BobRyan: It means that the Sun and Moon are the …

Comment on Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week? by Al Scott.

It means that the Sun and Moon are the “TWO Great Lights” created on day 4 — just as Genesis 1 says.

Count them … “two”.

What about the part where it says “he made the stars also”?

Al Scott Also Commented

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?

BobRyan: So I consider this minor dispute with Al to be very mild by comparison.

On the contrary, I think this “minor” dispute goes to the very heart of the discussions on this site. If you get to pick and choose what you take literally, it is (as someone else said earlier) the start of the slippery slope. If God had the power to create the sun and moon on the fourth day, He certainly had the power to create the stars. I appreciate you allowing me the free will to believe what is explicitly set forth in Genesis. I don’t understand, however, how I am ignoring anything. You seem to insist on limiting God’s creative powers when you box him into how you think he created the stars.

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?

BobRyan: The other reason we get into this is that bey adopting extreme nonsense positions and then claiming the conservative POV is just “another way” to discredit the conservative “trust the bible” argument. Our atheist friends will make this same argument against Creationists by claiming that the Bible says the entire universe is only 6000 years old with that same lack of attention to detail when it comes to day 4.

So those who believe the Bible literally could be atheists, and those who don’t take the Bible literally could be conservatives? I think that many who take the Bible literally will have a problem with that.

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?

James: Al is correct about this. Why are we having this argument? The bible is very clear on what was created on the fourth day the stars included. Those who disagree are on a slippery slope to heresy in believig birds to reptiles fiction.

Exactly. How can one say in good faith that they accept what the Bible says if they can’t accept this simple literal statement?

Recent Comments by Al Scott

The Reptile King

BobRyan: Then you do the flip flop claiming that “real biology” needs to be grounded in the mythology that birds are coming from reptiles – or else it just is not “real biology”.

You’re being unfair, especially when you engage in the same type of argument when you claim to take the Bible at its word, yet can’t acknowledge the simplicity of something as simple as the creation of stars on the fourth day of creation.

WASC Reviews LSU’s Accreditation

Steve Shedell: To rephrase the above quote and apply it to the present situation:
“The time is not far distant when the test will come to every SDA Institution. The observance of the false sabbath will be urged upon our schools as condition for continued accreditation.”

There are really only two reasons to want accreditation: (a) so SDA students can get government financial assistance; and (b) so SDA students can go on to other accredited schools. Maybe it’s time to urge that all our academies and colleges withdraw from accreditation and go back to the model originally used when the schools were formed. The cost to parents and students would be great, but the sacrifice would enable our schools to avoid compromising on these issues.

My Goal for La Sierra University
Shane writes: “You are being extremely judgmental of our motives Jeff. Do you really think this site exists to be malicious?”

If a web page may be judged by its fruits, then the answer is “yes.”

My Goal for La Sierra University
I’m still wondering, how do we even get to the scientific proof of creation without starting with a scientific proof that God exists?

My Goal for La Sierra University
If we’re going to try to use science to prove that God created using the YEC model, shouldn’t we start by using science to prove that God exists?