Posted on 05/16/2014 12:34:41 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Young earth creationist Ken Ham lashed out at televangelist Pat Robertson over his claim earlier this week that someone has to be “deaf, dumb and blind” to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, accusing Robertson of compromising “the Word of God.”
“Pat Robertson illustrates one of the biggest problems we have today in the church — people like Robertson compromise the Word of God with the pagan ideas of fallible men!,” Ham wrote on his Facebook page. “Pat Robertson is not upholding the Word of God with his ridiculous statements — he is undermining the authority of the Word. And any attack on the WORD is an attack on the person of Jesus Christ, who IS THE WORD!”
Ham, who runs Answers in Genesis, a Christian ministry that takes the Bible’s Genesis account of creation literally, broke down the comments Robertson made on CBN’s “The 700 Club” earlier this week in a point-by-point analysis.
In addition to accusing Roberson of expressing “his utter ignorance of science,” Ham wrote that the televangelist “makes Christianity look silly.”
But Ham took particular exception to Robertson’s claim that there is no way that the Earth could have possibly come to fruition in such a short time span.
“Really Pat Robertson? You mean there is no way God, the infinite Creator, could not have created the universe in six days just six thousand years ago?,” Ham rhetorically asked. “God could have created everything in six seconds if He wanted [to]! And it’s not a matter of what you think anyway — it’s a matter of what God has clearly told us in His infallible WORD!”
As TheBlaze previously reported, Robertson unleashed his critiques on young earth creationists Tuesday, saying that they are mistaken in their views about the age of the planet.
“The truth is, you have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this Earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence, it just doesn’t, I’m sorry,” Robertson said.
He added, “I think what we’re looking at is that there was a point of time after the Earth was created, after these things were done, after the universe was formed, after the asteroid hit the Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs — after that, there was a point of time that there was a particular human being that God touched — and that was the human that started the race that we are now part of.”
Watch Robertson’s comments below:
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
It was upon this confession, that Christ was the Son of the Living God, that Jesus would build His church upon.
Not a falliable man as in Peter.
You have no concept of “context”.
In first century Greek, petros and petra did not mean “small stone” and “large rock.” As D. A. Carson points out in his commentary on Matthew in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, the terms did have those meanings in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century, this distinction was gone and the two were synonyms (EBC 8:368).
Furthermore, “the Aramaic kepa, which underlies the Greek, means ‘(massive) rock’” (EBC 8:367), not “small stone.”
Even supposing, contrary to the linguistic evidence, that the two terms should be read as “small stone” and “large rock,” this does not mean Jesus is diminishing Peter in the statement. The anti-Petrine argument assumes that, if there is a difference in the two terms, there must be antithetic parallelism between the statement about Peter and the statement about the rock. I.e., that Jesus is diminishing Peter by contrasting him with the rock: “I tell you Peter, you are a very small stone, but on the great rock of my identity, I will build my Church.”
However, the assumption that the parallelism is antithetic is merely an assumption with no proof. It can just as easily be synthetic, so that the statement about the rock expands on the statement about Peter: “I tell you Peter, you may look like a small stone now, but on the great rock you truly are, I will build my Church.”
The whole point of the passage is that Peter had confessed that Christ was the Son of the Living God.
It was upon that confession that Christ would build the church.
Do people come to faith in Peter or in Christ?
If you do a study of the word Rock you will find it refers to Christ or God in both OT and NT....not Peter as much as catholic "tradition" says.
Which illustrates my point about letting the Bible interpret the Bible and not man-made tradition.
What about the cave paintings in Spain that are estmated to be ove 40,000 years old? Who painted those?
The point of this passage is that BECAUSE Peter confessed Christ as the Son of God, Christ was asserting the God the Father had chosen Peter to make this revelation to.
YOU are the one who refuses to “study” the meaning of “Rock” in this passage.
Peter is the principal Subject of each of these 3 assertions made by Christ:
17 “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,
You have NEVER aster my question as to the meaning of Mt. 19.
What is the purpose of this statement by Christ?
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
prove it happened a billion years ago first
all you have is a theory, not a fact
You cant even account for the light from that star to the earth being a pinpoint of light as it is, after travelling that far, over that time period, how does it stay so focused and pinpoint? and not diffuse over matter?
If you will do a simple word study of the word Rock in the entirety of the Bible you will see that it refers to God or Christ...never Peter.
