Hi Rick,
I'm not sure that Kent Hovind is lying in the same way that someone tells an untruth in order to deceive. It looks to me, from that transcript, that he mis-spoke and then didn't realize what he said. After he made the statement, "Uh, I just don't know how you can read your Bible and come to these conclusions and, you know, still say that you love the Lord," and the moderator broke in with, "And say you love the Lord? Now HOLD IT!", Hovind continued talking about reading the Bible like he didn't even hear what the moderator said. Perhaps his mind was racing forward and he spoke without meaning what he actually said.
It seems to me that sometimes after a man has studied the Bible for years and has sharpened his viewpoint, it becomes hard for him to imagine that anyone else could study and come to a different conclusion. Therefore, he feels that the other person either hasn't studied nearly as much as he has (which is what I think Hovind was getting at when he mentioned how many times he's read the Bible) or the other person must have started with a different premise (which is what I think he means when he talks about getting to the "top of the mountain of truth" but believing in a different God.)
Kent Hovind
Robin,
Personal Attack or Ad Hominem Abusive
"A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims."
Hovind again:
"I didn't say that -- I said this" is not how one debates.
When someone says "that" -- "that" is what they said.
This is an example of Hovind using the logical fallacy:
Red Herring
"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim."
The issue at this point in the debate was Hovind's Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack) against Ross. Hovind attempts to evade this by changing the subject. To wit, by going back to the actual issues under consideration (which he shouldn't have departed from to begin with).
Also note how Hovind doesn't apologize for implying Ross doesn't love the Lord. Is this Christian "speaking the truth in love?" I don't think so.
And Robin (you said):
Thanx for your reply, Robin,
Rick
Let's go back to what Hovind said:It seems to me that Kent was not saying that anyone who holds to an old earth view could not love the Lord.
Hovind's tactic here is to employ a logical fallacy called:Uh, I just don't know how you can read your Bible and come to these conclusions and, you know, still say that you love the Lord.
Personal Attack or Ad Hominem Abusive
"A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims."
Hovind again:
While it is true those were not his exact words, this was Hovind's obvious and implied meaning....I didn't say they couldn't love the Lord and disagree with me.
Hovind is evading the issue here.I said I don't know see how you could hold the position that God would use billions and billions of years to get us here which is not what is revealed in the Bible.
"I didn't say that -- I said this" is not how one debates.
When someone says "that" -- "that" is what they said.
This is an example of Hovind using the logical fallacy:
Red Herring
"A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim."
The issue at this point in the debate was Hovind's Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack) against Ross. Hovind attempts to evade this by changing the subject. To wit, by going back to the actual issues under consideration (which he shouldn't have departed from to begin with).
Also note how Hovind doesn't apologize for implying Ross doesn't love the Lord. Is this Christian "speaking the truth in love?" I don't think so.
And Robin (you said):
If he, in fact, does believe there are good Christians on both sides of the aisle he needs to always say so.I have listened to most of Dr. Hovind's teachings and found areas of agreement and disagreement. If you listen to all of what he has to say you will find that he believes that there are good Christians on both sides of the isle.
Thanx for your reply, Robin,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Hello Michelle, HNY,
I see what you're saying about how Hovind was sort of "nervous." If you listen to the debate you can tell he was. But is being nervous an excuse to hurl abuse at another person, leave alone to another believer? Obviously, not.
I've heard Hovind talk about "the mountian of truth" elsewhere. I'm still confused what he means by it.
Thanx for your reply too, Michelle,
Rick
The questions I'm asking are: Aren't all lies deceptive? Can people who tell them be trusted? 'Going back to "speaking the truth in love"....I'm not sure that Kent Hovind is lying in the same way that someone tells an untruth in order to deceive. It looks to me, from that transcript, that he mis-spoke and then didn't realize what he said. After he made the statement, "Uh, I just don't know how you can read your Bible and come to these conclusions and, you know, still say that you love the Lord," and the moderator broke in with, "And say you love the Lord? Now HOLD IT!", Hovind continued talking about reading the Bible like he didn't even hear what the moderator said. Perhaps his mind was racing forward and he spoke without meaning what he actually said.
