Comment on New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues by BobRyan.
2 – The extent of the flood. Genesis 7:19 and Genesis 8:9 both tell us that the water covered the entire earth. Sean Pitman says that a true SDA must take 7:19 literally and 8:9 figuratively. SDA employees who disagree with him are labelled as thieves and liars (and immoral by some folks here).
In this less-than-serious solution – Kent suggest that the Genesis 8:3-11 is too confusing to see that the waters were in fact covering all the earth BEFORE they began to recede.
Take a carefull look at the actual text – to see that Kent is simply trying out a rabbit trail.
Gen 8
3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat.
5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
6 So it came to pass, at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made.
7 Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth.
8 He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground.
9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself.
10 And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark.
11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.
Is there ANY point in the text above where the serious reader is left to speculate the wild fiction “the water did not in fact cover the entire earth at the flood so that even the tops of the mountains were underwater”??
Rather according to the text it is only AFTER the water receded to a sufficient point – that the tops of the mountains appeared. Totally destroying Kent’s argument.
The text then goes on to tell the reader that in vs 7 that it is the drying up of the water on the ground that is being investigated by these “bird” tests.
So the text is not even close to being “difficult” to understand – though Kent “imagines” he can obfuscate even the most direct statements of scripture to the point that he would actually post this –
In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.†You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,†but to be “internally consistent,†you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark†(NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent†with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.
If you are going to demand being “internally consistent†in identifying which life forms died, then you are being internally inconsistent–and patently dishonest–in describing the extent of the flood waters, and in demanding that others share your inconsistency and dishonesty as well.
Admit it: your interpretation of scripture is prejudicial and biased by what you have been brainwashed by the Church
As noted above – the strawman Kent is building his fallacious conclusion upon has been totally debunked. How then were we supposed to take his wild conclusions seriously? They do not hold true either to logic or any form of literary interpretation known to mankind. His method is still limited to “rabbit trails” that go nowhere.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
Since editing is not possible on this particular site – those last to paragraphs above should be formatted like this —
Ken said to Sean
With respect, I think you are taking one of those ‘leaps of faith’ when you leap from the notion of design to the transcendent biblical God. Trite to say that all designers do not see the same design. Behe of the irreducible complexity argument clearly does not support young life on earth. He just sees life evolving from a later point than chemical soup.
It is readily agreed that many in the Intelligent Design group are in fact still evolutionists. However they are believing in evolutionism in a context that is not “distinctly atheist†by choosing an I.D form of evolutionism. Logic would tell us that this is where ALL the T.E’s would be gathered – but innexplicably many of them choose self-conflicted arguments so consistently that they fail to see their blunder in this regard.
in Christ,
Bob
New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
Ken said –
As you have often acknowledged if biological life is indicative of design this does not necessarily mean, ipso facto, that biblical God is the designer of our universe. Based on what we see it could be a haphazard designer who built in catastrophe and death into the equation.
It could be a haphazard God as you point out. Dawkins also points out the utter absurditity of an intelligent being deliberately choosing to create and sustain such a tooth-and-claw disease and extinction system.
However the Bible tells us of origins where there is no disease and death as God designs and creates the system. Only after rebellion do we see the “result” of the free will choice for rebellion.
You earlier noted that EGW saw life on other planets. Why isn’t there life on all planets or only one planet if there is a design to the universe? Bit haphazard of a design isn’t it? I do not see a pattern there, unless it is one of random natural selection – life adapting to harsh environments where it is able.
Neither Genesis 1 or 2 describes life as arising in a harsh environment where able. Rather the world is “formatted” as we see in Genesis 1 and all conditions are “made” to be ideal.
Ellen White claims to have seen in vision 1 or two inhabited world personally but in her descriptions of the universe as she said God described it to her – she states that there are in fact many inhabited worlds in the universe.
Many seem to have the idea that this world and the heavenly mansions constitute the universe of God. Not so. {Mar 368.1}
God has worlds upon worlds that are obedient to His law. These worlds are conducted with reference to the glory of the Creator. As the inhabitants of these worlds see the great price that has been paid to ransom man, they are filled with amazement. {Mar 368.2}
The Lord has given me a view of other worlds….an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. {Mar 368.3}
I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, “We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth.” Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, “None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall.” {Mar 368.4}
Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons. There I saw good old Enoch, who had been translated. . . . I asked him if this was the place he was taken to from the earth. He said, “It is not; the city is my home, and I have come to visit this place.” He moved about the place as if perfectly at home. {Mar 368.5}
Ken
With respect, I think you are taking one of those ‘leaps of faith’ when you leap from the notion of design to the transcendent biblical God. Trite to say that all designers do not see the same design. Behe of the irreducible complexity argument clearly does not support young life on earth. He just sees life evolving from a later point than chemical soup.
It is readily agreed that many in the Intelligent Design group are in fact still evolutionists. However they are believing in evolutionism in a context that is not “distinctly atheist” by choosing an I.D form of evolutionism. Logic would tell us that this is where ALL the T.E’s would be gathered – but innexplicably many of them choose self-conflicted arguments so consistently that they fail to see their blunder in this regard.
in Christ,
Bob
New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
@ Bob RyanAre you trying to make a point? (Quote)
The assumption was that you were following the argument that you carefully snipped out of that post.
You were the one expressing doubt about the fact that Bible believing Christians argue that the mountains we see today came from the flood and that very little “mountain building” has gone on in the almost 2000 years since the flood.
I pointed out a key flaw in your argument which is (again) that even your own evolutionist friends do not argue for massive mountain building events in those 4000-5000 years that Bible believing Christians say the mountains were pretty much what we see today.
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
