馬灣公園有限公司本週二（十一月十八日）公佈馬灣方舟公園啟用情況，翌日《明報》在報道該消息時，附加一段題為「方舟當正史 惹外界爭議」的框文（http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/081118/4/9b15.html），質疑方舟的證據及歷史性。影音使團創辦的《創世時報》網站，隨即於昨日（十一月二十日）刊登題為「不把方舟當正史 誓惹全球誹議」的文章，反駁該報不夠持平。全文可瀏覽：www.creationtimes.com/content.php?id=1599。
（www.christiantimes.org.hk，時代論壇每日快拍，2008.11.21）
To 佚名Anonymous
那奇怪了﹐為何反對“SODO”就可以掛晒教會名﹐第二D就唔得﹐請問有咩準則﹖
(可以參考張國棟先生文章“忽然社關”)
To Win
You go love your "Lord" at your closed doors but a place open for public is not for spreading superstition like God created the earth or to promote distorted history by claiming that the "Flood" in the Bible (that covered all earth) actually happened.
Doing the right thing at the right time
This is the right thing to be done for people of Hong Kong when most people are depressed and down. They should be reminded the lesson that Christ never break his promise that He saves us from sin and disaster. The rainbow behind is faith, hope and love. We have done the right thing and if not, Sun Hung Kai will not sponsor the project. Stop all silly arguments and love our Lord.(題外話) 提一下"快必"
快必，你說：「香港大部分教會無法講社會公義、反建制政治、 關懷邊緣社群」，想你明白：-
1. 大部分教會都不會阻止信徒關心社會公義、政策、制度、邊緣社群；
2. 基督教其實是有關心社會公義、政策、制度、邊緣社群等的專門組織；
3. 基督教其實是有關心社會公義、政策、制度、邊緣社群等的信徒，
4. 不是任何議題或行動都適合或可以用 “基督教xxx堂”、 “基督教xxx宗派”或甚至“基督教聯會”等名義進行的。不是同一間堂會的每位信徒對某社會政策或制度等的分析見解都相同，更何況是連同不同的堂會，所以不要口口聲聲地站在高地般說「教會」應出來以「教會名義」地批評這社政、批評那社政，反之，「教會」較可以做的，是鼓勵有這方面社政分析能力的信徒 (按：需知道不是大多數信徒都有對社政有深入分析的能力及精力或時間的，牧者亦然)，在政界、政論界、報章社論、報章論壇、報章讀者來函、電台Phone in節目等，按主耶穌的道，配合其他可有的資料、數據、學識、知識、分析，發表各自看到的或正或反的意見。
另外，關於你說的「 關懷邊緣社群」，有基督教團體是關懷及幫助無家者、吸毒者、邊青、釋囚、家庭受虐者、兒童之家、新民、情緒或精神病患者及其家屬、弱智者及其家屬、病態賭徒及其家屬…等等的，希望你也在默默地擺上你的支持和心力，如其他不少已一直有所默默地擺上他們/她們一分支持和心力的信徒及教會一樣，也不好口口聲聲地站在高地般說「教會」不關懷邊緣社群。
有太多可以做了！
教會除了影音使团那種方舟之外，有太多可以做了！就如扶助被社會化的不公義所擠壓的弱者、在一個理想政府出現之前去關懷社區的老弱孤寡，這也是教會尚行的事；高呼社會公義、民主普選的口號，不如親力親為、言行一致。就如把每年捐給影音使团數千万元的奉獻，去幫助身邊的弱者，就有太多可以做了！Why do people laugh at Creationists ?
請大家去 YouTube﹐找這個系列 "Why do people laugh at Creationists"﹐這些系列裡面有關大洪水的部份﹐足以令影音使團變成笑柄。
They are delibrately dumb.
除了方舟，我們還有什麼？
香港大部分教會無法講社會公義、反建制政治、 關懷邊緣社群；除了搞方舟、鞏固主流道德價值、向政治核心靠攏和打壓性小眾外，還有什麼？大家說，我們還有什麼？我們還有什麼？我們就快破產。恭喜大家富貴！錯誤解經
影音使团那種對方舟的歷史解讀是出於一種錯誤解經(literal reading)，是一種錯謬的 Young Earth怪論，早已是貽笑大方，在美國不少基督徒及所有的神學院都摒棄，如今卻被這個籌款綽頭帶到香港大眾傳媒聽中，實是香港教會之災！此外。。。
影音使團2005年宣稱發現方舟早受到我和幾個朋友質疑 (truth-of-the-ark.blogspot.com)﹐到現在他們具體﹑確鑿的證據一點也沒有拿出來﹐這種宣傳手法近乎說謊聖經寫的大洪水只是古人口傳的神話﹐不是史實 (historical fact)
聖經寫的只是古人口傳的事情﹐中間經過言過其實﹑潤飾﹑加添﹐都會和走樣。Misleading, misleading....
