In the first hour, Dr. Brown will interview Prof. William Lane Craig, one of the world’s foremost Christian apologists, and they will take your calls as well. In the second hour, Dr. Brown will share some of his own apologetics principles and will continue to take your calls. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Never be intimidated by objections to the faith. Never be intimidated by people telling you that no one reasonable, intellectual, or educated believes the Bible. It is simply not true. The answers are as solid as the God we serve.
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: I encourage you to put your faith in the living God with full confidence, with full assurance. It’s not a myth. It’s not something hyped up. This is not something that man made up. We’re talking about the real God, a real resurrection, a real salvation. It’s here, it’s true.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
Prof. Craig’s book, On Guard, and the CD of the Line of Fire Interview with Prof. Craig
For Only $22 Postage Paid!
There’s a lot of truth in what you said.
But for some people the Bible must be rejected because they see that the Bible teaches that death is an enemy, and Adam brought it into the world, and only through the second Adam, can we be freed from sin and death, but theistic evolution teaches that death was part of the will of God before Adam, and perhaps there wasn’t even a real Adam, but it’s just a story to teach us morals, etc. So they are forced to reject the gospel, because without a perfect world which Adam ruined through sin, bringing death and thorns into the world, why do we need a second Adam to redeem the world?
Also, thorns have been found in strata before dinosaurs. A literal reading of Genesis has the dinosaurs created before Adam sinned, after which God brought thorns into the world as a punishment. If one takes the view that the strata represent millions of years, then you must reject the Bible. But if the strata don’t, then there’s no problem.
Check this out if you’re interested:
Regarding Michael’s comment – number 46.
Michael,David Pawson shares your non-dogmatic view on creation ; he actually regards this period today as God’s EIGHTH DAY of creation (and he regards the SEVENTH DAY as lasting all through First Covenant history). He also says that God is doing things in reverse order this time : whereas in First Covenant Scripture we have God making the earth first,and then populating it with people,this time he is conforming people to the image of His Son,and then bringing the new earth after.
I will give a link here to a talk David gave on evolution ; a talk that I had long wanted to hear,but was eventually disappointed when I heard it ! (Being fallible,like all of us,David is affected by ‘carbon dating’ ; furthermore,he feels that there is even a possibility God had a man-like prototype in the animal world,who He then upgraded (my words here,not David’s) to a modern man (so to speak) at some point in time.
I put a link here to the talk (given in the 70s or 80s) ; excluding the man-like speculation (which I think is a sonething he may have better kept to his close friends),the talk is an informative account on Darwin and society. (You can listen online or download on MP3) It is entitled ‘Evolutionary Theory And It’s Effects.’
With regard to the caustic guy,I want (as usual !) to say this ; if his problem is causticity,and if it is not solved,his problem if not with old-earthers but possibly with Gehenna itself (the everlasting home for owners of filthy tongues,is it not?). I wonder if this person’s tongue is licensed by OSAS or POTS ? I hope he sorts it out. In time you will do a radio show on two of the most neglected PRIMARY areas of authentic disciplehood : ‘rudderlogy’ (written and spoken words),and authentic clique-less familyhood ? (So far,I have not heard you do a show on these ; and they are are NOT side issues.)
It is surprising to me that Dr. William Craig, a man whom I highly respect was willing to side with “The Science Guy” and say that Christians should not believe that the earth is young nor should they teach it to their children. It is suprising because, as some have aptly noted, this is the most natural reading of Genesis. When the historical narrative of Genesis is read, coupled with the genealogies, we see that the earth is young. To hear Craig express disapproval for those who believe this and teach it to their children is shocking indeed. On this note, I will have to strongly disagree–not with Craig’s theology–but with his assertion that this view of Genesis should not be believed by Christians or taught to their children.
You wrote: “Michael,David Pawson shares your non-dogmatic view on creation ; he actually regards this period today as God’s EIGHTH DAY of creation (and he regards the SEVENTH DAY as lasting all through First Covenant history).”
The above statement is pure speculation and had no basis in scripture. The lengths that some people will go to allegorize scripture to conform to their preconceived doctrine is simply amazing…and sad, very sad.
It is not a matter of being dogmatic or non-dogmatic in regard to what Genesis says. It is a matter of believing what it says or not.