To your question on the keys:
The biblical passage that makes reference to the “keys of the kingdom” is Matthew 16:19. Jesus had asked His disciples who people thought He was. After responding with several of the more popular opinions, Jesus aimed His question directly at His disciples. Peter, responding for the twelve, acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God. After this great confession, Jesus replied:
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:17-19).
Keys are used to lock or unlock doors. The specific doors Jesus has in mind in this passage are the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is laying the foundation of His church (Ephesians 2:20). The disciples will be the leaders of this new institution called the church, and Jesus is giving them the authority to either grant or bar access to the Kingdom. The authority of the keys is to open and shut the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven. Precisely how do the keys to the kingdom work? Biblically speaking, how does one enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
Jesus tells us that unless one is born again, he will not see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3). One is born again as the Holy Spirit works through the Word of God to bring about new life in dead sinners. So the faithful preaching of the gospel is one of the keys to the kingdom. The other key is church discipline. In Matthew 18:15-20, Jesus gives us the guidelines for church discipline. He specifically mentions in that passage the same “binding and loosing” language we find in Matthew 16. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul urges the Corinthian church to ex-communicate the man caught in adultery. Church discipline was considered by the Protestant Reformers as one of the marks of a true church (along with the preaching of the pure gospel and the administration of the sacraments).
Both of these keys—the preaching of the gospel and church discipline—function in opening and closing the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven. Through the preaching the gospel, those who respond in faith and repentance are allowed access to the Kingdom of Heaven; yet those who continue to harden their hearts and reject the gospel of God’s saving grace are shut out of the Kingdom. Similarly, through church discipline, the person who is caught in sin and remains unrepentant is barred access to the means of grace—the Word, the sacraments and fellowship with the community of believers. However, if the sinner repents, he or she can be allowed back into church and given access to all the means of grace therein.
So, the keys to the kingdom are the preaching of the gospel and the exercise of church discipline. When these are rightly administered, i.e., in a biblical church with duly appointed elders, access to the Kingdom of Heaven is ably guarded. However, when the keys are not used correctly through obscuring the message of the gospel or the lack of exercising church discipline, the results are disastrous. Consider Jesus’ warning to the Pharisees: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in” (Matthew 23:13). If the gospel message is distorted or ignored, or if unrepentant sin is not adequately disciplined, the doors to the Kingdom of Heaven are being shut in people’s faces. When either of these two things occur, people in the church are either believing in a false gospel or they have not truly repented of their sin. In both cases the result is weeds growing in the wheat field of the church (Matthew 13:24-30).
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/keys-of-the-kingdom.html#ixzz31zqn39gq
But then it goes on to say
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.>>>
But they obviously had not happened because there was no man to till the ground.
Ch 2
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
God had already created both man and woman so why would he take a rib out of Adam to make a women if the men and women he had created had been fully developed?
I don`t know and am not saying you are wrong, just an idea but there is no scripture which says God made Adam on the sixth day, that is just an assumption.
You may note that it says
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens
We could argue that God made the earth and the heavens in one day instead of six days but I happen to believe it took millions of years.
But then it goes on to say
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.>>>
But they obviously had not happened because there was no man to till the ground.
Ch 2
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
God had already created both man and woman so why would he take a rib out of Adam to make a women if the men and women he had created had been fully developed?
I don`t know and am not saying you are wrong, just an idea but there is no scripture which says God made Adam on the sixth day, that is just an assumption.
You may note that it says
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens
We could argue that God made the earth and the heavens in one day instead of six days but I happen to believe it took millions of years.
He is giving PETER the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
And with them the AUTHORITY to bind and lose on earth!
The point here is that Christ is conferring this authority on Peter, assuring him that his decisions will be guided by the Holy Spirit.
So that when man is uncertain as to the meaning of Scripture, they will be able to look to Peter for the correct understanding.
Skip to Genesis 1:31 where is says there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Man was made on the sixth day.
Kinda hard that now what with Peter not being present any longer.
The word translated “generations” also figuratively refers to the “history” of Adam. In the context of Gen 2:4 and Gen 5:2 describing Creation, we are safe to understand His Word as He presents it in a literal sense. Also reading the rest of Gen 2 in context manifests a communication of Creation, rather than a series of transformations.
