Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
I'm not trying to be contentious here, so please don't take offense, but these are some really serious problems that makes me wonder that even if the council was inspired, that we today don't believe in its necessity, in principle.

No, there was much more too it. Most Christians at the time weren't fooled by the Gnostic books and didn't recognise the books that made it into the Apocrypha as the inspired word of God. The Council was there to see to it that it was decided, once and for all, which books were inspired (and therefore should be included) and which one's shouldn't be.

There was a strict criteria to determine this,
Please, I'm very interested to know what this criteria is. What you just above was, basically, the most popular books won out - which is what I said.

but the Council was there to remove any confusion for those who may have been new to the faith or seekers (and were therefore uncertain of which books belonged to the canon).
I understand wanting to remove confusion, but WHY was that necessary? Who decided there needed to be a universal understanding and agreement? And the reason I ask is that this belief in necessity seems inconsistent with how the Church operates today.

Why aren't we doing this today? Why aren't we having a council of all the most educated men across denominations to get together and clear up all the confusion today? Even so most of us agree for the most part on the basic tenets of Jesus (that the council decided was the truth - the inquiry of the criteria is an honest question, I imagine you've researched this), we STILL disagree - even if we say otherwise - what is needed for salvation. Why do I say this? Two reasons.

1) The first is the great divide, if you will, between Sola Fide and the belief that the word of God is balanced with tradition, and doctrine guided by the Church, NOT the individual, as not all believers are priests (which was what Luther thought). In one sense, you could say, that the Reformation gave Christians the power to say what is important, what isn't, about the doctrines concerning Jesus and Scripture - outside the five solas. The reasoning was "I can read this for myself, I have direct access to God, and I don't need guidance from the Church." I know that seeking guidance was encouraged, but, why? If you are encouraging to read it yourself and speak to God directly, what do you need guidance at all, but what you seek willingly from others? To me that's inconsistent. Maybe I misunderstand something.

2)And no matter how you coat this, the Catholic Church IS right in that this reasoning is what has ultimately lead to the thousands and thousands of individual churches, many of them preaching against all the others to keep their members in their pews. And this is ok? There is NOTHING wrong with this? No need to clear things up, and heal the division in the Body of Christ? And is this not why the council was called? To set a standard? To heal divisions?

This is one reason I positively loath, yes I really hate, about Christians - esp Protestants - pointing to this council as inspired and therefore you MUST adhere to this tenets... but they don't have the nerve to do the same today. They believe in it being necessary THEN, but today when you have so many different flavors of salvation in the Church - I mean Protestant - such opposition concerning the great divide between these and RCC and Eastern Orthodox... to me it takes a lot of nerve to say that this council was necessary, and yet the Body doesn't even care that it is in the same shape as it was then, wounded and too proud to go to the Doctor. The only difference is the differences in what the divides are.

Oh, and the other difference? Many of our divisions - excuses used to isolate themselves to one church - doesn't have anything directly to do with Jesus, His life, death and Resurrection. At least the council was addressing division over the center of CHRISTianity.

And as I said: You may have the "agreement" of the Apostle's Creed and such, but concerning the unity of the Body, it is all lip service. It is lip service because:
"Don't you go down the street to the Lutheran church - they believe in cannibalism."
"Don't you go to the Baptist church down the street, they never preach on Acts 2, which is like the most important chapter of the Bible." <--- little bit of sarcasm there on my part
"Don't go to the Episcopal church; they have gay Bishops."
"Don't go to the Presbyterian church, they believe that man forgives your sins (the Confession and Absolution done during the service, which conveniently leads the pastor to warn to stay away from also the Lutheran church, the - obviously - Catholic church, and the Episcopal church. You kill more than one bird with that stone!)

This wasn't a power-play of educated men voting for their favourite and least favourite books. These were godly men guided by the Holy Spirit as to what to include in the official canon.
What we have today is a power-play - AND not even between learned people in the Body, but you EVEN have division over whether seminary is a necessity to preach. I'm not saying it is or isn't, and there are certainly pastors in some parts of the world ministering without a Bible or with no access to more information about it. But there is a great divide within the Protestant body of disciplinary academics. The first preacher I listened to upon being saved - confessed he had never been to Bible school or seminary, knows little about the Bible compared to those he critiques, and told me to stay away from Calvinism because they teach that once you are saved, you have to work to stay saved.

...

I was looking these things up myself, and I'm thinking "Yeah, you clearly don't know anything beyond your little I'll Fly Away, Oh Glory bubble of beliefs." That was my first taste of how pastors willingly or ignorantly, spread lies about other Christians and other churches.