I am not going to discuss about the definiton of "Christian" nor "history" but I will only focus upon the defense article from MEDIA.
The topic 不把方舟當正史 勢惹全球誹議 is already misleading, will it really arouse the whole world against the report from the secular newspaper? I don't think so. It is quite misleading to put the whole world behind themselves, it is too arrogant and overestimating themselves. If they can have different people from different countries to defend for them still doesn't represent the whole world at all.
The topic that the secular newspaper used is 方舟當正史,惹外界爭議 is more conservative, what a big difference?
They said: 根據本報(bear in mind, this is their own newspaper)資料顯示,影音使團過往投放資源尋找真正方舟, 有關進展如何得到土耳其政府、甚至歐美科學家、考古學家的支持等等。 Having 支持 is not the same as confirmation. If I support you to research on the cure for SARS, does that mean I confirm that you have discovered the cure for SARS? The answer is obvious.
Regarding the newspress in January of this year, here is the link: http://www.thenoahark.com/index.asp?pg=3 It is interesting to read the comment from professor Randall Price: 彼恩斯教授指出︰「直到目前為止，我們對研究方法所知十分有限，我認為需要找出更多木結構作詳細分析。」但他補充，這已是他所認知最全面及具科學論證的方舟發現，雖然距離真正下結論說已找到方舟仍為時尚早，但對於是次發現仍表現興奮。
Can we see that clearly, it is too early to draw any conclusion about the discovery of the Ark? Media, please stop making those claims anymore. It is only a discovery of possible evidences but not yet proven at all. If you read through the whole article, you won't see any confirmation about the discovery of the Ark at all.
I believe in the historical fact of the Ark but it doesn't mean I have proven the historicity of the Ark, beleving and proving are two different things. In their defence, they quoted the discovery of the evidences for 赫人, again I have no doubt that they existed because I believe in the Bible but to the general public, we can't just ask them to believe until they believe that the Bible is given to us by God.
Indeed there is a lot of problem about Media in this issue. They build a huge platform with Noah's Ark and they can't take it down and they continue to argue and defend for what they are doing. They are very skillful to use "love" to appeal to the public and then use "spreading the Gospel" to appeal to the Christian community. But, if their starting point is wrong, then it is wrong. Take back their claims first, then move from there.
Also, as I browse through their website, I noticed that they have a problem in the funding for the movie about a soccer team. At the end of May, they claimed that they need 3.6 million, they appealed to the public that they need to raise 900,000 per week in order to cover the cost for the production. What happened? What kind of management is that? If it is by faith, then what kind of faith is that? Are they blaming on us or on God that they can't finish this production? Really interesting. What about those artists? They kept posting the pictures of those artists on their webpage to rally support, they put touching comments from the artists to move the public. Please have better planning and management. They never show how much they have collected, how much they have spend nor how they spend the money but everytime, they just kept asking for more and more and more...it is like a black hole. They have drew a lot of money from the public by using the Noah's Ark, by using the artists but they need to be accountable. Now, they will use this to ask for support, so that the movie can be shown in October; if they couldn't, they will keep asking for more. The key is where did the money go, did anyone ask at all? Love to see some kind of detail statement for their projects but couldn't find them, not just now but for many many years. If you appeal to the public, then you should report to the public in the same way that you appeal, the public shouldn't have to go to different channels in order to find a brief report and then didn't know where to ask questions.
Don't misleading the public and don't misue the public! Please!
我信甚麼？
liberale君所言的「所信」只是故事的哲理教訓。如此，只是將「耶穌」或「基督教」信仰視為各種宗教其中一派(one of)，而非是「這一」(the One)。未必是歷史的原因
「歷史」這字對不同人有不同的意思，它可以指歷史事件，也可以指對事件的記載，也可以指對事件的詮釋。為何不是歷史?
曾經發生過的事,就是歷史,
我相信今日所有相信上帝,相信耶穌曾為我們釘十字架贖罪的基督徒,都相信聖經是真實的,因為耶穌的生平事跡,正正就是記載在聖經的新約中,這是無可推諉的事實!
聖經說:挪亞的日子怎樣,人子降臨也要怎樣,所以方舟不只是一個信與不信的問題,亦是歷史上真實曾發生過的事跡!
「基督徒」
對我個人來說，「信耶穌」、作「基督徒」（包括「文化基督徒」）的意義在於接受「耶穌」這個角色所表現的人生觀及價值觀，而並非接受猶太聖典或新約聖經作者們所說的故事的歷史性。我認為應著重學習故事的哲理教訓，其次才是考究故事的真確性。正信還是正史？
方舟是正典的故事，是正信，但不一定是正史。方舟是正史
方舟是歷史,是真有其事, 相信所有基督徒都知道,
正如所有相信上帝的基督徒都相信聖經一樣,
這是無可推諉的事實!
