Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 303

Thread: Evolution does not stand up to biblical scrutiny

  1. #151
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I always ask people that if I ever say anything on this topic that they dont think I have support for in the Bible, they should ask me to list the bible verse that teaches what im saying?
    Let’s go at this from a different angle, shall we?

    What would you tell a brother or sister if they held this view as the only possible one to conclude, that being,

    ‘The Gospel of Mark is the only thing we should read in the entire Bible, the only set of verses in the Bible because of three small words within one OT proclamation, the first part of Psalm 37:37

    “Mark the perfect man, , ,” (Ps 37:37)

    “Yes, there is much more to that verse, but that isn’t important. What’s important is that because of these three fabulous words, we have all the insight we’ll ever need that covers the whole Bible. Can you believe this revelation that I and I’m sure many will soon catch onto, that the book or gospel of Mark is the only thing we have to concern ourselves with.”

    For this is our contention here, the harder we say to the Gospel of Mark people, ‘look at the rest’, the harder they hunker down to insure keeping the "revelation" in pristine condition, by a hands off at***ude,

    “Can’t you see what we have here? This is what we’ve waited for, all else you want to throw at this doesn’t fit, for this alone cancels all the rest, so stop worrying about it, just believe”.

    Here is my new question. How do you instruct someone out of this error?

    You tell us, for we would like to know.

    “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, , “ (2 Timothy 3:16)

  2. #152
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    (Not seen, possible repeat)

    Let’s go at this from a different angle, shall we?

    What would you tell a brother or sister if they held this view as the only possible one to conclude, that being,

    ‘The Gospel of Mark is the only thing we should read in the entire Bible, the only set of verses in the Bible because of three small words within one OT proclamation, the first part of Psalm 37:37

    “Mark the perfect man, , ,” (Ps 37:37)

    “Yes, there is much more to that verse, but that isn’t important. What’s important is that because of these three fabulous words, we have all the insight we’ll ever need that covers the whole Bible. Can you believe this revelation that I and I’m sure many will soon catch onto, that the book or gospel of Mark is the only thing we have to concern ourselves with.”

    For this is our contention here, the harder we say to the Gospel of Mark people, ‘look at the rest’, they hunker down to insure keeping the revelation in pristine condition, by a hands off at***ude,

    “Can’t you see what we have here? This is what we’ve waited for, all else you want to throw at this doesn’t fit, this alone cancels all the rest, so stop worrying about it, just believe”.

    Here is my new question. How do you instruct someone out of this error?

    You tell us, we would like to know.

    “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, , “ (2 Timothy 3:16)

  3. #153
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    I'm sure that any genesis verse dealing with the topic is answered.

    I'm also sure that a YEC member will never want to ask me about a verse in Genesis. ..LOL

  4. #154
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    (Not seen, possible repeat)

    Let’s go at this from a different angle, shall we?

    What would you tell a brother or sister if they held this view as the only possible one to conclude, that being,

    ‘The Gospel of Mark is the only thing we should read in the entire Bible, the only set of verses in the Bible because of three small words within one OT proclamation, the first part of Psalm 37:37

    “Mark the perfect man, , ,” (Ps 37:37)

    “Yes, there is much more to that verse, but that isn’t important. What’s important is that because of these three fabulous words, we have all the insight we’ll ever need that covers the whole Bible. Can you believe this revelation that I and I’m sure many will soon catch onto, that the book or gospel of Mark is the only thing we have to concern ourselves with.”

    For this is our contention here, the harder we say to the Gospel of Mark people, ‘look at the rest’, they hunker down to insure keeping the revelation in pristine condition, by a hands off at***ude,

    “Can’t you see what we have here? This is what we’ve waited for, all else you want to throw at this doesn’t fit, this alone cancels all the rest, so stop worrying about it, just believe”.

    Here is my new question. How do you instruct someone out of this error?

    You tell us, we would like to know.

    “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, , “ (2 Timothy 3:16)
    Apparently you missed the question.

  5. #155
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    Apparently you missed the question.
    Surely, you’re not so hunkered down that you are poisoned from answering straightforward hypothetical questioning are you?

