Inge asks How to you correlate that with the biblical account?Or …

Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by BobRyan.

Inge asks

How to you correlate that with the biblical account?Or do you consider the biblical account as pure myth, with no factual data? If so, why consider that the biblical account refers to any kind of literal flood?Just wondering … (Quote)

Kris responds:

That’s a good question. I do not consider the flood account as pure myth, or as a myth at all. All I said was I believe that the flood is a local event

Then you are using an extreme form of eisegesis to bend the text to the usages of evolutionism.

When I say “God said” I refer to the fact that the Bible is to be accepted by Seventh-day Adventist Christians as the Word of God.

God said

Gen 6:6-7
6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 The LORD said, “” I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
13 Then God said to Noah, “” The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.

17 “”Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Instead of using local or regional terms like “land of Shinar” or “mesopotamia” or “Caanan” (regional and local terms known to Moses) – the text specifically says this is an event occuring to the EARTH, ALL FLESH on the Earth, The EARTH is filled with violence, ALL FLESH corrupt, the END of all flesh..

Thus the only limits, the only qualifiers for these terms that can be allowed in actual exegesis are the limits and qualifiers found IN the text itself.

God said
Gen 7
1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.
2 “You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female;
3 also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

God said that the scope is “the face of all the earth”.

Gen 7:4
4 “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”

Pretty hard to believe that “from the face of the land every living thing that I have made” refers to God making stuff in Mesopotamia alone. That form of eisegesis just does not work in the text.

Gen 7:11
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.
12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

Again – All the fountains of the great deep “but just in mesopotamia” does not work in the text as a valid “insert”.

In direct contrast to the text above we have this statement

Kris said
I believe that the flood is a local event
, likely that happened in Mesopotamia at around 2900 BC (A reasonable date since the Gilgamesh epic is dated to about 2700 BC).

Certainly we can all agree that using Gilgamesh as your “Bible” could easily get some of the facts we find in Genesis 6 and 7 tossed out the window.

The text of scripture “by contrast” points to a world wide event not a “Meopotamia wide event”.

God said
Gen 7:19-23
19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;
22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

“All the high mountains everywhere … All the flesh that moved on the earth — of all that was on dry land” is not a euphamism for “of all that was on dry land in mesopotamia”.

God said:

Gen 8
4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.
5 The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
6 Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;
7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.
8 Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land;
9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark, for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.

12 Then he waited yet another seven days, and sent out the dove; but she did not return to him again.
13 Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the surface of the ground was dried up.
14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.
..
17 “”Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.”

Again we find no qualifiers in the text itself stating that this is “just mesopotamia” or that the boat landing on the mountains is just a concern for people living in mesopotamia.

Why in the world would birds simply not “fly away from mesopotamia”?? Why take them in the ark as if not doing so would eliminate their species??

Kris saiid –
First, I will deal with the “Proof texts” that are often used to claim that the flood is global.

Very often those who use the term “proof text” in pejorative way fail to take the time to look at what the term means – because they then go on to abandon exegesis altogether and to build their entire doctrine on “a single word” not even a “text”.

Kris makes this effort to bend Genesis 6 – 8 using Acts 2 (the Greek text, different author, different subject) as the excuse

Kris said –
Even the Bible uses universal terms that indicate a limmited region: Acts 2: 5 says, “Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.” — Obviously, “all under heaven” does not mean the entire planet.

hint: If you have evidence that some nation on planet earth – with Jews in it – did NOT have at least someone from that nation in Jerusalem at that time – please give your evidence.

In 2Peter 3 – we are told that it is the entire planet that was involved in the destruction of the earth by a flood.

in 1Peter 3 we are told that only 8 humans survived.

In Matt 24 we have the same confirmation.

Impossible to ignore.