I see what you're saying about how Hovind was sort of "nervous." If you listen to the debate you can tell he was. But is being nervous an excuse to hurl abuse at another person, leave alone to another believer? Obviously, not.
I think I see what you are saying. Using myself as an example; after studying quite a lot, I converted from dispensationalism to amillennialism. Since then I've found that many dispensationalists, if not a majority, usually haven't studied as much as I have on Eschatology. I can understand they have concluded dispensationalism is correct. But in some debates I've doubted my opponents have studied as much as I have. In fact, sometimes they have proven this to be the case. E.g., when they said, "You don't believe in the millennium," lol. They used that old phrase, "The Bible plainly states"....when they weren't even familiar with other views (like mine) and that what the Bible states can be interpreted in different ways. However, it remains true that "I've studied more" isn't a legitimate argument to support a point in a debate.It seems to me that sometimes after a man has studied the Bible for years and has sharpened his viewpoint, it becomes hard for him to imagine that anyone else could study and come to a different conclusion.
How many times someone has read the Bible, I'm sure you would agree, doesn't mean anything in a debate (a person could read it once and be correct). Hovind mentioned his "credentials" of having taught high school science for 15 years. He also said, "I'm no world's expert" which was perhaps an unconscious admission coming-out that Hugh Ross has better scientific credentials...I don't know....Therefore, they feel that the other person either hasn't studied nearly as much as they have (which is what I think Hovind was getting at when he mentioned how many times he's read the Bible) or the other person must have started with a different premise (which is what I think he means when he talks about getting to the "top of the mountain of truth" but believing in a different God.)
I've heard Hovind talk about "the mountian of truth" elsewhere. I'm still confused what he means by it.
Thanx for your reply too, Michelle,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Rick,
It seems like you have personalized Dr. Hovinds comments in his debate. I wouldn't take offense to Dr. Hovind until listened to more of his work, and get a good understanding of what he believes the essentials are in order to be a Christian. You will find that it has nothing to do with one's view of creation, Dr. Hovind simply believes that many are being misled by folks like Hugh Ross. I know that there are times I have made comments that could be taken out of context, and if taken alone without knowing me outside of those comments people could draw conclusions that are incorrect. I think we should allow room for some grace here. Lets not forget, he is a brother in Christ.
Robin
It seems like you have personalized Dr. Hovinds comments in his debate. I wouldn't take offense to Dr. Hovind until listened to more of his work, and get a good understanding of what he believes the essentials are in order to be a Christian. You will find that it has nothing to do with one's view of creation, Dr. Hovind simply believes that many are being misled by folks like Hugh Ross. I know that there are times I have made comments that could be taken out of context, and if taken alone without knowing me outside of those comments people could draw conclusions that are incorrect. I think we should allow room for some grace here. Lets not forget, he is a brother in Christ.
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
Robin,
I wonder what Hovind would mean by being "misled" here. Above, he said that a non-belief in a literal six day creation could cause someone to have doubts about God. People doubt God in their sin and unbelief, not because they have the wrong science. Hovind, by insisting that a literal six day Creation is very important appears to agree with the Darwinians that you cannot be a Christian if you don't accept the literal six day interpretation. But becoming or being a Christian has nothing to do with accepting any particular view of Creation. Yet how many millions of folks out there think you have to believe in a literal six day Creation in order to become or be a Christian? What a false dichotomy, imo!
I'm curious what the statistics might be on: Who has been more effective in leading people to Christ: Hovind or Ross? In one Ross lecture I recently listened to he told about how so many people have come to Christ through his ministry, saying things like, "I didn't know how much science pointed to a Creator. I believe in God now!"..."I didn't know you could be a Christian and take science seriously" (then thanking him, etc.).
Yes, we've all been taken out of context. And we all agree and disagree with others to varying degrees. I haven't met anyone that agrees with somone else 100%. At any rate, it's apparent I'm not a Hovind fan. He has the right to have his beliefs, as we all do. I find it unacceptable to personally-attack people in debates and otherwise, even if and when people I agree with do it.
