And it cannot be said that we have any reason for faith in the trustworthiness of Bill Klein’s teachings, nor reason to listen to him, if the false doctrine(s) presented here (e.g., about wine and Genesis being scientific) are any indication.
1 Like
You don’t have time to listen to a study and have some questions answered? I didn’t think you were really wanting the truth.
Just don’t reply to my posts if you don’t like what is being said.
Can’t you block me or I block you so neither of us sees each other’s posts?
I have no reason to expect answers I trust.
I would have to know and trust the teacher first. And based on what you keep saying, I don’t trust him.
No way to block. You just have to have the intestinal fortitude to resist the urge to respond. Kind of like resisting the urge to sin.
5 Likes
I have all the time in the world to study and have some questions answered. Why would you think anyone here wasn’t really wanting the truth?
What questions do you have?
Lisle’s claims about the history of young-earth creationism are not accurate, reflecting misrepresentations made by other young earthers (particularly Terry Mortenson’s inaccurate claims about the importance and credibility of the “Scriptural Geologists”). Phil Vischer is fairly accurate in his assessment of the history of the modern creation science movement.
Ken Ham’s Alternative History of Creationism - Article - BioLogos reviews the attempts by Ham to deny the SDA association.
Again, Ellen White’s visions are what inspired George McCready Price to develop and promote highly inaccurate claims that science supports a young earth and global flood. Price’s work, in turn, was the main source (but largely unacknowledged) for Whitcomb and Morris’s non-Adventist claims to scientifically support a young earth and global flood. The modern young-earth movement relies almost entirely on the errors of creation science for its justification. But historically, there have been various types of young-earth views and of old-earth views. Young-earth creationism does not have its origin with White; modern creation science does.
3 Likes
No, Phil Vischer simply summarized history that is recorded in peer reviewed books such as historian of science Ronald Number’s very definitive and often cited work, The Creationists.
2 Likes
Do you eat shrimp and shellfish? Do you serve meat and dairy in the same meal? What do the OT dietary laws say about such things?
I highly doubt the paramedic responders on the volunteer fire department of the small town I lived in a couple years ago were considering the spiritual well-being of the injured they were responding to when leaving the bar to respond to the call for emergency aid.
1 Like
Well, the alcohol subject perhaps deserves its own thread. Will try to start one.
2 Likes
Hear! Hear! Fussing over SDA dietary practices and the Levitical laws in a thread about whether or not YEC-ers are Ellen G. White’s children seems just a little off-topic to me.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t expect anybody, except Adam, to appreciate the humor in the post that you cited from. I was mocking the OP’s three-sentence summary of a 25:23 minute+ Youtube video which was itself a summary of a couple of thousand years of creationism with a sprinkling of about 150 years of evoluntionary challenge thrown in.
As an observer, I would think someone really interested in SDA dietary practices would prefer to get reliable information straight from the “top”: Seventh Day Adventist Church
1 Like
When I answer a question not addressed to me a mod steps in and tells me to give the person a chance to respond. But that’s what happens to me.
I suspect that if and when Adam reads what I wrote to him privately, he’ll appreciate my recommendation to ignore your off-topic questions and send you the same or a similar link that I offered you. And he’ll thank me. Doing so would save him typing time. On the other hand, If he doesn’t see and heed my recommendation in time, then be ye not dismayed: there’s a good chance he’ll answer the off-topic questions you asked him, since it ought to be obvious to anyone that my recommendation didn’t “answer your questions”; it directed your attention to “a reliably authoritative source.”.
@adamjedgar @Terry_Sampson I get the impression from reading this thread that there’s a bit of confusion about what exactly did originate with the Seventh Day Adventists.
I’m prepared to accept that SDAs did not come up with the idea of the earth being only six thousand years old. Certainly Archbishop Ussher’s chronology (1650) predated them by about two hundred years. Philip Henry Gosse’s Omphalos hypothesis (1857) also appears to have been developed independently of the SDAs.
What does appear to have originated from the Seventh Day Adventists is attempts to (a) elevate a young earth to the status of essential (or near-essential) doctrine, and (b) challenge the scientific consensus on the matter and provide some sort of pseudoscientific justification for claiming that the Flood created the fossil record. As such, when people talk about young earth creationism originating with Ellen G White and George Macreadie Price, what they are referring to is the dogmatic and anti-scientific form of YEC that we see today, not just the idea that the earth is only six thousand years old.
1 Like
@adamjedgar
Ahh, Thank God! A rational and reasonable person.
@jammycakes
You’re right, there has been confusion which has been exacerbated by comments that were either irrelevant or of the knee-jerk kind and biases: my own included.
For the record, Adam is a self-acknowledged SDA convert from Catholicism and I am not, but I have kin distant who were or are and I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor’s adopted son.
Duly noted and appreciated.
Right there’s the problem, from where I sit.
A. The word “originating”, IMO, is debatable.
B. Ellen G. White wasn’t just some woman sitting around with too much time on her hands. At one time and still today, more SDAs than not deemed E.G. White to have been no less than a prophetess of God, much the same as Muhammad is in Islam. That fact has been responsible for any value attributed to her words, which has led to a variant of the saying: “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.” The variant? “Sister White said it; I believe it; that settles it.”
C. jammycakes says: “when people talk about young earth creationism originating with Ellen G White and George Macreadie Price, what they are referring to is the dogmatic and anti-scientific form of YEC that we see today”.
Terry says: Really? Then I think some folks need to undergo a reality check, IMHO, because:
- Ellen G. White and George McCready Price weren’t theological or ideological “fraternal twins” and they haven’t been the only dogmatic and anti-scientific" folk to have existed.
- It may come as a surprise to some folk, but the Missour Synod-Lutheran Church resolved and confessed as follows:
- Of Creation
We teach that God has created heaven and earth, and that in the manner and in the space of time recorded in the Holy Scriptures, especially Gen. 1 and 2, namely, by His almighty creative word, and in six days. We reject every doctrine which denies or limits the work of creation as taught in Scripture. In our days it is denied or limited by those who assert, ostensibly in deference to science, that the world came into existence through a process of evolution; that is, that it has, in immense periods of time, developed more or less of itself. Since no man was present when it pleased God to create the world, we must look for a reliable account of creation to God’s own record, found in God’s own book, the Bible. We accept God’s own record with full confidence and confess with Luther’s Catechism: “I believe that God has made me and all creatures.” [Source: Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, adopted in 1932]. - And, lest there be any doubt about the meaning of “six days”, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod resolved to clarify that the six days were “six natural days” in a convention held in Tampa FLA on July 23, 2019. [Source: Convention confesses: ‘God created the world in six natural days’.
- So who wants to break the news to the Missouri Synod Lutherans that they are promoting the “dogmatic and anti-scientific” ravings of SDAs, in general, and Ellen G. White and George McCready Price, specifically? Not me.
- Of Creation
(To be continued)
Following your links I found while they accept a young earth they depend on AIG and similar sources for the scientific justification. So they don’t appear to be an active source for “scientific creationism”.
I don’t think you can say Ellen White was the source for “scientific creationism” but it was the complete acceptance of her vision that lead to a desire to prove it was correct using science and therefore validate her vision.
2 Likes