    Go ahead, bounce your best hypothetical onto me. You won’t find me in a stuffy posture.

  6. #156
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post


    Go ahead, bounce your best hypothetical onto me. You won’t find me in a stuffy posture.
    See post number # 106 of this topic.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-15-2016 at 03:54 AM.

  7. #157
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    Surely, you’re not so hunkered down that you are poisoned from answering straightforward hypothetical questioning are you?

    See post number # 136 this topic

  8. #158
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    I talk about the text in Genesis
    In response: I have my faith questioned.

    and I let it slide...



    I list verses that support my views on Genesis
    In response: Im told we should not call into question the views of the majority.

    and I let it slide...



    I ask for any questions about what i teach and seek a chance to go over any bible verse dealing with Genesis.
    In response: I see people attack this forum for even allowing this conversation.

    and I let it slide...



    I ask a question about what the bible says at Genesis 1:1?
    In response: Im told that there must be something wrong with the MODs of this website.

    and I let it slide...



    I find that there is none that dare challenge me on the topic of Genesis teachings, and I find that personal attacks are the only thing left to try against me.

    and I let it slide...




    I find that people that claim to have lots of Bible Smarts, cant allow themselves to answer my Bible questions because they know I have a whole pile of things to use once they open the door by first answering my question.

    I speak on this topic a lot and I always quote Dr Walter Martin and other guest hosts of the Bible Answer Man show a lot as well, as they are the people that I listened to and learned from in all that I teach here.

    In response:...Im told that a Walter Martin-named forum should not allow* questions about Genesis in the first place.

    and I let it slide...



    ( * I guess they were listening to a different BAM radio show, because the one I listened to had a Genesis/evolution question nearly every day from someone seeking answers from Walter on the topic!

    And also: Some people have told me that Walter did not believe in Evolution, and I point out that Walter was very clear that he did not believe in a god-less teaching of evolution that had no room for God's hand in the way life was formed on this earth.

    I point out that what Walter rejected was this idea of "non-directed" evolution.

    I point out that Walter had to answer a genesis/evolution question all the time on his show,and in every case he always made sure in his answers that he allowed for the Millions and Billions of years of earth history that science has shown has happened.

    I point out that Walter was known for his answer of "What does it matter how long it took?"....pointing out to people that regardless if life took 6 days, 6 billion years, or 6 minutes, it was still God that created that life!

    I point out that the person I think was the best guest on the BAM show was Ken Samples, and he is part of the REASONS TO BELIEVE website.....so go check it out for yourself!)
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-15-2016 at 05:12 AM.

  9. #159
    Senior Member jude1:3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    Surely, you’re not so hunkered down that you are poisoned from answering straightforward hypothetical questioning are you?

    Go ahead, bounce your best hypothetical onto me. You won’t find me in a stuffy posture.
    He refuses to answer straight forward questions or address posts that clearly refute his posts. He just ignores them and avoids them.
    The Fruits of Macroevolution are: Atheism, Social Darwinism, Racism, Eugenics and No Moral Absolutes.

  10. #160
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jude1:3 View Post
    He refuses to answer straight forward questions or address posts that clearly refute his posts. He just ignores them and avoids them.
    Cl***ic wolf in sheep’s clothing, the longer he waits (and it has been a long time), the clearer it gets.

    Extremely rude at best, but more true to form as a false teacher, the reasoning of which we have described and he continues to ignore. Let’s not forget, this attempt to sanitize his scaled back Genesis formula so he can again falsely teach “from Genesis” needs to be known and established. I understand why Disciple is at times more forgiving to this degree, but that kindness though correctly given, is incorrectly received being hostile to our reason. And look what that has done.

    Still, after all this, I don’t think it’s time to take his contributions down with a series of bitter and disappointing threads. The good patience the Lord instills should be given place as well. Knowing we too were once in need is a testimony in itself, even in the midst of sneers.

  11. #161
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaellS View Post
    [FONT=Arial Narrow][SIZE=4]Cl***ic ......
    At Genesis 1:1 what does the Bible say is the first thing God created "in the beginning"?

