Are we talking about believing in YEC-ism or OEC-ism or are we talking about believing Biblical truth? I call myself a YEC only because the name was given me because of my support of the 6-cay scenario. What do we do with, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28)?” I then ask again why are there rivals YEC vs OEC? Are we in Jesus or not? If in Jesus, I’m not putting down your group because we are in the same unique gospel group. Or do you prefer otherwise?
What I am (again) saying is that the Christian walk is faced with the danger of many kinds of divisive, spurious, erroneous doctrines including what we are now discussing that may plant seeds of doubt and skepticism that may draw a person away from sound Biblical doctrine if he lets it. These are what I am speaking of that tends to diminish the effectiveness of the gospel. We seek to uphold Biblical truth, not group “truth.”
Dr. Ham likewise seeks to inform of dangers of ones unknowingly pushing bitter water of erroneous doctrine and thus expose himself and his followers to reproach from the error. What do we say of the person that continues to push the error regardless of warnings?
But didn’t God say, “Let?” Didn’t we see that Jesus instantly turned water into wine? Why then the addition of millions of years that the Bible didn’t state to the word, “let?” Meteorologists only keep track of progress of what God sent. He adds no idea that it will rain cats, dogs, and mice that the Bible didn’t say.
No problem! My writing this paragraph gave me an occasion for a very good laugh!
But you were in the crowd to be jailed with the crowd.
Sometimes it takes Mr. Reality Himself to show what is and is not the real truth.
Hello Jim,
Here are more words of caution. Again, I’m speaking mostly to your defense.
If Dr. Ham and Dr. Snelling are working for you it’s your privilege to FIRE THEM and close the case! But you are not their boss. If you were a boss and see a worker under another boss commit an act that deserves firing, fire him without contacting his boss and see if there would be any repercussions from his boss even though the guy deserved to be fired. Give it a try! Not only are Dr. Ham and Dr. Snelling under another boss, they are under the same Boss you and I are under.
Aren’t we all guilty of things against God by which He has the right to immediately fire us and close the case? I certainly know this to be true in my case and I thank God for His great grace that we all desperately need! If we are really convinced that Dr. Ham and Dr. Snelling lied, shouldn’t we pray for them that God would have mercy and bring them to repentance? Aren’t they still our brothers?
The good work that Dr. Ham and his colleagues are doing is based on their calling from God for which they are well aware that they better not lie! Aren’t we aware of the danger of compromising our calling from God by judging His servants? I don’t want to be deprived of your unique good work based on your calling because of this compromise.
One thing on the positive side is that at least the conflict is not over vital doctrine as in the case of too many churches even though improper handling of the conflict may still be sufficient to cause dangerous falling out of one from the other.
If my memory is serving me right and I understood you right in the past, didn’t you tell me that you did not believe that the flood of Noah’s time was global, but instead local? Or no? If yes, then what’s the difference between believing a lie about folded rocks and believing there was no global flood even though the Bible said so?
Earl, back to the original topic of this thread. Do you have an explanation for the folded rock that has cracks (and everything about those cracks suggests a process different from that of a flood)? Since the explanation Dr. Snelling gave (that there are no cracks, therefore flood) was incorrect. Would you like to take a shot at explaining it?
I’ve read the mainstream geological explanation (in a book written by Christians!) for this specific rock, complete with pictures explaining the process and force arrows drawn on the rock to show how it corresponds to the process described in the pictures. Their explanation made sense, when Dr. Snelling’s didn’t. So maybe you have another explanation?
Stop right there. The age of the earth is not a doctrine. At least it isn’t for me. And if you want to make it a doctrine then it should agree with what we see in God’s creation. Which isn’t a literal 6 day creation 6,000 years ago.
OK. I give you the same advice I gave to Jim: Why not go directly to the the Big Boss about your grievance against Snelling? The line is never busy. Aren’t we our brother’s keepers?
If you believe a lie and spread it, you are not lying, you are just wrong. But if you know the truth and you spread a lie, you are lying. The argument here has been that the geologists in question, given their supposed expertise in geology and ability to see things obvious to everyone with sight, could not possibly believe the lie they are telling. That makes them liars.
Speaking of Snelling, it has now been over 2 years since he collected his rocks from the Grand Canyon. Looking forward to hearing what he has to say about them.