Thanx for your reply, Robin,
Rick
My friend who recommended Hovind to me a few weeks ago is a big fan of his. So I went and studied him out and found I don't believe in some of his theology. I told my friend this and our friendship has been pretty strained ever since. I have asked that we not discuss Hovind but my friend keeps bringing him up. Our differences in this matter seem to be irreconcilable. Whether it will lead to "dis-fellowship" or not...I don't know.It seems like you have personalized Dr. Hovinds comments in his debate.
Hovind's site doesn't have a Statement of Faith or an equivalent.I wouldn't take offense to Dr. Hovind until listened to more of his work, and get a good understanding of what he believes the essentials are in order to be a Christian. You will find that it has nothing to do with one's view of creation, Dr. Hovind simply believes that many are being misled by folks like Hugh Ross.
I wonder what Hovind would mean by being "misled" here. Above, he said that a non-belief in a literal six day creation could cause someone to have doubts about God. People doubt God in their sin and unbelief, not because they have the wrong science. Hovind, by insisting that a literal six day Creation is very important appears to agree with the Darwinians that you cannot be a Christian if you don't accept the literal six day interpretation. But becoming or being a Christian has nothing to do with accepting any particular view of Creation. Yet how many millions of folks out there think you have to believe in a literal six day Creation in order to become or be a Christian? What a false dichotomy, imo!
I'm curious what the statistics might be on: Who has been more effective in leading people to Christ: Hovind or Ross? In one Ross lecture I recently listened to he told about how so many people have come to Christ through his ministry, saying things like, "I didn't know how much science pointed to a Creator. I believe in God now!"..."I didn't know you could be a Christian and take science seriously" (then thanking him, etc.).
I know that there are times I have made comments that could be taken out of context, and if taken alone without knowing me outside of those comments people could draw conclusions that are incorrect. I think we should allow room for some grace here. Lets not forget, he is a brother in Christ.
Yes, we've all been taken out of context. And we all agree and disagree with others to varying degrees. I haven't met anyone that agrees with somone else 100%. At any rate, it's apparent I'm not a Hovind fan. He has the right to have his beliefs, as we all do. I find it unacceptable to personally-attack people in debates and otherwise, even if and when people I agree with do it.
Thanx for your reply, Robin,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Rick,
I pray your friendship will be restored. As Christians I think we can disagree on these matters without breaking fellowship.
Rich you said the fallowing about Dr. Hovind:
Again, I will pray for you friendship to be healed.
Robin
My friend who recommended Hovind to me a few weeks ago is a big fan of his. So I went and studied him out and found I don't believe in some of his theology. I told my friend this and our friendship has been pretty strained ever since. I have asked that we not discuss Hovind but my friend keeps bringing him up. Our differences in this matter seem to be irreconcilable. Whether it will lead to "dis-fellowship" or not...I don't know.
I pray your friendship will be restored. As Christians I think we can disagree on these matters without breaking fellowship.
Rich you said the fallowing about Dr. Hovind:
Then you said this about people who attend Mr. Ross's lectures:Hovind, by insisting that a literal six-day Creation is very important appears to agree with the Darwinians that you cannot be a Christian if you don't accept the literal six-day interpretation. But becoming or being a Christian has nothing to do with accepting any particular view of Creation.
I would say that you statement in regards to Hugh Ross is exactly what Dr. Hovind is concerned about. Not that people necessarily believe Hugh Ross's view, but that they don't believe the bible is reliable because of science. It is my view that science can and does point to a young earth and allows Christians to take a literal view of the creation story in Genesis. Regardless I am glad people have found Christ through Mr. Ross's ministry.In one Ross lecture I recently listened to he told about how so many people have come to Christ through his ministry, saying things like, "I didn't know how much science pointed to a Creator. I believe in God now!"..."
Again, I will pray for you friendship to be healed.
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
hugh ross, to my knowledge, never elevates science over scripture. where the two seem to conflict, he says, is due to our misinterpretation of either the science or the bible. in other words, the two MUST be consistent.
TK
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Hi TK,
1. Hugh Ross believes Life existed for billions of years on earth before Adam and Eve were created. Genesis 1:24-31 says that God created the living creatures and Man on the same day.
