Featured Hugh Ross and Creation

I think you missed the point.

 

Facts are stubborn things.

1) The author of Job is unknown.

2) Many scholars believe it was written by Moses or Solomon, or someone in between.

3) The creation account, compiled by Moses teaches about a time before Job lived.

 

job was a real historical person, the author of the book recorded down under inspiration real events that happened to him, was probably around time of Abraham, and since the OT was/is inspired revealtion, we have reorded down actual beginnings, regardless if we were there or not!

 

The issue is not whether Job was an historical person. I believe he was.
The issue is not whether the author of the book of Job was inspired, he was. Paul mentions the book twice.
The setting of the Book of Job is pre-Moses, that is not the issue either.
Neither Job, or Abraham or whoever else you conjure up, was present when God stretched out the stars. Read Job 38!

The issue is whether Job had been exposed to the Genesis creation account, either as written or oral narrative, when God told him he did not know how God created everything. Did Job know of Adam and Eve and the creation and fall account? Read Job 31:33 and judge for yourself.

 

Point is that Jesus was the Creator of all things, so when he inspired moses to record that fact down, that was and is the truth of"origins!"

 

Actually, the issue of the thread is Hugh Ross' efforts to force-fit Theistic Evolution into the literal six-day, 24-hour day account of God's speaking the universe into existence. Job has little to nothing to do with that. The discussion of him and his writing -- or Elihu's, as the case may be -- has derailed the thread.

 

Job 38 says we do not know how God created everything, only that he did. Dogmatic assertions such as OEC or YEC or all manner of theistic evolution attempts all go beyond scripture and its teaching that we do not know, we were not there.

 

Dr. Ross isn't a theistic evolutionist and wouldn't ask anyone to believe in it.
Dr. Ross also believes that the creation account of Genesis should be translated literally.
...but he believes that the creation accounts support old-earth creationism.
(Curiously the word "twenty-four" can't be found anywhere in the Genesis account of creation).

The type of creationism Ross teaches is called Progressive Creationism, originally proposed by Bernard Ramm, author of the book Protestant Biblical Interpretation, a standard hermeneutical textbook in years past.

Rob

 

A rose by any other name (Progressive Creationism) would smell as sweet as Theistic Evolution. But scripture says we do not know.

 

yet, he is still trying to fit into the system evolutionary dating/aging, and there is cood scientifc reasons to NOT need to do that!

 

the geneologoies would support a much younger earth and creation date than "billions of yeras", and God created all species after their own kind at time of creation, so since we know Jesus was the Creator, why can't we know its creationism as the method, earlier date that evolution postulates?

 

agreed, as Dr ross is trying to have the scriptures take on andsupport eolutionart scientific facts regarding aging/dating, but problem is 24hr day in hebrew majority of times meant just that, and God brought all the animals before adam to name, did he have to wait millions of years to complete that process?

 

Uh ... bull hockey. Reasons to Believe: Who are we

 

I suppose then (not being snarky or disparaging) that you take great issue with RTB's article.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/origin-of-life-predictions-face-off-evolution-vs.-biblical-creation

 

I've seen him beat poor old Ken Ham to death in several debates.

 

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.

 

Are we talking science or biblical interpretation? Some interpret Genesis as teaching the Universe and everything in it were created in six 24 hour days, less than 7000 years ago. But the Bible says we do not know. Some interpret Genesis as teaching each creation day was an indeterminate length of time perhaps billions of years in duration. But the Bible says we do not know. We have the gap theory and "re-creation." We have Progressive Creation. We have several flavors of "theistic evolution." Yet the Bible says we do not know.

If you step back and look at it objectively, with these experts saying its this way absolutely, and those experts saying no, it is this other way absolutely, what conclusion might we draw? We do not know.

 

Luke, this "issue" is one of those rare occasions that we are on somewhat the same side of the fence. It, some of your comments, reminds me of the famous quote of Einstein:

Science without faith is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

For anyone knowing where to look, I think many scientists and philosophers etc... have put paid to evolution (at least the classic Darwinian models) years ago:

I think Michael Denton did an excellent job back in the 80's. He is anything but a Christian. Also He doesn't just provide counter-evidence, he boils the arguments down to brass tacks and exposes them as fanciful and ludicrous. The assumptions behind evolution are enormous.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/091756152X/?tag=baptis04-20

David Berlinski (also not a Christian) has also made many excellent criticisms of Evolution. Evolution (at least the Darwinian models) are not simply un-factual IMO, but rather stupid. Creative maybe, but also stupid.

 

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