Comment on Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians by BobRyan.
Website editor – reposting so the quotes stand out.
Phillip Brantley says:
The Seventh-day Adventist Church endorsed the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation in the 1986 Annual Council. In so doing, the Church expressly rejected the Historical-Critical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation, as reflected in this statement: “Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.” AR, Jan. 22, 1987. The 1986 Annual Council action is reflective of what has been orthodox theology of the Church during the past 147 years. The Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic accepts scripture at face value and interprets scripture based on principles of interpretation that arise out of scripture itself.
In order for the Historical-Grammatical model to hold to its claim to interpret the Bible “at face value” based on principles of interpretation that arise out of scripture itself – it would have to use “reason” to state those principles and apply them objectively. Thus it is NOT true in the strictest sense that the the H-G model is unreasonable or that it rejects reason.
RATHER the H-G model rejects the philosphical meandering and traditions of men that seek to pull in every excuse under the sun to bend-and-wrench the text away from its face value meaning.
Thus the H-G model is not open to every atheist on the block that wants to claim some outside “excuse” for arguing that “scripture is not true or as you point out to argue against the “truthfulness of scripture”.
Phillip Brantley says:
In contrast, the Historical-Critical hermeneutic puts scripture to the test and relies on external norms and bodies of knowledge to determine the meaning and truthfulness of scripture.
As noted – the H-G model is not trying to figure out which part of the Bible is truthful. But it can be used in places like Dan 2 and 7 to establish the trustworthy nature of prophecy.
Phillip Brantley says:
The cryptic language Dr. Pitman quotes in “An Affirmation of Creation—Report” from 2004 was not intended to effect a change in the Church’s hermeneutical approach to scripture. This statement did not and does not open the door to countenance criticism of the sacred text
It is agreed that the Affirmation of Creation statement is not intended to open a flood gate of criticism against the Bible. Obviously.
But the SDA position has long held to the idea of informed faith based on “the weight of evidence”. It has always held a high regard for finding evidence in nature that results in faith and Romans 10 and Romans 1 argue that same thing about the invisible attributes of God clearly seen in the “things that have been made”.
Phillip Brantley says:
Criticism as discussed above is a term of art that describes a hermeneutical effort to validate or invalidate biblical text based on an external body of knowledge such as science. She wrote, “God will punish all those who, as higher critics, exalt themselves, and criticize God’s Holy Word.” BE Feb 1, 1897.Directly on point is her following statement: “But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the DEDUCTIONS OF SCIENCE, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority–not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence FOR OR AGAINST any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.” GC 595 (emphasis added).
The point that Dawkins, Provine, Meyers, Darwin make below agrees perfectly with that Ellen White states on that same subject in 3SG 90-91.
Darwinism leads to atheism
Expelled: 7 of 10 – Darwinism leads to atheism.
– Provine interview. I was a Christian
– PC Meyers joins Provine on this POV
– Dawkins joins Meyers and Provine
Ellen White’s statement in 3SG 90-91 agrees to the point of saying that you cannot conclude from nature that evolutionism is true – and still have the right view of God, or creation or the Sabbath.
Phillip Brantley says:
I know of no Church leader or theologian who presently supports this website’s campaign against La Sierra University
The subtle fallacies in that single statement are several.
1. It is unlikely that every church leader has written to you to confide in you their thoughts favorable or unfavorable regarding this website and the posts here.
2. This web site has never declared itself to be in a “campaign against LSU” nor has anyone that posted here said such a thing.
3. It is fallacious to argue that every student and faculty member at LSU can be cast in the same mold as the religion and biology department professors who choose to evangelize for evolutionism at LSU on the church’s dime. This web site has not done that.
4. A number of our own SDA church leaders presented their views at the “Yes Creation” event in Atlanta opposing the sacrifice-all-for-evolutionism stand. A stand easily illustrated by prof Bradley’s statements to the press and Erv Taylor’s own statements on this forum as he himself is a guest lecturer on this very subject at LSU.
Phillip Brantley says:
Bolstering the Word of God with external evidence seems pious, too. But when one puts the Genesis account of creation to the test, and freely admits that his or her belief in that sacred text rises or falls based on science data, that is heresy.
