Ken Ham (Creation) | Bill Nye (Evolution) Debate

[subllibrm]

In honor of Alayman's return!
http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/02/05/bill-nyes-reasonable-man-the-central-worldview-clash-of-the-ham-nye-debate/

Mohler nailed this. It is about worldview.

BTW if the theory of the reasonable man is a valid place to find truth, why do we not all agree on court verdicts?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=subllibrm]BTW if the theory of the reasonable man is a valid place to find truth, why do we not all agree on court verdicts?
[/quote]

This would mean everyone was reasonable. Haven't you read the forums?

 

[Mathew Ward]

But! I know he's made those statements before because I've read/heard them myself.

He has made statements that are "acrimonious, condescending, deceptive, or otherwise unchristian". The fact that I have personally read some of these statements is why I believe them.

Can you provide those statements in context please.

 

[subllibrm]

[quote author=subllibrm]BTW if the theory of the reasonable man is a valid place to find truth, why do we not all agree on court verdicts?

This would mean everyone was reasonable. Haven't you read the forums?
[/quote]

Absolutely. This current version of the FFF is proof enough that trust in the idea of a "reasonable man" is a faith position. Which of course was Mohler's point.

Of course the fact that the reasonable man positions fails coming out of the gate as a source of "truth" is why the amended application of the idea requires the acceptance of either multiple truths or no "TRUTH" at all.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I do. Goes right along with what he preached in front of the temple in the previous chapter:

...6 if ye oppress not the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place (i.e, the temple)...

...21 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh.

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices:

23 but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.

Other than being off-topic, you're just plain wrong.

Can you provide those statements in context please.

Well silly, it's clearly right there in one of those 59,300,000 weblinks, and he ain't doin' your homework for you.  8)

 

[rsc2a]

But! I know he's made those statements before because I've read/heard them myself.

He has made statements that are "acrimonious, condescending, deceptive, or otherwise unchristian". The fact that I have personally read some of these statements is why I believe them.

Can you provide those statements in context please.

"Believing in a relatively “young Earth” (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator." -http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/23/young-earth-not-issue

"I personally believe that belief in millions of years is the lie of Satan in this present world that is used as one of the greatest attacks on God’s Word. Yet the acceptance of millions of years permeates the church. Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc." -http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/01/11/will-pastors-miss-the-millions-of-years-point/

There are loads more if you want them.

 

[Mathew Ward]

But! I know he's made those statements before because I've read/heard them myself.

He has made statements that are "acrimonious, condescending, deceptive, or otherwise unchristian". The fact that I have personally read some of these statements is why I believe them.

Can you provide those statements in context please.

"Believing in a relatively “young Earth” (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator." -http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/23/young-earth-not-issue

"I personally believe that belief in millions of years is the lie of Satan in this present world that is used as one of the greatest attacks on God’s Word. Yet the acceptance of millions of years permeates the church. Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc." -http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/01/11/will-pastors-miss-the-millions-of-years-point/

There are loads more if you want them.

So where are the unchristian words in those two quotes you provided?

 

[rsc2a]

But! I know he's made those statements before because I've read/heard them myself.

He has made statements that are "acrimonious, condescending, deceptive, or otherwise unchristian". The fact that I have personally read some of these statements is why I believe them.

Can you provide those statements in context please.

"Believing in a relatively “young Earth” (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator." -http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/23/young-earth-not-issue

"I personally believe that belief in millions of years is the lie of Satan in this present world that is used as one of the greatest attacks on God’s Word. Yet the acceptance of millions of years permeates the church. Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc." -http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/01/11/will-pastors-miss-the-millions-of-years-point/

There are loads more if you want them.

So where are the unchristian words in those two quotes you provided?

It's not uncharitable to claim someone rejects the authority of Scripture or they worship pagan gods because they reject your minority position on a less-than-secondary issue concerning doctrine?

 

[Mathew Ward]

But! I know he's made those statements before because I've read/heard them myself.

