New Creation Museum

[Guest]

It's certainly no dogma of mine, and I'm not sure it's a salvation issue, but other than questioning the translation of the actual word "virgin," as "young girl" it just seems pretty straightforward in light of Joseph's reaction and the visit by the angel and just the overall context. If anything, I would only suspect an argument from silence. It's not even a point I would care to convince you of otherwise -- I'm just curious what the arguments would be. Feel free to message me offline if you're concerned of offense.

[Guest]

First, where does the Bible say I have to have "faith in the literal truth of Genesis"? What if I never had it? lol Was I never truly saved? hahaha Ham's slippery slope is a....slippery slope, imo. [/quote]

Rick,

[Guest]

Rick ... you said, "First, where does the Bible say I have to have "faith in the literal truth of Genesis"? What if I never had it? lol Was I never truly saved? hahaha Ham's slippery slope is a....slippery slope, imo."

Agreed.

It's not that I disagree with some of Ham's conclusions, I just disliked the dogmatic way in which theories were presented - just leave 'em theories.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

I do like the idea of having a place to take our children showing a "biblical history" instead of taking them to places that constantly bombard you with "millions of years ago".

This reminded me of having gone on a tour of a cave years ago with June, my first wife (now deceased). The tour guide explained the formation of the stalacites and stalagmites millions of years ago. He also explained other formations in terms of millions of years.

At one point in the tour we came across a large copper kettle with water dripping into it. The kettle was about 80% full. At that point June asked the tour guide, "How many million years did it take for all that water to drip into the kettle?" I noticed grins on the faces of all the other tourists.

I thought that June had made her point succinctly and effectively.

[Guest]

They are trying to present an alternative to the concepts that are propogated in our schools with our children as captive audiences, and to the general public in magazines, TV, and other media.

Alternative? They're trying to propagate religion as science and myth as fact.

We have been brought up to take evolutionary theory (both biological and astonomical) for granted and to regard creationism as it is depicted in Genesis as primitive, simplistic, and mythological.

Which it is.

The Creation Research Society is trying to help the public to consider a different point of view ---- a view which is presently rejected out of hand and classified with false concepts from the past which have been clearly discredited such as a flat earth, or a geocentric view of the movements of the planets and sun.

Because it is.

People hold to evolutionary views with great tenacity in spite of evidence to the contrary. I am guessing the reason is so that atheism and agnosticism can appear creditable.

Right, all scientists who accept evolutionary theory are atheists and agnostics, chalk up another red herring for paidion.

What evidence to the contrary? Mind pointing it out instead of just mindless proselytizing?

Evolutionary theory reminds me of the old phlogiston theory whose proponents clung tenaciously to the theory in spite of the oxygen explanation of burning objects. They simply altered the theory to accomodate the data. The same was done with geocentric theories of the solar system.

Right, and what examples are you going to refer to for evolution?

In cosmic evolution, the earth and the moon were supposed to have been broken off from the sun. So it was speculated that when the moon's surface was inspected, rock would be essentially the same as that on earth. It was found, in fact, that their chemical structure was much different.

Source?

Further, since the age of the universe was supposedly so great, it was thought that the level of dust on the moon would be hundreds of feet deep. In fact, the astronauts found that it was only a few inches deep.

Source?

As to biological evolution, one of the most inexplicable facts is the "dance" of the honey bee workers to communicate to other workers the direction and distance of nectar sources discovered.

Inexplicable doesn't mean evolution is false. Argument from ignorance.

So did God create bees to "dance" in this way for no other reason than to communicate the wonders of His creation to man? It would seem so, at least for those whose minds are not closed to the possibility of a non-evolutionary explanation of life.

And that's your pat answer. "God".

The gap closes ever more.

[_Rick_C]

Rick ... you said, "First, where does the Bible say I have to have "faith in the literal truth of Genesis"? What if I never had it? lol Was I never truly saved? hahaha Ham's slippery slope is a....slippery slope, imo."

Agreed.

It's not that I disagree with some of Ham's conclusions, I just disliked the dogmatic way in which theories were presented - just leave 'em theories.

Imo, everyone has a right to dogma (etymologically: "tenet, opinion," "that which one thinks is true," "to seem good, think").

Equally so, everyone has the freedom be dogmatic (usually derogatory, "close-minded," etc.).

So, who is dogmatic, who has dogma, and who has both is: probably based on that which one thinks is true....

Ham's reasoning doesn't apply for me. I rejected the Bible or at least had very serious doubts about it a long time ago. When I came back to it -- and to its God -- I'm not plagued by the doubts Ham listed in TK's article (like how, if you don't believe in a literal six days, you might reject the Bible and God); I've already done that. It wasn't Genesis that brought on my initial doubts: It was dispensationalism which I came to learn long ago was a false-myth...a man-made system of belief. This doubt, well, this fact, that dispensationalism is false was something I didn't handle very well at the time and I began to backslide...and before too long was living like a pagan (leaving a Bible college with 11 hours left for a B.A.)....

Since I got faith back I'm not threatened by any intellectual challenge or doubt: things I can't understand, partially or fully. I'm past my doubts about God. But God isn't an intellectual challenge, though we do theology ("study God").

My having doubts about the Genesis "days" (Know what? I have no idea what they were! but God knows). Other things in the Bible I don't know have nothing to do with the fact that I reject "offers" from temptresses and decline on getting drunk with a co-worker after work (I am a former alcoholic). Anyway, I don't see "Ham's link" as to why I would want go out and sin because, imo: only God knows what the "days" were.

Yet Ham and other people do see this "link" or they wouldn't be concerned. And their concerns are legitimate for them (as issues of conscience and understanding).

Sean, Steve, Darin,
Re: virgin conception
I have a lot of information and it might take time before I come up with a thread...(have other important priorities right now). For now, I'll say that I am just now realizing that I am, and am admitting, theologically liberal in certain ways -- while remaining very-conservative theologically at the same time!

Go figure,
Thanks,
Rick