I have some problem with what some people calls literal, to some six 24 hour days is literal to me generations make much more sense to be called literal.
The other problem I have which i did not go into detail with you in my other comment is that the sons of God marrying unto the daughters of men, if the sons of God are not Adams descendants then who are they?
I have heard many people or most for that matter say that the sons of God were angels who married unto the daughters of men.
But i doubt that very much because Jesus tells us in Matt 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
This does not absolutely say but it looks like angels do not marry.
God alone knows what happened and how long it took, I sure don`t.
That is why the whole point of Papal succession is so important.
Christ’s words were not meant to die with Peter.
1) the account (New American Standard)
2) the generations (King James Version)
3) the account (Hebrew Interlinear)
The issue of how long it took God to create the universe and earth, etc comes from one of two viewpoints.
The Christian viewpoint is that the Bible is God's authoritative word and that Genesis 1 gives us the account of how and how long it took God to create the universe.
Science attempts to explain this but they leave out the possibility that God created. It is assumed in science that all this just happened.
If you google big bang or origins of life on earth you'll get a lot of theories on how we got here.
The big bang model incorporates assumptions to make it work. Take those assumptions out and the model falls apart and you're back to square one....how did we get here.
To believe all of this came into existence without God requires one to believe the following:
1) Something comes from nothing
2) Life comes from lifelessness
Which requires greater faith....believing In the beginning God, or the latter two choices?
I see,...sort of like eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I think we both know where that leads.
And the pope has only spoken twice ex cathedra and these have involved Mary. Pope Pius IX’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in 1854 and Pope Pius XII’s definition of the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in 1950.
The whole issue of the papacy is up for debate outside of the catholic church as there isn't any Biblical support for the succession of the disciples and only the disciples having the authority to proclaim the correct meaning of the Gospel....
We have too many accounts in the New Testament where ordinary people outside of the disciples shared the Gospel with others. Were they in error? Hardly.
Do I need someone to interpret John 3:16 for me? No. It's abundantly clear what the text is saying. Same for the rest of the New Testament. God makes His Word understandable for people to come to know Him and have a relationship with Him.
The history of the papacy and the abuses that have occurred under their hand, and that still continue with the pedophiles in the priesthood, shows that God would not build his kingdom upon very fallible men, but rather the confession Peter made when he said that Christ was the Son of the Living God.
This last truth has stood the test of time, it has not changed, nor will it change. Christ is not corruptible as man is. He has never sinned as man has.
It was Christ that was called the cornerstone....not Peter or any other disciple.
It is Christ who was sacrificed for our sins....not Peter or any other disciple.
It is all about Christ, plain and simple.
If I understand you correctly, you are of the "6000 year school". I'm not necessarily opposed to that if that figure is plotted against the "relativity" that would have slowed time down in the overall gravitational field of the universe from Day 1 to Day 6. In this sense, both scenarios work for me.
Though that the universe had this expansion would have provided the billions of years necessary to fuse the heavier elements through earlier generations of stars.
It appears to me that this is how God willed it. If you have a better theory as to how this came to be, I'm all screen.
Insofar as starlight is concerned, consider the Sirius system. This lies close enough to our solar system for the to be measured by 'triangulation' from one side of the Sun to the other, which gives us a "standard candle" relating to the cosmic distance scale. Knowing this luminosity, we can plot the distance to a similar star that may be some further distance out which is not subject to triangulation. Some of the light is scattered, but in such a sense to long be invisible to us over such distance scales. What we do see though is the source as a "pinpoint", at least insofar as it's close enough to see, mainly stars in our own galaxy. Though through Hubble and other orbiting telescopes, we can see galaxies very far away, yet recognize stellar sources therein as if they were just a few hundred lightyears.
As I asked though: Anything better?
Then, in your view, you must explain why we have a week
a week
there is zero cosmological explanation for a 7 day week
In the 10 commandments, a week is demanded to be recognized
where did it come from?
Genesis
Your version is an undetermined period of time
Look up what was created on what day of the week in Genesis
then tell me how we had plant life for an undetermined period of time without a Sun
You’re flat wrong about the frequency of the Pope speaking ex cathedra.
There have been several heresies denounced via such pronouncements.
Papal succession is but one example of the Authority vested in Peter, via the promise that “Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.”
Your clarity on a single passage is hardly evidence that you need no guidance on the vast remainder of Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.