Hugh Ross and Creation

[Yeshua1]

[/I]
I'm not sure what you were pointing at the site you posted that proves your point.

Perhaps it's a lack of knowledge on your part as to what theistic evolution is.

Simply put - Hugh Ross does not support theistic evolution.
He is a progressive creationist.

The two theories are fundamentally different - until you understand this you're lost in a haze of ignorance.

Rob

Theistic evolutionists see God as original creator of universe, and of life, but that he used evolutionary process after that event to make life forms develope and go foward into different species...

progressive creationists much better, in seeing God still creating all species/kinds, an man as a divine act, but do err in attempting to keep evolutionary fdating/aging, as that would force death to occur before the fall!

they seem to try to accomodate together scientic 'facts' and the bible, but the literal reading and unserstanding of the texts do not allow for that!

 

[Yeshua1]

False dichotomy.

Science is knowledge. If knowledge is opposite the Bible then the Bible is not true.

The fact of the matter is that no one should take the Bible over science nor science over the Bible.

ALL TRUTH IS GOD'S TRUTH.

Science and scripture are only enemies in a moron's world.

In the real world they are bosom buddies.

Scientists can misinterpret the science- but only a fool would say that you should take the Bible over real science.

There is nothing in the Bible that teaches that the universe is thousands, not billions of years old. Period.

There is not a verse of Scripture in the entire Bible that says, "Thus saith the Lord, the Earth is 6,750 years old and anyone who says otherwise is a liberal."

There's not.

It's not in there.

Young Earth Creationists who pretend it is are committing the sin of misrepresenting the Word of God.

Would say that progressive creationism, and Young earth creationism are both viable options to hold, just that the bible better supprts younger dates, NOT 6000 years necessarily, but nowhere nears millions, much less billions of years!

but theistic evolution is NOT a viable option for those holding to an infallible bible, intepreted in a literal fashion!

 

[Van]

[/I]

Perhaps it's a lack of knowledge on your part as to what theistic evolution is.

Simply put - Hugh Ross does not support theistic evolution.
He is a progressive creationist.

The two theories are fundamentally different - until you understand this you're lost in a haze of ignorance.

Rob

This haze of ignorance seems to envelop the meaning of "theistic evolution." Is the term limited to God acting within the Darwinian model? Nope. Any scientific model of origins, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, what have you, that is imbued with the hidden hand of God, acting with gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, is a form of theistic evolution.

Here is an off the shelf definition:

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism is the view that religious teachings about God are compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

 

[Yeshua1]

This haze of ignorance seems to envelop the meaning of "theistic evolution." Is the term limited to God acting within the Darwinian model? Nope. Any scientific model of origins, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, what have you, that is imbued with the hidden hand of God, acting with gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, is a form of theistic evolution.

Here is an off the shelf definition:

Modern scientific evolution though is NOT able to mesh with the bible, for the texts do NOT support it!

 

[Deacon]

This haze of ignorance seems to envelop the meaning of "theistic evolution." Is the term limited to God acting within the Darwinian model? Nope. Any scientific model of origins, Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, what have you, that is imbued with the hidden hand of God, acting with gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, is a form of theistic evolution.

Here is an off the shelf definition:Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism is the view that religious teachings about God are compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

Once again, understand that Hugh Ross is a literalist that doesn't support theistic evolution.
He would disagree with the definition above.
He WOULD agree that our scriptures should be compatible with nature - but gosh, so do the modern 6 day creationists

He realizes that both our understanding of scripture is fallible (theology)
...and our understanding of nature is fallible (science).

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

Once again, understand that Hugh Ross is a literalist that doesn't support theistic evolution.
He would disagree with the definition above.
He WOULD agree that our scriptures should be compatible with nature - but gosh, so do the modern 6 day creationists

He realizes that both our understanding of scripture is fallible (theology)
...and our understanding of nature is fallible (science).

Rob

We can hold to either progreesive creationism/young earth creationism as both viable by scriptures, but NOT theistic evolution!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

[/I]I'm not sure what you were pointing at the site you posted that proves your point.

I'm pointing you to the fact that Ross is executive director of a "ministry" that supports and promotes theistic evolution, regardless of what different name he wants to put on it.

Perhaps it's a lack of knowledge on your part as to what theistic evolution is.

I believe that would more accurately describe your opinion of what it is, given that you deny a man who refuses to call himself a theistic evolutionist embraces theistic evolution.

Simply put - Hugh Ross does not support theistic evolution.

Nonsense.

He is a progressive creationist.

Which is nothing more than another term for theistic evolution. The only difference is that so-called "progressive creationists" claim to see God as continually intervening in His creation, but irrationally suggest that He directs a slow, impossible process whereas He Himself has said that He spoke the universe into existence. "Progressive creationism" is nothing more than theistic evolution in a different pretty package that still fails to adequately embrace biblical truth. They are, in essence, preaching the same thing, regardless of what they claim are differences.

 

[Deacon]

Well you've proved to me that thisnumbersdisconnected.

Rob :love2:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Well you've proved to me that thisnumbersdisconnected.

Rob :love2:

Or you could try to prove to me that "progressive creationism" isn't theistic evolution tied up in a different bow. Pity you didn't choose to do that. :love2:

 

[Don]

False dichotomy.

Science is knowledge. If knowledge is opposite the Bible then the Bible is not true.

The fact of the matter is that no one should take the Bible over science nor science over the Bible.

ALL TRUTH IS GOD'S TRUTH.

Science and scripture are only enemies in a moron's world.

In the real world they are bosom buddies.

Scientists can misinterpret the science- but only a fool would say that you should take the Bible over real science.

There is nothing in the Bible that teaches that the universe is thousands, not billions of years old. Period.

