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)
I asked if you had a better theory. Would you please put it forward before testing ‘mine’ any further?
I think we both think quite differently about that story.
There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950). - See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings#sthash.1XhxXjYk.dpuf http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings
I'm done with this conversation.
You’re getting hung up on the word generations thinking it means great time periods. The Hebrew there can be translated as:
A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day, just a time period that might be any length of time.
As I said before I do not know I am just guessing, for lack of any thing else to use.
You may be right but until some one proves to me that God made the world in six literal days I will be convinced it took thousands of years.
And no one has to convince me of the crazy evolutionist scientists, they are just like the man made global warming scientists, a bunch of shysters.
I don`t believe in the big bang theory and come to think of I don`t even believe in the so called fossil fuel.
Two things...the greek used in the KJV is not from the oldest texts that we have. I would suggest either a greek interlinear or the New American Standard translation. The NASB is the closest to a word for word translation we have outside of the interlinear.
In Genesis 1, where the word day is joined with an ordinal number it is always translated in the Hebrew as a literal 24 hour day. It is used consistently that way throughout the Old Testament.
The concept here is to let the Bible interpret the Bible. If a word is used in one form in a passage and the same way in another passage, the word can be understood to have the same meaning.
If you're serious about exploring this topic more, I would recommend gotquestions.org. They have very good summaries about creation, was it a 24 hour day, etc.
Good chatting with you.
Of course you’re “done”, because once again you’ve FAILED to answer the most basic questions.
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.
Two things...the greek used in the KJV is not from the oldest texts that we have.
And also good to chat with you.
Well, if you didn’t know the two examples of the pope speaking ex cathedra.......I don’t think you’re one to lecture anyone.
What makes you believe I wasn’t aware of those 2 examples?
I simply said there have been others.
Genesis
6 literal days of creation
about 4000 years ago
too bad for your limited resources:
Papal infallibility has been exercised far more than two times. In fact, it had been used many times prior to 1870, when it was defined by the First Vatican Council. This was the clear understanding of the council, as shown–for example–by reading the later Archbishop Gasser’s relatio to the council fathers. This was a briefing given to the bishops at Vatican I to ensure a common understanding of the proposals regarding papal infallibility they were voting on. It is reprinted in the excellent book The Gift of Infallibility (which is the best book on the subject), and in the course of the relatio, Gasser alludes to the numerous times papal infallibility had been used before the Council.
Papal infallibility continues to be widely used. In fact, the current pontiff has used it more than any of his predecessors. The reason is that papal canonizations of saints are infallible.
I take Genesis very seriously too. As I said 15,000,000,000 = 6000 years if it’s looked at relativistically.
But yours is but a statement. Where did the heavy nuclei in the universe come from? God just made stuff up to bamboozle us? I think He’s more consistent than that.
And all these years,I always thought freepers hated relativism?
Exactly. God created the universe around 14 billion years ago, as all of the available evidence tells us. To believe, despite the evidence, that the whole universe was created only 6,000 years ago is to believe that God lies to us--and I do not believe that. When people speak of the Prince of Lies, they are *not* talking of God.
There’s a difference.
Maybe, but it’s still relative
I think it would depend on the density of the medium. After the first few seconds of the creation event the earliest elements, Hydrogen, Helium and likely Lithium would not have had their orbitals filled with electrons yet, and hence would seem to have been in a very dense plasma state in which I can only imagine a roar greater than any ever heard, anywhere.
I have a real problem with trying to do mental gymnastics in that manner to try to make Genesis a literal account when it clearly is not. It is very clear from Genesis that Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only two children at the time that Cain murdered Abel. It is also very clear that Eve only had her third child (another boy) after Cain was banished. There is also the fact that Adam and Eve, supposedly the first two humans (in a literal creation), only had sons, yet somehow those sons obtained wives. Any other interpretation of Genesis is diverging from the literal text.
Once you start to creatively interpret Genesis so as to try to believe it literally, you are, in fact, acknowledging that Genesis is *not* a literal account. And once you have acknowledged that, why not just accept that the scientific evidence that we scientists have been recording about God's creation is accurate, instead of performing yet more mental gymnastics to try to dismiss our observations in order to support a "literal" view of the Genesis creation stories?
If you accept that the purpose of the Genesis stories is to teach us morality, then there is no conflict between the scientific observations and religion. If you view Adam not as the first human, but as the first person to whom God revealed Himself (making him the first "born-again" person), then there is still no conflict. I'm not Catholic, but the fact that the Pope says there is no conflict between science and religion still means something.
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.