Paul Vander Klay
June 14, 2011
Evangelism will always have its big shows. Â Did Paul have deep and personal relationships with each one of the people that he shared the Gospel with? Â No, there was no way.<br><br>These kinds of showings are great, they keepÂ ChristianityÂ and its stories in the popular culture. Â It is up to the "man on the ground" to build relationships with his neighbor so that when the questions orÂ ridicule start, that he is there to confess "I'm a Christian" and then engage in a healthy discussion about who Christ is and why he believes so that the neighbor can learn more intimately about the only one who can save his soul from an eternity in Hell.
I think Billy Graham and associates got evangelism right---local churches were involved; people were not only invited to meet the Savior but were also invited to be connected with individuals and congregations after the meetings had come and left, not just left behind high and dry after the evangelist left town.
My other thought is that it seems that such Christian-themed attractions are amusement park alternatives for Christians---how many seekers go to those venues for questions, dialogue about faith?
This is an embarrassment. We are misreading Genesis if we think the author was intending to say the entire globe, from Peru to Australia was covered by a 5 mile or more deep (over the top of the himmylayas) blanket of water. It is scientifically impossible and would rip the planet to shreds. And then all the water went away in a few weeks, olive trees took sprout and we were back to normal? This obviously was a local flood of Noahâ€™s known immediate world. Entirely possible. But these hyper-literalists hold the Bible and Christians up to ridicule. This is no evangelistic scheme and I don't think these kinds of showings are great.
If you hold the word of a so called scientist over the word of Christ, commented on the Flood and also Peter the apostle. Good Luck... science also say that it's impossible for God to create the world in six days and for Jesus to walk in the water, and to turn water into wine and so on.... I, myself, believe the words of Christ and his power, just to be on the safe side you know, if science is right I loose nothing but if science is wrong you loose everything.....
<i>you know, if science is right I loose nothing but if science is wrong you loose everything.....</i><br><br>Are you suggesting that not believing in a global flood disqualifies a person from salvation?
We are misreading Genesis if we think that the author meant anything other than the entire planet. Â I can't speak for you, but I happen to buy into the idea that my God can do anything he wants. Â If he wants to flood the entire planet and defy man's interpretation of science, then He can do that - even if you're embarrassed by His actions.
Not even creationists want to throw out science in favor of unrestrained irrationality. They simply have "Creation Scientists" (Henry Morris, Ken Ham) with their own set of scientific evidences. The ace they have up their sleeves though is should their evidences be found incorrect, it really doesn't matter, they affirm their interpretation is correct no matter what any facts say. I have no problem with miracles, even today. Jesus not only healed then, he heals today. I have a problem with bogus science, a rejection of reason, a rejection of plain evidences and bad exegesis of scripture.
Do you also believe that Joseph's famine was also global because the language is identical? "All the earth came to Egypt"
It is pure show biz. It is not Biblical nor evangelical. Remember the money changers in the Temple?
If you ask any Talmudic scholar, familiar with the meaning of the original Hebrew, and the context in which it was introduced, the term is mabbul, which does NOT mean "Flood" but a catastrophe of much greater magnitude, possibly caused by another stellar system passing rather close (in astronomical terms) to our solar system, causing all kinds of horrific dislocation. Don't be too quick to think that our English translations, or even the Greek Septaguint is a reliable guide to every detail of what God did. Also, Noah was not instructed to build a boat, but a teyva roughly, a box. As people have pointed out concerning the boat, the box would of course have been too small to hold two of every kind of life. The explanation shows more pure faith than any excuse I've heard concerning the size of the "boat." It was Noah's job to do what he was told; it was God's job to make sure every life form was saved.
Scientists don't say it is impossible for God to create the world in six days. They say that there is hard evidence our universe HAS BEEN AROUND for about 13 billion years. Apparently, that is what God did. Are you saying God HAD to do it all in six days? What arrogance!<br><br>There are some projections that, applying the expansion of the universe from the original moment of creation, and the fact that time itself is a dimension, which also dilated, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE of the moment of creation, the entire universe is six days old, but looking back from where we sit, it is indeed 13 billion earth years or so.<br><br>Or, as the hymn says "a thousand ages in thy sight are like an evening gone." Creationism doesn't belittle science so much as it belittles God. It is the faith of people who want a small god they can wrap their little human minds around, not an awesome God who is utterly beyond human comprehension, except for his inexplicable attempts to reveal a little of himself - and the Bible shows that we have always misunderstood, every time God spoke.
Add your comment to join the discussion!