The Sumerians and the Mesopotamians were all plolytheistic religions. Moses was …

Comment on Further definition on tap for Adventist fundamental belief on creation by BobRyan.

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.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Further definition on tap for Adventist fundamental belief on creation

Ken: “In short what logic dictates the true version was revealed to Moses and Moses alone? I’m fine if the answer is pure faith, but if there is logic behind your conjecture, unfortunately I’m not understanding it.”

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.

in Christ,


Further definition on tap for Adventist fundamental belief on creation

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 –

in Christ,


Further definition on tap for Adventist fundamental belief on creation

Ken: Don’t Sumerian and Babylonian tablets ( evidence of the 7 day week) pre date the writing of Genesis? Moses didn’t write it before the Sumerian and Babylonian civilizations did he?
I understand your point that according to the Bible, Genesis 2 pre – dates the Babylonian civilization, but it does so retroactively doesn’t it? Moses did not actually live during the time set out Genesis 2 did he?

Ken – Moses records a faithful list of followers including the fact that Abraham “kept God’s laws, and statutes” thus when the claim is made that Babylonians had a written record of a 7 day week being kept before Moses, you miss the target.

Both the Bible and other sources are arguing that the Babylonians come from an ancient 7 day week keeping culture – since they come from the decendants of Noah.

To show some kind of “borrowing” you would need to show something like a distinction. You cannot appeal to the common argument as a distinction for Babylonians.

Those who wish to argue that Abraham and Moses do not come from an acient pre-Babylonian 7-day week culture – but the Babylonians do – would have to show something like historic evidence to make that case.

in Christ,


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.

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 abov

I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.

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

Mack&#032Ramsy: 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,


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,


Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@John J.:

John&#032J&#046: 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,


A “Christian Agnostic”?

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.

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,


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,