ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

Neo-Babelism in stone and steel

If you think this is unintentional, you don't understand the symbolic language of architecture. Globalism is the modern version of Satanic Neo-Babelism. God created the nations; the Prince of this World wishes to eradicate them under the Satanic principle One World, One Race, One Ruler.

Evil always repeats itself, which is why History always rhymes. Evil is always there, always lurking, always working towards its ultimate objective, which is the complete domination of Man.

Keep that in mind when you hear the anti-racists and anti-nationalists and antifas proudly declaring that there is only one race. The object is to unify humanity in permanent slavery.


Labels: ,

105 Comments:

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 09, 2016 2:34 AM  

This would be a good place to link to that John C. Wright book that envisions the tower of Babel writ large - with the Chaldean predestinarians and the fleshbending Neanderthal... not on Amazon?

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 09, 2016 2:45 AM  

Somewhither: A Tale of the Unwithering Realm

Tower on cover.

Blogger rho August 09, 2016 3:23 AM  

If you think this is unintentional, you don't understand the symbolic language of architecture.

I understand architects.

Was this commissioned from European architects?

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 3:32 AM  

Direct quote from the architechts, namely the company Architecture-Studio:

“Our buildings offer themselves to their inhabitants and to the city as ‘mysteries,’ or stories for which we provide ‘keys’ and signs so that they can be deciphered,”

I'm sure it's a coincidence.

Blogger Barry Dickinson, MD August 09, 2016 3:39 AM  

"Europe has never existed. One must genuinely create Europe." Jean Monnet

Blogger rho August 09, 2016 3:40 AM  

Markku wrote:Direct quote from the architechts, namely the company Architecture-Studio:

“Our buildings offer themselves to their inhabitants and to the city as ‘mysteries,’ or stories for which we provide ‘keys’ and signs so that they can be deciphered,”

I'm sure it's a coincidence.


Okay, they are definitely Freemasons, but the rest of the architecture community have never written secret messages on the blueprints.

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 3:40 AM  

I suppose I'll have to spell it out, that I'm sarcastic. Of course it's the Tower of Babel. But the architects can neither confirm nor deny - wink wink, nudge nudge - because they build mysteries.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 09, 2016 3:45 AM  

"Never again," said the scorpion to the frog.

Then he invited his brothers to kill all the frogs.

Blogger rho August 09, 2016 3:51 AM  

Markku wrote:I suppose I'll have to spell it out, that I'm sarcastic. Of course it's the Tower of Babel. But the architects can neither confirm nor deny - wink wink, nudge nudge - because they build mysteries.

Your native language isn't English, so I'll point out--I got your point, and it isn't valid.

Blogger Ron August 09, 2016 3:57 AM  

It's interesting, how the tower by Brughel at first looks far cooler, but then on second glance, looks far, far more disturbing.

Why is it that picture disturbs me so much? Something about the architecture, it's slouching manner, how the upper part is hidden yet exposed. It's honeycombed arches, insect like, with gaping pits at the top, the narrow walkways in the lower section exposing the walker to risk of immediate death, and the wide gates exposed all along that part promising an easy time for murderer to throw victims out.

Also it's attribute of being at once beautiful, yet sloppily put together. Aspects of it are very technical and precise, and other aspects of it are in ruin, crumbled.

It's size is also deceptive. On first glance it seems to be the size of the EU parliament building, but then on second glance you realize from the clouds that it is a squat monstrosity. The ratio of height to width is very unequal, this is several mountain put together!

Horrible. (I mean that in a good way to the artist)

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 4:01 AM  

Your native language isn't English, so I'll point out--I got your point, and it isn't valid.

I wasn't talking to you. I had already posted the comment when I saw yours.

Blogger guest August 09, 2016 4:04 AM  

"Keep that in mind when you hear the anti-racists and anti-nationalists and antifas proudly declaring that there is only one race. The object is to unify humanity in permanent slavery.


Meh. Ken Ham says it to prove the inerrant word of God in Genesis. I doubt he has much interest in politics.

Anonymous Pax_Romana August 09, 2016 4:07 AM  

I don't know if prophecy is being revealed or not - for who am I to prejudge these things? - but as I recall, Babylon was called a "mystery" once before...as the whore that rode the Antichrist. Who was eventually destroyed because she "committed fornication with the kings of the earth." (which, in the context of Scripture, generally means made ruinous and compromising alliances with other nations) Of course, the means of her destruction was that she was torn asunder by the same ungodly kings she had whored herself to.

But I'm sure that I'm looking too deeply into it (probably am; it's 0100 here in CA. Time for bed, VFM)

Blogger rho August 09, 2016 4:12 AM  

Markku wrote:Your native language isn't English, so I'll point out--I got your point, and it isn't valid.

I wasn't talking to you. I had already posted the comment when I saw yours.


Welcome to the Internets.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 09, 2016 4:13 AM  

"Ken Ham says it to prove the inerrant word of God in Genesis."

Trees are nations, says Ezekiel. Don't breed with serpents, Ruddy Aryadam.

Alternatively, Adam was "Red and yellow, black and white. Rainbow colored, what a sight. Reproducing after kinds besides his own!"

Blogger bethyada August 09, 2016 4:15 AM  

The EU poster "many tongues one voice" is clearly a take on Brueghel's painting; confirmed by the comment about different languages. It seems certain that the building itself is supposed to represent an unfinished building in the style of Babel.

I don't think it is can be considered amusing. Given the drastic action of God in Babel, this kind of imitation is high defiance.

Blogger Phillip George August 09, 2016 4:25 AM  

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/insigne/triregno_en.html

notice the inner working buidling in Brueghel's work looks "triple crown" like - just not finished?

Blogger Andreas August 09, 2016 4:41 AM  

Does the author seriously believe that this is a painting of an actual building instead of a renaissance artists impression of a mythological one?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are many paintings of the tower of Babel that all look completely different and that all have precisely nothing to do with any actual building that ever existed.
Here's Lucas van Valckenborch's version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tour_de_babel.jpeg
Here's Athanasius Kircher's version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turris_Babel_by_Athanasius_Kircher.jpg

All you've done is pick the one version that looks vaguely similar to the EU parliament.

