Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by BobRyan.
Bob’s Quote
“So while you make a good case for the idea that without using exegesis we can always come up with some kind of story for bending the text one way or the other… (And I fully agree with you on that point), the entire reason we keep talking about more objective methods such as the Historical-Grammatical method of hermeneutics is to avoid the “every man bent the text to his own liking” problem.”
ken:
Dear BobI agree with the general thrust of your quote but it does make the issue problematic doesn’t it? If all Christians interpreted the Bible the same way, objectively, then no Christian faction could bend the text to meet its own doctrinal needs, correct? And what about non – Christians interpretation? Are they barred from objectivity because they don’t agree to a particular method of interpretation?
1. Not all Christians agree to use the H-G (Historical-Grammatical) method and that results in a lot of differences between denominations.
But those that DO use the H-G model all agree that Gen 1 is not advocating evolution.
2. Very often our Catholic friends observe the same issue as you have described it above and claim that the only solution is for all Christians to defer to their magesterium. (Pope if you are Catholic).
But that does not solve anything because each group has its own magesterium. (Church leadership).
Better to use the H-G model and be objective about it. 😉
3. Even atheists like Dawkins easily master the use of the H-G model and conclude that the bible demands a seven day creation week – the same 7 day sequence we see mentioned in Ex 20:11 that is equated to the 7 day week at Sinai in Ex 20:8-9.
Pretty hard to miss if you are not coming to the text with an agenda to try and “get it to say” something that fits evolution.
Ken said:
Perhaps that is why Science and empirical evidence to verify any particular interpretation of the Bible becomes so important.
The issue is less about our observations in nature validating the Bible and more about our observations in nature not being in direct contradition to scripture.
Before viewing the detailed evidence in micro biology ( “Life of the Cell” for an easy reference) – one may suppose that Intelligent Design is valid and that God is the designer. After viewing the evidence in a single cell we have that much more evidence to highlight in that regard.
However go back 500 years – we would still have no argument for saying that God is not the Creator, or that I.D. is not valid simply because we did not yet have the evidence of microbiology.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
@Eddie:
To the contrary – his direct response to the 3SG 90-91 argument that belief in evolutionism destroys faith in the Bible is “look at all the TEs that exist out there”.
The argument is that because some group of X people are T.E. (ie. because T.E’s “exist”) then the T.E. position must not undermine faith in the Bible to the point that 3SG states.
in Christ,
Bob
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Eddie: According to my calculations, here is the current status of the great evidence-versus-faith debate:
100% evidence < Pitman + Ryan + Ken
It’s funny that you never see those guys claim 100% evidence and 0% faith — but that idea keeps popping up from Kent and a few others that such is the case.
Mystifying.
in Christ,
Bob
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Sean Pitman: Rejection of the Seventh-day Sabbath because of a rejection of the clear reading of the Genesis account of origins is a rejection of the nature of inspiration of the Bible that Mrs. White (and the SDA Church) was trying to promote.
Indeed – logic and reason dictate that conclusion so clearly that even Darwin himself “gets the point”.
Are some of our own religion and biology teachers claiming to be in more darkness on that point than Darwin?
How did it come to this?
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
