I have set David Koot to "ignore this user".

I will come back and answer John317 later

I think some pretty harsh things have been said about Clifford Goldstien and an apology is in order there too. I don't think ex-adventists with an axe to grind should be taking it out on our denominational leaders and other forum members.

OK, I recognise that I am somewhat compromised as a moderator in this thread, because of the active role I have taken in the discussion. The acrimony is now completely unacceptable on all sides, though, and we're at the stage of the fight where whole other issues are being brought up. I'm not going to edit particular responses, but I am going to lock this thread unless there is an immediate return to civility. Be told.

This is how I started the thread.



The fact is they were moving out to California so he could study at Loma Linda.

This was the response to my post.



Was that an appropriate response? The Three Angels' Message calls for us to call the world to worship the Creator and when we start discussing creation evangelism we are called ignorant. In a later post we were said to be lying to children. And what are we talking about? Evangelism. If anyone opens their mouth around here and says the word creation they can expect to be pounced on and insulted regardless if they are talking about the Sabbath, evangelism or children's stories.

If the Bible is not 'believable' than it is not His word. Yet He would still be worthy of worship, and still have authority...even though the Bible was not His word. I think what you are saying is that if the Bible cannot be interpreted literally (as you wish to do) than it is not 'believable.' That is my fundamental difference with your position, i believe. The http://www.ancient-hebrew.org site proves to my satifaction that the creation stories are poetry, and the 6 days of creation were not intended to be a scientific chronology.

I believe the Bible is full of 'Spirit' not 'science.' It was written to change our hearts. Not to inform our minds, but to renew them. (Rom.12) If there were no Bible, yet God would exist.

Saint Paul believed the Bible to be not the only way to know about God. Romans 1: since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

According to Paul, those who never had the Bible knew of Him from what He made, and not from HOW it was made. This includes Hindus, Greeks, Africans, Eskimos, Chinese Taoists, Asian Buddhists. Many of these peoples have their own Creation stories.

God could use 'evolution' to create living beings and still be God. He has the authority. The Bible is not necessarily 'wrong' and 'unbelievable' if it is not interpreted literally, in my opinion. A stronger way to put it is: its not unbelievable just because it is understood wrongly. In fact the poetic interpretation leaves it more 'believable' as a record of men's efforts to understand God and their experiences of God than if one were to insist on an interpretation that would raise questions in modern minds. I humbly submit (what a cliche) that Creation Evangelism not be used and evangelists concentrate on proving God's existence to those who do not believe by preaching the fruits of that belief, and showing what He has done for the hearts of those who have found their joy and saftey in HIM.

~d.allan

Bravus,

You are doing a wonderful job. I admire your much for how you have controlled yourself and 'moderated' your own responses. I'm sure it is not easy. But, i think, you have earned the authority to use your authority as you see best.

~d.allan

Thank you, D.

Shane, your reply was reasonable, but it was still tit-for-tat, he said/he said stuff. Let's try to just drop that stuff out of the thread entirely and focus on the issue of creationism evangelism, which I think is a very interesting one.

bevin, I think that your tone could be more moderate in discussing the issue too. You clearly outlined 'people not doing their homework' and not knowing things they should have known, but it's a step from there to 'liars'. Keeping the discussion descriptive is helpful to keeping the temperature down.

Nope, I have no such agenda.



But they were 6 days... not millions of years... according to the Bible.

What I was hoping for some ideas on creation evangelism. For example, "Rocks & Fossils" could be combined with "The Age of The Earth" and probally not the best subject for opening night since creation has some weakness in that area. A better topic for opening night might be "The Complexity of Life" since creation is very strong in that area.

Traditionally Adventists have used Revelation to draw people into evangelistic series. That works in societies that believe in the Bible. However we are living in an increasingly secular society where many people don't even know that Revelation is a book in the Bible. Thus the orgins of life is more likely to be of interest to most people. (Of course some don't care and just want to watch the latest realty show) It is noteworthy that John began his gospel by identifying Jesus as the Creator.

Only if you take it Genesis literally. You don't have to do that. The Bible has other 'poetic' material. Poetry addresses and warms the heart. Science leaves it cold.

I think you found this on the ancient-hebrew site, or i had quoted from it earlier. I added boldface this time.

~d.allan