Just to be clear my previous response was solely to young kids whose parents are opposed to science. If I was in a position of authority in a church to teach genesis , even to kids, I would 100% teach that it’s mythology, not literal. For my nieces and nephew and second cousins I point out how stupid YECism is. They are very aware they YECism means an inability to properly understand scientific literature. I don’t pretend with them that YECism even makes a tiny tiny bit of sense. When someone comes to being an older teen, I don’t care what their parents think. If a 16 year old asks me about evolution I’m going to tell them. Even if their parents don’t agree. I believe kids in high school are mature enough to be able to hear the data and that it can greatly affect their life at that age.
Yes, you are right.
Here you get to the heart of the problem with YEC and doctrine:
This is the key, isn’t it?
The theology many of us hold or have held seems to be in direct conflict with what has been learned and continues to be learned about the universe.
And this:
You state it so precisely.
What is right? How to handle this truth?
Do we die, trying to defend YEC, which is demonstrably false, in order to support our theology? Who outside our enclaves will believe such a testimony or message?
Do we seek to understand reality as God allows us to discover more of it, and trust Him to help us wrangle with these things? Support each other in the struggling? Try to understand a theology that includes reality?
Do we give up? It seems actually, people are giving up, especially the ones who have come from YEC and finally realize it’s not reconcilable with reality, and therefore cannot support their faith. And those outside see our mess, and just shake their heads; for good reason, they want nothing to do with it.
Something else?
No. Science cannot answer philosophical questions. Full Stop. People may try to use science to answer philosophical questions but that is not the fault of science. So all of your follow-up questions are really meaningless.
Get them into a church with a minister who has been adequately educated in theology! A large number of denominations have ministers with really poor theological knowledge and even worse doctrine. I think these are the groups who produce absurd answers to scientific claims…usually answers that simply reject all science without even attempting to reconcile the differences.
There is no such thing as hardline YEC BTW. That is simply a construct of individuals who think that evolution explains our existence. For example, I have an aunty who is catholic, a denomination that among my theological position is not known for encouraging its members to think freely, and you know what she taught her kids…we came down out of the trees! Its this kind of stupidity that one who is a Christian should really look closely at.
I think that its silly to claim that AIG is a hardline YEC group. They fully accept the fossil record and the idea that Dinosaurs were created by God. Hardline groups deny that God even created dinosaurs, rather that they came into existence as a result of a sinful breeding program by early mankind. Some may scoff at this, however, considering that generally its believed from a theological position that “men of old” were far more intelligent and lived a lot longer than we do, it should be too surprising really despite the fact that God mentions them in the book of Job …Behemoth and Leviathan. In fact an entire chapter of Job 41 is dedicated to the Leviathan, I’m trying to think of a single place anywhere else in the bible where an entire chapter is dedicated to one animal of creation?
Personally, I do not see any importance in the finer details of such things, it has nothing to do with salvation. I would challenge anyone on this forum to show me where in the gospel our salvation is dependant on understanding science, however, i can very conclusively show that our salvation is dependant on our theology.
The beauty of the biblical statements about the gospel is that Christ and his apostles explained quite clearly that we are judged by the fruits of our faith. Those fruits have nothing to do with science and they do not condemn those with less ability…Christ simply said, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Heal the sick, feed and clothe the poor, be tolerant of and even love those who persecute you for his names sake, be kind…these are the sorts of things that are Godly. None of those things require any doctrine founded by science. The reason the bible teaches so little about science should be obvious, however, to many on these forums it is viewed as some kind of learning limitation of our creator. After reading the book of Job, I wonder how such individuals could be considered Christian to be honest.
If you hold that the earth is six thousand years old, you do have the produce absurd answers to scientific claims. That is your only option, which is what produces the clash when kids growing up under YEC teaching encounter the real world.
I don’t think you’ve got the point that I’m trying to make Adam. Or at least, if you have, you’re wilfully ignoring it. I shall leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions as to which is the case.
However, a minister who has been adequately educated in theology will understand the point that I’m trying to make. They will be fully aware that they are in a position of trust. They will fully understand that teaching falsehood and misinformation is a breach of that trust. And they will also fully understand that when someone comes to them whose trust has already been breached by having been taught falsehood and misinformation, they won’t gain that trust by repeating that falsehood and misinformation, much less by attempting to browbeat them into accepting it.
Such ministers, however, are usually not YECs. Or at least if they are, then they keep their YECism firmly in the background.
I’m sorry Adam, but when any group promotes scientific falsehood and misinformation as essential doctrine to the extent of denouncing any attempt to bring correction as “heresy,” that group is a hard line group. Period. The fact that other groups exist that make even more ridiculous and easily falsified claims does not make a shred of difference in that respect.
that may be your position, however, usually that is only a result when theology is also very poor. In my church mostly individuals hold the position of literal 6 day creation, the dinosaurs, the flood, and a great deal of very sound science that completely align.
One of the real advantages i have in following the SDA movement is that it is easily able to reconcile both without compromising biblical doctrine in any way (despite some frivolous claims to the contrary by naysayers).
I find it absurd that SDA’s get condemned to hell by fundamentalists because they follow the biblical sabbath, or because they believe in Tithing (as Abram gave to Melchizedek roughly 500 years before the Israelite Exodus out of Egypt), or because they believe in a literal interpretation of the 10 commandments as a fundamental part of the Gospel…none of these things are cultish or unbiblical.
