 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Travis Johnson |
| dtgrant wrote: | Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | Dtgrant,
I'm really having difficulty:
1. You are not being fair with words. Where did I ever say, "that one should not use the Bible when witnessing to a pagan."? That wasn't said by anyone. This is the second time you've done that. If we're going to have a conversation in good faith, it requires an honest and fair treatment of one another.
2. The other issue is more aesthetic. Still, I'm having a hard time getting past the representation that you and your wife/husband agree on everything and that you both as a committee write and vet your thoughts in total unanimity and on the fly.
Anyway, I can't make you treat the second observation differently. But, it feels like a fairly repressive posture for either spouse to only be allowed to share opinions that the other spouse agrees with...or to hold the opinion held by the dominant spouse.
But, concerning the first observation, if you're having to lean on misrepresentations of my words to create a basis for your objection, your premise must not be very stout. Again, I can't make you change. But, I will point it out when you misrepresent or misquote me (2nd time in this discussion). |
We will let your own words speak for themselves. This is the second time you have wrongly accused us of misquoting you. We are having a conversation in good faith. Hopefully you will also.
This is a forum board. When you make statements, we can quote you (correctly and word for word) and offer our comments. You can disagree with our comments but it is wrong for you to accuse us of misquoting you. This is the second time you have wrongly made that accusation.
No, Travis we do not need to lean on misrepresenting your words. Unless we have missed it (that is a possibility) we have not seen you post a position on creation (accompanied with scripture references). Our premise is simple . We actually believe Genesis as written.
Again, we will let your own words speak for themselves.
Travis Johnson posted August 20 @ 1:19 pm:
| Quote: |
Absolutely.
In fact, you can't even begin to use the Bible as the foundational truth (that doesn't make Scripture less authoritative) when dealing with a natural man. A spiritual man? Yes. Someone who has received revelation of Jesus is having these discussions from a different place.
But, a natural man, a skeptic has a different starting point. dtgrant's posture and others who hold a similar posture of communication with a skeptic would be rejected out of hand. |
Travis Johnson posted August 21 @ 8:13 am
| Quote: | | Paul quotes Epimenides in Acts 17 to lay presuppositional groundwork for the accepting of the Gospel by pagans as truth. You cannot go to a pagan and use Scripture authoritatively with him (though it is). You have to start at some other foundational truth and bridge them in. |
(donnie & terri grant) |
Correct. I did say that. I did not say, "that one should not use the Bible when witnessing to a pagan."
Can you show me anywhere that I said you should not use the Bible? You can't because I didn't say it, amigos. I said that for people who do not accept the Scriptures as authoritative, you have to start somewhere else and bridge them in. Then, I pointed out in 1 Corinthians where Paul said the same thing.
This is comical. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7821
8/21/13 10:29 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| bonnie knox wrote: | Okay, question about old earth--if death came with Adam's sin, there was no death prior to creation; therefore, no fossils.
Question about young earth--how can we see light from stars so far away? |
If you're referring to Romans 5, I read the death as human life.
| Quote: | | 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— |
Even if it did include animal and plant life, how long did Adam live before He sinned?
He gets created. A while later he sins. Animals and plants start dying and begin the fossilization process.
Distant star light has been a topic of discussion for quite a while. It's a topic of interest for me.(I'm not saying I know a whole lot.) This article is one I've read recently. It might help. I don't know.
http://www.creationtoday.org/other-starlight-issues/
Travis wrote:
| Quote: | I don't know how exactly. I don't have to know. I'm not going to pretend to know. I'm not going to fill in the blanks with concrete answers that are not mine to give. I can have my thoughts and questions. But, that's all that they are.
In the end, what I do know for sure is that God created it all. I'm comfortable with ambiguity...im OK with seeing through a glass darkly for now because I trust Him. |
Amen! Well said. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
8/21/13 10:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | Even if it did include animal and plant life, how long did Adam live before He sinned?