He has made statements that are "acrimonious, condescending, deceptive, or otherwise unchristian". The fact that I have personally read some of these statements is why I believe them.

Can you provide those statements in context please.

"Believing in a relatively “young Earth” (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator." -http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/23/young-earth-not-issue

"I personally believe that belief in millions of years is the lie of Satan in this present world that is used as one of the greatest attacks on God’s Word. Yet the acceptance of millions of years permeates the church. Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc." -http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/01/11/will-pastors-miss-the-millions-of-years-point/

There are loads more if you want them.

So where are the unchristian words in those two quotes you provided?

It's not uncharitable to claim someone rejects the authority of Scripture or they worship pagan gods because they reject your minority position on a less-than-secondary issue concerning doctrine?

  so when one gives his personal opinion it is uncharitable? Please remember this next time you want to give your opinion

BTW he didn't claim those who don't believe in a young earth reject the authority of God's word, that is a jump you have made.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]So where are the unchristian words in those two quotes you provided?[/quote]

It's not uncharitable to claim someone rejects the authority of Scripture or they worship pagan gods because they reject your minority position on a less-than-secondary issue concerning doctrine?
[/quote]  so when one gives his personal opinion it is uncharitable? Please remember this next time you want to give your opinion [/quote]

No. When one claims that your are worshiping idol because they disagree with you, they are being uncharitable.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]BTW he didn't claim those who don't believe in a young earth reject the authority of God's word, that is a jump you have made.
[/quote]

He clearly did. If it's not clear enough for you, maybe you'd prefer another quote of his:

To attempt to “fit” millions of years into the Bible, you have to invent a gap of time that almost all Bible scholars agree the text does not allow—at least from a hermeneutical perspective. Or you have to reinterpret the “days” of creation as long periods of time (even though they are obviously ordinary days in the context of Genesis 1). In other words, you have to add a concept (millions of years) from outside Scripture, into God’s Word. This approach puts man’s fallible ideas in authority over God’s Word.

As soon as you surrender the Bible’s authority in one area, you “unlock a door” to do the same thing in other areas...

-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/gospel-young-earth

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]So where are the unchristian words in those two quotes you provided?

It's not uncharitable to claim someone rejects the authority of Scripture or they worship pagan gods because they reject your minority position on a less-than-secondary issue concerning doctrine?
[/quote]  so when one gives his personal opinion it is uncharitable? Please remember this next time you want to give your opinion [/quote]

No. When one claims that your are worshiping idol because they disagree with you, they are being uncharitable.

[quote author=Mathew Ward]BTW he didn't claim those who don't believe in a young earth reject the authority of God's word, that is a jump you have made.
[/quote]

He clearly did. If it's not clear enough for you, maybe you'd prefer another quote of his:

To attempt to “fit” millions of years into the Bible, you have to invent a gap of time that almost all Bible scholars agree the text does not allow—at least from a hermeneutical perspective. Or you have to reinterpret the “days” of creation as long periods of time (even though they are obviously ordinary days in the context of Genesis 1). In other words, you have to add a concept (millions of years) from outside Scripture, into God’s Word. This approach puts man’s fallible ideas in authority over God’s Word.

As soon as you surrender the Bible’s authority in one area, you “unlock a door” to do the same thing in other areas...

-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/gospel-young-earth
[/quote]

Just because someone holds a minority position, that you disagree with, does not make his position or statements uncharitabible. Your bias sees uncharitity when there is none.

 

[ALAYMAN]

So where are the unchristian words in those two quotes you provided?