But that's all well and good? No need to correct all this? And ironically, I've noticed that the more "compromising" churches, were the most open in discussion, and least likely to say "Stay away from this church." The liberals, if you will, who aren't threatened by other beliefs. Not an absolute, obviously, but when you by default think that disagreement is compromising, then you almost HAVE to demonize other churches. (By demonize I mean make them appear bad for the believer's faith and growth.) And that is loving your brethren, how? And the world knows us through our "love" for one another, so it's not wonder you have so many skeptics... it's not just the evil secular science, and the Church is beyond naive if she thinks that.


That is why I say the central tenet thing is lip service. Because if it wasn't, there would be no demonization of other denominations. Also because despite claiming that all it takes is "faith in Jesus to be saved and repentance," if this was truly believed there would be no need to warn of other churches (Protestant I mean), because they believe the same. In theory. And in theory a learned pastor would know this, unlike that first pastor I went to years ago.

Sorry for this tangent, but this is why I don't take appeals to the Council of Nicaea seriously, or as legitimate - because the principle behind the meeting is not thought important - in fact, many consider healing divisions as compromising God's word, and would be sinful. So there you have it.

There's a lot of misinformation spread by non-Christians and it really needs to be corrected.
Please enlighten me with a summary. I'm being honest in my asking.

Think about the Mosaic Law. Much of God's Law had already been revealed to His people over time, since the beginning of time, but God set some of these in stone and had Moses (guided by Holy Spirit) write down other laws so there was no confusion, there could be no misunderstanding what God expected of His people. The Council to determine the canon was a little like that.
Well... but when Moses had the laws guided by the Spirit, there were none countering it, correct? None within the Body of Israel? How is that like the council where there were deciding BETWEEN different understandings, and Moses only expanding on what they had in stone? Which he dropped accidentally, and needed a replacement. ;)


And another problem, imo, is that assuming the council was inspired - long after the inspired writers of the Bible penned what they thought that we now consider exclusive authority - why do we assume there is not inspired writing after that? Why don't we consider everything THEY wrote as Scripture? Would we consider everything Paul had written after his conversion Scripture? What about King David and his psalms, Solomon and his wisdom? What about every other writer in the Bible? IF something else surfaced with Paul's name on it (and that DID happen), would that be inspired?

Concerning the Apocrypha, and I mean like what is found in the NRSV of the Bible, why is it that Luther - and some Protestant churches - consider these good for instruction, but not inspired? Well, what parts are good for instruction? How is something good for instruction, but not inspired? What exactly is meant by instruction, and how does that differ from inspired instruction?


This is where I get confused - what constitutes inspiration? How do you decide "Yes, this is exactly what God intended to say" which is different from other texts written on the same topic? I asked this above, but I'm asking again. How come. Luther seemed not to like James, and didn't want the letter in there. It is in there... so could Luther have error in his judgement, and thus how can we be sure that his included judgement/influence in the Protestant canon is sound?

This is why I say that - at its core - this is a faith issue - so yes, what follows is most everything else is a faith issue. You can't prove one text inspired over another, not dogmatically. And yes, I favor some thoughts over others, and I think some arguments are better than others.

I AM OPEN to correction about this, and I also want to make abundantly clear that if one thinks the Protestant Bible is the literal word of God, THAT'S OK. I have no problem with that - other than as believing it is the literal word, it is often used as justification to harass unbelievers or other "backslidden" Christians. I do admit you would have this with any text... but when you teach something is not IN ANY WAY open to interpretation or to be compromised, that is when the belief becomes detrimental, imo.

Anyhow, God bless, and I hope you have a wonderful day! :)
 

jamie26301

Senior Member
May 14, 2011
1,154
10
38
39
I will probably open another thread with these books, so they're more readily seen, but here are two short e-books (both free on Nook, I believe the first is also free on Amazon), that addresses the issue of adversarial dealings concerning the Bible. The first is about apologetics, the second is about division in the Church specifically. They're really good.

(And from what I gather, the first is a conservative Christian pastor.)

Contentiously Contending: A Word to Today's Apologetics Emphasis by Anton Bosch | 2940045581882 | NOOK Book (eBook) | Barnes & Noble

Letters to a Samuel Generation: Thoughts on Unity; One Body; Blessing by Rachel Starr Thomson | 2940045136907 | NOOK Book (eBook) | Barnes & Noble
 
Last edited:
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Concerning the Apocrypha, and I mean like what is found in the NRSV of the Bible, why is it that Luther - and some Protestant churches - consider these good for instruction, but not inspired? Well, what parts are good for instruction? How is something good for instruction, but not inspired? What exactly is meant by instruction, and how does that differ from inspired instruction?
And the Apocrypha is in the Septuagint (LXX) dating to several hundred years before Christ. And the Apocrypha was in King James Bibles for several hundred years.

Excellent post.
 
