1. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8554
    12 Feb '13 03:322 edits
    Frankie Schaeffer with his late dad Francis Schaeffer was one of the archetects of he Religious Right.

    He's still a Christian but is a scathing critic now of the Religious Right.

    YouTube

    YouTube
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    12 Feb '13 03:43
    Originally posted by sonship
    Frankie Schaeffer with his late dad Francis Schaeffer was one of the archetects of he Religious Right.

    He's still a Christian but is a scathing critic now of the Religious Right.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbgVV2ql5MM
    Although I agree with certain things he says, it is a shame that he associates young earth creationists with the cults. He apparently has no faith in the Genesis account of creation.
  3. Joined
    03 Sep '12
    Moves
    16252
    13 Feb '13 14:49
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Although I agree with certain things he says, it is a shame that he associates young earth creationists with the cults. He apparently has no faith in the Genesis account of creation.
    I heard him speak nearly 20 years ago and bought his book 'Portofino', pretty good book, nice read.
  4. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8554
    13 Feb '13 15:151 edit
    Originally posted by kd2acz
    I heard him speak nearly 20 years ago and bought his book 'Portofino', pretty good book, nice read.
    I never heard him. I did hear his father speak and debate (once) in the 70s.

    I read "Escape from Reason"
    "True Spirituality"
    "The God Who is There" .

    He also wrote a reply to Psychologist B.F. Skinner's book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" which Schaeffer entitled "Back to Freedom and Dignity."

    I am not surprised at Frankie Schaeffer's change of heart. Like a Bob Dylon he did not like to be too pegion holed which I think goes along with very creative and artistic people which Frankie is.
  5. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8554
    13 Feb '13 15:21
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Although I agree with certain things he says, it is a shame that he associates young earth creationists with the cults. He apparently has no faith in the Genesis account of creation.
    Don't you think that is the least of the problems he brings up?

    You and I have been through the old earth / young earth debate. Haven't we?
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    13 Feb '13 16:46
    Originally posted by sonship
    Don't you think that is the [b]least of the problems he brings up?

    You and I have been through the old earth / young earth debate. Haven't we?[/b]
    No, I think that is the major problem in his thinking. I have debated jaywill, but not sonship on this subject. And jaywill has been led astray from the clear teaching of scripture on this subject by at least one false teacher.
  7. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8554
    13 Feb '13 19:461 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No, I think that is the major problem in his thinking. I have debated jaywill, but not sonship on this subject. And jaywill has been led astray from the clear teaching of scripture on this subject by at least one false teacher.
    sonship is jaywill.

    I canceled my registration from Chessatwork and after a long period of time signed up again under the tag sonship.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    13 Feb '13 23:25
    Originally posted by sonship
    sonship is jaywill.

    I canceled my registration from Chessatwork and after a long period of time signed up again under the tag sonship.
    You forgot your password?
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8554
    14 Feb '13 00:39
    No.

    I took an extended leave.
  10. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8554
    14 Feb '13 05:547 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No, I think that is the major problem in his thinking. I have debated jaywill, but not sonship on this subject. And jaywill has been led astray from the clear teaching of scripture on this subject by at least one false teacher.
    And jaywill has been led astray from the clear teaching of scripture on this subject by at least one false teacher.


    I have not been led astray by any false teaching merely because you are convinced that Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656 AD) could pinpoint the year, day, and hour of the creation of the universe, and I am not.

    Whereas I simply take the Bible that it was "In the beginning..." .
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    14 Feb '13 06:355 edits
    Originally posted by sonship
    And jaywill has been led astray from the clear teaching of scripture on this subject by at least one false teacher.


    I have not been led astray by any false teaching merely because you are convinced that Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656 AD) could pinpoint the year, day, and hour of the creation of the universe, and I am not.

    Whereas I simply take the Bible that it was [b]"In the beginning..."
    .[/b]
    I never said that I am convinced that Bishop James Ussher pinpointed the year, month, day, and hour of the creation. It was Dr. James Lightfoot that supposedly improved on Ussher's calculation and came up with the hour. I made no claim that I believed either were exactly correct.

    Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time, declared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of the Scriptures, that "heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

    You may not remember but I posted the date I believe Jesus was born in the flesh, as being on thursday night of 20-21 April 5 B.C. Julian calendar. I was unable to pinpoint the exact hour of the evening of 20 April so the time could have extended up to midnight, which you might call 21 April. This may push Ussher's date back a few years, but I do not know how the above persons did their calculations. I suppose they did it through the astronomy of that time. I never had any information in my possession that allowed me to accurately calculate back to the beginning of the creation of the earth.
  12. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8554
    14 Feb '13 14:244 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I never said that I am convinced that Bishop James Ussher pinpointed the year, month, day, and hour of the creation. It was Dr. James Lightfoot that supposedly improved on Ussher's calculation and came up with the hour. I made no claim that I believed either were exactly correct.

