He is very Respectable for Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham is very Disrespectful to Old Earth Creationists. I remember about twenty years ago hearing him on the radio just dissing Christians who didn't agree with him. He would say that when we don't accept his views on creation the Bible and Christians fall apart. At the time, I agreed with his views on creation but never cared for his snub attitude towards those who didn't agree with him. I think John Walton is much more likeable because of his humility and respect for those who have a view other than his. I think he is a warm mature man of God. I can't say the same for Ken Ham and Kent Hovand...
To say that AIG does not care about the Hebrew text and only English is not true. I have never heard them say anything like that. In fact, I have heard them use the Hebrew text. They talk about the Hebrew word in the Bible for created kinds of animals. God made animals after their kind. Here is a quote from their website: "A modern field of study, called baraminology (from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”), attempts to classify fossil and living organisms into their original created kinds (or baramins). This is an active area of creation research."
This video was somewhat disappointing because it falls far short of being what it is titled to be, a survey of Christian options. Instead, it is a survey of fundamentalist/evangelical positions, and limited to only those of the third decade of the 21st century. While I found it to be a remarkably fair and non-emotional presentation of current fundamentalist/evangelical thought, I expected a much broader spectrum of sources and perspectives.
I disagree that the Bible doesn't say anything about mechanism, only agency. God is the agent, yes, we agree on that. But the Bible does tell us the mechanism God used for creation. His spoken Word, and as to the mechanism for creating mankind, Gen.2 is very clear that he formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he formed Eve from Adam's side. That is the mechanism. To say it is not the mechanism seems to me like the text is simply being ignored.
I'm wondering why CMI (Creations Ministries International) was left off the list. Much more credible (imo) than AiG. Not so dogmatic and very 'Hebrew-Language' oriented. Jonathan Sarfati - one of the most intelligent representatives of Young Earth I've heard.
Good point. Evolution is a mechanism, but I believe the text clearly says that the mechanism God used is in Genesis 2, formed from dirt and breathed into him the breath of life. And Eve created from Adam's side.
what a help this teaching
He is very Respectable for Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham is very Disrespectful to Old Earth Creationists. I remember about twenty years ago hearing him on the radio just dissing Christians who didn't agree with him. He would say that when we don't accept his views on creation the Bible and Christians fall apart. At the time, I agreed with his views on creation but never cared for his snub attitude towards those who didn't agree with him.
I think John Walton is much more likeable because of his humility and respect for those who have a view other than his. I think he is a warm mature man of God. I can't say the same for Ken Ham and Kent Hovand...
You may have a point about likeability, but likeability is not what determines who is speaking the truth or not.
To say that AIG does not care about the Hebrew text and only English is not true. I have never heard them say anything like that. In fact, I have heard them use the Hebrew text. They talk about the Hebrew word in the Bible for created kinds of animals. God made animals after their kind. Here is a quote from their website: "A modern field of study, called baraminology (from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”), attempts to classify fossil and living organisms into their original created kinds (or baramins). This is an active area of creation research."
Interesting choice: God made humans from primates... or God made humans from dirt!
I'll take the dirt, since that is what the text says.
This video was somewhat disappointing because it falls far short of being what it is titled to be, a survey of Christian options. Instead, it is a survey of fundamentalist/evangelical positions, and limited to only those of the third decade of the 21st century. While I found it to be a remarkably fair and non-emotional presentation of current fundamentalist/evangelical thought, I expected a much broader spectrum of sources and perspectives.
I disagree that the Bible doesn't say anything about mechanism, only agency. God is the agent, yes, we agree on that. But the Bible does tell us the mechanism God used for creation. His spoken Word, and as to the mechanism for creating mankind, Gen.2 is very clear that he formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and he formed Eve from Adam's side. That is the mechanism. To say it is not the mechanism seems to me like the text is simply being ignored.
I'm wondering why CMI (Creations Ministries International) was left off the list. Much more credible (imo) than AiG. Not so dogmatic and very 'Hebrew-Language' oriented. Jonathan Sarfati - one of the most intelligent representatives of Young Earth I've heard.
I too like CMI a lot. Their search engine is really good on their site. You can find answers to almost any question you have.
Isn't evolution a mechanism. He starts out as trying to be neutral but them at the end he speaks only favorable about Biologos.
Good point. Evolution is a mechanism, but I believe the text clearly says that the mechanism God used is in Genesis 2, formed from dirt and breathed into him the breath of life. And Eve created from Adam's side.