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 4:48 AM  

Try googling "tower of babel painting". Notice a pattern?

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 4:53 AM  

And no, the architects themselves would almost certainly not have believed to be rebuilding an actual historical structure. Rather, they would have taken the standard luciferian view that the Bible should be understood as a metaphorical struggle between rationality and independent thought, represented by the figure of Satan, and evil and irrationality, represented by Yahweh. You'll see this story play out for example in the book series His Dark Materials.

So, they would have chosen the most popular depiction of the Tower of Babel, and designed the building to match in order to celebrate human accomplishment and independence. They themselves would have viewed this as good, not evil.

Blogger Rek. August 09, 2016 4:58 AM  

Retard.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 09, 2016 5:27 AM  

Is Rek Retard your porn name? That's pretty niche.

Blogger VD August 09, 2016 5:30 AM  

Does the author seriously believe that this is a painting of an actual building instead of a renaissance artists impression of a mythological one?

No. And only an idiot eagerly looking for the chance to discredit and disqualify would have entertained the thought that the author might.

Go away now. You're clearly not tall enough for this ride.

Blogger VD August 09, 2016 5:31 AM  

Meh. Ken Ham says it to prove the inerrant word of God in Genesis. I doubt he has much interest in politics.

I take Ken Ham's opinion just a little less seriously than Britney Spears's when she is off her meds.

Blogger Rek. August 09, 2016 5:32 AM  

If u can't see that Andreas has no clue, I'll let u fantasize about me being a porn actor ... just to make ur life happier.

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 6:01 AM  

I can guarantee you that precisely no-one but you understood this as Vox claiming that they have accidentally rebuilt the historical tower of Babel, and that this is then the fulfillment of some non-existent prophecy or something. But rather that the architects designed the building based on that painting.

Blogger Lovekraft August 09, 2016 6:06 AM  

And let's not forget that recent opening ceremony for some tunnel in Europe that was filled with pagan symbolism.

Blogger Stilicho August 09, 2016 6:12 AM  

Can't be an hommage to Babel, rho says the designers are freemasons...

Going to need a bigger facepalm today. Ten points to the first commenter to blame the Rosicrucians in order to further distract from Vox's point.

On a more serious note, it's somewhat amusing but ultimately pathetic when leftists claim their utopia will arrive as soon as the right people are in charge, yet it is always the same being in charge of their plans...using a new set of fools to spread his message...again.

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 6:13 AM  

Here's a little reading comprehension lesson:

"If you think this is unintentional..." -> we are discussing the intent of the architects. We are not discussing history, prophecy or anything of that sort.

"...you don't understand the symbolic language of architecture..." -> the claim is that this is intended as a symbol of something. Not the thing itself.

Blogger Leo Little Book in Shenzhen August 09, 2016 6:17 AM  

Man invented Google Translate.

God chuckled.

Blogger VD August 09, 2016 6:19 AM  

So you actually knew that this is just some renaissance guys impression, based on a myth that describes the tower in the vaguest of terms and that thus spawned countless completely different artistic impressions? No need to get defensive here, I'm not trying to discredit you, you evidently did a very fine job of doing that yourself.

You're spammed, little gamma boy. Don't come back.

Blogger Phillip George August 09, 2016 6:22 AM  

throw it wide open? plenty of people have speculated that the tower was more like a "portal" / gateway. A Jacob's Ladder attempt/ stairway to heaven. Like the Pyramid was always empty and may was a resurrection machine? Where did Enoch really go and or how did he get there.

Mathemetics/ gematria mean the bible is non human in origin, while humans have been used every step of the way.

Are illuminati crazy enough to think they can beat God this time? Well satan thought he could tempt Jesus so the answer is they are crazy enough. The current "suicide squad" movie etc. Awesome dude. CGI immortality.

Language devolution isn't exactly an exact science, but he whole earth has been speaking one language aka machine code for 40 years. Babel came and went, man just hasn't felt the consequences, yet. speculation on speculation. But, someone picked up the theme and spent big bucks on Brueghel. Where I would have spent it in Jerusalem.

OpenID paworldandtimes August 09, 2016 6:28 AM  

An aggressive "sorry" always triggers my gamma detectors.

PA

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 6:30 AM  

Yes, I don't think "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." is intended as literal, as in, the tower actually reaching God's abode. I think it just means, "let's build a really high tower". I also think the next verse is sarcastic:

"And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built."

The top was supposed to reach heaven, and the LORD has to come boots-on-ground to be able to even see it.

Anonymous Millenium August 09, 2016 6:42 AM  

(((Jean Monnet))) was the son of jewish merchants...something conveniently left out of the wikipedia article on him.

Blogger Cataline Sergius August 09, 2016 7:01 AM  

I actually (*may have*) once stood atop the Tower of Babel and I have to say it looks way better as a ruin than that disgusting thing in Brussels will.

Anonymous Toastrider August 09, 2016 7:12 AM  

In defense of the Tower of Babel, at least they were trying to build a tower to Heaven.

I seriously doubt the EU building is trying anything of the sort.

Blogger Nimochka August 09, 2016 7:12 AM  

This was one of your most powerful posts, Vox! There is a very deep spiritual dimension to all of this that people on our side should not miss!

Blogger pdwalker August 09, 2016 7:19 AM  

I wish I could point a finger and say, "you're wrong!" with conclusive evidence to support it, but all the things I see convince me that evil is a real thing.

on the bright side, it means good/goodness must also be real.

Anonymous SciVo August 09, 2016 7:40 AM  

Given Jim Rutenberg's mendacious conflation of racism and nationalism, I attempted to invalidate two hypotheses that I have previously explored here:

1. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a negative reaction to his most salient characteristic, pro-Americanism, so it's a sign of a divided loyalty or split identity (or just not being American).

2a. In addition to being factually incorrect, knee-jerk rhetorical linkage of nationalism with authoritarianism is a stereotypically Jewish verbal tic.

That second one doesn't quite apply, but I thought it would be interesting to see if I could fail to invalidate a broader hypothesis:

2b. The knee-jerk rhetorical linkage of nationalism with a negative -ism is a stereotypically Jewish verbal tic.