May 3, 2015
87
1
0
Everybody knows the earth is not 6000 years old, there just pulling your leg
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
That's a long winded post just to say "I don't have any." Done here ...

Except to say, you're clueless. I've not defended Hovind. What's that say about your attention span?
You demanded "proof" of evolution.

This is like a Geico commercial. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows (or should) that evolution is a reality.

What should be questioned is evolutionary theory, which attempts to explain how evolution occurred. Scientists are constantly questioning evolutionary theory.

Did you read what I posted from Kitzmiller v. Dover? Hint: it's the post just before yours.

Did the judge in his opinion state that evolutionary theory is good science?

Yes.

And not only that, his opinion indicated that YECs misrepresented science.

What part of that don't you understand?
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
You demanded "proof" of evolution.

This is like a Geico commercial. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows (or should) that evolution is a reality.

What should be questioned is evolutionary theory, which attempts to explain how evolution occurred. Scientists are constantly questioning evolutionary theory.

Did you read what I posted from Kitzmiller v. Dover? Hint: it's the post just before yours.

Did the judge in his opinion state that evolutionary theory is good science?

Yes.

And not only that, his opinion indicated that YECs misrepresented science.

What part of that don't you understand?

Evolution is a theory. It is not proven fact.No one knows how life began for certain.There are many other things about evolution that still have questions,like methods of dating. Its not as clear cut as "its a fact".
 
S

skylove7

Guest
All I know is I have truly and honesty FELT...the Holy Spirit within me so basically I ignore all claims from atheists using science as their crutch! I think that some people simply deny belief because if they do...then they won't have to actually come to terms, that they will be punished for evil sins! That's all I know! Lol...sorry to interrupt. :)
 

kodiak

Senior Member
Mar 8, 2015
4,995
290
83

"The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
Cardinal Baronius.

“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.”

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
- Pope John Paul II (Yeah, I just quoted an evil pointed hat guy ;) )

The Religion that is afraid of science dishonours God and commits suicide. It acknowledges that it is not equal to the whole of truth, that it legislates, tyrannizes over a village of God’s empires but is not the immutable universal law.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

And how about THIS for a flexible religion:

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Lots of people, very intelligent, notable people say these can coexist, and must! It's like Bill Nye said - you got evidence, bring it! "You will change the world!" He said that - that would be highly notable.

But here's the thing - if you go teaching your kids that they can't trust scientists and their findings because it doesn't line up with a few verses in the Bible, you are going to weaken the scientific progress. It's no longer about asking questions and testing them - it's about bringing conclusions to the table, AND THEN looking for what fits that. That's not "historical science" - that's not science AT ALL, because it is not inquisitive - it already knows the answer.

It's easy to claim you are being suppressed - however, I don't know of any censoring, as YEC get their opinions out there very easily. As far as that famous debate... I know AiG has a technical journal, I think it's called TJ... and yet he's going up there putting forth the general basics that he presents in his presentations? That's what amazed me - I KNOW that YEC scientists can speak with more knowledge and even convincing arguments than he did.
do you mind explaining how scientists know the earth is really old?
 
Jun 30, 2011
2,521
35
0
Evolution is a theory. It is not proven fact.No one knows how life began for certain.There are many other things about evolution that still have questions,like methods of dating. Its not as clear cut as "its a fact".
It's not even a Scientific Theory, it's a Historical theory
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
It's not even a Scientific Theory, it's a Historical theory
Worse, it's an ethnicist ("racist" if you will, a word I don't use because there is only one race) theory. American and European anthropologists suffering from terminal bigotry rushed to endorse Darwinism because it gave them a biological/genetic basis for condoning slavery and the continuance of societal mores treating the black man and other ethnicities as inferior. That is the "inconvenient truth" Darwinists do their level best to disprove or deny.

"Darwin’s book is now simply referred to as the 'Origin of Species,' but the second half of original title, written not for a scientific audience, but the general public, was, 'For the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.' Darwin proposed that all living things are connected by common descent from a single, original organism. According to [Niles Eldridge, who was the curator of the American Museum of Natural History and a renowned evolutionist - See more at: http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/darwins_racists.html#sthash.lOd1ztMl.dpuf}

Eldridge and many others, Darwin’s identification of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is what made him one the most renowned scientists of history. Defined as a process that naturally selects individuals that have the best chance of surviving due to evolved advantages, it suggests that any variation “to the least degree” not beneficial would be “rigidly destroyed.” Although Darwin never actually applied his theory to mankind in the Origin of Species, such implications certainly included man, as the word “Races” (which he used interchangeably with “species”) used in the original title indicates."

 
Last edited:

Jimbone

Senior Member
Aug 22, 2014
2,758
847
113
44
Do you actually ever pay attention to what is being said?

