Evolution of Plants
- Mastermind
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm
- Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Err... but you act as though I'd disagree with your words about how Adam was created and so forth. I don't see how such has anything to do with YEC or OEC as both generally agree with the things you wrote. As for Ankerberg, I never ever brought him up except as one of very many scholarly Christians who embrace the Day-Age interpretation in some way. Whether you believe Ankerberg holds much water or not, I really don't care as I haven't been arguing for them and I've presented many other respectable Evangelical Christians.CountryBoy wrote:Just read my words, I'm not trying to cleverly hide meaning in the text.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
- Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Additionally, if you read this passage within context rather than just reading the verse on its own, it will become obvious it has absolutely nothing to do with Christians debating differing positions. Rather it is talking about salvation via Christ's life, death and resurrection being foolishness to the world; yet, God still chose such foolishness to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:27)CountryBoy wrote:1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
- Established Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:14 am
- Christian: No
Kurieuo,
Do you even read your own links or do you just randomly post them. One of your links, http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/Nota ... inists.htm
contained as the firts OE'er, John Ankerberk with many of his OE arguments. You haven't understood a single post of mine because you apparently never read your link to begin with.
So, do me a favor, read your link, at least the arguments that Ankerberg wrote, then go back and read all of our posts and see if they start to make sense.
CB
Do you even read your own links or do you just randomly post them. One of your links, http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/Nota ... inists.htm
contained as the firts OE'er, John Ankerberk with many of his OE arguments. You haven't understood a single post of mine because you apparently never read your link to begin with.
So, do me a favor, read your link, at least the arguments that Ankerberg wrote, then go back and read all of our posts and see if they start to make sense.
CB
- Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
CB, didn't I make clear that the point of my original post was only to cite respectable Christians who embrace the Day-Age position?
Now for some reason you seem to think some unnamed AiG associate familiar with Hebrew has credibility. I just weighed in with names of many others who advocate the OEC Day-Age position, and of whom most or all hold to Biblical inerrancy. Infact this interpretation has been observed by the evangelical International Council of Biblical Inerrancy as acceptable. If this organisation is unfamiliar to you, the ICBI are in their own words, "a united effort of theologians and Christian leaders from many denominations to clarify and reaffirm historic, biblical doctrines that are presently being confused, undermined or replaced with false teaching or outright heresy." (http://www.churchcouncil.org/)
At the second summit of the ICBI, the issue of the age of the universe and earth was on the agenda. Several papers were presented and after long deliberations, the conclusion of all the theologians and Old Testament scholars present was that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not in 24-hour creation days. Dr. James Sawyer of Western Seminary pointed out that when the ICBI was formed in 1978, "the founding membership held over 30 discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis 1. Only one of these positions involved a 6-day recent creation.” Apparently, most of those on the council felt that the book of God's words did not demand that the days of creation be considered standard 24-hour days." (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1818)
Now despite the words of the unnamed scholar AiG quote, many have read the Bible (including myself) and come to the conclusion void of any outside influences that the creation days are older than a 24 hour days. Infact many early Christian Fathers who allowed for days being longer periods of time than 24 hours (this long before modern Science!). Anyway you can continue trying to take jibe and jeer me if you so desire, but I'd prefer to avoid such things.
Kurieuo.
Now for some reason you seem to think some unnamed AiG associate familiar with Hebrew has credibility. I just weighed in with names of many others who advocate the OEC Day-Age position, and of whom most or all hold to Biblical inerrancy. Infact this interpretation has been observed by the evangelical International Council of Biblical Inerrancy as acceptable. If this organisation is unfamiliar to you, the ICBI are in their own words, "a united effort of theologians and Christian leaders from many denominations to clarify and reaffirm historic, biblical doctrines that are presently being confused, undermined or replaced with false teaching or outright heresy." (http://www.churchcouncil.org/)
At the second summit of the ICBI, the issue of the age of the universe and earth was on the agenda. Several papers were presented and after long deliberations, the conclusion of all the theologians and Old Testament scholars present was that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not in 24-hour creation days. Dr. James Sawyer of Western Seminary pointed out that when the ICBI was formed in 1978, "the founding membership held over 30 discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis 1. Only one of these positions involved a 6-day recent creation.” Apparently, most of those on the council felt that the book of God's words did not demand that the days of creation be considered standard 24-hour days." (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1818)
Now despite the words of the unnamed scholar AiG quote, many have read the Bible (including myself) and come to the conclusion void of any outside influences that the creation days are older than a 24 hour days. Infact many early Christian Fathers who allowed for days being longer periods of time than 24 hours (this long before modern Science!). Anyway you can continue trying to take jibe and jeer me if you so desire, but I'd prefer to avoid such things.
Kurieuo.
Last edited by Kurieuo on Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
- Mastermind
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm
On a personal note, I have always believed the Earth was millions of years old (under my fundy grandmother's influence nevertheless) until I came to North America and ran into Protestants. Never once did I get the idea that the Earth was only a few thousand years old from the bible.
Are you threatening me Master Skeptic?
-
- Established Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:14 am
- Christian: No