For the first, I found that Jim's father-in-law is Sandor Karady, whose surname is Hungarian, and who might or might not be the same guy who was naturalized in 1962. So that's a bit tenuous, but depending on how much he identifies with his 2G wife and her immigrant dad, #1 remains uncontradicted.

As for the other, Rutenberg is a German/Jewish surname. To narrow that down, Jim's dad was an entertainment lawyer who might or might not be the same Ronald N. Rutenberg who had Rutenberg, Rutenberg and Rutenberg backing him up for a 1967 liquor license case.

Of course German lawyers exist -- perhaps even nepotistic entertainment lawyers -- so that doesn't really prove anything, but 2b remains uncontradicted. I'm liking that broader form because it implies a rhetorical intent, whereas 2a could just be an unconscious cultural quirk.

Anonymous Mister M August 09, 2016 7:45 AM  

The Bill Cooper radio shows used to cover stuff like this. I miss those days. Few of the current "conspiracy theorists" can hold a candle to what Cooper did with short wave radio. I think there is a real resemblance, and the knee-jerk reaction of disbelief has been inculcated, particularly in Americans, over the past 50 years or so.

Blogger Nate August 09, 2016 7:48 AM  

meh. Should've been taller.

While I don't question at all their intentions and motivations are precisely as described... I don't even remotely think this is indicative of The End of The World.

Bunch of hacks and wanna-bes.

Anonymous Fran August 09, 2016 7:50 AM  

@37
Well they are trying to build a secular paradise of diversity.

Anonymous DissidentRight August 09, 2016 7:51 AM  

I doubted. Then I searched for more pictures. Without the flags in the way, there is no ambiguity. Wow.

Blogger Lazarus August 09, 2016 8:03 AM  

The theory is that The Illuminati expose their conspiracy because they want complicity.

They stick it in your face, and if you don't object it is considered agreement.

Anonymous farmer August 09, 2016 8:27 AM  

Satan doesn't just want to enslave and racially homogenize humanity. He wants to utterly destroy it and drag it to the pit with him.

This is why the elites reliably push population control/reduction methods and seek to dramatically reduce the human population. Satan hates God's creation and the fact he elevated these lessor beings over angels.

Blogger Nate August 09, 2016 8:29 AM  

"This is why the elites reliably push population control/reduction methods and seek to dramatically reduce the human population."

BUT BUT BUT

Rachael Carson says DDT hurts the birdies!!!!

Blogger Christopher Yost August 09, 2016 8:35 AM  

VD-

What puts this Tower of Babel depiction above the others?

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 8:45 AM  

I say again: Try googling "tower of babel painting". You'll get almost exclusively this artist in all the results. It is the de facto Tower of Babel, to a degree that any others might as well not exist.

Blogger Alexander August 09, 2016 8:46 AM  

The very existence of brutalism - nevermind just who enthuses about it and decided to blight our cities with it - is proof enough for me that there is an intentioned effort with the architectural elite to destroy truth and beauty.

It's only natural that they would attack on as many fronts as possible.

Blogger Alexander August 09, 2016 8:48 AM  

Afterall, why just assault the eyes with giant blocks of concrete when you can assault the soul by attempting to mock God? Two styles, one endgame.

OpenID paworldandtimes August 09, 2016 8:55 AM  

"This is why the elites reliably push population control/reduction methods and seek to dramatically reduce the human population"

And yet Africa's population is exploding.

PA

Blogger Christopher Yost August 09, 2016 8:58 AM  

Markku-

Your google must be secular. ;)

I immediately did just that after reading VD's post and encountered a bunch-a-ton of different images.

Separating the sci-fi 'n fantasy still left boat loads. The Wikipedia had the featured representation on top. A bunch of lists each had different headers. Some were exact matches of listings with others being all over the place.

Anonymous Northern Observer August 09, 2016 9:04 AM  

Seems more likely to have been based on the Colosseum than a Dutch Renaissance painter’s imagination.

Not only does it look more like the Colosseum, but it would make more sense since it’s rather famous European landmark.

Anonymous farmer August 09, 2016 9:15 AM  

PA,

They are working on that too. And besides, that explosion is mostly future projection.

And even if they weren't, yet, you can see in the invasion of Europe why they'd let a population explode even if long term they want reduction.

Blogger VD August 09, 2016 9:16 AM  

Not only does it look more like the Colosseum, but it would make more sense since it’s rather famous European landmark.

What on Earth do you think the Brueghel painting is based on? It's all part of the same symbolic language. The EU is the new Babel AND the new Rome. It's not a binary concept.

Blogger Matthew Roman August 09, 2016 9:20 AM  

VD,
Why the Ken Ham comment? I have great respect for the man. He teaches creation, headship and every biblical teaching that is off limits in the current church. Thanks, Robert

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 9:33 AM  

Images, yes. But look at the normal hits, where paintings are discussed. EVERYBODY is discussing precisely one artist.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 09, 2016 9:42 AM  

AFAICT, elites make their plans obvious but plausibly deniable because they think it's funny.

Blogger Aeoli Pera August 09, 2016 9:45 AM  

That's the reason they say out loud anyway. I suspect they're just trying to cover over their euphoric anxiety from trying to summon powers they don't understand.

Blogger praetorian August 09, 2016 9:55 AM  

Does the author seriously believe that this is a painting of an actual building instead of a renaissance artists impression of a mythological one?

Free will is a myth. Religion is a joke.

Modern architects are pawns, controlled by something greater:

Jews...

Anonymous Polllllll August 09, 2016 10:03 AM  

To anybody non-religious: it doesn't matter if you're not. They are.

Anonymous Gen. Kong August 09, 2016 10:15 AM  

All it lacks are some minarets.

Anonymous CC August 09, 2016 10:19 AM  

This poster helps remove all doubt as to the origin of the EU parliament's design. It's definitely the Tower of Babel by Breughel...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k_PjlYoTZGM/TqmS_lNsLDI/AAAAAAAABVk/0moK-99eiYA/s1600/eu+poster+006.jpg

Blogger pyrrhus August 09, 2016 10:24 AM  

Hilariously, when my do-gooder wife and kids tried to observe the European Parliament in session in this horrid building, they were told with considerable hostility that it was not allowed. In the US, of course, it is encouraged everywhere...That caused a sea change in her attitude toward the EU and its thuggish bureaucrats...