I said in my first post why I brought up Kent Hovind.

What did I say in my first post?

And today I see a thread entitled "Kent Hovind" from 5 years ago brought back to life.

I should bring back to life every thread on Dr. Dino ever started here.

Now that would be funny, 'eh?
We know why you did it, to sucker people in so you could puff yourself up by belittling and insulting people, while wallowing in your own arrogant and “self-perceived” superior knowledge. You did it to start “stuff”, and it’s painfully obvious. I will pray that the Lord help save you from your own insecurity and fill you with His spirit and show you how He wants you to behave towards your brothers and sisters in Christ, because you obviously don’t know how solely judging from your comments in this thread. Why do you even want to be called a Christian when you seem to hate what many of them believe? Do you think you were sent to illuminate us and save us from our own unintelligence?
 
Dec 26, 2014
3,757
19
0
liars lie.

and liars support ,

trust, and

defend billly g and the rcc.... and they're still all liars, and all wrong. totally blinded by the prince of the power of the air, the devil, and willingly going along with it.
 
P

popeye

Guest
You demanded "proof" of evolution.

This is like a Geico commercial. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows (or should) that evolution is a reality.

What should be questioned is evolutionary theory, which attempts to explain how evolution occurred. Scientists are constantly questioning evolutionary theory.

Did you read what I posted from Kitzmiller v. Dover? Hint: it's the post just before yours.

Did the judge in his opinion state that evolutionary theory is good science?

Yes.

And not only that, his opinion indicated that YECs misrepresented science.

What part of that don't you understand?
JN 1;1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

"..........and the
darkness comprehended it not."


Now you get what is going on here.
Jesus is way ahead of you amigo
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Evolution is a theory. It is not proven fact.No one knows how life began for certain.There are many other things about evolution that still have questions,like methods of dating. Its not as clear cut as "its a fact".
Evolution as fact and theory:

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[SUP][1]

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SUP]
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
liars lie.

and liars support ,

trust, and

defend billly g and the rcc.... and they're still all liars, and all wrong. totally blinded by the prince of the power of the air, the devil, and willingly going along with it.
And you think Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) is right?

Is that right?

I don't think Jesus would like you calling Billy Graham a liar.

How many millions of people have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior at his crusades?
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
Evolution as fact and theory:

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[SUP][1]

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/SUP]
Hey crack in the box....are you still pandering and peddling your evolutionistic rigmarole? ;)
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,396
113
And you think Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) is right?

Is that right?

I don't think Jesus would like you calling Billy Graham a liar.

How many millions of people have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior at his crusades?
Are you sure it is not millions and one?
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
I agree in general with what Billy Graham and other significant religious leaders have said on the subject:

Billy Graham:

“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74
Nobody in their right spiritual mind would quote Billy Graham..... He believes there's more than one way to Heaven than Jesus..... He's a universalist & a Freemason to boot.

But the way you are, we should have expected it.
:)
 
Jan 6, 2014
77
3
0
So... who decides when the majority is in favor of the truth? What's the criteria and who sets it? What some believe as the absolute word of God was selected on a vote.... before a modification by the Protestants. I just think it's ironic then to turn around and use the "poor us, we're a minority" defense as to why a doctrine is correct.
- The facts decides if majority is in favour.
- It would still be the word of God, even if the majority voted otherwise.... that is the point im getting across. Truth is independent of votes, or majority, or mob mentality.
- I didnt understand the last sentence.... But anyways, concerning the Nicae Council you mentioned of earlier, it was a consensus to settle once and for all, the issue of the Nature of Christ and His relationship with God the Father. They used the faulty system of majority to decide the truth , but still we can't base truth on majority, because majority is not always right. we base truth on FACTS instead and revelations from God, who never lies and knows all things.

Evolution is accepted by the major consensus but this doesn't mean they are right, because the FACTS are against evolution and God clearly revealed how the world came to be in Genesis.
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
Solomon defines a fool as one who doesn't fear or have regard for God - that's different from challenging what God says (or, what has been traditionally interpreted as what He said.)
Annnnnnnd?
And Jesus also said "Any who says 'You fool' shall be in danger of hellfire." That's very important to know if you ascribe to a literal interpretation. ;)
Proverbs 1:7 (KJV) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 1:22 (KJV) How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 10:23 (KJV) It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 12:15 (KJV) The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 12:23 (KJV) A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 13:16 (KJV) Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 14:8 (KJV) The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 14:16 (KJV) A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 15:2 (KJV) The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 15:14 (KJV) The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 20:3 (KJV) It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 23:9 (KJV) Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
[HR][/HR]Ecclesiastes 10:3 (KJV) Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.
[HR][/HR]Ecclesiastes 10:14 (KJV) A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?

Now, If I were name calling, you would be right.;)