Comment on ‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session by BobRyan.
The word evolution is used with several meanings; 1: simple change (which no creationist would have a problem with), 2: ordinary genetic variation (again which no creationist has a problem with), and 3: The development of all life forms from a single source over millions of years (which creationists have a big problem with). This is complicated by the fact that evolutionists donâ€™t recognize any distinction. To them, evolution (simple change) is evolution (genetic variation) is evolution (Goo to you by way of the zoo). And they think that when creationists reject evolution (Goo to you by way of the zoo) then we reject all evolution (including simple change and genetic variation).
It gets back to the shell game nature of this particular argument for evolutionism. They want to hide evolutionism under all three of those shells at the same time. Then when the Creationist objects to the “birds come from reptiles” shell – the evolutionist wants to “pretend” not to know what problem the creationist is addressing – and to then switch to the “evolutionism is only change” shell. (hint: Change also includes nails rusting and fingernails growing but evolutionists don’t want to use that kind of “change” as evolution when they say “evolution is change”. Funny out that works out.).
As a result, they are clueless about what creationists really think.
You give them too much credit when you say they are clueless on that point. They know exactly which shell the creationist is complaining about – and which one they are not complaining about. But the classic “playbook” of the evolutionist calls for them to “pretend” that they think creationists “object to change”. It helps them to make such pretenses when the goal is to hold creationists up to ridicule.
BobRyan Also Commented
So, not only those Adventist pioneers, but my mother, too, and the others who had become Seventh-day Adventists would certainly feel that they were in the wrong church if they were to be present at this General Conference session.
That is an interesting story. Should we eisegete the text of Ex 20:8-11 to fit whatever doctrine on origins is found in evolutionism or should we bend both Genesis 1:2-2:3 as well?
The fall of man?
How about the world wide flood? Does that go as well?
How much of the bible do we toss out the window so that evolutionism will be unchallenged?
‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
The Yes, Creation event is a smashing success so far!
Congratulations to Dr. Tim Standish and everyone at the GRI for organizing this event!
Both theolgians and scientists have been giving presentations and all are in full support of what God has said on the doctrine on origins. Turns out all of them are Seventh-day Adventists as well!! Go figure! 😉
The delegates are working on a statement that will zero in on “the obvious” when it comes to our Belief #6, Ex 20:8-11 and Gen 1:2-2:3. But I don’t think this really adds much more of a hurdle to the truely devoted theistic evolutionist who may have already decided on a scorched-bible approach to the subject of origins in favor of evolution.
â€œSo if you think that sometimes God lies when he talks to Ellen White â€“ but he always tells the truth when speaking to a Bible author â€“ then my conclusion is that you are mistaken.
If you think that sometimes when Ellen White says â€œGod told meâ€¦â€ and then gives a statement â€“ that she is really lying â€” and other times she is correct, then you think she is a false prophet â€“ and are in fact asking me if I agree with your position. in that case I do not agree with you.â€
I truly cannot understand why you must insist that any communication of error must have some sinister motive or be a lie. Your words like Kevin Paulson are in constrast to your evident understanding of the process of communication. You seem to talk of conceptual inspiration but you really seem to be communicating verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy.
I suggest that the communication of God with man is similar to human communication in that we as humans bring to this conversation certain suppositions and biases. It is never a communication with 100% fidelity.
In 2Peter 1:20-21 God argues that they “speak from God” when the Holy Spirit speaks to them – and they speak to us.
The Bible calls the result “the Word of God”.
Ellen White also calls it “the Word of God”.
In your model above it is merely the word of fallible men.
The “reason” that a TEST of a prophet is doctrinal correctness – is that by the very nature of the communication being the “Word of God” – God cannot err. Thus if there is doctrinal error or even failed prediction in the message – then the Bible says they are a false prophet.
The bible does not say “well that is just the nature of that form of communication after all people are flawed you know”.
You seem to be going down a road that is not supported either in the Bible or in the writings of Ellen White.
Pauluc said –
How do you think the words of God got onto paper through her pen? She was shown a vision or a dream. How do you understand a dream? Surely there is some level of interpretation even in the understanding of the images or dialogue.
Ellen White stated that she was just as dependant on the Holy Spirit for writing the vision as in receiving it to start with. God is “big enough” to insure that his message is accurately transmitted (as it turns out).
So now let us take the 3SG 90-91 so often quoted here – show us how you propose that “prophecy works” such that it is totally unreliable in what it says.
This I have to see.
If she was in error it was not because God lied to her but because she did not understand the significance or interpret it correctly. How can you read Daniel and not appreciate that dreams and visions are anything but cryptic messages from God.
At no point in Daniel – does Daniel “lie” or even becoming “untrusted” in what he says. He simply and accurately tells what he was shown EVEN in cases where he admits he does not understand the full meaning. EVEN in that extreme case – the communication is STILL accurately and reliably transmitted.
for example in Dan 9 Daniel is given an explanation of Daniel 8 – but he does not say then “hey forget what I said I was shown in Daniel 8 — turns out that was all wrong”.
Why do we allow that she was human and yet pretend that she were infallable and inerrant and that to suggest otherwise is to call her or God a liar.
Your statement makes no sense – 3SG 90-91 is not about Ellen White eating lunch and passing on a few comments that happen to occur to her. You are grossly equivocating to get out of the tight spot that evolutionism has with Ellen White’s visions.
I believe in the power of parables and allegory
Same here – but I know the difference between parables, allegory and a simple plain statement of fact as we see in Ex 20:8-11 and 3SG 90-91.
Notice that in your efforts to show something more – you avoid the text like it was the plague.
That should tell you something about the line of argument you are following.
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