He gets created. A while later he sins. Animals and plants start dying and begin the fossilization process. |
If Adam lived a long time before he sinned, and assuming nothing was dying before he sinned, the fossils would only be as old as the time that was reckoned from that point, which would mean the fossils aren't all that old.
Now, to me, it makes no sense whatsoever to think of plants and animals dying before sin entered creation. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/21/13 10:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| The Bard wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: |
Now, to me, it makes no sense whatsoever to think of plants and animals dying before sin entered creation. |
What do you suppose happened to the plants and animals that Adam and Eve ate before the fall? |
I can't imagine, actually, what happened to the plants, as I am the queen of compost and decay. I can't see "decay" being a part of the Garden of Eden, though. When eating fruit from a tree, the tree doesn't die.
I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve did not eat animals before the Fall. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/21/13 11:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Another note, though, on plant and animal "life." I don't think plants have the "breath of life" as animals and humans are considered to have.
Humans and animals were all given plants as food.
Genesis 1:29,30
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/21/13 11:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
I do believe we can infer that plants were for food and animals were not for food from the verses I pasted in my previous post.
It is not explicitly stated: you may not eat animals, but the implication is too strong for me to think otherwise. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/21/13 11:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Of course, since there was no human death (at least we know that for a fact) before the fall, then Adam and Eve didn't have to eat, in the first place. |
For some reason, God placed the Tree of Life in the Garden. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/21/13 11:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | Your earlier assertion was that it made no sense to think of plants dying before sin entered creation. |
Well, I did qualify that with "to me."
But, I still don't think I have the capacity to visualize exactly how the life cycle worked in the Garden. Did any plant parts besides what was eaten die. Was there poop?? Could any fossils have been made? Did seeds fall, die, and reproduce as they do now?
However, whether plants "died" or not, animals would have to have died in order for million-year-old animal fossils to exist. I don't think animals were dying before the Fall.
Last edited by bonnie knox on 8/21/13 11:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/21/13 11:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| I don't know, and the Tree is mentioned as being in the "paradise of God," too. (Revelation 2:7) Why? I don't know. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/21/13 11:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
| Travis Johnson wrote: | | dtgrant wrote: | Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | Dtgrant,
I'm really having difficulty:
1. You are not being fair with words. Where did I ever say, "that one should not use the Bible when witnessing to a pagan."? That wasn't said by anyone. This is the second time you've done that. If we're going to have a conversation in good faith, it requires an honest and fair treatment of one another.
2. The other issue is more aesthetic. Still, I'm having a hard time getting past the representation that you and your wife/husband agree on everything and that you both as a committee write and vet your thoughts in total unanimity and on the fly.
Anyway, I can't make you treat the second observation differently. But, it feels like a fairly repressive posture for either spouse to only be allowed to share opinions that the other spouse agrees with...or to hold the opinion held by the dominant spouse.
But, concerning the first observation, if you're having to lean on misrepresentations of my words to create a basis for your objection, your premise must not be very stout. Again, I can't make you change. But, I will point it out when you misrepresent or misquote me (2nd time in this discussion). |
We will let your own words speak for themselves. This is the second time you have wrongly accused us of misquoting you. We are having a conversation in good faith. Hopefully you will also.
This is a forum board. When you make statements, we can quote you (correctly and word for word) and offer our comments. You can disagree with our comments but it is wrong for you to accuse us of misquoting you. This is the second time you have wrongly made that accusation.
No, Travis we do not need to lean on misrepresenting your words. Unless we have missed it (that is a possibility) we have not seen you post a position on creation (accompanied with scripture references). Our premise is simple . We actually believe Genesis as written.
Again, we will let your own words speak for themselves.
Travis Johnson posted August 20 @ 1:19 pm:
| Quote: |
Absolutely.