He pulled them out of his, ermmmm, thin air, yeah, that's it, his thin air.  Careful there Matt, your head will be spinning like a whirling dervish when the merry-go-round known as rsc2a stops.  He has a theological axe to grind with "conservative evangelicals" and he don't mind telling tall tales to prove his bias against folk like Ham.  But I sure love how brother Ham throws a rock into a pack of dogs and they get to howlin'.  The upside is that if rsc2a keeps readin' the truth then maybe it will get through sooner or later.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Just because someone holds a minority position, that you disagree with, does not make his position or statements uncharitabible. Your bias sees uncharitity when there is none.[/quote]

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. But then your bias is causing you to ignore this undeniable fact.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Just because someone holds a minority position, that you disagree with, does not make his position or statements uncharitabible. Your bias sees uncharitity when there is none.

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. But then your bias is causing you to ignore this undeniable fact.
[/quote]


Ham didn't say that people today who are OEC are worshiping pagan gods, he said that their accommodation/capitulation/acquiescence to the culture is no different than the Israelites.  Quit spinning.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Just because someone holds a minority position, that you disagree with, does not make his position or statements uncharitabible. Your bias sees uncharitity when there is none.

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. But then your bias is causing you to ignore this undeniable fact.
[/quote]

"Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc."

Honestly you just don't like his opinion and you call it uncharitible...

His point is mixing the word of God with what the culture says. Let's see how that would apply to the young earth model based on his hermenutic and science that says billions of years. There isn't a lack of charity as you stated there was. Sorry you can't see it.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Just because someone holds a minority position, that you disagree with, does not make his position or statements uncharitabible. Your bias sees uncharitity when there is none.

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. But then your bias is causing you to ignore this undeniable fact.

"Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc."

Honestly you just don't like his opinion and you call it uncharitible...

His point is mixing the word of God with what the culture says. Let's see how that would apply to the young earth model based on his hermenutic and science that says billions of years. There isn't a lack of charity as you stated there was. Sorry you can't see it.[/quote]

His point is quite clear.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Just because someone holds a minority position, that you disagree with, does not make his position or statements uncharitabible. Your bias sees uncharitity when there is none.

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. But then your bias is causing you to ignore this undeniable fact.

"Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc."

Honestly you just don't like his opinion and you call it uncharitible...

His point is mixing the word of God with what the culture says. Let's see how that would apply to the young earth model based on his hermenutic and science that says billions of years. There isn't a lack of charity as you stated there was. Sorry you can't see it.

His point is quite clear.
[/quote] And you don't agree so you call him uncharitible. We got it.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Just because someone holds a minority position, that you disagree with, does not make his position or statements uncharitabible. Your bias sees uncharitity when there is none.

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. But then your bias is causing you to ignore this undeniable fact.

"Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc."

Honestly you just don't like his opinion and you call it uncharitible...

His point is mixing the word of God with what the culture says. Let's see how that would apply to the young earth model based on his hermenutic and science that says billions of years. There isn't a lack of charity as you stated there was. Sorry you can't see it.

His point is quite clear.

And you don't agree so you call him uncharitible. We got it.[/quote]

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. - rsc2a

 

[Mathew Ward]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Just because someone holds a minority position, that you disagree with, does not make his position or statements uncharitabible. Your bias sees uncharitity when there is none.

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. But then your bias is causing you to ignore this undeniable fact.

"Really, it is no different than the Israelites who adopted the idols of the pagan cultures and worshiped pagan Gods—often mixed in with what God’s Word instructed them concerning holy days, sacrifices, etc."

Honestly you just don't like his opinion and you call it uncharitible...

His point is mixing the word of God with what the culture says. Let's see how that would apply to the young earth model based on his hermenutic and science that says billions of years. There isn't a lack of charity as you stated there was. Sorry you can't see it.

His point is quite clear.

And you don't agree so you call him uncharitible. We got it.

His beliefs about a minor doctrine are of no consequence in this matter. The fact that he explicitly stated that people who disagree with him on this minor matter are worshiping pagan gods is of consequence. - rsc2a
[/quote]

How does that quote go about if you repeate a lie often enough?

 

[rsc2a]

I've figured it out. Ken Ham is to YEC as Petey Ruckman is the KJVo-ism.