2. Hugh teaches a local flood and not a global flood. His point would be impossible to teach from scripture and difficult to teach from a scientific point of view as well.
3. Hugh believes that the flood did not affect the animals that were not in the region. Except the bible tell us differently.
Genesis 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
4. The bible teaches that the stars were created on the 4th day, after the earth, but Hugh say they were created first, and only became visible from earth on the 4th creation day.
Hugh Ross may have good intentions, but it seems to me that he attempts to make scripture fit his scientific views.
Robin
I just wanted to point out a couple of areas where I thing Hugh Ross departs from biblical teaching.Hugh Ross, to my knowledge, never elevates science over scripture. Where the two seem to conflict, he says, is due to our misinterpretation of either the science or the bible. In other words, the two MUST be consistent.
1. Hugh Ross believes Life existed for billions of years on earth before Adam and Eve were created. Genesis 1:24-31 says that God created the living creatures and Man on the same day.
2. Hugh teaches a local flood and not a global flood. His point would be impossible to teach from scripture and difficult to teach from a scientific point of view as well.
3. Hugh believes that the flood did not affect the animals that were not in the region. Except the bible tell us differently.
Genesis 7:23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
4. The bible teaches that the stars were created on the 4th day, after the earth, but Hugh say they were created first, and only became visible from earth on the 4th creation day.
Hugh Ross may have good intentions, but it seems to me that he attempts to make scripture fit his scientific views.
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
God Bless
Robin,
As far as folks coming to Christ through Ross's or Hovinds teachings; let me take a hypothetical approach. Though I'm not a Calvinist by any means; could it be that God, in His Sovereign Foreknowledge and Election, "leads" some people to Ross and some to Hovind? He certainly could if He wanted to. But this is pure speculation and off-topic for the thread. And I'm starting to sound too Calvinistic for my own liking, even, lol.
Thanks Robin,
Rick
Thank you very much, Robin.I pray your friendship will be restored. As Christians I think we can disagree on these matters without breaking fellowship.
I don't want to contest your view. I will say it is one of several legitimate options, imo.I would say that you statement in regards to Hugh Ross is exactly what Dr. Hovind is concerned about. Not that people necessarily believe Hugh Ross's view, but that they don't believe the bible is reliable because of science. It is my view that science can and does point to a young earth and allows Christians to take a literal view of the creation story in Genesis. Regardless I am glad people have found Christ through Mr. Ross's ministry.
As far as folks coming to Christ through Ross's or Hovinds teachings; let me take a hypothetical approach. Though I'm not a Calvinist by any means; could it be that God, in His Sovereign Foreknowledge and Election, "leads" some people to Ross and some to Hovind? He certainly could if He wanted to. But this is pure speculation and off-topic for the thread. And I'm starting to sound too Calvinistic for my own liking, even, lol.
Thanks Robin,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
hi robin--
i agree that hugh ross at least appears to depart from scripture in the examples you gave. i dont have his book handy, but i am sure he has logical explanations for the points you raised. he certainly wouldnt say that scritpure is wrong! he would simply differ on the interpretation, which he explains at length in various articles and books that are too complex to go into here.
i am yet undecided on the issue; quite frankly i dont really care one way or the other because i dont think it matters at all in the way we shoud live as christians. to me, it's just a fun thing to talk about. and it's a real mystery, to me at least. but i am finding it extremely extremely extremely difficult to accept that the earth is only 6000 years old. science may be wrong, but can it be that wrong?
TK
i agree that hugh ross at least appears to depart from scripture in the examples you gave. i dont have his book handy, but i am sure he has logical explanations for the points you raised. he certainly wouldnt say that scritpure is wrong! he would simply differ on the interpretation, which he explains at length in various articles and books that are too complex to go into here.
i am yet undecided on the issue; quite frankly i dont really care one way or the other because i dont think it matters at all in the way we shoud live as christians. to me, it's just a fun thing to talk about. and it's a real mystery, to me at least. but i am finding it extremely extremely extremely difficult to accept that the earth is only 6000 years old. science may be wrong, but can it be that wrong?
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)