In fact, you can't even begin to use the Bible as the foundational truth (that doesn't make Scripture less authoritative) when dealing with a natural man. A spiritual man? Yes. Someone who has received revelation of Jesus is having these discussions from a different place.
But, a natural man, a skeptic has a different starting point. dtgrant's posture and others who hold a similar posture of communication with a skeptic would be rejected out of hand. |
Travis Johnson posted August 21 @ 8:13 am
| Quote: | | Paul quotes Epimenides in Acts 17 to lay presuppositional groundwork for the accepting of the Gospel by pagans as truth. You cannot go to a pagan and use Scripture authoritatively with him (though it is). You have to start at some other foundational truth and bridge them in. |
(donnie & terri grant) |
Correct. I did say that. I did not say, "that one should not use the Bible when witnessing to a pagan."
Can you show me anywhere that I said you should not use the Bible? You can't because I didn't say it, amigos. I said that for people who do not accept the Scriptures as authoritative, you have to start somewhere else and bridge them in. Then, I pointed out in 1 Corinthians where Paul said the same thing.
This is comical. |
Travis:
We have gone back through the posts and do not see where we “QUOTED” you as saying … “ that one should not use the Bible when witnessing to a pagan."
Could you please inform us to the post you are referencing?
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/21/13 11:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Ventureforth |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | Even if it did include animal and plant life, how long did Adam live before He sinned?
He gets created. A while later he sins. Animals and plants start dying and begin the fossilization process. |
If Adam lived a long time before he sinned, and assuming nothing was dying before he sinned, the fossils would only be as old as the time that was reckoned from that point, which would mean the fossils aren't all that old.
Now, to me, it makes no sense whatsoever to think of plants and animals dying before sin entered creation. |
It's an interesting question about how long Adam lived before he sinned. From reading the account, I don't see it as immediate but also not a very long time.
I see this has been covered but:
I've been reading a little about death before Adam. I didn't see any support for no death in plants. Most who say no animals died don't see plants as being "alive." But opinions on the whole issue are far from consensus.
| Quote: | Unfortunately, that seems to be a recurring tactic with those arguing YEC in this thread (with the lone exception being John Jett).
|
Now, where
Did I err? 
Last edited by Ventureforth on 8/21/13 11:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
8/21/13 11:43 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
| The Bard wrote: | | dtgrant wrote: | We actually believe Genesis as written.
|
This is a classic example of the dishonesty and ad hominem attacks on those who don't hold dtgrant's particular conclusion.
It implies that those who believe in an old-earth creation do not "believe Genesis as written" and that only one conclusion can be drawn from the Genesis account by those who "believe Genesis as written."
Both implications are blatantly dishonest, and my guess is that that it was known to be dishonest at the time it was written.
And that example is aside from the twisting of Travis' words- which absolutely and unquestionably did happen.
Those examples are also in addition to the ones that have already been pointed out in this thread.
Why should any intelligent person with a differing view participate in a discussion with those who employ such tactics due to their demonstrated inability to defend their position without it? What value and benefit is to be had from subjecting one's valid thoughts and opinions to such twisting and contortion and ad hominem attacks? |
The Bard:
My wife IS NOT a LIAR.
I am NOT a LIAR.
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/21/13 11:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
I hate to say this...but Bard is correct here.
I hold to the Genesis account as written.
I tend to be young earth - but not 6000 years. I have simply been monitoring the thread and keeping my thoughts to myself.
The earth could also be very old.
None of us were there.
There is leeway in the account - gaps if you will - potential for long days - potential for without form and void to mean something none of us expect - potential for replenish to have real meaning.
For goodness sake - let's accept our own potential fallibility on this.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
8/22/13 5:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dtgrant |
Nature Boy Florida wrote:
| Quote: | | I hate to say this...but Bard is correct here. |
The previous two posts are concerning The Bard calling us LIARS.
SO, Just asking for clarification (not being accusatory)
The Bard has, WITHOUT OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE OTHER THAN HIS OWN IMAGINATIONS has called us, donnie & terri grant, LIARS.
