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?
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.
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.
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???
And you are forgetting a simple fact: it’s not their sedimentary nature that is the problem.
Yes, floods can and do deposit sedimentary rock layers. But they don’t create burrows in them, and they don’t neatly stratify them into distinct layers, let alone not distinct layers with a clear progression of fossil types, and they certainly don’t create arbitrary correlations between the layers and their radiometrically measured ages.
You can’t just point to one high-level factoid and claim that it solves everything, Adam. Your explanation has to account for all the fine details, right down to the precise measurements, with at least as much accuracy and precision as the theory that you’re challenging.
And no, a requirement such as this is NOT “secular science.” Secularism has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s simply the standard that everyone has to meet when doing science, Christian and secularist alike.
AiG adheres closely to the Bishop Ussher chronology and literal week of creation. They are as hardline YEC as they come. Only flat-earthers are a significant group more anti-science.
The fossil record reflects segregated ecologic successions over a geological history of hundreds of millions of years. AiG rejects the fossil record.
It is not consistent with the evidence. The flood model is not even consistent with itself.
Geocentrism is no more a theological and no less a physical description in the Old Testament than the creation or flood covering the Earth. The firmament, foundations and four corners of the Earth are part and parcel of this.
Was the recent flood covering Pakistan Noah’s flood? Was the flooding in western Canada Noah’s flood? Japan? Germany? There are floods all over the place, and nobody calls them Noah’s flood. Yet, the slightest evidence of water in geology, and YEC always pounces with “Noah’s flood”. Do you think there was never any regular flooding in the past? Anyways, sedimentary rock does not require flooding; just go to the beach and you will find water eroded sediment.
I never said that you support the view or that AiG supports. But I’d like to know more about the “sinful breeding program” of dinosaurs that you mentioned. Where do you get the idea of a sinful breeding program of dinosaurs?
One approach that has worked in my interactions with people that lean towards young earth creationism is to talk about the origins of the young earth creationist movement and how it is not the only Christian view over the course of Church history. I think once you convince them that six-day-young-earth creationism it is not “The Christian view,” but one among several orthodox Christian views, people are more willing to listen. They may not agree with you, but they will agree to respectfully disagree. It could then be argued that although YEC does not contradict special revelation it does contradict what we see from general revelation and is therefore not the best approach to take in interpreting Genesis. If YEC parents came to me asking about how to answer doubts that their child had due to learning about evolution, I would probably start with addressing the belief that young earth creationism is the only or main view of Genesis 1-11 throughout Church history.