New Creation Museum

[Guest]

Several weeks ago my wife and I toured the Creation Museum in KY. It takes about 3 hours to see everything. The museum is very nice, well maintained, and impressively set up. It was very crowded. We were told by the staff that Wednesdays are the best days to tour since the crowds seem to be typically less on those days.

Although it was a nice place, I wasn't completely impressed. Many verses that they quoted for certain exhibits clearly showed a pre-millenial position. But the biggest problem that I had was their dogmatic treatment of some theories. For example, instead of suggesting that the earth may not be billions of years old, they simply tell you that it isn't. In my opinion, their proof of a young earth isn't any stronger than the evidence of an older earth. Why be so dogmatic? Why not suggest their theory and let intelligent people decide?

My wife was kind of taken back by my criticsm. Like most who visited the place, I think she kind of jumped on the band wagon that said, "If it's Christian, then we've got to support it!" That's just hard for me.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

I live about 5 hours from the museum. Our family might go there sometime but I do agree it's a bit expensive. You can just buy a lifetime membership.

I do like the idea of having a place to take our children showing a "biblical history" instead of taking them to places that constantly bombard you with "millions of years ago".

[_Rick_C]

Well, what do you guys think? (if you can tear yourselves away from the calvinism debates for a second!)

Not much going on with the Calvinists right now....

My wife was kind of taken back by my criticsm. Like most who visited the place, I think she kind of jumped on the band wagon that said, "If it's Christian, then we've got to support it!" That's just hard for me.

I think I know what you mean (it's hard for me too, and at times, it is impossible).

Some people equate, for example, Calvinism with "Christian"; that what Calvinists say is truly and the only "Christian" way of seeing things)...which is not true.

The same kind of mistake happens -- when -- people equate their particular "Creationist" view with what is really & truly "Christian."

The overriding goal is to persuade visitors that the Book of Genesis is scientifically defensible, Ham said, for if Christians lose faith in the literal truth of Genesis, doubts about such matters as the virgin birth and Christ's resurrection, for example, will follow.

First, where does the Bible say I have to have "faith in the literal truth of Genesis"? What if I never had it? lol Was I never truly saved? hahaha Ham's slippery slope is a....slippery slope, imo.

I believe Jesus rose from the dead which is "Christian" according to the Bible.

I don't think Genesis is "six literal days." Imo, the Bible's Creation Accounts have nothing to do with modern science or faith outside of that God is the Creator. And I believe God is the Creator which is "Christian" according to the Bible. The Scriptures make no requirement on me to take any other viewpoint. I only have to believe that God, the Creator, exists.

I cannot say I believe in the virgin conception of Jesus (I'm agnostic about it and lean more toward no than yes...but to me this is not a big issue).

If I were required to be a Calvinist, had to accept as absolute truth one of the (several) Creationist Views, or always had to read and understand the Bible in a literal (common sense, plain reading) way...I'd be unable to be a Christian (as I couldn't meet the requirements)!

Not a problem, though: Because God and the Bible make no such demands on me...
Thanks,
Rick

P.S. It is one thing to reject a particular Creationist view or Calvinism. It is quite another thing to reject the Gospel. A Creationist View (other than: God is Creator) is NOT equal to, nor an integral part of, the Gospel...imo!

On Judgment Day it wouldn't be a good excuse to say, "I rejected "Christianity" because Calvinists said You predestine people to go to Hell. I didn't want to believe in a God who was like that."

At the Judgment Seat of Christ it would be sad if anyone were to say, "I had to reject "Christianity" because I thought the world was a lot older than 'they' said it was."

So let's preach the Gospel, not "Christian science beliefs." Please, lets! Okay?

out

[Guest]

I cannot say I believe in the virgin conception of Jesus (I'm agnostic about it but lean more toward no than yes).

Huh? That's one I've not heard (in Christian circles anyway).

[_Rick_C]

Darin...I rarely talk about it as it can be offensive, for one thing, and my salvation has been called into question, for another: but I am secure about that in Christ! and prefer not to debate it, lol (I might have something for the "Essays" board...but can't say when or even if, really...it wouldn't serve the purpose of "edifying" anyone (as far as that goes)...and I really am agnostic on it: I Don't Know). To be fair, and since I did feel comfortable enough to mention it on this forum; I'll do what I can to come up with an article...though I've successfully worked through this doubt to my own satisfaction in terms of my faith (after several years in an on-going study)...God bless you, Rick

[Guest]

Darin...I rarely talk about it as it can be offensive, for one thing, and my salvation has been called into question, for another: but I am secure about that in Christ! and prefer not to debate it, lol (I might have something for the "Essays" board...but can't say when or even if, really...it wouldn't serve the purpose of "edifying" anyone (as far as that goes)...and I really am agnostic on it: I Don't Know). To be fair, and since I did feel comfortable enough to mention it on this forum; I'll do what I can to come up with an article...though I've successfully worked through this doubt to my own satisfaction in terms of my faith (after several years in an on-going study)...God bless you, Rick

I don't mean to take this thread off topic but I didn't realize the bible was quiet about Mary being a virgin:

Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" 35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God.