As was presented above, by Dustin Turner, it should be quite obvious from the genealogies in scripture how old the earth, as we know it, really is.
All of the first covenant as the seventh day is a concept from la-la land. There is no eighth day of creation. YHWH created everything in six days and rested the seventh. The seventh “spiritual” day, if you will, is the millennium where Messiah’s kingdom comes to earth. The eighth “spiritual” day, if you will, is when the new heavens and the new earth come into being. This all fits into the 1000 years is as a day and a day is as a 1000 years.
The idea that the seventh day starts with Moses at Mt. Sinai (first covenant) leaves us with about 2500 years between the end of the creation week and the start of the seventh day. Quite problematic, I’d say. If we count the first 4000 years as some kind of seventh day we have no scriptural reason to do so.
Considering all the crazy chronological chaos that is championed continuously by corrupt, contemporary concepts that are categorically contemptuous toward correctly conceding the capability of our Creator’s capacity to communicate concisely His creative commands that coalesced to comprise the complete cosmos, is it not possible that proud persons, presuming to prevaricate, perniciously produce publications that prepare people to be prejudiced against the preponderance of the perfectly probable presentations that prove our present predicament to be six thousand years old and our evenings and mornings to be of the same kind and duration as the ones declared during the creation week?
If what the late Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr wasn’t enough.
I’ve seen William Craig lose debates before but never did he look so bad as he did in this last debate with a cosmologist named Sean Carroll. Craig’s followers immediately took the debate off the Internet because Craig lost so badly. I thought Craig was going to break down and cry at the end of the debate. I don’t see how here were any theists left in the crowd by the end. Carroll proved that science and Christianity are not compatible and Craig did a great job of proving that too.
I challenge you people to watch the debate between cosmologist Sean Carroll and William Craig. Craig did so poorly in the debate his followers took the debate off the Internet. But Sean Carroll put the debate back up so we can all see what really happened. I doubt any of you Bible believers have the nerve to watch your hero get his lunch handed to him. The truth about things is never of any concern to Bible believers.
Who doesn’t have any nerve? Why should anyone listen to you when you have been proven wrong and won’t admit it? Why should we listen to a troll?
One who posts a deliberately provocative message…with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
When are you going to answer the charge that you took Scweitzer out of context? Did you do it intentionally or were you duped by someone and then just regurgitate the lie? At least admit that you were wrong, even if you won’t tell us your motive. Don’t dodge or ignore this if you are an honest man. To refresh you memory, here is the challenge:
Below is one of many examples of Van’s deception technique. He has been asked repeatedly to either admit that he has posted false testimony or to produce verification of his assertion. After being called on the carpet, he conveniently ignores all rebuttals and continues to regurgitate deception mixed with a huge amount of rhetoric, vitriol and insult. He is not to be taken seriously as scholar or a commentator. He is a troll, and nothing more.
“’There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence.’ – Albert Scweitzer (1875-1965)
You just accused Albert Schweitzer of being classless, unqualified, and simple minded. Par for the course for people who have no respect for intelligence and education.
Many scholars have tried to find evidence from outside the Bible that Jesus really existed. They came up with nothing, absolutely nothing as Dr. Schweitzer said.
You people have bought into all the lies of religion and then you repeat these lies without any hint of a conscience. Calling me a liar when all I do is speak the truth just shows how backward your evil religion really is.”
“Well, it’s a classic move by you to rip a quotation out of context. Who is it you’re listening to? It makes no sense for you to drop what you think is a bombshell when all you’ve done now is make yourself look more foolish because you never considered that Google just might have Schweitzer’s book on line.
Anyone who cares to can read further down the chapter and see that Schweitzer was referring to the historic Jesus as He was portrayed by the modern theological historians of his own time. His thought was that “That” Jesus never existed… His point was that we end up molding Him according to our modern way of thinking categorically. We essentially risk minimizing the astonishing profundity of His teachings.
This link begins with the quote you gave us and then explains exactly what Schweitzer was getting at. The man made the cross he wanted on his own grave, for Pete’s sake.
To date, Van still ignores the proof of his irrelevancy. He continues to persecute in the only way he as power to do. That power, in this instance, being the grace of Dr. Brown. Be sure to thank YHWH that Van is not in any governmental position where his bigotry and prejudice can do more harm.
2 Timothy 3
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Comments are closed.