Comment on Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case by BobRyan.
Ron:
You still don’t understand. I am not trying to defend Theistic Evolution, or any other kind. I actually agree with the substance of the proposed changes to the “Fundamental Beliefs”. I object to the whole idea of a “Fundamental Belief” as something distinct from scripture
Our beliefs are in fact summarized statements from scripture and we first began publishing them to the world “as such” in the 1870’s.
Ok so I missed the point where you were said that you fully agree with the real literal 7 day creation week – .
Your main point appears to be that you think God never told us through His prophets that life on earth is only about 6000 years old.
As has already been mentioned God DID tell us through his prophets the names and life spans of mankind from Adam to Jacob and then gave us the time frame from Abraham to Moses through his inspired prophets. (This we get from reading the book of Genesis).
And He also gave us this (for those supposed to be “more conservative SDA” than
me.)
During the first 2,500 years of human history, there was no written revelation. Those who have been taught of God communicated their knowledge to others, and it was handed down from father to son, through successive generations. The preparation of the written word began in the time of Moses. Inspired revelations were then embodied in an inspired book. This work continued during the long period of 1,600 years—from Moses, the historian of Creation and the law, to John, the recorder of the most sublime truths of the gospel. (Lift Him Up p 117) {LHU 117.3}
The Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers.And of course – Ellen White explicitly claims to have been shown creation week in vision –
I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}
But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}
Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. {3SG 91.2}
Two inspired sources – Genesis and 3SG 91 point out that life on earth is not billions of years old — and that creation week is a real week.
So this does not take a lot of genius on the part of an SDA to see what it being said. Where the difficulty seems to come in for some – is in accepting it.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Ron: addressed to David Read from Ron: Darwin was right, talk of salvation is sheer idiocy, utterly deracinated and pointless
Hmm. . . I think Mrs. White and Darwin were both wrong on this score
Now that is at least consistent of your support for T.E.
The T.E. position denies both the inspired text as well as the leading proponents of evolutionism to make it’s least-logical argument.
Why anyone would go to the most self-conflicted of all options is a wonder.
It does not work for those who accept inspired writing AND it does not work for anyone who follows the logic of Darwin on the subject of evolutionism.
How odd that anyone would fall for it.
Ron: Bob, What’s the alternative?
You keep making pejorative statements about theistic evolution, but you still haven’t answered my question.How do you interpret the evolution of nylonase in bacteria?
Simple. Plasmids. Something that well never get you from amoeba to horse nor from prokaryote bacteria to eukaryote amoeba. Bacteria do not “Acquire a nucleus” via plasmids. Simply does not happen.
And contrary to recent suggestions that evolutionists can just stay stuck at the amoeba level and never get to “horse” — and claim that is all good evolutionism — it isn’t. Evolutionists need to go from single celled eukaryotes (you know – like an amoeba) to horses “over time”.
Just having bacteria “adjust their diet” so the “turn into” even more bacteria… does not provide the salient mechanism needed for evolutionist story telling.
I am not sure why this oft repeated response is so hard for some of our readers (at least one maybe two) to follow.
If you know of a third alternative I am all ears, but tell me, how do you account for this rather simple development?
hint: plasmids. The design and architecture built into the prokaryote model allows them to co-opt plasmids far more readily than a eukaryote that walls off its DNA in the nucleus. While plasmids still have some effect in the eukaryote architecture – it is nothing like the wild wild west environment for prokaryotes getting exposed to plasmids.
in Christ,
Bob
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
A first one exchange for context –
Ron said: It is my observation that on the road to salvation many people go through the experience when they recognize that there are certain sins in for which, after years of effort and prayer, they still have absolutely no control. They finally come to the conclusion that if years of effort and prayer are not effective by now, then they might as well give up trying
BobRyan: I think I will take Paul’s advice in 1Cor 7:19, and pretty much all of Romans 6 — instead of that speculation above
And then we get this –
Ron:
I expected as much.
To which I have to say — that in those small areas where we do find at least some agreement (like the above) we can simply celebrate our agreement.
in Christ,
Bob
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Ron: David Read: Darwin was right, talk of salvation is sheer idiocy, utterly deracinated and pointless
Hmm. . . I think Mrs. White and Darwin were both wrong on this score
Now that is at least consistent of your support for T.E.
The T.E. position denies both the inspired text as well as the leading proponents of evolutionism to make it’s least-logical argument.
Why anyone would go to the most self-conflicted of all options is a wonder.
It does not work for those who accept inspired writing AND it does not work for anyone who follows the logic of Darwin on the subject of evolutionism.
How odd that anyone would fall for it.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