Nobody – in OT or NT limits this to “mesopotamia”

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’

@krissmith777said I do beg your pardon.I made that apparently unwarranted assumption because that is the most common way to explain Ellen White’s visions by those who do not recognize her to be inspired. Perhaps you have other ways of explaining her “non-inspired” status (in your eyes), or perhaps you even recognize her to be inspired?At any rate, I won’t quote her at length (Bob Ryan has likely done so already), but you probably know that Ellen White explained the Flood and accompanying geological activities in unequivocally global terms. If you do accept her writings as inspired, how do you harmonize your beliefs with her writings?If you don’t accept her writings as inspired, just saying so is sufficient explanation.

Thanks much

It should be “expected” that this is a pro-Seventh-day Adventist web site and that even LSU and PUC will claim to be pro-SDA and will claim to accept the prophetic ministry of Ellen White.

I do not know why the idea of rejecting the ministry Ellen White would be “assumed” in this context OTHER than claims that “in practice” this or that institution is rejecting her ministry or rejecting Genesis 1 and 2 or rejecting the words in Ex 20:8-11 etc. But none of the SDA groups being discussed is on record as admitting that they reject Ellen White’s prophetic ministry.

Erv Taylor may have a correction to this sweeping claim of mine. We will see.

in Christ,

Bob


Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’

First is the question of biogeography. Even a layman like myself can understand the “kangaroo problem.” Of course it goes beyond just the kangaroos, involving a number of creatures, many of which probably did not have common ancestors. It has been suggested that all the many marsupial animals in Australia just all happened to die out everywhere else between Ararat and Australia. Or perhaps angels were told to herd them all to their destination. Or maybe Noah chose some of his grandchildren to take some animals here and some there, lemurs to Madagascar, for instance. But, it would seem to me that even if you can present a reasonable argument that one of these scenarios *could have* happened, the only reason one would present them would be to defend the Genesis account, rather than because there was some other scientific evidence. So, how many of our biology college professors finds one or more of these possibilities to be something he can back up with scientific evidence? If 90% or more of them can’t maintain one of these *possible scenarios,” do we fire them, and do we maybe tell the religion teachers to teach biology?

This is the “classic” bait and switch claim that evolutionists may well believe in the myth that birds come from reptiles without actually showing that to be the case – but creationists “need a video” in hand for any solution relative to the flood or else they must leave science.

The lopsided nature of that argument is fairly transparent to the unbiased objective reader.

Alvin asks
I respect Ellen White for so earnestly upholding the truthfulness of Genesis. But, does that mean I have to respect every scientific explanation she ever put forward? Am I supposed to resort to the defense of “Well, you know, not everything was *verbally* inspired,” so that we can conscientiously discard her “amalgamation” statements, as perhaps being on the same level as the number of rooms in a building. But, given that we generallly maintain that she didn’t necessarily mean that any human beings were partially descended from apes, what did she mean? Do I need to respect the amalgamation statements, even though they have been used from time to time by some people to uphold racial superiority? I respect her earnest campaign for the souls and physical well-being of black people. But, why didn’t she ever tell us what she meant by this statement, instead of us having to try to explain it to each other nowadays? Does anybody know what point she was really trying to make? Is there any useful, helpful thing we can get from this statement, as it relates to the races of men?

I have addressed this point in several posts — and they mysteriously dissappear for some reason I am not clear about. Maybe my computer has a glitch when it comes to that subject.

The bottom line is that Ellen White identified what science today calls a “hybrid” as the explanation for the wide diversity in animal genomes that we see today. She never said that humans are mixed with animals.

in Christ,

Bob


Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’

What a TOTAL SHOCKER that not one EducateTruther is willing to come forward and declare their belief in the superiority of Scripture over Science. Not Sean Pitman, not Bob Ryan, not Inge Anderson, not Oink, not

Every time I check back on this thread Kent is trying out some new “Flat earther” model trying to argue that EducateTruth people need to be “Flat earth creationists” ignoring science because of course in Kent’s mind science is opposed to the Bible.

I think Dawkins will clearly join him in that crusade – but what Christian would do 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