This is such a difficult situation. It seems that we can talk about the truthfulness of a given concept, but science and the Bible are so complicated, and we are each such a morass of potential mixed emotions and struggles, that it seems that the label “lie” is unhelpful. We don’t really know of anyone else’s motivation. I know I have made erroneous pronouncements based on my emotions in the past, but was not aware of the mistake.
Ken Ham has a bachelor’s degree, I think; not a doctor–right? Ken Ham - Wikipedia
The only thing I can say in brief from my limited knowledge and what I read is that the rocks do have cracks but the cracks and the ripples are from different processes. That’s only my view. Take it or leave it.
You said that you prayed for the man? Then why didn’t you leave the issue between him and God who will eventually Judge all of us? Don’t we trust God with His justice to deal with Him?
Why does it appear to me a likeness of a determination to indict and imprison this man?
No, I think that they really are complicated! At least, with my own mental capabilities–but I do think that God knows our own limitations and understands where we are limited. Praise him.
Here’s another place where seems important to give forebearance. There are definitely clashes between science and the Bible. Those who excel in one area may, in good intent, claim the other is being dishonest by not a) accepting science or b) accepting the Bible; or making what they think is an incorrect melding of the views. It’s talking with my own godly Christian parents (who were YEC) and with kindly scientists (many, but not all, of whom are Christian) that I learned that the term “lie” is not appropriate–that we each come to it with our own baggage. It seems that using the word “lie” only alienates; it does not really invite the other person to come to the table with discussion.
Does that make sense? Only God can judge; we can discuss the observations about science and Scriptural interpretation well without claiming ill intent on either side.
This isn’t just about personal spiritual failing. It’s about publicly misleading people. People who publicly engage in deception deserve to have their deception pointed out publicly. Even if it was entirely unintentional at first, they should have corrected their mistake when it was brought to their attention. They didn’t. They continue to promote something deceptive. The issue of lying about scientific evidence ceases to be just between you and God the minute you publish your lies. We all are accountable for holding fellow Christians to high standards of public honesty because Christians who lie about things publicly affect the witness of the church.
The heart of the issue for me is that I believe it is wrong to stay silent if people in positions of authority, especially people who claim to be speaking on God’s authority, are lying to people. If dishonesty is acceptable in Christian leadership, it damages the reputation of the church.
How can Dr. Snelling be wrong? When he writes for AIG he believes in the 6,000 age of the earth. When he writes in the technical journals he believes in the millions and millions of years. He has both bases covered and so can’t be wrong.
I’m still trying to understand my beautiful wife, and I’ve been married to her for over 35 years. Just this one woman is more complicated than I can fully understand! She is far more complicated than I had ever imagined before our marriage.
How is all of life on earth supposed to be so simple to understand if I can’t even understand one woman?
How is God’s word, written in a language I don’t understand to a people whose culture is far different than my own, supposed to be uncomplicated? I can’t even understand the speech of my own grandkids some days, and I certainly can’t understand my own culture some days. How is understanding any text written 3000 years ago in a very foreign culture supposed to be simple?
You are correct that spiritual issues are too complicated for us as individuals to handle with our own natural capabilities. That’s why God gives the born-again individual the holy ghost through which His church is given the ability to supernaturally judge His righteous judgments where needed. Weren’t we told that the Comforter leads us into all truth?
As for arguments between the Bible and science, may I share a cartoon I saw years ago? As a scientist holding his test tube engaged in a hot debate with a preacher holding his Bible, the test tube and the Bible conversed with each other saying, “If they only understood us properly all this fuss would be unnecessary.”
There’s no clash whatsoever between science and the Bible. Both instead work hand in hand. The Bible encourages us to gain knowledge. If Jesus is the truth and the light, then light from scientifically revealed filtered truth is in line with His truth. God is not the author of confusion. Only masquerading parties that falsely claim the authority of science plague us with deceptive confusion and discontent. In-depth knowledge and understanding is available in abundance from God through the power of prayer and the spirit. Knowledge is power!
How then may we say that the term, “lie” is not appropriate? The difference between a lie and the truth is the same as that between one and zero. Let’s please not broaden the meaning of the word.
I pray much for all of you and always entrust you into God’s gracious hand. That’s where I find my help. My prayers are with hope only for the best for all of you.
