Comment on Perspectives from alleged LSU students by Rich Constantinescu.
F. Weber: The Church has been struggling with a good, but incomplete GC-session-voted definition of Creation for 30 years. We now see the results.
Main Entry: week
Etymology: Middle English weke, from Old English wicu, wucu; akin to Old High German wehha week and perhaps to Latin vicis change, alternation, Old High German wehsal exchange
Date: before 12th century
1 a : any of a series of 7-day cycles used in various calendars; especially : a 7-day cycle beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday b (1) : a week beginning with a specified day or containing a specified holiday (2) : a week appointed for public recognition of some cause
2 a : any seven consecutive days b : a series of regular working, business, or school days during each 7-day period
3 : a time seven days before or after a specified day
How much must we define FB6 before we have to continue defining definitions? Go to common sense, Oxford or Webster to look what a week is. If it doesn’t say otherwise in common sense, the dictionary, or in the Fundamental Beliefs then it’s [drum roll …] exactly a week! It’s not difficult, at all. If FB6 is revised as, “literal week” then we have to have an addendum, “‘literal’ means such and so.” Next we’ll have to say, “such and so” must include “thus and so” to define, “such and so.” It will never end in the persuasion of those who do not want to believe. In which case those must be convinced they are at perfect liberty to leave and teach whomever has the ears to listen. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
Table of Contents
Rich Constantinescu Also Commented
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
Harvested between February 23-24 are the following quotations from separate posts:
Eugene Shubert: Iâ€™m here to discuss science, of which you are profoundly ignorant.
Eugene Shubert: I only reject your profound ignorance of science.
Eugene Shubert: I especially reject the faction that you represent.
Eugene Shubert: Laodicean Seventh-day Adventists are ignorant of science because they revel in blind, pharisaical presumption and willful ignorance.
Eugene Shubert: Untaught Laodiceans are those who are so self-satisfied with their ignorance that they presume to understand what they have never studied (science) and have the audacity to instruct those who have the scientific training and background and really understand.
You are greatly confused.
Eugene Shubert: Chimpanzees and popular creationists simply donâ€™t understand the mathematical theory of probability.
Eugene Shubert: So grow up and stop practicing deceit.
Eugene Shubert: You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity. Are you proud of being a contributing influence
Stephen Vicaro: Eugene, Now we know your true ambitions!
Eugene Shubert: No, that part isnâ€™t clear.
Eugene Shubert: The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please speak with precision in a scientifically discernable form. I do not understand lowbrow diction.
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheepâ€™s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:15-20
Rick Baskett: DNFTT
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
David Kendall: “I find myself in the unenviable (in this context) position of defending scholars who hold doctorates. As a scholar who is about to receive a PhD (in June), I can say with some certainty that the scholarly environment is nothing like what you just described.”
October 19, 1512, Martin Luther received his doctorate. He survived. John Wycliffe became a doctor in 1372. Most, however, do not emit such bright light.
(Sources: Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. tr. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985â€“93, 1:12-27; Encyclopedia Britannica)
Ron: Rich, Godâ€™s word is not the issue here. The problem is an inadequate understanding of Godâ€™s word.Â Â
Ron, could you please demonstrate for us how the fourth commandment could be re-written so that it could more clearly speak of a recent, six-day creation?
(Cf. Genesis 1:31; Exodus 20:8-9, 10, 11; Psalms 33:6, 9; Psalms 95:3-4, 5-6; Psalms 96:5; Psalms 104:5; Isaiah 45:11-12; Isaiah 65:17; Malachi 2:10; Matthew 19:4-5; John 1:1-2, 3; Acts 17:28; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:15-16; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 11:3; 2 Peter 3:5; Revelation 4:11; Revelation 14:7; Revelation 21:1.)
Recent Comments by Rich Constantinescu
Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?
Thank you Sean. Very helpful information. Praise God.
The Reptile King
Kent debuted here at ET two years ago with proclamations that there was no evidence that the theory of evolution was taught at LSU but since has modified his evolution-free period to the last 1.5 years. He has threatened to leave time after time but never did. Nor has he stopped reminding us us he is persecuted and misunderstood.
Kent: â€œBob, youâ€™ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldnâ€™t know â€œtruthâ€ if it smacked you between the eyes. Youâ€™ve proven to every reader here that you are not â€œin Christ.â€ Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.â€
Rich then noted that Kent shouldn’t be too upset about people not taking him as seriously as he would like because Kent came here pretending to not be an Adventist but it turned out he actually was an Adventist. The kind that doesn’t see much to worry about administration using vulgarity, drinking alcohol and evading authority albeit.
It is a little amusing that an observation that Kent tried to make readers think he wasn’t Adventist and the unacceptable tone of his ad hominem post towards Bob (not like the posts he harvested of Bob’s) is met by more ad hominem and – of all things – an accusation of ad hominem. I cannot think of many better text-book examples of projection.
However, credit where credit is due. Kent is persevering and he did let Bob keep his computer even though he made him throw away his modem. A nice scholar-to-scholar gesture or perhaps a typo yet short of the camaraderie we were waiting to see.
The Reptile King
Kent apparently does not realize he lost some of us when he stormed in to Educate Truth two years ago ranting and waving, “If I were an Adventist, I’d be ashamed to be one of you!” The fuss Kent put up made some here ask why an outsider was so upset about the Adventists not “representing”? When the shame game didn’t work Kent stormed out, stormed in, stormed out again (and again).
Some of us wondered, why is Kent so interested? Is he for lack of a better strategy trying to corner ET in any way he can in this case by shame and blame? Is he playing whatever side he can to get his advantage? Some of us asked directly if he was after all an Adventist, to which Kent irately responded, “as to the question of whether I’m an Adventist or not … it makes no difference.”
We have been for some time more than beginning to see the truth in that statement. Therefore Kent truly should not be upset when some people don’t take seriously his apology of, “I also am a Creationist.” Trust is built and the foundation is missing.
Here is recent gem towards a “fellow creationist”:
Kent says, “Bob, youâ€™ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldnâ€™t know â€œtruthâ€ if it smacked you between the eyes. Youâ€™ve proven to every reader here that you are not â€œin Christ.â€ Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.”
Hatred indeed. Those who stand for what they believe are, understandably, a mystery and great cause of perplexity to Kent usually worth many hours of his insight and forethought on his computer and modem. That last post apparently is not the fruit of taking enough time to cover one’s tracks.
The Reptile King
Kent, I was not primarily quoting EGW as an authority. I only noted that if someone quotes one portion of EGW writings as authoritative about the supposed disvalue of the “deductions of science” being evidence for or against a point of faith, they should be free to accept other parts of her writings which make it clear that science is not opposed to God’s Word. I do agree that the conflict is not between science and faith but only with the deductions of science and the conclusions of the natural, rebellious, un-renewed heart. EGW never opposed science. She opposed as the Bible says, “science falsely so-called.”
Our colleges all have students from non-Adventist persuasions. The world is invited to and attends all our other schools. They have a right to know what we are teaching if we are bearing false witness.
The Reptile King
Kent, you either missed or ignored the point. The point was and is, if someone would take EGW as saying “deductions of science” means there is no false science, just one true science that is totally contradictory to the Bible and we must choose to live in blind faith without it that is wholly inconsistent with the other many statements by the same author who talks about true science revealing God whereas false science doesn’t.
Your knot is easily untied. An enemy has done this.