There is not a verse of Scripture in the entire Bible that says, "Thus saith the Lord, the Earth is 6,750 years old and anyone who says otherwise is a liberal."

There's not.

It's not in there.

Young Earth Creationists who pretend it is are committing the sin of misrepresenting the Word of God.

Look, I'm not really trying to say one way or the other. I haven't read through this whole thread, so this may have already been addressed, in which case, please forgive me and refer me to the page/post that answers it: Young Earthers will use Genesis 5 to point out that scripture says "all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years." All versions of the bible seem to agree with this statement.

From there, simple mathematics is used by Young Earthers to support their claim that the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

Like I said, my apologies if this has already been addressed; but I don't see how we reconcile this with a gap theory, or Camping's "a day is as a thousand years," etc.; because God created Adam on the 6th day, and then rested on the 7th.

I can come up with one idea, that the time frames for each of the first five "days" were of varying lengths (i.e., millions or billions for the first one or two "days"; millions or billions for the next couple of "days"; etc.); but with all the creatures and man being created on the sixth day, that leads to a problematic understanding of just how long that day might have been; or worse, how long was the seventh? Or are we still in the seventh? Even though scripture says "all of Adam's days," did his days not start getting counted until after being ejected from Eden? Or does the sixth day not count, and the seventh day was actually only one full day?

This I do know: one day, I'll be standing before the Throne, and someone will tell me, and I'll say, "Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!"

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm pointing you to the fact that Ross is executive director of a "ministry" that supports and promotes theistic evolution, regardless of what different name he wants to put on it.
I believe that would more accurately describe your opinion of what it is, given that you deny a man who refuses to call himself a theistic evolutionist embraces theistic evolution.Nonsense.Which is nothing more than another term for theistic evolution. The only difference is that so-called "progressive creationists" claim to see God as continually intervening in His creation, but irrationally suggest that He directs a slow, impossible process whereas He Himself has said that He spoke the universe into existence. "Progressive creationism" is nothing more than theistic evolution in a different pretty package that still fails to adequately embrace biblical truth. They are, in essence, preaching the same thing, regardless of what they claim are differences.

progressive creationism assumes and accepts evolutionary againg/dating is correct, and THAT is very dubious!

Also, how can they reconcile no death enetered into creation until fall of Adam, yet they have dead animals for millions of yeras in fossil records per them?

theistic evolutionists christians mean well, but cannot reconcile a literal reading of bible and the unproven assumptions of evolution!

 

[Deacon]

It's become quite obvious that basic terms need to be understood before any meaningful discussion can go on.

I'd encourage those interested to pick up a book by Deborah and Loren Haarsma called Origins, Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design [LINK].

The book outlines the various positions on origins and presents a balanced review discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.

• You will learn the differences between concordist and nonconcordist interpretations of Genesis.
• Competing views of evolution.
• Various theological and scientific issues that arise from this debate.
• Adam and Eve
• Sin
• Death

By the time you are done reading and understanding the book you should begin to respect those that believe differently from you - whatever your position.

Rob

 

[quantumfaith]

It's become quite obvious that basic terms need to be understood before any meaningful discussion can go on.

I'd encourage those interested to pick up a book by Deborah and Loren Haarsma called Origins, Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design [LINK].

The book outlines the various positions on origins and presents a balanced review discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.

• You will learn the differences between concordist and nonconcordist interpretations of Genesis.
• Competing views of evolution.
• Various theological and scientific issues that arise from this debate.
• Adam and Eve
• Sin
• Death

By the time you are done reading and understanding the book you should begin to respect those that believe differently from you - whatever your position.

Rob

MAJOR Kudos Rob. Excellent introductory book to inform anyone truly interested in a good introduction to the debate and discussion of origins, creation, evolution and intelligent design. I particularly like their definitions of the particular positions in the appendix.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

By the time you are done reading and understanding the book you should begin to respect those that believe differently from you - whatever your position. Rob

I understand theistic evolution, or if you wish, progressive creationism. Whether you will accept it or not, they are the same thing. I also have respect for you, Rob. I just don't agree with you. Blessings.

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand theistic evolution, or if you wish, progressive creationism. Whether you will accept it or not, they are the same thing. I also have respect for you, Rob. I just don't agree with you. Blessings.

I just have issue when a person states that a "plain and literal" reading/meaning of genesis allows them to hold to either theistic evolution/progressive creationism!

 

[quantumfaith]

I just have issue when a person states that a "plain and literal" reading/meaning of genesis allows them to hold to either theistic evolution/progressive creationism!

Speaking only for myself, as there are probably few if any others, who have little or no problems with evolution being "in the mix". I know that you and many others have "issues" with me on this.....and that is OK.

 

[Yeshua1]

Speaking only for myself, as there are probably few if any others, who have little or no problems with evolution being "in the mix". I know that you and many others have "issues" with me on this.....and that is OK.

Its not a primary salvation issue, but do find very hard to accept that Adam?evewere not real historical figures, that they were a divine special creation, not evolved from lower primates!

 

[quantumfaith]

Its not a primary salvation issue, but do find very hard to accept that Adam?evewere not real historical figures, that they were a divine special creation, not evolved from lower primates!

I don't have any problem "accepting" Adam, and yes I think he and all of humanity is a special creation of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't have any problem "accepting" Adam, and yes I think he and all of humanity is a special creation of God.

I am glad to hear that, as some don't hold to Adam being a real historical being, and do see humans as evolved from lower primates!

 

[quantumfaith]

I am glad to hear that, as some don't hold to Adam being a real historical being, and do see humans as evolved from lower primates!

Oh, and BTW, even though I don't have it all "figured out" yet (and probably never will) I also do not have a problem with evolution. So you might as well keep me on the "bad" list.