  12. #162
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    At Genesis 1:1 what does the Bible say is the first thing God created "in the beginning"?
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Genesis 1:1-5 NASB)

    When I look at these verses, I take them for everything they are. What do I mean by “everything”? Everything as God would have me to know. For it is said by Him on understanding things in scripture,
    things that are “not for you to know”, and there are things that are “oh the depth” sorts.

    At this point of your pulling out of participating in the discussion, it may be an exercise in futility in detailing things. But here, for creations account, as with many other p***age, the reader should know how to both - 1.apply and 2.resist each of these,

    spiritually
    simplicity
    - - - - - - -
    twisting
    isolating
    without adding
    without subtracting

    Of those listed, the first two, “spiritually” should not ever-ever-ever encounter nor be subject to the other item listed “isolating” which you seem fixated over. This is the correct and safe way to read the scriptures. Can you say the same for the list?

    With this in mind, when you ask,

    At Genesis 1:1 what does the Bible say is the first thing God created
    V1’s simplicity is clear, the “heavens and earth”.

    But I got the feeling you are not content with the Lord’s simplicity. I got the feeling you will want to step out of the listed “apply” / “resist” I furnished. I hope I am wrong.

  13. #163
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Like I said before....I dont understand a word of your posts..

    You write in a style that is impossible to make heads or tails of?

  14. #164
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    I will just tell you a story;


    At our church we got Ken Ham to come to our Bible cl*** and teach us his 8-week ORIGINS cl***.
    What I learned during this 8-week cl*** is that all of the Young earth Creationism teachings are all based on non-Bible ideas.
    Simply put, the YEC teachings are not found in the Bible.

    I attended every cl*** of Ham's teachings, but I never raised my hand to ask a question except for one time.
    I remember Ham was going on and on about the creation week time-line, and posting things on the blackboard, and he remarked that "According to the Bible the first thing God created is "light".

    The moment I heard that, it struck me as simply being "wrong"

    But as I kept listening to Ken teach it also became clear that all of YEC and its many invented teachings all HANG of this idea that the first thing God created was this "light" without a source.

    I saw that every other teaching that Ken gave us, all hung on this core idea of him that God made light before he made a source for that light.

    I raised my hand......

    Ken called on me, and I spoke my question .

    I asked Ken Ham the following question - "What does the bible say at Genesis 1:1 is the very first thing God created in the beginning?"



    Now you have to understand the context of the room to understand what happened later.
    For this room was filled with the guys I had been going to church with for along-long time....these were my friends, and yet they were also the same guys and girls I had disagreed with from time to time on this issue too.


    After the cl***, I was surrounded by the guys in the cl***, and they started to ask me questions about what I had asked about with Ken Ham.
    Theyt all wanted to know what I was really getting at, because we all had seen that the answer Ken had given me ("Well that's what the bible just says, but that's not what it means") clearly was ducking the issue I had raised.

    So after that cl***, we sat around and I opened the Bible with the guys and we went over, point by point what the bible says, and we compared it to the teachings we had just heard Ken Ham teach us.

    What we all saw was that "Ken is just simply wrong"



    You see, right after Ken had given me his answer "Well that's what the bible just says, but that's not what it means", I responded with, "Thats why I asked you what it "says?""




    Ken's whole teaching concept is to get people to not read what the Bible "says" rather its to get the students in my cl*** to just look at what the YEC textbooks teaches the Bible"means".

    and.........lets just say that this suddenly became clear to a whole bunch of students that day in my Bible cl***.





    Now I ask you guys here on this Walter martin forum the same question, and because you see that the Bible clearly "says" something that you know in your hearts runs counter to the teachings of Ken Ham, you are very reluctant to answer my simple question about Genesis 1:1.

    But you need not be shy about this verse.

    It's not a trick question.

    Im not here to tell you what the verse "means"

    Im simply attempting to point out to Bible students what the verse "says"

  15. #165
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    now....where did I first notice this difference between what the Bible 'says"at Gen 1:1 and what the YEC teachers want us to believe it "means"?




    It was along time ago...