    [b]Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, an at allowed me to accurately calculate back to the beginning of the creation of the earth.
    You may not remember but I posted the date I believe Jesus was born in the flesh, as being on thursday night of 20-21 April 5 B.C. Julian calendar. I was unable to pinpoint the exact hour of the evening of 20 April so the time could have extended up to midnight, which you might call 21 April. This may push Ussher's date back a few years, but I do not know how the above persons did their calculations. I suppose they did it through the astronomy of that time. I never had any information in my possession that allowed me to accurately calculate back to the beginning of the creation of the earth.
    [/b]

    Thanks for the clarification about Lightfoot.

    However, I am not deceived by a false teaching because of either Ussher or Lightfoot or Kent Hovind or Robert Morris or any number of other bible teachers who think the Bible explicitly tells us the date, rough or precise, of the creation of the universe.

    They are welcomed to their opinion. I don't think the Bible supplies this information. I don't think their rationals are good enough to be dogmatic about a date.

    Now we do have in some cases the number of years that occured between two events. But I have never seen the number of years specified between the happening of the first verse in Genesis and any other event.

    If you say that the geneologies enable us to calculate the date, I would remind you that gaps in geneologies sometimes occur. Maybe not every single person was mentioned.

    If you say that God made the earth in six days. I would say that this statement of Exodus 11:20, strictly speaking, could be a true statement even if the beginning of time is further back than 6,000 years. God could prepare the earth in six days for the state we know it today for mankind's habitation.

    I don't think I followed a false teacher to not hold to a YEC view of the creation. I think I am in pretty good company with some other Bible expositors to leave the date of creation uncertain.

    But I am not going to cut any believer off as a heretic for holding a different view on this.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    15 Feb '13 06:33
    Originally posted by sonship
    [quote] You may not remember but I posted the date I believe Jesus was born in the flesh, as being on thursday night of 20-21 April 5 B.C. Julian calendar. I was unable to pinpoint the exact hour of the evening of 20 April so the time could have extended up to midnight, which you might call 21 April. This may push Ussher's date back a few years, but I do not ...[text shortened]... t I am not going to cut any believer off as a heretic for holding a different view on this.
    It is obvious to me that the creation event happened more than 6,000 years ago. Our disagreement seems to be how much longer. I do not accept a gap theory in the days of creation. These days were literal days with evening and morning as Moses declared and just like the Jewish days on the Jewish calendar. They were not days of 1,000 years each or days of undetermined time that could be up to billions of years. They are literal 24 hour Jewish days and that is the only explanation I accept. Any other teaching I consider a false teaching and not from God.

    HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
  14. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8554
    15 Feb '13 13:175 edits
    It is obvious to me that the creation event happened more than 6,000 years ago. Our disagreement seems to be how much longer. I do not accept a gap theory in the days of creation. These days were literal days with evening and morning as Moses declared and just like the Jewish days on the Jewish calendar.


    I think you are confusing Day Age Theory with an Gap or Interval interpretation.

    G.H. Pember's book Earth's Earliest Ages fromk which I first learned of the Interval between verse 1 and verse 2 of unspecified time argues for a typical solar day as you do.

    I think you have to admit that what is written there has to be somewhat understood from some kind of local standpoint.

    Do you believe that the earth was round on Day #1 ?
    Or do you believe that the earth became round on some other day ?

    If you believe that the earth was round on the first day then you have to admit that Evening and Morning - one day HAS to be understood from one side of the planet .

    From the other side of the planet it would have to be reckoned in reverse -
    Morning and Evening - one day.

    Unless you believe something like the earth was not round until some other solar day besides the first, it is hard to escape the nothing that the seerer or prophet is speaking from some kind of local standpount.

    If that is the case it has to be understood that what we have in Genesis 1 cannot be exhaustive explanation of how God created everything. It has to be from some anthropomorphic standpoint for a reference that limited humans can understand.

    But this should be obvious anyway. And not just because it was a pre-scientific world. Not just for that reason. But for the reason that the Genesis would be a thousand times larger in size if everything was being explained.

    One entire book could be devoted to just the subject of what water is. The conciseness, the poeticness of the writing should indicate that it is not a exhaustive explanation of God's creation.

    At the same time I believe that it is true. It is true yet from some standpoint for human comprehension.


    They were not days of 1,000 years each or days of undetermined time that could be up to billions of years.


    I think you are confirming that you are confusing Day Age Theory with Gap Theory.

    Day Age is an interpretation argued by Hugh Ross. I appreciate Hugh Ross's few books very much. I have not gone along with Ross on Day Age Theory.

    Maybe you are saying that an interval between verse 1 and verse 2 is somewhat the same as making one day a long age. Maybe that is a criticism some might hold.

    Anyway, I believe in a pre-adamic earth. And you and jaywill (me) had quite a few posts already on that. I thought I learned something. I hope you did also.


    They are literal 24 hour Jewish days and that is the only explanation I accept. Any other teaching I consider a false teaching and not from God.


    I thnk the time is approaching when Christians need to be more concerned with how it is all going to end a little more than how it all began.
  15. Joined
    26 Oct '06
    Moves
    2730
    15 Feb '13 15:16
    Correction: sonship intended to write:

    Unless you believe something like the earth was not round until some other solar day besides the first, it is hard to escape the that the seerer or prophet is speaking from some kind of local standpount.
Back to Top