitely old, and human creatures are fairly new to walk the earth. The first three days of the Genesis creation week have to do with the formation of our solar system. The last three days of the creation week have to do with the formation of life on this orb. God is only restricted to time when he restricts himself to time. Spend a little time paying attention to the way God talks about time and you will get a sense of that. | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 175 Registered: 3-2005 |
Goldenbear: The Case for a Creator student edition by Lee Strobel! If you haven't read the Case for a Creator you've got to! I believe there are actually worksheets as well that are in the book itself. I think Hank Hanagraaf is running a special on these books at www.equip.org. Belvalew: Well said. Bill, the literal 24 hour day idea has been infused by man. The Hebrew word is actually open to interpretation. While I am on the fence, I too think the idea is intriguing. (and certainly not salvific). Question: Why does believing in the possibility of day-age creationism make The Bible fallible? Patria | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 257 Registered: 8-2004 |
Oh boy! Another can of worms; Another chance to see things from different people's viewpoints! Another chance to learn what assumptions are based on tradition, what are based on hearsay, and what can be adiquately defended from the Bible alone. Another chance to learn from each other.  | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 176 Registered: 3-2005 |
Helovesme2: hehe | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 791 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, I am also a big fan of Hugh Ross. Ken Samples who wrote the forward to Dale Ratzlaff's Cultic Doctrine is working directly with Hugh Ross. The web site is actually www.reasons.org If you are up late on Friday night, and I know you are because of the FAF Bible study, KKLA radio 99.5 FM has a late night program from 12 midnoc to 2 AM featuring Hugh Ross and his associates. Stan | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 179 Registered: 3-2005 |
Is Ken Samples the Day age Creationist that I heard on the Bible Answer Man Broadcast a couple of years ago? (Assuming someone else heard that broadcast). Patria | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 61 Registered: 6-2005 |
OK Belvalew - If "Adam" was not "created" on one day - are you saying that he was created over 1000 days? i.e. how do you get him alegorically? Now if there is no SPECEFIC Adam then there was no "original sin" right"? If no original sin then why did Jesus die. This has been my frustration with removing the seven literal day theory of creation. I have had to say that: 1. I believe in God 2. I believe what ever He tells me happened when I get to heaven 3. I trust God. There is too much evidence that 7 literal days were not used in creation for me to believe in it - but - If I am a Christian I need to believe in original sin - consequently I am back at my "no - I do not take the Bible "literally" and "inerrently" but I believe in it. So help me here - how do you believe in inerrency and literality (is that a word?) and NOT believe in a literal 7 day creation? Bill | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 294 Registered: 7-2004  |
Ok, I'll admit I know next to nothing about the various arguments regarding Old Earth Creation, New Earth Creation, and Evolution. I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture and believe there was a specific Adam and Eve that fell into sin. Why can't a person believe the Earth itself was around for millions of years, lifeless and inactive as many other planets out there? Then when creation started, that's when the 7 day Genesis account plays out and God speaks into existence the way He wanted the earth to change into--a planet with life. The Creation week would include, exactly like the Bible says, the atmosphere and land the way we know it (instead of however it was), as well as all plant and animal life. Guess that doesn't tell us what to do about the sun, moon and stars that were created on the 4th day. Maybe I should be reading the information from the various viewpoints... | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 255 Registered: 2-2001 |
Our pastor did a sermon on evolution a few weeks ago. He brought out the point that if they were not literal days it would not make sence that God created plants before the sun. How long would the plants live and be green without the sun? | ||
| Lydell Registered user Username: Lydell Post Number: 717 Registered: 7-2000 |
According to the scriptures, death came into the world because of sin. If we accept that the earth itself is incredibly old then that means there had to have been the death of billions of things BEFORE sin came. Do you see the problem? | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 296 Registered: 7-2004 |
But why can't the earth itself be very old, just like all the other planets out there, all before life was created? For example Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." The very next verse says the earth was without form and void. Sounds like one of the many other planet blobs spinning around right now for who knows how long, with absolutely nothing on it. The Bible doesn't tell us how much time passed between the earth being "without form and void" until Day 1 when He created the light. My question would be, that if God created the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day and Creation of life on our planet is only around 6,000 years old, and supposedly the stars are so many million light-years away (takes a million or more years for the light to reach us)--how does that reconcile? (Message edited by Raven on September 16, 2005) | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 63 Registered: 6-2005 |
Lydell and Violet - You are now in asking questions that will demonstrate WHY I feel as I do - 1. That Christianity is the only religion that has answers that SEEM to fit logic and reason. 2. that there is a righteous, just and trustworthy God 3. that while the Bible is the "Word of God" there are many ways of interpreting it 4. because the Bible can be read and interpreted in so many different ways, I am not wed to the idea that it is - inerrant, cannot be wrong, cannot be read differently - no matter what you say I go back to number 1 and 2 above and say that there is nothing that you can do or say that will shake my faith in 1 or 2 above. I believe that you have to have "pillars" or constructs that you base your faith on - I would caution you not to make those construct be too many in number. Mine are 1 and 2 above. Others can come and go as long as they do not take out one of your constructs. The problem that I see here and in myself is that in Adventistm I had too many constucts - too many things that my belief was based on - when I lost a construct or two it shook my belief. An analogy here would be good - Wendys - after the finger incident did you say all Wendys were bad to go to? Did you have your faith shaken in fast food restaurants? MAybe for a second or two and then you said "You know - this is not normal and does not need to shake my faith." I have made all non-salvific things not be a major construct in my belief system. This means that I am free to study it, change my original decision on it safely because: 1. my belief in God is still there 2. my salvation is still there When we get to heaven and we find out the Bible was inerrant - no problem - we will see the correct interpretation of it and say YES - I can see that now - The difficulty is when we see through the glass darkly it is not easy to see whose intrepretation is correct - when we believe one way and then find out later that we now believe that way was wrong it can be "faith shaking". Who needs that <grin> Bill | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 421 Registered: 5-2002 |
Paul said that he desired to ultimately know nothing else but Christ and Him crucified. I'm with Paul. Everything else beyond Christ and Him crucified pales in comparison with the glory of that! | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 46 Registered: 4-2005 |
Maybe this is naive because I let this subject "sit lightly on my shoulders" because I decided to trust in God, however earth happened, but my husband used to say that Adam and Eve were created as adults, and if they had a physical exam it would be determined that they were older than they were--That wouldn't satisfy the high school kids, and I'm going to look up the web sites. I just thought I'd throw that out. | ||
| Violet Registered user Username: Violet Post Number: 257 Registered: 2-2001 |
Bill, Your last statement is why I am so grateful that grace covers my inadiquacies. Isn't it wonderful we can rely on Christ's view and not ours? | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 64 Registered: 6-2005 |
Violet - Amen - I hope that you have a great weekend. Thanks for your input... Bill | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 259 Registered: 8-2004 |
Hmm. Maybe we have different understandings of 'inerrant'? Believing the Bible to be inerrant does not mean that we must believe a certain interpretation to be inerrant. It simply means that we submit our own (and everyone else's) interpretation to the Bible itself, and ask God to help us understand, and to trust Him even where we don't. It does NOT mean that we must believe that all (or any) of the dogmatic statements about what the Bible MUST teach are inerrant. It does not mean that we have no questions about what this or that Bible passage means, or that we believe that every transcriber was perfect. It does not mean that if one thing we've understood to be supportable from the Bible is proven to not be supportable that we can then throw the Bible out. It means that, in our study of the Bible, we come to it as students to learn FROM it not as disputants trying to prove our own points by it. It also means that when two of us disagree we have a higher authority to appeal to - not to prove our points but to both be taught by. Yes, plenty of us have used the inerrancy of the Scriptures to try to imply that what we ourselves hold is inerrant. Yes, plenty of 'Christians' have used the inerrancy of the Scriptures and an excuse to wreake mayhem and commit unspeakable crimes - on just about every side too, not just on the 'other' side from me. Protestant and Catholic, 'Anabaptist' and Lutheran, Mennonite and Reformed, Orthodox and Heterodox. I'm reminded of what Gandi said when asked about Christianity (paraphrased). Yes, Jesus was awesome, but save me from his followers! My prayer is that Jesus will save us all. Even from ourselves! Blessings, Mary |
