Comment on Creation Debate in the Seventh-day Adventist Church by BobRyan.
Bob, Donâ€™t unbelievers have a term to dismiss and marginalize all that prediction and prophecy stuff? Vaticinium Ex Eventu?
Yes they appeal to the postdiction idea in the case of Daniel – but to do so they have to prove that Daniel was not a 6th century B.C author. In fact since he predicts the fall of the Roman empire and the rise of an even greater European empire to follow – Daniel would have to have been written in about the 6th century A.D so that all he predicted could reasonably be set back to postdiction.
They have a truly impossible task in that regard.
As I like to say when they try so many ways to squirm out of the historic accuracy of scripture – Nunquam visi caseum in tatis modis diversis paratum.
BobRyan Also Commented
Creation Debate in the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Actually – Ken is being very consistent in that regard — from the agnostic POV.
And we should not expect that an Agnostic would be highly informed or practiced on the subject of objective Bible exegesis – so I would not fault him on that point.
And as for the fact that his solution is also that of our Lib SDA – “Seventh-day Darwinists”? – Well Ken has the defense “I am an agnostic” but what excuse do the seventh-day darwinists have?
To Bob and Bill, ,Thanks for your help! But Ken, being an â€œagnosticâ€ is not likely to believe anything the Bible says, since it just might be some fairy tales
Agreed. I was not trying to promote belief in the bible for agnostics in my reference to Daniel 7, 8 and 9, just that there was an incredible amount of “consistency” in using the SAME model for interpreting days for all 3 chapters – as the SDA church does – vs picking one of them (Dan 9) and using a day-for-year there but nowhere else and not having much of an argument for using it one place and not another.
At least in the SDA model we have the consistency of “application” in that all of the national predictions made by Daniel in those chapters are using the same day for year model.
The part that should be impressive to an agnostic – is that the Dan 2, Dan 7 and Dan 8 predictions are made centuries before the events themselves take place.
Creation Debate in the Seventh-day Adventist Church
There is general agreement among Christians that the 70 weeks of Dan 9 are in fact 490 years not 490 literal days.
Adventists “remain consistent” with that model applying the same rule to Daniel 7 and 8.
But notice in that in Dan 9 the first reference is to Jeremiah’s 70 year prophecy. None of those groups attempts to bend the rule we find in Daniel and make it apply to Jeremiah – even when Daniel is speaking to Jeremiah’s prophecy in Dan 9 – the very chapter where he is going to continue to use his day for year model with the 490 years that every Christian on the planet (generally speaking) agrees with.
In Dan 8 the 2300 days spans a point in time from the dominate years of the Persian empire to a time past the fall of Greece – its division into 4 separate kingdoms and the rise out of one of those kingdoms of another world empire.
Thus it is incredibly obvious in Dan 8 that the same day for year model as we see in Dan 9 — is consitently being used.
Well all of this is just so much “harmonizing of the text” if one is looking at it from an “I would prefer that the Bible be thought of as wrong” POV.
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