Are you saying you agree with the Bard’s accusations that we are LIARS?
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/22/13 6:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
This is deteriorating fast, and it seems evident that much of it is a misunderstanding of one another's words and intent. Let's try to stay on topic, please.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 6:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| The Bard is more dogmatic about calling donnie and terri grant liars than about a pre-Fall vegetarian diet. Something is amiss. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/22/13 6:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Poimen |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | I hate to say this...but Bard is correct here.
I hold to the Genesis account as written.
I tend to be young earth - but not 6000 years. I have simply been monitoring the thread and keeping my thoughts to myself.
The earth could also be very old.
None of us were there.
There is leeway in the account - gaps if you will - potential for long days - potential for without form and void to mean something none of us expect - potential for replenish to have real meaning.
For goodness sake - let's accept our own potential fallibility on this. |
I simply disagree. No intent to be hurtful or smug in that. I have tried to meet some of the seeming smugness of the Bards "matter of factness" head on, in order to ward it off and encourage a more civil and accommodating "tone" to the discussion -- apparently to no avail (go figure).
That said. When I was younger and less established in the word, I got all caught up in gap theories, a preadamite age, theistic evolution, etc. But now, believing myself to be more grounded in the word of truth, I do not see any viable, biblical interpretation other than YEC. Any ambiguity about the creation week, starting at Genesis 1:1, must be read into the text, but not out of the text -- especially when viewed along side corroborating texts on the issue.
I simply disagree that there is any other legitimate interpretation of the biblical text on the subject. Ultimately there can be only one truth, not two, hence there cannot be two legitimate interpretations, technically speaking. One (or both) will prove illegitimate in the end. I would think those with differing interpretations would agree in premise with that observation, though holding differing conclusions as to which view is the legitimate one.
Does that mean there may not be other compelling and valid questions about interpreting the text? No. Does that mean there are no ambiguities in any of the texts that would give rise to valid questions, leading to differing interpretations? No.
At any rate, I have tried to largely stay quite myself, waiting for Dr. Mortenson to reply further to those questions directed pointedly to him (not that others need do so). Although, with the deterioration and misunderstandings between posters we are seeing in this thread (even if unintended), I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Mortenson decided to make a final post and quietly exit our little corner of cyber space.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Last edited by Poimen on 8/22/13 7:16 am; edited 3 times in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 7:01 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Note to all on DR. T |
Poimen |
FYI -- Dr. Mortenson has had some set backs and some technical difficulties in posting (as I explained in the other thread). But he has indicated, and I do expect, that he will reply again ... once we/he works through these obstacles. He has a lot on his plate at AIG right now also, and participating on forums is new to him. So there has been a bit of a learning curve, as well as some unforeseen technical issues. With Shaun's guidance I think I've been able to work him around those and am hopeful for another reply or two from him this week.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
8/22/13 7:03 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
Frankly, I don't see what the hubbub is about between Travis and the grants. It seems to me that Travis is saying that it just won't work with a skeptic to say "The Bible says..."
It seems to me that the grants are saying, "Why not say to a skeptic that 'The Bible says...' because that is the only authoritative account of creation." |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/22/13 7:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
dolfan |
Hey, Poimen,
This is my first post here, but I have been following for quite a while.
I posed this question to someone else recently, with no response so far. So I will pose it here.
In Genesis 1, the sun is not created until the fourth creation day. Since the sun is responsible for the speed of the earth's rotation being maintained, and since a day is 24 hours as measured by full rotations of the earth in relation to the sun, and also constituting a known fraction of the solar orbit, how can we say that a Genesis "yom" equals 24 hours prior to day 4?
There may well be a perfectly good explanation, but I have not heard or read anyone discuss this.
Last edited by dolfan on 8/22/13 7:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
Friendly Face
Posts: 356
8/22/13 7:11 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
