Robin
Lake Park, Georgia USA
Posts: 1,079
Joined: January 2002
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,349
Posts56,545
Members992
| |
Most Online2,383 Jan 12th, 2026
|
|
|
#25534
Mon May 30, 2005 9:46 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Enthusiast
|
OP
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201 |
I recently got to hear Ken Ham speak. He brought up the issue of the word "day" in Genesis and showed on one of the power-point screens that when one looks at all the other references of the word "day" in Scripture that are preceeded by a number or the words "evening"/"morning" that it ALWAYS means a literal 24 hour day. I'm assuming Ken Ham is correct, but is this really the case when looking at the original languages for the word day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,026 Likes: 274
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,026 Likes: 274 |
janean said: I recently got to hear Ken Ham speak. He brought up the issue of the word "day" in Genesis and showed on one of the power-point screens that when one looks at all the other references of the word "day" in Scripture that are preceeded by a number or the words "evening"/"morning" that it ALWAYS means a literal 24 hour day. I'm assuming Ken Ham is correct, but is this really the case when looking at the original languages for the word day? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> that is correct. See here: Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation, by Kenneth Gentry. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> In His Grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Enthusiast
|
OP
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 201 |
Thanks for the affirmation that this is indeed the correct Scriptural information. The author of the article says some of the same things Ham brought up such as : .... they often capitulate to the evolutionary elite, being pressured to re-interpret Genesis in order to maintain academic credibility. and "we must hold to the teachings of Scripture, rather than the ever-changing doctrine of man." Ken Ham was a delight to listen to. A few years ago I started questioning this whole issue for myself when I realized that I now have to really decide what exactly I'm going to teach my children in this area. While I've always leaned in the direction of the 24-hour literal days, I was curious about those out there like Hugh Ross (a progressive creationist). So I got a couple of his books out of the library to see what he had to say. He seems to make quite a case, and I can see why he's popular, but my discernment kicked in when reading his materials and there were many "red flags". Hugh Ross addresses the issue of the "days" in Genesis and of course has to re-interpret things to fit his view. Ken Ham just simply pointed out the simple exegesis of Scripture. It was interesting too that he gave examples of some famous theologians who didn't hold a literal view of the days in Genesis also. Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,893 Likes: 49
Needs to get a Life
|
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,893 Likes: 49 |
Janean
Can you remember any of the specifics that Hugh Ross used to make his case for progessive creationism?
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
167
guests, and
40
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|