Blogger Phelps August 09, 2016 10:26 AM  

It was good to be a Babylonian for a long time -- it was great to be a Babylonian when God used them as an instrument against Jerusalem.

After that, not so much.

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 10:28 AM  

Yes, looks like that poster indeed was at the construction site when the building was being built, and was removed after protests from Christians.

Blogger pyrrhus August 09, 2016 10:30 AM  

"on the bright side, it means good/goodness must also be real."

Love is real and divine, count on it....

Blogger pyrrhus August 09, 2016 10:34 AM  

"On a more serious note, it's somewhat amusing but ultimately pathetic when leftists claim their utopia will arrive as soon as the right people are in charge, yet it is always the same being in charge of their plans...using a new set of fools to spread his message...again."
Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss, always.....

Blogger Christopher Yost August 09, 2016 10:37 AM  

Markku-

There it is! Was waiting for that admission.

Anonymous EH August 09, 2016 10:48 AM  

Markku @ 34 wrote:Yes, I don't think "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." is intended as literal, as in, the tower actually reaching God's abode. I think it just means, "let's build a really high tower". ....

I like Neal Stephenson's interpretation in Snowcrash (AI Librarian talking with Hiero):
"In assuming that it was very tall, you are relying on an obsolete reading. The tower is described, literally, as 'its top with the heavens.' For many centuries, this was interpreted to mean that its top was so high that it was in the heavens. But in the last century or so, as actual Babylonian ziggurats have been excavated, astrological diagrams-pictures of the heavens-have been found inscribed into their tops."

"Oh. Okay, so the real story is that a tower was built with heavenly diagrams carved into its top. Which is far more plausible than a tower that reaches to the heavens."

"More than plausible," the Librarian reminds him. "Such structures have actually been found."


The astronomical diagrams are intended to demonstrate the higher knowledge of the priest-kings, their authority derived from the heavens to tell the people when to plant and when to harvest. The EU bureaucrats probably see themselves as the rightful heirs of those early technocrats, though I'd be surprised if there weren't more symbolism intended as well.

Blogger flyingtiger August 09, 2016 10:56 AM  

I was always suspicious of this federation of planets in the Star Trek universe.

Blogger Latigo3 August 09, 2016 11:02 AM  

Good architects do not do anything that is unintentional.

Anonymous VFM #6306 August 09, 2016 11:13 AM  

The blindness of many is a "mystery." If you still think the satanoglobalists build this stuff to usher in the End/Destruction of their ambitions, you haven't connected the dots. No, they are trying to build an en enduring or temporary alternative to the End.

Bruegels the Elder was depicting two past events (Nimrod and Rome), both permanently incomplete, as well as the contemporary spirit of his age, and finally a future ambition.

The EU gets it, and is relying on the pagan to embrace it and the Christian to be lukewarm or afraid.

Blogger Markku August 09, 2016 11:21 AM  

Was waiting for that admission.

By "admission" I assume you mean in that in image search, other pictures come up too. Yes, they do, because image search will not repeat the same image over and over except when the matching fails (because of, for example, significantly different size or different brightness. But look at the normal results:

The Tower of Babel (Bruegel) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Tower of Babel is the subject of three oil paintings by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.

Tower of Babel, Pieter Bruegel: Analysis, Interpretation

22 fascinating details you probably never noticed on Bruegel's 'The ...

The Tower of Babel - Art and the Bible
Information about the Tower of Babel and its depiction in major works of ... Pieter Bruegel the Elder painted the Tower three times

File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google ...

Bruegel, Tower of Babel | Antwerp and Bruges | Khan Academy

Inside the Masterpiece: Pieter Bruegel's “Tower of Babel” | The Secret ...

The Tower of Babel - Google Arts & Culture
Mesopotamian type of step-shaped ziggurat (temple tower), which, however, was rectangular rather than round. Bruegel’s monumental composition [note: this link you'll have to actually click]

Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Tower of Babel, 1563 - YouTube
---
Every single hit on the first page discuss the same painting. On the second, there is a couple that don't.

Blogger Alexander August 09, 2016 11:21 AM  

@73

No no don't you know we're supposed to always attribute incompetence/naivety/unintentioned/stupidity whenever a voice in the back of the head whispers 'this is evil'.

Blogger tz August 09, 2016 12:24 PM  

Meanwhile, a leftist Matt Taibbi gets it - at least the problem and why Trump.

Blogger chronoblip August 09, 2016 1:19 PM  

Matthew Roman wrote:VD,

Why the Ken Ham comment? I have great respect for the man. He teaches creation, headship and every biblical teaching that is off limits in the current church. Thanks, Robert


Ken Ham is an example of what Romans 16:17 or Matthew 7:22-23 talks about. He creates barriers of entry into the faith and denigrates the faith of other Christians who don't agree with him. Note he doesn't attack them or their arguments, but their faith, and claims he has all the answers. The YEC movement displays many cult-like aspects, if not being one outright.

The age of the Earth is not really relevant to any core doctrines or theologies, but Ken and his other YEC buddies have claimed that anyone who doesn't believe like they do isn't a Christian, and that they deny biblical inerrancy because they don't think the Hebrew word translated into the English word "day" only meant "a distinct 24-hour period". They're like the KJV-only people, but with a scientific backdrop to distract from the same level of stubborn ignorance.

Blogger The Aardvarkl August 09, 2016 1:41 PM  

The perfect office block for the N.I.C.E.

Anonymous BGKB August 09, 2016 1:42 PM  

And yet Africa's population is exploding.

Since the ((())) want to flood Europe with the 3rd world to lower IQs that might be part of the plan.

Blogger Elder Son August 09, 2016 1:47 PM  

The road to Babel goes through Rome.

Rome.

L.U.C.I.F.E.R.

The great deception.

As in the days of Noah.

