10/16 podcast Searching for Truth comments

Paeter, I must say I have been listening for sometime now and I have always enjoyed your content and thought you seemed to have a firm grasp on scripture. However I was quite taken back to hear your embrace of Hugh Ross during your little study this week and that got me thinking. I have always held to the Biblical fact of the 6 day recent creation, just as it is plainly stated in the Bible. I know that Hugh Ross is against this notion for some reason. While you may be able to be wrong in one area and right in another, it certainly lessens your credibility to a good degree. I am curious, first if you were aware of Dr. Ross's stance on creation and second, what is your personal belief? While I don't pretend to know much about Hugh Ross, I have yet to find any incorrect information on the site I pull this information from. Please reference it for my reasoning as I really can't do it justice myself.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp

CreatorsPixels wrote:I was quite taken back to hear your embrace of Hugh Ross during your little study this week and that got me thinking. I have always held to the Biblical fact of the 6 day recent creation, just as it is plainly stated in the Bible. I know that Hugh Ross is against this notion for some reason. While you may be able to be wrong in one area and right in another, it certainly lessens your credibility to a good degree. I am curious, first if you were aware of Dr. Ross's stance on creation and second, what is your personal belief? While I don't pretend to know much about Hugh Ross, I have yet to find any incorrect information on the site I pull this information from. Please reference it for my reasoning as I really can't do it justice myself.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp

You bring up some really good points, each of which could be a unique and lengthy topic if I try to respond exhaustively. I'll do my best to respond to a couple of your thoughts and try to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.

Ultimately, I'm interested in truth. I'm not devoted to Hugh Ross in any way, and read his material with great care. I'm devoted to truth, whoever is presenting it.

I'm aware of Ross's main thinking regarding creation and read through half (or was it all?) of one of his books on that subject, though the issue has not been a particular area of study for me.

In high school I read a book by Ken Ham that I enjoyed very much and sat in the young-earth camp for awhile, as I had my entire life before then. As you said, it always seemed to be that the Bible "plainly" taught a 6, 24-hour day creation time-line. But as I've looked into the issue some more, particularly as it pertains to the original Hebrew words used to describe the creation event, I've concluded that there is plenty of room for an old-earth view that is consistent with the Bible.

Please note that I do not consider myself a staunch supporter of the old-earth view. But neither am I one of the young earth view. Based on the knowledge I have, it's inconclusive. But I certainly do not think that the old-earth view is a twisting of scripture, and I would say that I currently lean in that direction with 75%-90% confidence.

To even come to this "midway point", I had to get significantly outside of my comfort zone. But in the end the evidence had to be given weight more than my feelings. So here I am. And always willing to re-examine the evidence.

As I've sorted through some of this in recent years, I have noticed a disturbing difference in tone when I compare materials from "Answers In Genesis" to materials from Hugh Ross and "Reasons To Believe". The material from AIG(including the page from the link you posted) tends to use small doses of overstatement and imprecise language that seems to be emotionally loaded and slightly passive-aggressive. Granted, as I said earlier, truth is truth no matter the vehicle. But if the language used in this discussion is imprecise or overstated, the true details under examination become clouded.

I would suggest reading material from both sides of the issue until you are convinced you've learned what you can. As far as Hugh Ross goes, "A Matter Of Days" is a pretty good presentation of his view on creation.

I hope that's helpful! Thanks.

Thanks for your response! I'm not looking to start a riot or anything, just seeking more truth myself. Thanks for the extra insight into your thoughts, it is interesting to hear. I never have been any good at debating and thus I usually point to websites or other material that I feel better explains something that I do. I do feel that as you say about AiG, I think there tone has somewhat shifted lately. However, I still find their content to me true. I do know that lots of people as yourself have "found" that the Bible seems to leave "room" for evolution. I can't really see why God would need any help here. He created man 'in his image', not that of a monkey? Also, if the earth is old, wouldn't that leave death and disease and suffering before the sin and fall of man? Obviously, you can see I am a horrible debator. Anyway, I feel that science has given us plenty of "room" for a young earth and I don't really see any reason to try and make it old. Science is constantly changing it view of the earths history and I think its alot like this climate change hoax where they are massaging the data to say what they want to fit a particular world view they have.

Anyway, thanks for good content here and the interesting podcasts. I look forward to them. Thanks again for your time!

CreatorsPixels wrote:Thanks for your response!

1.I never have been any good at debating and thus I usually point to websites or other material that I feel better explains something that I do.

2.I do know that lots of people as yourself have "found" that the Bible seems to leave "room" for evolution.

3. Also, if the earth is old, wouldn't that leave death and disease and suffering before the sin and fall of man?

4. Science is constantly changing it view of the earths history and I think its alot like this climate change hoax where they are massaging the data to say what they want to fit a particular world view they have.

Glad I could help out. I just wanted to clarify a few things. I numbered a few of your lines for reference 'cuz I can't figure out how to do multiple separated quotes.

1. I'm with you on this and actually believe that the "debate" format can be very harmful to a person's quest for knowledge. Defenses tend to go up and ears tend to shut off. (And I'm speaking of my own tendencies right now.) I much prefer a one-on-one conversation that is open ended, meaning that both people are willing to come back to it multiple times as they find new information or have spent time processing their thoughts. Debates(public or one-on-one) often feel like trying to solve massive problems in a single conversation. It just can't be done, in my experience.

2. To clarify, the "old earth" or specifically the "progressive creationism" view does not claim the evolution of all life from a single cell organism, or Ape to Man evolution. Hugh Ross does not believe either of these to be true.

3. Great topic. I'd again refer you to "A Matter Of Days" to get a sense of "Progressive Creationism's" accounting for this.

4. I can't speak to the hearts and motives of proponents of "Climate Change". But both science and theology have contained changing views over time. Sometimes it is, as you say, out of an effort to support an already assumed view. Other times, changes of view are made in light of new understanding.

I believe that good science and good theology will arrive at the same conclusion. It's our role to learn what we can about both so that we can be prepared to defend our beliefs. If one person's defense of the faith is most effective from an old-earth perspective and another from a young earth perspective, and neither are misrepresenting the words of scripture or fudging their science figures, I have zero objections.

Thanks for bringing this up!

Take care.