Ken Ham question.

[Just Dave]

Incorrect. However, off the topic. Start a thread on the topic of creation and then we can have a discussion.

This thread went off the rails right after my OP

[Sailormilan2]

I read the article in the link, and I'm not sure I agree with. But then, that is my opinion.

[Just Dave]

I read the article in the link, and I'm not sure I agree with. But then, that is my opinion.

[Sailormilan2]

Just Dave, I agree with your comment. But my opinion is that if God did not want polygamy, then He should have said that at Sinai. He gave somewhere around 630 "That shalt not,/Don't do its" at Sinai, it wouldn't have been very difficult to add one more. Thou shalt have only one wife. That is not ambiguous. To say that the pattern was set at Creation because He only made one if each doesn't seem right.
Most people who believe in Polygamy do so because there is no absolute command against it in the Bible. Even the New Testament only says Bishops and Deacons should have only one wife. If it is supposed to be wrong, there should be a clear statement to that fact. Not an implication because only two were created.
But I do agree with his statement that the Court's changing of the rules regarding "Gay Marriage" opened the door for polygamy. Rightly or wrongly.

Personally, I can't handle more than one. I couldn't handle one right.

[Dezrat]

Just Dave, I agree with your comment. But my opinion is that if God did not want polygamy, then He should have said that at Sinai. He gave somewhere around 630 "That shalt not,/Don't do its" at Sinai, it wouldn't have been very difficult to add one more. Thou shalt have only one wife. That is not ambiguous. To say that the pattern was set at Creation because He only made one if each doesn't seem right.
Personally, I can't handle more than one. I couldn't handle one right.

God never said at Sinai "Thou shalt not slam your own foreheads with Hammers" either, but.....

[Dezrat]

He asks the question.
"Those who reject God’s Word as the absolute authority have to live inconsistently in this world. If there is no absolute authority, then who draws the lines in regard to moral issues—and why?"

A lot of people believe in the Bible, they just take issue with a good part of the verses...

[ThePatriot]

Ken Ham is a young-earth cultist who has co-equated his own interpretation of the Genesis narrative with the gospel message, in essence he is preaching a false religion. So far as his young earth message goes his version of the past is either an intentional effort to delude people into investing in his cult or is the result of a mind deranged by a philosophical pre-commitment to a narrative that is essentially unbiblical and wholly divorced from reality. The fact is that you cannot both have a commitment to truth and share his position because his stance demands that you accept a conclusion that is not only unbacked by any facts but is wholly refuted by all established knowledge. I have an extensive library of young-earth documents and draw my conclusion from first hand study. Ken Ham is either a madman or a fraud, either way he is not worth listening to, unless you want to study him for the sake of understanding the self-deluded.

[Sailormilan2]

God never said at Sinai "Thou shalt not slam your own foreheads with Hammers" either, but.....

Sigh.

[eb47]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...1&version=NKJV

v3 So the evening and the morning were the first day.

v8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

v13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

v19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

v23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

v31 So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Chapter 2 is a recap with added detail.

These scriptures that you are referring to are before the creation man. Also, I do not recall time being recorded until leaving the garden.

[Not a Cook]

Ken Ham is a young-earth cultist who has co-equated his own interpretation of the Genesis narrative with the gospel message, in essence he is preaching a false religion. So far as his young earth message goes his version of the past is either an intentional effort to delude people into investing in his cult or is the result of a mind deranged by a philosophical pre-commitment to a narrative that is essentially unbiblical and wholly divorced from reality. The fact is that you cannot both have a commitment to truth and share his position because his stance demands that you accept a conclusion that is not only unbacked by any facts but is wholly refuted by all established knowledge. I have an extensive library of young-earth documents and draw my conclusion from first hand study. Ken Ham is either a madman or a fraud, either way he is not worth listening to, unless you want to study him for the sake of understanding the self-deluded.

Hmm... "cultist"... "in essence he is preaching a false religion"... "unbacked by any facts but is wholly refuted by all established knowledge"... "self-deluded"?

I don't need to defend Mr. Ham, but accusations such as those you just made are no small matter. Principles such as those from 1 Timothy 5:19 come to mind. If someone here cares to open another thread specifically dealing with "YEC" I'll be happy to deal with "the nitty gritty", but suffice it to say "YEC" squares nicely with observed natural phenomena.

[Not a Cook]

These scriptures that you are referring to are before the creation man. Also, I do not recall time being recorded until leaving the garden.

Did you miss the pattern of, "... so the evening and the morning were the X (wherein "X" is the variable) day"?

If the "Your book" of Psalm 139:16 is the same as the Book of Life, then it does appear that God recorded time even before man was created. Consider:

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.. Revelation 13:8 (NKJV) (Note: "from the foundation of the world" predates the creation of man.)

And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
Psalm 139:16b (NASB)

[Not a Cook]

Incorrect. However, off the topic. Start a thread on the topic of creation and then we can have a discussion.

If someone else cares to start such a topic, I'd be happy to participate (someone please feel free to PM me to alert me if such a thread is posted as I sometimes miss threads for a while). That said, in years of teaching on the topic I've yet to run across anyone who has been able to present an old Earth understanding that derives from an exegesis of the Scriptures.

[ThePatriot]

Hmm... "cultist"... "in essence he is preaching a false religion"... "unbacked by any facts but is wholly refuted by all established knowledge"... "self-deluded"?

I don't need to defend Mr. Ham, but accusations such as those you just made are no small matter. Principles such as those from 1 Timothy 5:19 come to mind. If someone here cares to open another thread specifically dealing with "YEC" I'll be happy to deal with "the nitty gritty", but suffice it to say "YEC" squares nicely with observed natural phenomena.

I am specifically referring to Ken Ham in my comment, based upon extensive knowledge of his works and over 20 years as a professional in the earth sciences. YEC "science" in general has its own fatal flaws but the topic here is Ken Ham so my comments are limited to his own record. I agree this is no small matter, which is why I made my position on his propaganda very very clear.

[Just Dave]

I am specifically referring to Ken Ham in my comment, based upon extensive knowledge of his works and over 20 years as a professional in the earth sciences. YEC "science" in general has its own fatal flaws but the topic here is Ken Ham so my comments are limited to his own record. I agree this is no small matter, which is why I made my position on his propaganda very very clear.

What would make you so sure of the earth being so old?

[TomMcC]

Ran into this this morning I thought it make for some good discussion.



https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/k...paign=20150926

Ken's right of course and just building upon Jesus' words in Matt 7:25-27. The relativist may or may not live what is a "moral" life, but he can never justify that "morality" because he has no fixed and righteous reference point.....he has no "Rock".