Blogger SirHamster August 09, 2016 1:59 PM  

chronoblip wrote:The age of the Earth is not really relevant to any core doctrines or theologies, but Ken and his other YEC buddies have claimed that anyone who doesn't believe like they do isn't a Christian, and that they deny biblical inerrancy because they don't think the Hebrew word translated into the English word "day" only meant "a distinct 24-hour period". They're like the KJV-only people, but with a scientific backdrop to distract from the same level of stubborn ignorance.


I challenge you to back up that assertion or retract.

Ken Ham, 2010:

Many great men of God who are now with the Lord have believed in an old earth. Some of these explained away the Bible’s clear teaching about a young earth by adopting the classic gap theory. Others accepted a day-age theory or positions such as theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, and progressive creation.

Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe.

Blogger Lucas August 09, 2016 2:12 PM  

"If you think this is unintentional, you don't understand the symbolic language of architecture. Globalism is the modern version of Satanic Neo-Babelism."

Vox, things are even more clear than that. Take a look at this image: https://i.imgur.com/UR0gfal.png
They literally use the image of Satan as a "star" above the Union.

Blogger Lucas August 09, 2016 2:13 PM  

(Regarding my previous comment. I added the face of Satan.)

Blogger SirHamster August 09, 2016 2:21 PM  

Ron wrote:Why is it that picture disturbs me so much? Something about the architecture, it's slouching manner, how the upper part is hidden yet exposed.

Thanks for describing that.

Unfocused, it looks like green decay is oozing out of the structure.

Blogger chronoblip August 09, 2016 2:45 PM  

SirHamster wrote:chronoblip wrote:The age of the Earth is not really relevant to any core doctrines or theologies, but Ken and his other YEC buddies have claimed that anyone who doesn't believe like they do isn't a Christian, and that they deny biblical inerrancy because they don't think the Hebrew word translated into the English word "day" only meant "a distinct 24-hour period". They're like the KJV-only people, but with a scientific backdrop to distract from the same level of stubborn ignorance.

I challenge you to back up that assertion or retract.

Ken Ham, 2010:

Many great men of God who are now with the Lord have believed in an old earth. Some of these explained away the Bible’s clear teaching about a young earth by adopting the classic gap theory. Others accepted a day-age theory or positions such as theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, and progressive creation.

Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe.


You did read that article all the way through right?

Now when I say this, people sometimes assume then that it does not matter what a Christian believes concerning the supposed millions of years age for the earth and universe.

Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences. Let me summarize some of these.


"You can believe that, but here's a list of reasons why you don't understand scripture and undermine the salvation narrative."

By dying on a cross and being raised from the dead, Jesus conquered death and paid the penalty for sin. Although millions of years of death before sin is not a salvation issue per se, I personally believe that it is really an attack on Jesus’ work on the cross.

Recognizing that Christ’s work on the cross defeated our enemy, death, is crucial to understanding the “good news” of the gospel: “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).


So, "you can believe what you want, but you're wrong and undermine the central doctrine of Christianity." What a great olive branch to those who do not accept Ken's narrow definition of "day", and I didn't even go outside using the article you referenced.

To expand to his buddies in the YEC crowd, here's Kent Hovind (currently in jail for tax problems) debating with Hugh Ross, demonstrating the "holier than thou" mannerism of YEC: https://youtu.be/2_Z_br-4RCo

The YEC crowd pays lip service to the idea that the people are "still Christian", then go about explaining why those people can't really be Christian because they reject the proper interpretation of scripture.

So, do you need more explicit examples or do you understand the "bait-and-switch"?

You cannot claim someone is a Christian even if they believe X, and then explain why Christians can't believe X, and then try to say that you still think Christians can believe X. That is paradoxical.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd August 09, 2016 3:27 PM  

@86: Ken Ham's point, as I understood it, was that if you start by not believing Genesis, you end by not believing any of the inconvenient bits in the bible. I was an old earth believer when I ran into Ham's work, and didn't think he was calling me an unbeliever.

Blogger SirHamster August 09, 2016 3:34 PM  

chronoblip wrote:

You did read that article all the way through right?


Yes. When Ken asserts that men of God possessing OEC beliefs are now with the Lord, I think that is a very clear acknowledgement that OECs can be Christians too.


chronoblip wrote:To expand to his buddies in the YEC crowd, here's Kent Hovind (currently in jail for tax problems) debating with Hugh Ross, demonstrating the "holier than thou" mannerism of YEC: https://youtu.be/2_Z_br-4RCo

You made a specific claim: "Ken and his other YEC buddies have claimed that anyone who doesn't believe like they do isn't a Christian."

Read the blog rules:

"... providing links in lieu of answers is not acceptable."

A link to a 2.5 hour video does not back up your claim.

You also say they show a ""holier than thou" mannerism", but even if they have bad manners, it does not reveal what they specifically think about the nature of Christian fellowship.


chronoblip wrote:So, do you need more explicit examples or do you understand the "bait-and-switch"?

You cannot claim someone is a Christian even if they believe X, and then explain why Christians can't believe X, and then try to say that you still think Christians can believe X. That is paradoxical.


You were challenged to back up your assertion and you have not done so. I have provided contrary evidence that shows Ken Ham specifically states that men can be saved and be in God's presence without YEC belief. (eg. they are Christian)

You are engaging in bait and switch when you take someone's words "Christians should do X" and substitute "you are not a Christian if you don't do X". Those are not equivalent statements.

If you can not or will not back up your assertion, retract it. As it stands, you are bearing false witness against Ken Ham.

Christians shouldn't bear false witness. I bring that up because you can do better, not because I think you're not a Christian.

Blogger chronoblip August 09, 2016 5:09 PM  

SirHamster wrote
So you pick the first statement which is later walked back and that is definitive "proof"? I provided a direct quote from your article where Ken went from "it's not an issue" to "it's not an issue per-se, but I think it is".

Ken can explicitly state people are Christians, and then go into how they just aren't "good Christians", accusing them of not actually understanding the text their beliefs come from, and offering "the only correct" interpretation. Leftist concern trolls do this all the time to those on the right.

