Hugh Ross v Ken Ham (Old Earth v Young Earth)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ItIsWritten

New member
Topic suggestion: An Old Earth v Young Earth debate with a Hugh Ross v Ken Ham or similar pairing would, I suspect, be a crowd pleaser (high view rate) in addition to helping to inform the Christian laity on this issue.
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
ItIsWritten said:
Topic suggestion: An Old Earth v Young Earth debate with a Hugh Ross v Ken Ham or similar pairing would, I suspect, be a crowd pleaser (high view rate) in addition to helping to inform the Christian laity on this issue.

Which side do you take?
 

ItIsWritten

New member
death2impiety said:
Which side do you take?
I want to take the side that the Bible takes. But as I've done only limited Bible study on this issue as of this point, I have to remain open to new information on this question.

The problem is that both Hugh Ross and Ken Ham are good at using scripture in making convincing presentations for their respective sides. I've heard presentations from each, but only with the other is absent. They've both told me that they to WANT to debate the other, but both say that the other is ducking them and won't commit to an honest debate.

Also, I read something by a Dr. Gerald Schroder that suggested that possibly both were true. Like the example of the twin brothers born on the same day who are now many years different in age -- because one spent time on a ship traveling near the speed of light and, therefore, time for him had been slowed. I'm no expert, but Schroder appears to be claiming that what is "X" billion years from our position is equal to what is 6 days from God's postion - the relative positions of each effecting their clock (or something similar, please don't hold me or him to this off hand description.)

I'd especially like to ask Hugh Ross how Ps. 136:6 fits with what I've heard him say about scripture in the past. However, until then and based on what I see in the scripture thus far, as well as much of the information I've see from the physics side (especially light possibly being able to travel slower than the speed of light, etc.), I'm currently inclined to lean to the young earth model. However, considering that the Schroder 'two-sides-of-the-same-coin' senario also seemes plausable, I'm still open and would welcome a true debate on this topic.
 

GuySmiley

Well-known member
They've both told me that they to WANT to debate the other, but both say that the other is ducking them and won't commit to an honest debate.
Could that debate be a Battle Royale on TOL?? How cool would that be.
 

ItIsWritten

New member
One Eyed Jack said:
Just read the fourth commandment -- that lays it out quite plainly.
Tell that to Hugh Ross, Hank Hannagraph, Lee Stroble and all the other old earthers who 'interpret' it differently.
 

ItIsWritten

New member
GuySmiley said:
Could that debate be a Battle Royale on TOL?? How cool would that be.
Very, in my opinion. But I suspect that it won't happen, because one knows they can't take the heat, so they won't show up. The question is which one?
 

The Berean

Well-known member
ItIsWritten said:
Tell that to Hugh Ross, Hank Hannagraph, Lee Stroble and all the other old earthers who 'interpret' it differently.

Hank Hannegraaff is an OEC? I didn't know that.
 

ItIsWritten

New member
The Berean said:
Hank Hannegraaff is an OEC? I didn't know that.
You have to watch and listen VERY carefully. If you call and ask him he will REFUSE to give you a straight answer on this, because he wants the money that he can get from the young earthers and doesn't want the heat that coming out of the closet on this would cost, especially since he is already hurting from coming out of the closet on his Jesus-returned-in-70AD "in vindication and exaultation" 'partial preterist' (but call it something different) position.

ASK him, you won't get any answer except that it is "permitted within the pale" to believe either. Listen to the WAY he speaks about the young earthers (such as "WOODEN literalists") but more important, watch who's books he elects to push and the postion of all the guests that he elects to have on any broadcasts related to this topic and you'll see what side he is pushing.
 

logos_x

New member
ItIsWritten said:
You have to watch and listen VERY carefully. If you call and ask him he will REFUSE to give you a straight answer on this, because he wants the money that he can get from the young earthers and doesn't want the heat that coming out of the closet on this would cost, especially since he is already hurting from coming out of the closet on his Jesus-returned-in-70AD "in vindication and exaultation" 'partial preterist' (but call it something different) position.

ASK him, you won't get any answer except that it is "permitted within the pale" to believe either. Listen to the WAY he speaks about the young earthers (such as "WOODEN literalists") but more important, watch who's books he elects to push and the postion of all the guests that he elects to have on any broadcasts related to this topic and you'll see what side he is pushing.

:rotfl:

Could be he recognizes that few agree on this issue so he is being as "diplomatic" as possible.
Maybe he himself is undecided or unconvinced either way.

Not that I agree with Hanegraff anyway...but I would not presume to interpret the motives behind his words and couch them as though they were the words of the Devil himself just because he doesn't agree with my "amen corner's" stance on a controversy.
 

ItIsWritten

New member
logos_x said:
Could be he recognizes that few agree on this issue so he is being as "diplomatic" as possible. Maybe he himself is undecided or unconvinced either way.
Wrong-o. If you had investigated before you wrote you would know that Hank does not say that he is undediced or unconvinced on this issue. Moreover, Hank clearly does not feel the need to be "diplomatic" on any number of issues where "few agree", such as when he says hat there is NO Biblical warrant for teaching "the rapture" as it is taught by Tim LeHaye, Chuck Smith and numerous other pastors. So while your statements may sound 'nice', they turn out not to be based in truth if one actually measures them against what Hank himself actually says/does on his show.

Listen to him talk ON THIS ISSUE or you call him up and ask him HIS POSITION and them you come back post somthing based on reality.
 

The Berean

Well-known member
ItIsWritten said:
You have to watch and listen VERY carefully. If you call and ask him he will REFUSE to give you a straight answer on this, because he wants the money that he can get from the young earthers and doesn't want the heat that coming out of the closet on this would cost, especially since he is already hurting from coming out of the closet on his Jesus-returned-in-70AD "in vindication and exaultation" 'partial preterist' (but call it something different) position.

ASK him, you won't get any answer except that it is "permitted within the pale" to believe either. Listen to the WAY he speaks about the young earthers (such as "WOODEN literalists") but more important, watch who's books he elects to push and the postion of all the guests that he elects to have on any broadcasts related to this topic and you'll see what side he is pushing.
It's a while since I've been able to catch an entire Bible Answer Man broadcast. I'll try to catch more of his broadcasts.
 

logos_x

New member
ItIsWritten said:
Wrong-o. If you had investigated before you wrote you would know that Hank does not say that he is undediced or unconvinced on this issue. Moreover, Hank clearly does not feel the need to be "diplomatic" on any number of issues where "few agree", such as when he says hat there is NO Biblical warrant for teaching "the rapture" as it is taught by Tim LeHaye, Chuck Smith and numerous other pastors. So while your statements may sound 'nice', they turn out not to be based in truth if one actually measures them against what Hank himself actually says/does on his show.

Listen to him talk ON THIS ISSUE or you call him up and ask him HIS POSITION and them you come back post somthing based on reality.

Ok.
I still don't see any problem, but OK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top