Acutally now that i think of it, food for thought ( i might start a question about this), who here on these forums has thought about the very first sin in the universe. Was that on earth or in fact in Heaven? My belief is that Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven was the very first sin and here is the dilemma for those who think the 10 commandments are simply an Abrahimic Jewish tradition of legalistic restriction…
If, prior to Mt Sinai, there was no written law of God (ie 10 commandments) explain the following:
- it is the law (10 commandments) that set the standard by which those who do not repent are condemned
- In Genesis 2 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
- If the 10 commandments did not predate the creation of mankind, and Mt Sinai, By what mechanism was the angel Lucifer cast out of heaven? What ruleset?
7Then a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels. 9And the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
For the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down—
he who accuses them day and night before our God.
11They have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony.
17And the dragon was enraged at the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
- By what ruleset did God bring the flood upon the earth? How can a lawless society be condemned, how can there be sin with no rules to break?
Precisely.
This is a big problem for our girls.
One reason i used the terms physical observations and. biblical literalism earlier was because evolution at this point is really not necessarily the issue, as other views of origins such as progressive creationism, some forms of intelligent design, and even gap-age and to at lesser extent day-age interpretations can be consistent with an observed old earth. There are however also a number of Biblical statements which if taken literally are not compatiable with observed nature or science, such as the three tiered universe, geocentrism, the seat of emotions being in the kidneys, reproduction being the planting of seed by the male into the womb as a receptacle, the earth sitting on pillars and not moving, stars falling to the sky etc. These issues are present regardless or whether we decide to address evolution. And of course, some in ID also hold to common descent with modification while not embracing evolution.
Id be interested in reading the references used by proponents of these doctrines…I can almost certainly guarantee that I will fault them biblically or explain them in a manner that is not at odds with our reality with the exception of “explaining the nature of an Almighty Triune God” to an atheist.
Of course, few literalists hold to many of these biblical statements, but rather pick and chose which ones they want to hold to and which they reject, knowing they look foolish if they hold to them. A problem arises when the positions they do hold too are seen by others as foolish as well, as is the YEC view of dinosaurs spreading over the earth and then dying out all in the last 5000 years.
I don’t see any issue with the time period for dinosaurs to die out. It is plainly obvious from Andrew Snellings (and many others such as Kirt Wise, Stephen Myer, Dell Hacket etc etc) view of the layering of rock formations in the Grand Canyon and other places around the world, this is consistent with a flood/post flood model put forward by YEC movement. Its consistent with literal reading so i don’t see any problem with it…particularly as these guys are not reliant on Scientitists who insisted on following a model that starts with Stephen Hawkings scientific statement “there is no God”. How one can make a scientific claim of this nature illustrates why we should not follow his lead on this!
Going back to your last post…Three tiered universe is not a problematic theology…it really is a non issue for Seventh Day Adventist theologians and Scientists and other YEC based demoninations. In any case, my understanding is that this refers to secular vs Religious Cosmology and not Theistic Evolution…so i am not sure why you would even bring that up here as this is a religious forum?
Geocentrism is confused by most simply because they do not understand the concept of the earth being the centre of the universe in terms of the “Great Controversy” (to use an EG White book title) between God and Lucifer/Satan/Devil. It is the place where the entire plan of salvation is played out and the reason for this is because according to Christian scriptures dated at more than 2500 years old, this is the place where sin entered this world and since the Messiah can only die once (for all of the universe), he was incarnated on this planet to pay the price for sin. There is nothing more to it than that.
Whilst I am not one who has focuses on such things in the sacrificial system of the Israelites, I look at the Antitype application of the Sanctuary service and how it realtes to the entire theme of Salvation. i found an interesting article on the kidneys statement…i think this article probably refutes your view on this Hebrew Anatomy Part 2: The Kidneys - Torah Apologetics
I think the planting of seed by the male into the womb is plucking at straws…seemingly a nonChristian attempt to discredit ancient writings…writings of Old Testament from a language that has only a few thousand words (7,000) and lack the complexity of modern language…and this matters.
I do not have issue with stars falling from the sky…not sure where you are going with this? For example, The bible refers to the morning star (lucifer) falling from the sky…clearly this refers to a person and not an object.
Sitting on 3 pillars…what is your theological point here that is problematic? its very obviously a theological concept not for example literal brick pillars.
We could talk about the 4 winds of heaven and the 4 corners of the earth…surprised you left those out. Again, theological concepts. no problems here.
The issue is ancient biblical understanding as written being in conflict with what now know is factual knowledge, with geocentrism being the most well known example, but in this context a young earth falling into the same category for most of us. That conflict is what seems the issue for many.
Tell me more about this “sinful breeding program” of dinosaurs by early mankind! It sounds fascinating.
How can a flood or series of brief floods make this?
or this?
or this?
Faunal succession matching with radiometric dates, coherent temporal ranges of taxa across the globe, and partial induration of multiple layers are rather unlikely without large time spans.
as always, comprehension of statements requires context…you quoted out of context. I did not say i support this view or that AIG supports it. Neither of those two is true.
She didn’t say you did, speaking of comprehension. But it’s novel to me too, and was she was just expressing curiosity.
you are forgetting a simple fact… the false claim by secular scientists that a world wide flood cannot create/be responsible for sedimentary deposits of the nature described…oh hang on, did i just say sedimentary deposits? Sheesh how do they form…almost always in water isn’t it???
The fossilized burrows through the many layers of the cliffs of Dover belie YECism too, if I recall correctly, and might be simpler to understand?
how might one come to this conclusion?