For an example from his website: https://answersingenesis.org/culture/award-winning-christian-musicians-mock-biblical-creationists/

If they profess Christ, no matter what they believe about Genesis they are still Christians.

That point is my great concern—that the Gungors are influencing young people regarding the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.

One church recently canceled an event with Gungor, and I think more churches will cancel his events once they realize the way in which they could lead young people astray by undermining the authority of God’s Word.

“We want the Gungors to understand the importance of taking God at His Word, from the very first verse.”

In the "Genesis in 3d" Trailer, at ~1:43, he says the following:
“What we need to do is to make sure we start right at the very beginning, in Genesis, answer the skeptical questions that are causing people to doubt that that book is true, to help them understand that the history is true — that’s why the gospel based on that history is true.”
http://genesismovie.com/genesismovie/trailer/

As one blogger put it:
He believes the gospel is true because the 6,000-year-long history of the universe based on his literal interpretation of Genesis is true.

So when Ken goes after Hugh Ross, he says stuff like the following:
Instead, Hugh Ross’s “reasons to believe” are produced by altering what God says to fit Bible-denying notions like the big bang. Hugh Ross is one of the compromisers of our day who is leading generations astray with his teaching that undermines biblical authority.

Dr. Ross misrepresents God to unbelievers by stuffing millions of years into the Bible and disconnecting death and suffering from its ultimate cause: man’s sin. This does not encourage faith but suggests to them that God’s Word is not trustworthy and damages the salvation message.
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/09/27/hugh-ross-twists-the-bible-to-fit-mans-fallible-opinions/

Ken Ham asserts that the age of the Earth is relevant to doctrine of salvation, and claims that people who disagree with him are wrong, but I'm the one who bears the burden of proof as to how this is calling people's faith into account? If you're wrong about the doctrine of salvation, and the authority of scripture, and you are responsible for leading people astray...but hey I said you're still a Christian, right?

If you want to excoriate me and play the concern troll of "you can do better" because he doesn't explicitly call people "not Christian" (I will have to go find the timestamps when Kent does it to Hugh) and despite Ken claiming that people who disagree with him don't actually believe in what the Bible teaches, and are bearing false witness, where do I go for my lashings? I'll take them with a smile.

Blogger SirHamster August 09, 2016 5:37 PM  

chronoblip, not only have you failed to back up your assertion that Ken Ham (and other YECs) exclude others from being Christians based on YEC beliefs, you have provided an additional quote confirming the very opposite.

This was your assertion:
chronoblip wrote:The age of the Earth is not really relevant to any core doctrines or theologies, but Ken and his other YEC buddies have claimed that anyone who doesn't believe like they do isn't a Christian [...]

Ken Ham, 2014:
Now I want to be clear here: I am not saying Michael and Lisa Gungor aren’t Christians. If they profess Christ, no matter what they believe about Genesis they are still Christians.


chronoblip wrote:Ken Ham wrote:This does not encourage faith but suggests to them that God’s Word is not trustworthy and damages the salvation message.
Ken Ham asserts that the age of the Earth is relevant to doctrine of salvation [...]


Damage to the salvation message is not damaged salvation for the messenger. Your interpretation of Ken's words are inaccurate.


You are lying about Ken Ham's beliefs. Stop and retract so that your comments obey the rules of this blog.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 09, 2016 5:39 PM  

@chronoblip
you literally, in this thread go from "Ken Ham is not a Christian because he says 'X'." to "Ken Ham is not a Christian because he heavily implies 'X'." to "Ken Ham is not a Christian because I am able to extrapolate what he is explicitly saying to mean 'X'."

What you are doing on this thread is far worse than what you accuse Ken Ham of doing, and you can't even demonstrate that he is doing what you accuse him of.

Blogger SirHamster August 09, 2016 5:45 PM  

@chronoblip:

Are you a man or a woman?

Anonymous Noah Nehm August 09, 2016 6:57 PM  

FWIW: Here's Archbishop Fulton Sheen's take on "Neo-Babelism":

“[Satan] will set up a counter-church which will be the ape of the [Catholic] Church … It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content.”

We are living in the days of the Apocalypse, the last days of our era. The two great forces – the Mystical Body of Christ and the Mystical Body of the anti-Christ – are beginning to draw battle lines for the catastrophic contest.

The False prophet will have a religion without a cross. A religion without a world to come. A religion to destroy religions. There will be a counterfeit Church.

Christ’s Church the Catholic Church will be one; and the false Prophet will create the other.

The False Church will be worldly, ecumenical, and global. It will be a loose federation of churches and religions, forming some type of global association.

A world parliament of Churches. It will be emptied of all Divine content, it will be the mystical body of the anti-christ. The Mystical Body on earth today will have its Judas Iscariot, and he will be the false prophet. Satan will recruit him from our Bishops.

The Antichrist will not be so called; otherwise he would have no followers. He will not wear red tights, nor vomit sulphur, nor carry a trident nor wave an arrowed tail as Mephistopheles in Faust. This masquerade has helped the Devil convince men that he does not exist. When no man recognizes, the more power he exercises. God has defined Himself as “I am Who am,” and the Devil as “I am who am not.”

Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven, as “the Prince of this world,” whose business it is to tell us that there is no other world. His logic is simple: if there is no heaven there is no hell; if there is no hell, then there is no sin; if there is no sin, then there is no judge, and if there is no judgment then evil is good and good is evil. But above all these descriptions, Our Lord tells us that he will be so much like Himself that he would deceive even the elect–and certainly no devil ever seen in picture books could deceive even the elect. How will he come in this new age to win followers to his religion?

The pre-Communist Russian belief is that he will come disguised as the Great Humanitarian; he will talk peace, prosperity and plenty not as means to lead us to God, but as ends in themselves …

The third temptation in which Satan asked Christ to adore him and all the kingdoms of the world would be His, will become the temptation to have a new religion without a Cross, a liturgy without a world to come, a religion to destroy a religion, or a politics which is a religion–one that renders unto Caesar even the things that are God’s.

In the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality, he will have one great secret which he will tell to no one: he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God, he will deceive even the elect. He will set up a counter-church which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ …

But the twentieth century will join the counter-church because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra from Moscow on the subject of economics and politics, and as chief shepherd of world communism.

