| Re: |
Quote: One thing i saw that Ken Ham was wrong about that he might of just made a mistake was that satan and the angels that fell all fell before Adam and eve fell, because serpent was tempting them and was not serpent satan, so it had to happen where satan and the his angels fell first not Adam and eve and then satan. And why is this concept wrong? I have never heard anyone suggest that Lucifer did not fall before Adam & Eve. Or, are you suggesting that Ham says the serpent tempted Lucifer?
Ginny: I have come to the conclusion that Lucifer's fall was in the Garden of Eden and occurred when he tempted Adam and Eve, not at some time in the heavenlies in time past. I know that the common view is that there was a war in heaven in time past and satan took 1/3 of the angels with him, but the only place I can find that view scripturally is in the Revelation sandwiched into prophecy about future events. I do find in Isaiah and Ezekiel descriptions of Lucifer, one of which states that he was the in the garden and was the anointed cherub that covers until iniquity was found in him. I believe when he said, I will ascend and be like God, that he decided to take man's authority and position from him by deception. I also think that when God said His creation was very good, that excludes the argument that satan had already rebelled. Bit either way, Satan did rebel against God and tempted Adam and Eve. When he rebelled is, I guess, a bit of an academic discussion. It does make much more sense to me to believe it happened in the garden.
| 2010/2/20 21:36||Profile|
| Re: |
Ken ham said it in one of his videos i watched that we played at bible study and i caught that.
| 2010/2/20 22:28||Profile|
| Re: |
In all fairness to Ken Ham, I think some of the comments about him in this thread are unnessecarily disrespectful. This issue of origins is too controversial to expect that anyone will produce a Christian repsonse that will please everyone. Admittedly AIG has their own propretary position on a number of questions regarding this issue. So does everyone else.
It should be enough to simply say you don't believe in their Young Earth Creationism or Creation Science...there's no need to throw a brother under the bus! ;)
| 2010/2/21 2:43||Profile|
| Re: |
you have to commit intellectual suicide to believe Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. I don't know a lot about science, but I know a snow job when I see one. It is one thing to believe in young earth creationism as a point of faith; it is another to support that position with lunatic logic and junk science and call yourself "Doctor."
have you listened to Ken Ham or read his work?
Christian apologetics begins with the proposition that the truth of the Bible can be logically proved, then achieves the exact opposite of what it intends. It implants doubts in people's minds and then confirms those doubts by using laughably weak arguments. As a teenager I lost faith when I read Josh McDowell's More Than a Carpenter and concluded that anyone who has to use that sort of logic to support his beliefs is willfully self-deceived.
are you suggesting Ken Ham is doing the 'exact' same?
But the role of the Christian apologist in the organized religion industry is to undermine real faith so that people will be in the market for bad faith, which is precisely what the professional clergy is selling.
I am just going through this thread and asking questions. I don't know much, so I am trying to get to the bottom of this particular debate...but I'm not debating.
| 2010/2/24 7:11|
| Re: |
I think while well meaning, and while making good theological points (points that made a great impact on me when I was young in my faith), Ken Ham's apologetic is ultimately fleshly, and not Spirit fueled.
are you basing this on research into Ken Ham's ministry or is a general statement about apologetics?
also, why would you say that it had a 'great impact' on your faith and then shoot him down?
| 2010/2/24 7:17|
| Re: |
Well said. Without faith it is impossible to please God and MUCH will try to come in the way of faith.
Are you saying that Ken Ham is putting forth this material to replace faith in believers?
| 2010/2/24 7:20|
| Re: |
Hi Guys, I was curious as to what people might be thinking of in terms of the methods or reasoning used by creation scientists that would not be intellectually defensible. I do know that I have come across statements made by some creation scientists, which have really seemed like a 'stretch' and which I wish hadn't been made. But I am wondering what types of statements others are thinking of. I feel that using creation science 'arguments' has its place, but can also be taken too far, especially if argumentation is employed as a substitute for the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. In Acts, the apostles were said to 'reason', and to 'dispute' with people, and in their presentations of the gospel, they made reference to known facts of history, and to what could be commonly observed by people, about the world around them. I believe that the apostles felt it valuable to provide an evidentiary basis for faith in Christ. At the same time though, evidence and logic was never used as a replacement for faith in the Saviour's work on the cross. Rather it was part of the platform that was built for the purpose of helping people to understand the necessity of faith towards Christ and repentance towards God. In Jesus, John
I agree with what you are saying, although due to my limited knowledge I have not come across creation science arguments that have been taken too far (I would like to hear/read them though). Ken Ham is the first creation scientist that I have come across.
| 2010/2/24 7:25|
| Re: |
by wayneman on 2010/2/21 3:08:04 My favorite is the doctrine that the universe is 6000 years old but appears 13 billion years old because the Lord created it "with vintage." That statement may be factually accurate but in science it does not qualify as a theory, or even a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested, mathematically demonstrated, proven or disproven. It is a "fact"...which must be taken by "faith." So why trot out junk science to support the word of God? It only undermines Christian credibility when they see us resorting to charlatanry to support our doctrine. It is better to just say, "We don't believe we are highly-evolved primates because we take the Word of God over the word of man." We should render unto science the things that are science's and unto God the things that are God's. It would be OK to demonstrate that Genesis is at least scientifically plausible, but creation science doesn't even succeed in doing that, much less proving or demonstrating anything.
Are you saying that God is not interested in science or at least the degree of things that he has created?
Does Ken Ham's creation science not succeed in the attempt to teach from a biblical perspective?
I am really not trying to attach you. I would just like some answers, whichever side they fall.
| 2010/2/24 7:29|
| Re: |
The foundation of the entirety of that particular ministry is that the Bible can be trusted as the foundation of our faith. That if supposed science and the straightforward teaching of scripture are ever at odds, one can always rely on the straightforward teaching of scripture as accurate and the science as still in need of modification. They have shown this through the scientific research and study that they have done. They are not trying in any way to "prove" the Bible true nor to try to find some scientific hook to hand faith on. Rather, they are proclaiming the message that the Bible is the basis of truth and that this truth is the basic assumption that all Christians should used when interpreting science. I don't think they have ever tried to replace faith with evidence or logic. I think it is an awesome ministry.
I actually ended up quitting (although I allowed the students to vote on their decision) a job a couple of months ago, because one particular student, who was the best English speaker and lover of science, came to odds with me because he believed his science teacher over my mentioning that God created the world (regardless of the days).
Now, Travis, that was well said. I have only listened/watched Ken Ham for a week or two, but every video that I hear that very same message is stressed throughout.
By the way, there are many who have categorically rejected Christ and have never opened themselves up to allow Him to get a foot in the door so to speak because of what they have been taught by atheist evolutionist teachers. I know of very bright young boy of 10 years of age who said, "I just don't think I believe the Bible is true at all because it does not agree with what my teacher said in "science". He could see the difference at 10. Wow!! However, many of these people have heard the events that science deals with explained in a scientifically and Biblically sound way and have said, "Maybe I can accept that God exists. This really makes sense.", and these people have immediately or eventually come to be born again.
| 2010/2/24 7:36|
| Re: |
by RkMetzger on 2010/2/21 3:36:49 In the hopes that we are all trying to stay close to the Lord and not allow "minor issues" like creationism to get in the way;
is it a minor issue?
| 2010/2/24 7:40|