It seems that the reason Jesus is called the Son of God is because He had no earthy father. I'm just curious as to why you are unsure about this.

[_Rick_C]

Hello Sean,

I had a thread on this (scroll down to "Birth Narratives"). You might find some of my "doubts" there. Other than this, my Calvinist preacher cousin is due in for the weekend later today...and he always wants to debate "the doctrines of grace"...So, I got my hands full right now, lol

I believe in the pre-existence and divinity of Christ, that he was the agency of Creation, that Mary was a virgin when the angel spoke to her, and that Jesus is the Son of God (but not necessarily in every way as traditionally understood).

It wasn't unknown, though it was unusual in the first century, for persons like some of the Caesars to be declared divine or as having been conceived by the gods, but everyone still knew they really had regular human parents too! And today, we don't think like they did back then. We can't (or don't normally) think in ways that seem contradictory. But they could -- and they didn't see a contradiction! lol. They could believe in myths while seeing them as also true...while we have very serious problems with this; what with our western logic. They accepted true-myth while we see that as illogical and impossible. We don't believe there is any such thing as a "true-myth" (well, not "we don't" because I do, anyway)! imo

I never really got into details (real depth) on the other thread (and don't want to resurrect it either, please).

N.T. Wright has some stuff on Jesus as the Son of God that I really like (in his mp3 lectures). "Son of God" has many biblical meanings that we sometimes miss.

I agree that the "plain reading" of the passage you quoted is that God was Jesus's biological Father (it can be saying that)...but: I don't know. I have a commitment to being honest...and I just have to be like this (I really do).

Btw, my cousin knows I do not believe all "orthodox doctrines" (I told him I wasn't convinced of them all). But I didn't, and probably won't ever, tell him that I'm unconvinced of a "literal" virgin conception. The Bible says, "A virgin shall conceive" which I believe (but am not convinced of literal interpretations). Anyway. My cousin, as a Calvinist who believes in the doctrine of Original Sin, with its concurrent "Jesus couldn't have had an earthly father or he would have inherited a sinful nature"...my cousin would doubt my salvation if I were to be completely honest with him! (I don't think he could handle it)....

Since I don't believe in the doctrine of Original Sin or that Jesus "had" to have God as his biological father along those lines...this aspect of a (literalist) doctrine of the virginal conception is moot, imo. I'm sure others agree with me on this aspect who do believe in a literal biological conception (non-Calvinists and/or people who do not accept the Original Sin doctrine).

I'll try to get some kind of article to post but can't promise or say when.
I need a nap! God bless you, Sean.
Thanks,
Rick

[Guest]

Hello Sean,

I had a thread on this (scroll down to "Birth Narratives"). You might find some of my "doubts" there. Other than this, my Calvinist preacher cousin is due in for the weekend later today...and he always wants to debate "the doctrines of grace"...So, I got my hands full right now, lol

Sounds like a lot of fun, enjoy your time together. Don't argue too much.

[_Rick_C]

Sean...my cousin is a "Day Person" and I'm not....ThankZZZzzzz....
(or I won't wake up till he goes to sleep tonite)!

[Guest]

Rick wrote

It wasn't unknown, though it was unusual in the first century, for persons like some of the Caesars to be declared divine or as having been conceived by the gods, but everyone still knew they really had regular human parents too! And today, we don't think like they did back then. We can't (or don't normally) think in ways that seem contradictory. But they could -- and they didn't see a contradiction! lol. They could believe in myths while seeing them as also true...while we have very serious problems with this; what with our western logic. They accepted true-myth while we see that as illogical and impossible. We don't believe there is any such thing as a "true-myth" (well, not "we don't" because I do, anyway)! imo

Hi Rick, I'll respect your desire for not wanting to get into details and hope you can answer my questions without any(details). If you can't then I'll respect your desire not to respond.
I'm curious, what is the earliest reference you found, from a Christian, who did not take the birth narrative literally? Did you find that most early Christians simply assumed this to be a "true-myth" or did most take it literally (the way our culture understands it today)?

Thanks,

PS...Although some would make it a prerequisite to thoroughly understand and agree on a series of issues before one can call themselves a Christian, I, nor apparently many here, are among them.