(Fulton J. Sheen, Communism and the Conscience of the West [Bobbs-Merril Company, Indianapolis, 1948], pp. 24-25)

Blogger Phillip George August 09, 2016 9:03 PM  

Are you a man or a woman?

Do you mean relative man or woman or someone who hasn't decided on which of 32 genders they are

best blog in existence.
Can anyone chip in if they have read the last or seen the latest Dan Brown book/film Inferno.

merging revelation plagues with bio war eugenics has to be a plot winner for a fiction come docu-drama.

talking the symbolism obsessed people, Dr Robert Langdon.

He doesn't want to go near Rainbow soaked Whitehouses does he? the michael, ooops michelles.

Blogger Matthew Roman August 09, 2016 10:28 PM  

Alright, I haven't heard from VD. And although I greatly respect VD, I didn't appreciate his comment on Ken Ham who I also greatly respect and believe is doing as much as anyone on earth currently to teach God's truth and Christ. He's one of the good guys and pretty much the only time I comment on blogs anymore is when I think one of the good guys has been thrown under the bus. I won't make quote him, but we have tons of his material in our home and use it in our homeschooling- his teaching greatly solidified my wife's & childrens faith. I'll stand with Ken Ham any day of the week. Respectfully, Robert

Blogger Phillip George August 09, 2016 10:55 PM  

matthew, I meant Ken Ham once and I admire him much, but there was a rather nasty falling out with Queensland Answers in Genesis.

Like a lot a church splits there was an aspect of "he said" "she said"

while I am proud of what Ken has done, I'll speculate that VD sees him as a conservative who hasn't conserved. Someone who got their tax-exemption status and left it at that.

Ken has been 10/10 on creation. But did he go soft when he was given the chance to really punch above his weight on other issues?

Blogger MB August 10, 2016 2:21 AM  

The Tower of Babel is the supplantation of God's authority by man or adversary. Eve, Satan, Nimrod, LBJ. It is the will to power, the greatest sin.

Blogger Matthew Roman August 10, 2016 9:12 AM  

I've heard him speak unashamedly about biblical headship, fatherhood, homosexuality- you name the issue that is tearing at the fabric of our churches and society and he's been on point.

I don't know anything about the nasty fallout and very little about the tax exempt status- except to know that the MSM trashes him at every moment they get and I wouldn't believe a word spoken. Men who stand up for Christ and His teaching are going to have controversy surrounding them, even by those who call themselves (and I'll let the Lord sort out if they are) christians.

I'll state it again. I'll stand with Ken Ham. I don't understand the pot shot taken at Him. I've had this conversation recently with other another christian blogger I greatly respect who has gone after some of the few good christian pastors out there in America, if Vox can't side with Ken Ham- we are doomed. That's a brother who is an ally. I don't agree with Vox on everything, but I'd stand with him and consider him an ally. I've long learned that if I'm looking for 100% purity of doctrine, beliefs and ideaology I'm not going to find it in anybody- including myself from two years ago! It is too easy to armchair quarterback other men of faith with too little information in front of us. The whole world is ready to condemn and throw us under the bus- why must we do it to ourselves?

Blogger Phillip George August 10, 2016 9:39 AM  

fair enough. I won't speculate beyond the above.

I remain disappointed that the Australian Creation team won't go head on into climate change and various other topics that are killing people, but I understand their limitations....

And I see where you're coming from. The above 'slight' doesn't read well. If it were glib, ill considered, rushed it should be explained / 'downgraded'. IMO

Blogger grandconjunct August 11, 2016 6:01 AM  

Once again a flat earth ham -tard destroys a great thread.

Blogger Phillip George August 11, 2016 6:55 AM  

materialist and realist are mutually exclusive. goodbye little star

Blogger chronoblip August 12, 2016 12:33 PM  

Finally got this together, had to squeeze it in between things I'd rather have been doing. ;)

These timestamps are for when something is said in this video: https://youtu.be/2_Z_br-4RCo

Trying to hit the highlights, and these will obviously be without full context as I have no intention of providing an entire transcript:

@ 5:04 - Hovind "The God that I worship."

Note that this is opposed to "the God that WE worship".

@ 6:10 - Hovind "There's no difference between what you're saying and Carl Sagan says."

@ 12:28 - Hovind "The God that I worship."

@ 24:51 - Hovind "The God that I worship."

@ 43:04 - Hovind "Your theory of big bang is exactly like Carl Sagan's."

@ 45:12 - Hovind "I feel like I am talking to a Mormon priest, like you have a different God. It's not the same God."

So is this about as clear an example of saying someone is not a Christian, without saying "you're not a Christian", as you can get, right?

@ 45:33 - Hovind "The God that I worship not only made it in 6 literal 24 hour days, he's not deceitful. He doesn't wait for someone to come along in the 20th century to explain it to us so we can read it."

Again, distinguishing between the "God" being worshipped, without following through on the logical implications of this claim.

@ 51:40 - Hovind "You need to get a King James by the way, brother..." to the host (Ankerberg).

Hovind exposes that he's at least somewhat of a KJV-onlyist, which crops up a few times, especially later when Ross points out that there are words added to the English KJV which were not in the original manuscripts, and how that can change the meaning of what's said.

@ 52:08 - Hovind "The God that I worship is able to do it right."

@ 52:58 - Hovind "My God did it in 6 days, just like He said."

@ 1:07:48 - Ankerberg "Hugh you've even been called a non-Christian because you hold the particular view you do."

Hovind does not object to or repudiate this claim from Ankerberg, and does not insist that Ross is still a Christian despite his position on creation.

@ 1:19:30 - Hovind "The God that I worship."

@ 1:19:52 - Hovind "My God is not limited by stuff like that and I get real concerned that maybe we're talking different gods here."

@ 1:23:26 - Hovind "Do you realize how much doctrine you're hanging on this one idea?"