Oops! Incidentally!,
Do you want me to discontinue praying for you? Do you think my prayers are insufficient? Since you gave me the impression that prayer to Almighty God for Dr. Snelling is insufficient, does the same thought also apply to you?
No! I will not discontinue my prayers!
How is it possible to mislead people without the spiritual failing called sin? Isn’t sin the cause of all wrong? If possible to do wrong apart from sin, the death of Christ for our hope would have been insufficient. Is prayer to the Almighty insufficient for dealing with the problem we are discussing? I would be much afraid of anyone that thinks such and none of you are that kind of person! No Mam!
Here are more words of caution if you don’t mind. I say yet again that my speech is more for your defense than Ken Ham’s :
Please beware of unintended implications! Beside your implication that Ken Ham is an abject, unrepentant liar that’s DANGEROUS(!!!) to the integrity of Biblical teaching and the public, you also implied that compared with Ken Ham’s, the speech of evolutionists is 100% true and thus 100% free from all lies and that evolutionists are without sin and thus free to judge. I ask all of you, is this implication correct? What do you think?
With prayer apprantly insufficient, what then is supposedly needed to deal with Ken Ham and Dr. Snelling? Only God is able to turn into hell so that option is out! Aha!! (a light supposedly lit up in the head of the thinker) The gulag!! Yeah!! The gulag?
Can’t we see here the danger of the atheistic philosophy (Yes, evolutionism is a religious philosophy) of evolutionism and where it may carry us if we are not careful? We don’t want the fruit cake that contains fruit from the Manchineel tree!
I’m much impressed with the very good work of these men especially Ken Ham. Yes, they are sinners like us all and have faults and I speak only what I know. But unconfessed sin shows itself and deteriorates ones vision to the point of loss of public confidence and of God-given help. I see no evidence of this. Ken Ham’s good work serves as much evidence that he is anointed of God and I mentioned earlier the serious danger of touching God’s anointed, especially to the point of calling God’s servant a liar against God. Do we want to compromise our own God-given visions by which we are His servants? Even if Ham really lied about rocks with folded texture, I have no inkling of how it has affected my confidence in him or of any compromise to his work. Isn’t sin a reproach? Then where has it surfaced?
I only know that this “liar” wrote a book that I read called, “The Lie” that openly exposes the “truth” - uh - I mean the “fact” of evolutionism and how it relentlessly destroys morality! Is his book a lie? Who are the real liars? Hmmmm! Maybe his book and other works of His are the real reason that so many hate him. Is that the reason instead of what he supposedly said about a rock that only a small number of people are concerned about or even aware of?
I thought that we should be very careful with how we treat the man that God sends to proclaim and clarify His truth. If deemed necessary to strike back against him, would that move be of God or of the rebellious spirit that has no fellowship with God?
I hope that this discussion would serve as more help for us to have at least an inkling of the extreme danger that evolutionism exposes us to.
Who is Mr. Reality? How should I answer?
I will first share how a friend of mine said that he warns against persistant error saying, “One day reality will claim your rear.”
I generally chose to personify reality to appear as “that” teacher from which we are dependent on for a decent final grade essential for graduation that does not play. Or I could say that reality is a Person–the Person that set the stage of reality for us, God!
If Ken Ham’s sin that’s spoken of is real, reality would be showing it up big time! I have yet to see that in the AIG guys. But what should we think of the fingers of his accusers pointing back at them?
Speaking of staying silent when people in authority are lying, I do agree that is a very big problem! Much greater lies against Christianity that support ungodly practices forced on society have been going unpunished for a long time decimating morality as too many good people (not all) are not only silent, but busying themselves out by fighting among themselves over trivial issues, and caving in to the evil mandates! Many hardly do any more than “having a lot of ‘church’” That’s a big problem!
Would you please point me to a place where he supports millions of years so thet I can see for myself?
Even though the Hebrew word means, “deluge” that may mean either, does that necessarily force us to conclude that the flood was local despite supporting descriptions of it as global in other Biblical passages?
But the two of you with the daily help of God are still as one, aren’t you? Is it not the spirit that supernaturally open our understanding of issues through our prayers? Although the Bible is old, so is sin that it helps us deal with. Is it not? Sin has not changed.
Not necessarily. There are many fake preachers that rake in vast sums of money and are doing quite well for themselves. Mr. Reality appears to be out to lunch.
In “Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea”, pg 807.