Again this is a twisting of the facts. As noted – even Ellen White admits that to make evolutionist claims for what happened in nature is to reject faith in God (or at the very least undermine it) such that it results in the “Worst” form of infidelity (her words not mine).
This conclusion that it obviates faith in God is the confirmed testimony of the now atheist evolutionists I pointed to (giving their own views on video in this case) and it was the testimony of Darwin himself and of every creationist on the planet.
Phillip Brantley says:
To be rejected on theological grounds is this website’s claim that teaching mainstream science in an Adventist university science class undermines belief in the Genesis account of creation, because science has no evidentiary basis in determining one’s interpretation of the sacred text or one’s belief in the truthfulness of the sacred text.
1. There is no claim here that evolutionism is good science — it is little more than junk-science totally unproven in the lab making wild alchemist claims about “birds coming from reptiles” and “eukaryote cells arising out of rocks, gas, liquid and an energy source”.
Thus there is no claim here that teaching science undermines the Bible.
2. There is no claim in any of the SDA documents listed that an evolutionist doctrine in favor of fictional origins for all the complex genomes seen around us today – has no impact on faith, doctrine or acceptance of the Bible.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
Hello out there!!! Are there ANY readers who actually agree with SDA Fundamental Belief #10–besides me?
I’m in — count me in. It is the doctrine of salvation in the form of justification and sancdtification. Wouldn’t want to miss out on that one.
And I will quote it as well. 😉
10. Experience of Salvation:
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God’s grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God’s sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin.Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment
in Christ,
Bob
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
In a 2004 paper in the journal Biological Conservation, Maned Sloths translocated from an urban area to a forest preserve in Brazil moved the most in their first year as they adjusted to their new environment, and much less in years 2 and 3. [edit]
I would like to thank Kent for his motivation and science interest in “Sloth movement”.
In fact I think it is amazing that we see Kent so motivated, so interested in doing “science” research when it comes to the subject of creation — given all of his efforts to insist that we not do it.
Oh no wait!! The ONLY science research Kent is motivated to do on the suject of creation is in trying to find “more puzzles” for creationists to solve!
Ohh – ok .. It makes more sense now.
in Christ,
Bob
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
In the history of the Flood, inspiration has explained that which geology alone could never fathom. In the days of Noah, men, animals, and trees, many times larger than now exist, were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but men, with their vain reasoning, fall into the same error as did the people before the Flood–the things which God gave them as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them.
{PP 112.3}
Hmmm — “God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history”.
God is the foundation of everything. All true science is in harmony with His works; all true education leads to obedience to His government.
Science opens new wonders to our view; she soars high, and explores new depths; but she brings nothing from her research that conflicts with divine revelation. Ignorance may seek to support false views of God by appeals to science, but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. We are thus led to adore the Creator and to have an intelligent trust in His word.
No finite mind can fully comprehend the existence, the power, the wisdom, or the works of the Infinite One. Says the sacred writer: “Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.” Job 11:7-9. The mightiest intellects of earth cannot comprehend God. Men may be ever searching, ever learning, and still there is an infinity beyond.
Yet the works of creation testify of God’s power and greatness. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” Psalm 19:1. Those who take the written word as their counselor will find in science an aid to understand God. “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” Romans 1:20.
– PP 115-116
And hmm “again” — “but the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. We are thus led to adore the Creator and to have an intelligent trust in His word”
And then of course there is that I.D principle in Romans 1 that goes far beyond anything that the I.D. guys over at the Discovery Institute are promoting.
“Those who take the written word as their counselor will find in science an aid to understand God. “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead”
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.
BobRyan:
Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.
Mack Ramsy:
Obviously the references abovI don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.
BobRyan:
Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?
Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.
As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.
how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.
Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.
At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).
Of course all that just gets us back here
http://www.thebranch.org/videos/Creation_Calls.mov
Mack Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.
Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?
No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.
So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?
Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.
in Christ,
Bob
Strumming the Attached Strings
@David Read:
Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.
That was not news right?
in Christ,
Bob
Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@John J.:
John J.: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.
Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.
As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.
And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.
in Christ,
Bob
ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?
1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.
2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.
This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.
BobRyan:
It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.
2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.
3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.
4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.
The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.
Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.
My pleasure.
Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?
There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.
That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.
There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.
It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.
You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.
You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.
Nice try —
As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.
in Christ,
Bob
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.
The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.
This is not the hard part.
in Christ,
Bob