Note that the YEC position is what ties the doctrines together, and that the doctrines are not inherently linked to one another except by the YEC crowd. Physical death before sin is, for example, only a problem if you believe that creation was "perfect" as opposed to "very good", and where "perfection" does not include physical death or suffering. If the "fall" only affected spiritual death, but Adam and Eve were still capable of dying physically, and plants/animals were capable of dying physically, then "death and suffering" before the "fall" becomes an emotional issue, not an intellectual one.

@ 1:28:30 - Hovind "This one borders on heresy because it leads right to 'why did Christ die on the cross'?"

Again, YEC crowd tries to tie doctrines together as if you need to take them all as the YEC claim, which "raises the bar" and creates division within the church. If salvation is in Jesus alone, but you also have to believe that creation ocurred in 6 days, or that the floos was worldwide, and so on, that's no longer salvation in Jesus alone.

@ 1:28:49 - Hovind "If that's his idea of 'very good' then we have a very different God."

CONTINUES BELOW...

Blogger chronoblip August 12, 2016 12:39 PM  

CONTINUED FROM BEFORE:

@ 1:29:26 - Hovind "This is heresy and it bothers me because the more I've prayed about this and thought about this it makes me wonder if we have the same God. We use the same term, but we see this in other cults where they use the same terminology but the meaning is different."

@ 1:29:46 - Hovind "Well his God is a God who created suffering and misfits and death and ruin."

@ 1:31:28 - Ross "Now hold it, you're accusing me of heresy" Hovind "I believe you are, yes sir."

Here we get an outright admission that Hovind believes Ross is a heretic. Anyone still doubt whether Ross' faith is being called into question?

@ 1:31:34 - Ross "You're saying I am destroying(distorting?) the atonement doctrine of Christ" Hovind "I believe that, yes."

Again, YEC supporter indicating that you cannot have the atonement without a literal 6 calendar day interpretation of Genesis 1. If salvation comes from Jesus and having a specific interpretation of scripture, then it's no longer by Jesus alone.

@ 1:34:50 - Hovind "To say there was death before Adam's sin is heresy in my opinion and I don't know of a kind way to say that, which makes me worry for, are we talking about the same God, are we talking about the same salvation. I don't know the answers to those questions, that's between him and God."

This is more like what Ken Ham states. "I don't know who his God is, but the God of the Bible does X and he claims God doesn't do X." That Ham doesn't complete the train of thought as succinctly as Hovind doesn't mean they aren't using identical arguments with identical logic and identical conclusions.

@ 1:48:40 - Hovind "And your teaching is gonna destroy people's faith in God's word, and it's not gonna lead people to the Lord."

Does claiming someone is leading others astray count as questioning their faith?

@ 1:57:02 - Hovind "The Bible has a lot of conflicts with Hugh Ross' teachings."

@ 2:02:04 - Ross "We have to stop using the charge of heresy or heretic 'cuz all that does is raise fear, and it shuts down communication. We need to open the communication up. If people will dialog without these charges of heresy or 'you're not a Christian' or 'you're leading people astray', I think we can get this settled. All it takes is for people to talk in a peaceable environment where you accept one another's Christian testimony."

Wanted to include this as a contrast to the demeanor of Ross to Hovind. Hugh Ross maintains his composure very well throughout the entire debate, and towards the end, I think he'd won a big portion of the crowd over merely because he wasn't being a dick to Hovind. This is exemplified when the host says that Hovind can't keep calling Ross' beliefs cultic when prominent members of the evangelical movment either personally hold to or support the Day-Age view as being within orthodoxy.

@ 2:04:37 - Hovind "No, I don't think you're a heretic because you don't think the days were 6 days. I think if you have death before sin, now you've crossed over the line where that's a heretical doctrine."

@ 2:05:22 - Hovind "You'd better consider what you believe. Titus chapter 3 says I am supposed to warn you twice and then reject you. So here's my first warning."

Again, does calling someone a false prophet and/or teaching false doctrines question their faith or not? Can't get much clearer an admission on Hovind's part than this.

@ 2:09:57 - Hovind "I think you're a real nice man, but I think you're just mistaken scripturally and scientifically on some of these things."

CONTINUED BELOW...

Blogger chronoblip August 12, 2016 12:56 PM  

CONTINUED FROM BEFORE...

@ 2:10:30 - Hovind "God made it all in 6 days, and any other interpretation than that is a cult."

Is calling someone a member of a cult questioning their faith?

@ 2:10:48 - Hovind "You're such a nice guy. I am sure some of the pharisees were nice guys too and gave their kids camel rides when they got off work, but that doesn't mean they're right."

@ 2:11:10 - Hovind "I'm sure you're a moral person, you try to treat your wife right and your kids right, but that has nothing to do with your doctrine."

@ 2:11:33 - Hovind "I am saying that what you're teaching is contrary to this book." Ankerberg "Who says that?" Hovind "I say that."

Again, Hovind says that Ross is in contradiction to scripture. Is there any doubt that Ross' faith is being called into question?

@ 2:12:32 - Hovind "When I see him teaching a local flood in the days of Noah, God designed a world with suffering and death and cruelty that's just not the same God."

To beat the dead horse one last time, if someone claims you follow a "different god", is that or isn't that a criticism of one's faith, and questioning whether that person is a Christian or not?

Is merely stating that someone is a Christian, despite the follow-on claim that they undermine Christianity, and worship some "other god", all it takes to not commit a spiritual foul? So long as you say at some point that they're still a Christian, you can say that they believe nothing that Christianity believes and are actively undermining the belief system and leading people astray and that's an acceptable accusation?

I could do the same treatment to this debate with Ken Ham and Hugh Ross: https://youtu.be/SuWAUnQN1HQ

So what is the specific criteria that is now being expected? Every prominent supporter of the YEC position saying or writing, word for word, exactly what I wrote? Ken Ham making making disparaging comments about someone's beliefs without also remembering to saying they're still a Christian in the same article/debate/appearance?

Blogger SirHamster September 03, 2016 1:13 PM  

This is long after the fact and may not be read, but you did put in the effort. I acknowledge you found quotes from Hovind called Ross's views heresy.

There's still a big jump from that to YECs as a group are calling everyone else a non-Christian. In particular, you have not supported your accusation against Ken Ham, nor refuted my points defending him.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts