To see what I mean, watch several interesting debates between Hugh Ross and Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis) HERE. Also see the transcript of a debate between Hugh Ross and Jason Lisle at Answers in Genesis here:
Jason Lisle vs. Hugh Ross debate: transcript
www.answersingenesis.org
Hugh Ross is certainly not helping Christians get back to the foundation and authority of the Bible, and like the emerging church leaders who are leading so many astray, a big part of it has been his books and things. As Ken Ham notes...
When Dr Ross was first thrust to considerable prominence as a result of his books being published by NavPress and particularly his appearances on Focus on the Family, many Christian leaders embraced or endorsed his teachings.I remember hearing one such Focus on the Family program, way back when, and listening (aghast) to James Dobson agreeing with Ross on the billions of year thing.
Special Feature: Hugh Ross Exposé
www.answersingenesis.org
Meanwhile, other Christian organizations that have helped to promote Hugh Ross and his theories include:
TBN to Promote Genesis Compromise and Undermine Biblical Authority
blogs.answersingenesis.org
Vancouver-raised astronomer, Dr. Hugh Ross, visits TWU to share compelling new evidence for creation and the Bible
www.twu.ca
This is undeniably another sign of the times, as men choose fables over the biblical record preserved for us through the ages.
*To further explore why this literal six day thing is so very important, see here:
Why Six Days?
by Chuck Missler
www.khouse.org
The necessity for believing in six literal days
www.answersingenesis.org
Why Did God Take Six Days?
(What is a day?)
www.answersingenesis.org
8 comments:
Aside from that creation debate Ankerburg hosted, he has also featured Hugh Ross on an extensive series, leaving no question as to what his ministry believes (and, of course, he's free to do so). But, ever since watching that debate, and his following it with high praises to Ross's bunk, I take Ankerburg with a grain of salt.
This is really too bad, because I think it's foundational to accept the record that God gave us in Genesis. Mind you, it's not one of the essentials of the gospel of salvation, but if a person understands the basics of creation and the fall and our subsequent separation from God, they can more easily grasp their need of a Savior to reconcile them back to the Father.
The 'billion yearites' have so much extra explaining to do to fit the secular worldview into their Bible interpretations, when it really is so simple.
WOW... read that debate, and I have to say that it was interesting. The speed of light thing mentioned at the end of the debate had me interested because of a book called "Starlight and Time" by Dr Russell Humphreys.
In that book Humphreys theory -- and he admits this theory is in its early stages and not without its flaws -- suggests that there is such a thing called time-dilation...
Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.
To read more about it see here...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
As for me, I read the Genesis as it appears. One day equals a night and a morning, a child would understand that. Why would the 'evening and morning' be put in there if not to clarify what day/yom actually meant. Makes no sense to me if one day equaled an unqualified time when clearly Genesis does qualify the day with... Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
That's really interesting stuff.
I'm totally with you on the "day is a day" thing. Funny how a day is always a day to people every where else, until you get to Genesis 1.
Other thoughts...
Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Another one:
http://creation.com/2-peter-38-one-day-is-like-a-thousand-years
So don't be too set on a literal 6 days earth time.
Because one day of God could be many many years earth time. :)I think we need to not put God in a box. :) That when God said he took 7 seven days it might not be 7 days our time.
Just like when God commanded Moses to separate the water at the Red sea, it did not just shot up instantly but took time. :) So perhaps God set everything right by allowing things to form naturally.
God could have done everything in 6 days earth time no doubt about that but it should not really an issue about how long God took to make everything.
I used those verses once upon a time to support the same view you now hold, Jeremiah. But, having read heavily on the issue, I no longer use them, neither do I believe it regarding creation. Also, the very link you provided to support your opinion was actually an argument against it. I believe there are many mysteries (the bible tells us so), but this is not one of them. God really couldn’t have been more clear and yet, we as Christians believe we can be “friends” with the world and just get along on this issue. When are we going to stop compromising? I don’t expect to change any opinions here (I think most Christians pretty much have their heels firmly grounded on many touchy issues) but, all the same, I collected a few quotes (via Creation Ministries International http://creation.com/) coming from the mouths of unbelievers: they seem to “get it”; shouldn’t we?
"If all the animals and man had been evolved in this ascendant manner, then there had been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which the current teaching based Christian emotion and morality, collapsed like a house of cards."
Wells, H.G., The outline of history — being a plain history of life and mankind, Cassell & Company Ltd, London, UK, (the fourth revision), Vol. 2, p. 616, 1925.
"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together. But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic. Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process …".
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5. (David Oldroyd is associate professor in the School of Science and Technology Studies at the University of New South Wales, Australia.)
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.
1000 years may be LIKE a day to our eternal and infinite God, but because He is eternal and infinite, there is no measurement of time.
The words in Genesis, "there was evening and there was morning, THE FIRST DAY" are pretty key and why it means that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, with 7th day set apart as a day of rest.
We measure one day as 24 hours and we measure one week's time in 7 days-- not 7+ billion years.
This measurement of time is universally accepted and has been since the beginning of time. We did not develop this measurement of time. God created it, we live by it, and He said it was so in the beginning.
As far as putting God in a box. I think that trying to read into the text human assumptions regarding historical science is putting God in a box!
Historical Science and observational science are two very different things.
When dealing with the past, science is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events. The further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork, and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusions -- factors such as the religious belief, or unbelief, of the scientist. [The Creation Answers book]
Post a Comment