    I learned this while listening to the bible Answer man show.

    My memory fades, but as i remember....


    a caller called-in with a question for Walter and/or Samples.
    The caller talked about being in a discussion with a co-worker that is not a believer.
    They had talked about Genesis and evolution, and the caller was asking for advice and stuff to tell his co-worker.

    At first the caller seemed to be in much agreement with show's host, then at what might have been the end of the call, the caller was talking about pointing out to his co-worker next time that the Bible teaches that God created the "light" before He created the "sun" on the 4th day.

    That is where host of the show corrected the caller, by pointing out that this "idea" was not found in the Text.

    The called was stumped....?

    The caller had no idea that this was true...?


    But the host of the show pointed out that the Bible does not actually teach that God made the "light" before the "sun".


    Then the conversation turned to the text found at Genesis 1:1

    God's word teaches that the "Heavens" were created first ,in the beginning (before all other things)And, that the term "Heavens" is talking about in that context the full canopy of stars seen in the sky........and by the way, our "sun" is included within the term "Heavens"

    I remembered the simple logic of reading the text of the Bible as it is written, and how that is so much more simple than the twisted reasoning found in the YEC teachings.




    It was like the caller had had the blinders pulled off his eyes for the first time....
    The caller was suddenly shown that there is a whole new world of stuff to see in the bible once you free yourself from the invented teachings of the YEC books.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-16-2016 at 05:30 AM.

  16. #166
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    now....where did I first notice this difference between what the Bible 'says"at Gen 1:1 and what the YEC teachers want us to believe it "means"?




    It was along time ago...

    I learned this while listening to the bible Answer man show.

    My memory fades, but as i remember....


    a caller called-in with a question for Walter and/or Samples.
    The caller talked about being in a discussion with a co-worker that is not a believer.
    They had talked about Genesis and evolution, and the caller was asking for advice and stuff to tell his co-worker.

    At first the caller seemed to be in much agreement with show's host, then at what might have been the end of the call, the caller was talking about pointing out to his co-worker next time that the Bible teaches that God created the "light" before He created the "sun" on the 4th day.

    That is where host of the show corrected the caller, by pointing out that this "idea" was not found in the Text.

    The called was stumped....?

    The caller had no idea that this was true...?


    But the host of the show pointed out that the Bible does not actually teach that God made the "light" before the "sun".


    Then the conversation turned to the text found at Genesis 1:1

    God's word teaches that the "Heavens" were created first ,in the beginning (before all other things)And, that the term "Heavens" is talking about in that context the full canopy of stars seen in the sky........and by the way, our "sun" is included within the term "Heavens"

    I remembered the simple logic of reading the text of the Bible as it is written, and how that is so much more simple than the twisted reasoning found in the YEC teachings.




    It was like the caller had had the blinders pulled off his eyes for the first time....
    The caller was suddenly shown that there is a whole new world of stuff to see in the bible once you free yourself from the invented teachings of the YEC books.
    Alan, from the start, this conversation has been addressing your belief that the theory of evolution is correct when the first book of the Bible, clearly indicates that the work of creation was done in six, twenty-four-hour days.
    Evolution directly contradicts Genesis and denies God’s creative power. Just as Christ performed miracles instantaneously while He was here on earth, so also He did His work of creation instantaneously during Creation week. Jesus made enough loaves and fish to feed thousands, instantly. He raised the dead and gave sight to the blind instantly. The Bible says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. . . . For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” Psalm 33:6, 9. God says, “I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded” Isaiah 45:12. One cannot believe these verses and also believe in evolution. God did not use evolution to create the world and all that is in it, He spoke and it existed.

  17. #167
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    How does Alan inoculate himself from reasoning he doesn’t agree with? By deflecting it with “I don’t understand”.

    That is why you don’t pick it up with a little for***ude to return questioning point–by-point to break it down.

    Of course, everyone knows the simplicity I took the time to include like,

    V1’s simplicity is clear, the “heavens and earth”
    .
    But you don’t understand terms like “simplicity is clear”. You deflect with 'it is too far out in left field.' – com’n!!!!

