Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | nimrod2 | 45591 | ||
Hmmm. Quote: "PLEASE. DO NOT just reply out of impulse. This gets nowhere. Spend 3 years researching first. Order books. Etc. Then come back with your reply." I have been studying the origins debate in depth for over 4 years. So I qualify according to your standards. Quote: "No reason to doubt the Bible or to bend it to our understanding." I agree. No reason to doubt or bend any truth for all truth originates from God, whether it be scientific or scriptural, unless you believe God is a deceiver? It is the literalist who is required to produce evidence of a young earth which not only flies in the face of honest science but actually requires more evolution than the most die-hard atheistic scientist would propose. I've read dozens of books on all kinds of origins theories and perspectives, including some very persuasive ones from the young earth perspective. To date, the young earth perspective is the least valid scientifically and scripturally. You may agree with Ken Hamm and the others at AIG but you do so not because the science makes sense to you but because it conforms to what you were taught to believe and is neccesary to fit with your interpretation of Genesis. I don't fault you for it. I have many friends and a dear pastor who also shares your perspective. You have to deal with the fallout as each tenative "evidence" falls. Paluxy River fossils are but one example. Dr. Carl Baugh? Nice of him to disappear after his credentials were questioned. Ken Hamm is very critical of Hugh Ross. You'll note the recverse isn't true. Dr. Ross has never said an unkind word about Mr. Hamm. Dr. Ross has presented the view of long creation days in front of the faculty of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and not one of them was willing to dispute the conclusions. In fact they were enthusiastically endorsing the conclusions. This issue was also debated by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy and again they refused to say that the Bible requires six consecutive twenty four hour days. |
||||||
2 | Why carry on like a playground dispute? | Acts 1:3 | da_sheep | 45760 | ||
Correction to Part 1 Opps!!! Mixed up the ratios. :-P What I meant was ... ... if the first 1000 years was 50000 years ... (dot dot dot means rest of stuff) and ... imagine going to bed and waking up the next day to discover time speeding up to 50 times it's rate ... (not 365000 times faster) sorry. hmm... it would be nice if posts had an edit function. |
||||||