Comment on Further definition on tap for Adventist fundamental belief on creation by BobRyan.
Ultimately, the churchâ€™s Annual Council will vote whether to add the revision to the agenda of the 2015 GC Session in San Antonio, Texas, where a final vote would occur.
Based on the wording at the 2010 session – I do not see how it is even possible to keep this from going to the 2015 session for a vote.
The complicating factor is that the Church manual is at the same time being chisled into stone as it were – as though it too is its own voted statement of beliefs and it requires that the doctrinal statements of the church be used as a standard for determining issues related to church discipline at the local congregational level.
This combination makes our voted statements of belief (be they the 1980 list or more recent ones) a litmus test for members.
BobRyan Also Commented
Ken: As a matter of your faith I have no problem with your answer.
Do you think God revealed part of the truth to the Sumerians where the versions were similar or was the Sumerian version pure fiction?
I think that it is logical to conclude that 3 cultures all descending from the same world view (Noah’s world view) would have similarities in their view of history even if by means of sinful nature, depravity, and separation they corrupt those stories.
It is not an “accident” that almost all cultures have a story about a flood.
The symbol for flood in the ancient Chinese script is the pictogram of a boat and 8 people.
Abram’s Ur of the Chaldees was a Sumerian city – and Moses was told by God that God supernaturally called Abraham out of Ur to Canaan. While those around him were being corrupted – Abram was still holding true to worship of the True God and holding to the True world view. In essence Abram is the Sumerian you speak of –
Ken: â€œIn short what logic dictates the true version was revealed to Moses and Moses alone? Iâ€™m fine if the answer is pure faith, but if there is logic behind your conjecture, unfortunately Iâ€™m not understanding it.â€
1. It is logical to conclude that if a God exists that cares about humans – I will restore truth from time to time when it becomes obscured to a certain level.
2. It is logical to conclude that the same God that can create the world and destroy it with a flood – can reveal truth to whomever He chooses.
3. It is logical to conclude that a book capable of predicting over 2000 years of human history – may indeed be inspired by God.
4. It is logical to conclude that some corruption of truth would precede the correction of that corruption.
5. It is logical to observe that there are massive contradictions between Gilgamesh style myths and the bible account of the flood.
6. it is logical to observe that the Gilgamesh mtyh has the same polytheistic, gods-at-war, petty-god-interactions as we see in Homer’s Illiad etc.. common to all pagan myths and legends.
7. If it is logical to conclude that IF mankind acquired a downward-trending sinful nature at the fall – then cultures over time will tend to sink to common levels of degradation in their view of truth, and God and morality.
Yes – I would argue that there is the faith element in my world view, but it is not devoid of logic.
Further definition on tap for Adventist fundamental belief on creation
The Sumerians and the Mesopotamians were all plolytheistic religions.
Moses was given direct revelation by God according to Numbers 12:6 and the text of Moses claims that “God is ONE”.
There is no squabbling between gods lessor or greater in Moses’ account.
There is no “Noah made immortal” in Moses’ account.
There is no “seven day flood” in Moses’ account.
Other then sending the birds out there is almost nothing that is the same or “redacted” except for the fact that the flood is “water”.
By contrast there are several versions of the Gilgamesh story – modifications, additions, revisions in different cultures.
This is a case of the One True God restoring an accurate record of the real account of both creation, the fall of mankind and the flood in the case of Moses.
And Daniel provides a case of that One true God predicting over 2000 years of human history – all future to Daniel’s day.
Not something that Gilgamesh was able to do as it turns out.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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