    Now, enough of the deflection, what is it about my list for sound scripture reading don’t you understand?

    Did you get that? Try it again.

    What is it about my list for sound scripture reading don’t you understand?

    But don’t post too many questions about my list in #162, I don’t want to run the risk of confusing you.

    There you go, a painfully simple question.

  18. #168
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Alan, from the start, this conversation has been addressing your belief that the theory of evolution is correct when the first book of the Bible, clearly indicates that the work of creation was done in six, twenty-four-hour days.
    Evolution directly contradicts Genesis and denies God’s creative power. Just as Christ performed miracles instantaneously while He was here on earth, so also He did His work of creation instantaneously during Creation week. Jesus made enough loaves and fish to feed thousands, instantly. He raised the dead and gave sight to the blind instantly. The Bible says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. . . . For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” Psalm 33:6, 9. God says, “I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded” Isaiah 45:12. One cannot believe these verses and also believe in evolution. God did not use evolution to create the world and all that is in it, He spoke and it existed.
    Goood verses, ones not to isolate from Genesis, which seems to be the determination of his.

  19. #169
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    ......and gave sight to the blind instantly....
    He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village.
    When he had spit on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?"
    He looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around."
    Once more Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.


    After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes.
    Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means "Sent"). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

  20. #170
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    To those who are curious or new to what the heck is going on here, , you are correct in asking.

    I suppose the best way to clear up this petulant trait you now see is because someone’s desire to capitalize on whatever exposure he can have for the purpose of promoting evolution. But we see he isn’t content with just promotion, but domination of a thought that has been correctly refuted from God’s word. In other words, he also isn't here to debate.

    Now, with this last post, the desperation is evident. Deflections right and left, whatever it takes to remain on the thread unscathed. Yeah right, that’s what I thought you may have been thinking, you don’t buy that either.

    If he was an open minded person, you could ask him “Why”, but a Deflection Meister, who supports an imagination thrown down by God’s will found in the scriptures (without partiality) doesn’t want to cede imaginary ground. He wants you and I to join in his devaluing the word of God and all it is profitable for.

    He won’t like my robust theory I think he’s involved with.

    Apparently, that won’t be a problem since the moderators here don’t mind anyone repeatedly distressing the threads with clearly un-scriptural agitations as this resident evolutionist does.

    Heckuva party you got going on Alan, gee thanks! Not!

  21. #171
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Alan, from the start, ......
    ......I believe "from the start" I have said, over and over that when you stick to the text as written in the Bible that you will not find any anti-evolution arguments in the Bible.
    (I will be going into this more in a next post)

    And that if you stick to the text you will notice that you always end up at the same place that evolution ends up when you trace back all life to the source in both Genesis and in evolution.
    That the two works agree on a common starting point for all life.
    And that both genesis and evolution agree that humans and all animals ( like the great apes ), share a common source.

  22. #172
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    So after that cl***, we sat around and I opened the Bible with the guys and we went over, point by point what the bible says, and we compared it to the teachings we had just heard Ken Ham teach us.

    ....
    Although there was no recording to what we talked about after cl***, I do remember many of the high points of the conversation and how I was hit with question after question and how I was able to answer things with just the text of the bible as it is written.

    It went something like this -

    Q -what did you mean with your question?
    Alan -I was pointing out that the Bible does not teach that god created Ken's "Light with no source" first at Gen 1:1.

    Q - what do You think was created first?
    A - just what it says in the text was created first..."The Heavens"

    Q- what are the "Heavens in that verse?
    A - all the Stars in the universe.

    Q - so you think God made the stars like our sun first?
    A - yes, that is clearly what the text says.

    Q - But aren't you also replacing the word "Heavens" with your idea of "Our sun"?
    A - no, the correct word is "Heavens "if you want to say that God created all the "suns" in the universe, the correct word to describe all the suns and stars and other worlds is "Heavens".

    Q-but does not the Bible say that the sun and moon were created on the 4th day?
    A- no, the 4th day never says for one second that the "sun"was created on the 4th day,look it up!

