Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by BobRyan.
Sean Pitman: @Professor Kent: I accept the Bible as having a Divine origin because of the weight of evidence regarding those claims that can actually be tested and evaluated. Those things that can be tested have proven themselves to be true. It is this weight of evidence that allows one to also trust those metaphysical claims of the Bible that cannot be directly tested.
Phil Brantley has stated over at Spectrum that Sean has admitted to rejecting the Historical-grammatical model.
Nothing I have seen here suggests such a thing other than some of Prof Kent’s entertaining antics suggesting something like that.
It was my understanding that the H-G model was accepted by Sean and others here as valid, just like the rest of us would accept it. And after using that method to determine “what the Bible says” the next step was to note the confirmation or refutation of the Bible claims as presented in our objective observations “in nature” and compare the two.
NOT with the objective of “bending the Bible to fit whatever model of popular science thinking at the time” but rather to see where points in the Bible are being highlighted (or denied as the case may be) through direct observations in nature.
To Reject the H-G model would allow you to simply “bend the Bible” every time one of your pet ideas about nature does not fit the Bible.
Did I miss something?
BobRyan Also Commented
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.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Great Article Dave!
Excellent discussion of the way that Seventh-day Darwinian errors directly undercut the beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Pauluc at Spectrum addressed this question to me – but since Spectrum has kindly requested that I not reply on Spectrum when someone addresses a question to me – and since Pauluc’s question illustrates a key point on this thread — I am answering it here.
Pauluc makes the argument that it would be just as wrong to accept Gen 1 as it reads – as it would to accept Matt 17 as it reads because in his view Matt 17 says that miracles are the normative mode of healing, medical treatment is invalid, and all seizures are caused by demons.
I claim that the H-G model is valid for interpreting both Gen 1 and Matt 17 “just as they read”.
Pauluc said –
After considerable vebiage we finally got to the point that you in contrast to most adventists apply the same H-G to the Genesis 1 as the new testament texts such as Matt 17 on healing.
We can now move on to the supplementary questions in David Assherick style
Do you use modern medicine in any form? yes or no
If you had a car accident would you use a blood transfusion? yes or no
Would you accept care and life support in an ICU? yes or no
Would you accept a donor organ? yes or no
Do you think that these things are based on miracles? yes or no
Do you think that healing in the new testament was by natural mechanisms ? yes or no
Do you think that naturalistic moden medicine is consistent with the divine explanations of healing described in the new testament? yes or no
If you can answer no to all these questions then I do believe you are entirely consistent in you use of the HG througout the bible
” At no point did Matt 17 argue that no healing takes place outside of Christ or a disciple coming to your home to do a miracle.”
The key point is that those who use H-C to “bend the Bible” in Gen 1 are claiming that the Bible is a compilation of some rather backwoods unsavory texts – and it needs to be “dressed up” by some polite H-C bending before you can show it to your friends.
In this next round Pauluc argues that IF there is a both-and solution for Matt 17 (both miracles AND medical treatment or natural remedy) then the same holds for Genesis 1. Possibly there is BOTH a miraculous origins for some planets and for other planets – a natural origin.
on – Tue, 04/19/2011 – 06:49
You are absolutely and entirely right. And that is I think the main point of comparing genesis 1 and Matt 17. Both Genesis 1 and Matt 17 give descriptions of events in terms of the supernatural. One the act of creation the other the divine act of healing. Both are rooted in supernatural explanations. As you indicate Matt 17 does not argue that healing cannot be based on a natural explanation but neither does Genesis 1.
A prescientific supernatural explanation is offered but at no point does it indicate there can be no other explanation, indeed as if to underscore this Gen 2 goes on to describe a second and different account of the same events.
Gen 2 does not provide a chronological time-boxed sequence, but Gen 1 does.
Gen 2 is a narrative providing details not present in Gen 1, details that have to be inserted in context into the timeline created in Gen 1:2-2:3.
But in any case – Gen 1 and 2 do not allow for life on two different planets being created, one via creationism and one via evolutionism.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I think Ellen White was inspired and was a tremendous asset to the Church. However, I believe God allowed her to insert personal opinion in much of her writings, and to err.
Is that your view of the gift of prophecy mentioned in 1Cor 12? Is that how Moses, Peter, John and Paul wrote in your thinking?
Which parts were just their own mistaken ideas and which parts are the actual Word of God in your view?