    Q - but it talks about a "Greater light" that has to mean the sun's light correct?
    A - oh yes, its the sun's "greater light" that is true...but the "Greater light" of the sun is not the same thing as the sun itself.

    Q - but how can you make the light and not have the sun itself?
    A - thats my question for Ken's teaching as well....For Ken lights the earth with a magic light with no source. But Im saying that there was a source at Genesis 1:1. Im saying that at Genesis 1:1 God created the stars like our sun and that is the source for all the light later described.

    Q - so what are you saying God created on the 4th day?
    A - just what is talked about on the 4th day! The thing that changed was the "AMOUNT" of light that was seen on the earth...
    Go look it up yourself! The thing talked about is the "Greater and lesser' amounts of light.

    Q - but does not the text say that God also made the stars on the 4th day?
    A - no, the words 'also made" are added to make the text agree with YEC but that is not actually how the verse reads in the Hebrew.

    Q - so what is happening to the stars on the 4th day then if they are not said to be made in the Hebrew on the 4th day?
    A - they (the stars) along with the night , are said to be ruled over by the lesser light.
    Look dont just take my word for it, just go read it again and this time dont use the clearly added words and you will find that the sentence works just fine without them.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-17-2016 at 04:20 AM.

  23. #173
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    I will continue to describe more of that conversation later tonight....stay tuned!

  24. #174
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    It became clear to me while talking with my friends after our ORIGINS cl*** (taught by Ken Ham personally) that there were a lot of the students who also shared my gut-feeling that what were were learning in the cl*** was simply not right....

    It simply just did not agree with the Text.

    The cl*** that Ken taught simply did not present the Bible as written, but rather seemed to rely on a lot of anti-evolution arguments and actually there were very few times when the Bible was refereed to.

    We students got into dealing with the subject of the "Light" in our conversation, and there was a lot of interest in how I could say that the sun and stars were the first things the Bible listed as being created first, and yet the Bible also saying the earth was in "darkness"?

    I remember a lot of the things we talked about, here now is a short bit of that conversation as I think back...



    Question - "But Alan, if you say the Sun was already made, why then does it say the earth was in darkness?"
    Alan - "The "darkness " and the reason for it is talked about in *** 38. The reason is said to be that God wrapped the early Earth in a thick wrapping of clouds."

    Q - "But where did the clouds come from?"
    A - "That is talked about in Genesis 2, where it says that a "mist" came up from underground and watered the whole earth...By the way this also agrees with how science tells us the water we see got here."

    Q - "But Genesis 2 comes after Genesis 1 right?"
    A- "Well it actually is describing events that happen very early in earths history."

    Q - "But the Text says the earth was "without form and void"...so how can you say the earth was so completed?"
    A - "The phrase "without form" is dealing with the same thing you find when you are standing on a country road and it's very foggy out. You can hear a truck approaching you but you cant see it. You know the truck is real, you know its getting closer to you, but you cant see it yet. It is just as real as it can be, yet from your point of view it is "without form". The word "void" is simply talking about there not being any people yet."



    What I was showing my friends after Ken Ham's ORIGINS cl***, is that there are no real arguments found in the Genesis text that stand against science nor against the teachings of evolution.

    The Text we have describes the same points in early Earth's history that science has been telling us about, and there really is no need to have a 'cow' just because science and the Bible might use different words to describe the very same events!



    Now , the big point in what had said to my friend back then after our cl***,is the same point I make here on this forum.
    My point is that if you stick close to the written words foundin Genesis you dont run into any problems with the science of evolution.

    We next got into a long conversation about the words "Day"....and ..."kinds"....as well as dealing with the whole issue of how life originates in the bible compared to evolution.


    We shall begin to talk about all that next time..



    stay tuned!
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-18-2016 at 05:21 AM.

  25. #175
    Senior Member MichaellS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Notre Dame, IN
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    stay tuned!
    It's all here, nothing more needed, lest the Lord leads. But He has called us to be "perfect", insisting on complicating the corrections listed here amounts to leading the people astray, and that is evil. Buyer Beware!

    “Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching.” (John 14:24) - Jesus

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •