Well, we can’t argue with Wikipedia, which seems to be the gold standard around here. But I’m talking only about young earth beliefs, not the flood, and the period In the early 19th century, before White had her visions
wow…that is an incredible statement! I am an SDA and that one is a new version of “being blindsided”… i havent ever had it come from a perspective such as this one before. SDA’s get blamed for a lot of things (and quite rightly so), but this one???
Now let me forward some enlightenment here:
Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists—starting with Henry Morris (1918–2006)—have developed and promoted a pseudoscientific[10] explanation called creation science as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation, in response to the scientific acceptance of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, which was developed in the previous century. Contemporary YEC movements arose in protest to the scientific consensus,
and this
A 2017 Gallup creationism survey found that 38 percent of adults in the United States held the view that “God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” when asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings
and this
Among the biggest YEC organizations are Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International.
and this
Young Earth creationists have claimed that their view has its earliest roots in ancient Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164).
and this
The chronology dating the creation to 4004 BC became the most accepted and popular because this specific date appears in the Ussher chronology that was included in many Bibles from 1701 onwards, including the authorised King James Version .
and this
The youngest ever recorded date of creation within the historic Jewish or Christian traditions is 3616 BC, by Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller in the 17th century,[21] while the oldest proposed date was 6984 BC by Alfonso X of Castile.
and this
The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers, including John Calvin[25][26] and Martin Luther,[27] and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view.
and this
An Earth that was thousands of years old remained the dominant view during the Early Modern Period (1500–1800) and is found typically referenced in the works of famous poets and playwrights of the era, including William Shakespeare:
…The poor world is almost 6,000 years old.
A word of advice, please at least do some personal research from reliable sources before coming up with conspiracies…its right there at your fingertips and you would have found all of the above information with a google search of credible publishers.
Now since you raised EG White, you have now provided an opening for me to add in some information about her that i would imagine few bother to learn or appreciate…
EG White published 80 books, and around 5000 articles during her lifetime. She is now credited with about 130 published books (about 50 attributed to her writings and published since her death).
She is one of the most prolific writers in history…at the time of her passing, she had amassed 100,000 pages of written material.
Her most popular book is “Steps To Christ” it has sold tens of millions of copies around the world.
Now before anyone goes down the pathway of her being an uneducated delusional witch, i would suggest you note the amount of published material and ask yourself the question…if she essentially couldnt read or write, how did such a massive quota of written material come from her? Yes she did copy other peoples works, there is no doubt about her use of outside resources and not correctly referencing them, however, what is always completely ignored is that someone who had no formal education is “hammered mercilessly” because they failed to use academic standards in referencing! That is a gross misrepresentation of who she was.
Whitcomb and Morris repackaged Price’s work and presented it to the larger Protestant church. Modern YEC can be directly tied to White, Price, and the SDA church.
1 Like
Did I say she couldn’t read or write? (And so what if she wrote a lot?) The fact remains that she and her religious visions kickstarted the modern Young Earth Creationist movement.
I fully agree that a young Earth had fallen out of favor by the early 18th century because of the findings of modern science. My only point is that young Earth beliefs had existed prior to the emergence of modern science, so it wasn’t as if White invented the idea of a young Earth from whole cloth.
1 Like
Im sorry but in all honesty, sometimes i think my intelligence is insulted by the conspiracy theorists…it gets to the point where i wonder whether or not answering is a waste of both my intelligence and good air?
You are simply playing games with new words…politicians have been doing this for centuries. They win government, seek to leave a legacy, and come up with a new name for an age old institution!
I am a former high school teacher, the number of teenagers who use the “play on words excuse” when they have been caught out…
But hey, you know what, if you want to give the Seventh Day Adventist Church credit for this (considering in the early 1900’s its membership was tiny (about 75,000))…then go right ahead. Clearly for such a small group they had a wonderful marketing campaign and influence around the world!
There are plenty of sources saying the same thing:
3 Likes
Seventh Day Adventists unlike YEC, put their money where their mouth is. They say they believe in the Sabbath on the Seventh Day and they honor the Sabbath on the Seventh Day, from sundown to sundown just as the Jews did and do.
I have yet to hear YEC explain how they can say that God blessed the Sabbath and hallowed it ,yet they do not follow God’s commandment in this area.
We’ll never know if you don’t answer my question.
And YECism evolved!
1 Like
Again, another half truth… typical. The reality is…
“His views did not become common among creationists until after his death, particularly with the modern creation science movement starting in the 1960s” George McCready Price - Wikipedia
Adam, it is quite apparent how much scorn you feel for the narrative expressed here that SDA (and E.G. White in particular) played a key part bringing modern YECism to where it is (not inventing it from nothing, mind you - nobody here is claiming that.)
Okay - you object. I get it. But what I would like to hear from you then is your own positive version of the SDA role (and White’s role) in all this history as it pertains to G. Macready Price and Co. too. I know you don’t like what you see as the typical narrative around here - fine. I want to hear your narrative. And please don’t ask me to research it for myself - I already have, though not recently (reading Ronald Numbers’ book which I’m guessing you wouldn’t care for.) I’m not interested in spending a lot of time researching this on my own, but I am interested in the thoughts of someone like you who apparently offers us a more sympathetic SDA view rather than the lot of us here who only see these groups from without.
1 Like
Hi Mervin,
look i appreciate that all of us have our own theology…that is a given. It is also not surprising that discussions will get robust, theistic evolution is a very heated debate at the best of times as it is a theory that is neither accepted by evolutionists or Christians…so its a minority that is stuck between a “rock and a hard place” . My hope is that is remains so btw as i believe the problems with the theology are so extensive that they cast doubt on the authenticity of the very essence of all Christianity.
ok back to the point…when someone on a forum posts outrageously inaccurate information, with the dedicated purpose to support a theology using a “discrediting” tactic, then that person should at least provide CREDIBLE supporting evidence!
The reality here is, the evidence provided is not only not credible, it actually refutes its own claims!
For example, the OP makes the claim that a minority organization, in its infancy, on a different continent of the world to the origins of evolution, had such a vast influence on the rest of Christendom so as to re invigorate the YEC movement using, what is claimed by that vast majority of mainstream science and even Christian science of the day as “crackpots illiterate theories”, is just absurd!
I am no academic, however, honestly, that is not going to get raving reviews by those who really do their research because they are interested in finding the truth!
In answer to your queastion about EG White, she is proven to be one of the most prolific authors in history…that is no secret and is widely known. Havving said that, she was not an educated academic, why would one expect a person who did not complete their education would accurately reference? I think it very unfair to earbash a poorly educated person about such things. What it does prove however, if she was so poorly educated, where on earth did her extensive insights and writings come from? I do not read her writings for my research…i have read bits and pieces over the years but Im not an EG White first person. Having said that, she does have some incredible insights into the bible that are really nice to read.
In any case, It would be absurd to claim the whole lot that she wrote was plagiarised because if one does that, then they also destroy the credibility of other writers whose words were used at times…this would then destroy the very beliefs of those others writers and their denominations as well (where they were Christian).
Finally, we cannot make the claim a poorly educated person cannot write and contribute to knowledge and understanding…if that is the way this world works, how then do we find so many individuals in society receiving accolades such as community awards and indeed even honorary doctorates?
I hope that answers your post…if not, then i would urge that you do some balanced research on this.
What is very clear to me is this:
the resurgence of the YEC almost certainly, correlates with the rise in theistic evolution. It should come as no surprise that the defenders of the Christian faith would feel the need to counter the attack on the very essence of said faith that is evolution, so its a bit naive to look for a minority denomination with almost zero influence and lay the blame at the feet of it when very clearly that is an inaccurate representation of the facts.
Yes the SDA denomination pushes such things, however, they most definitely are not the only one that does. I can quite categorically state that during my own time at an SDA institution completing my higher education studies, there were a number of lecturers and even students, within the science area who were moving towards the evolutionary model. Whether or not that is still the case now I cannot say (this was over 20 years ago).
Generally, i would be quite comfortable in stating SDA’s are mostly YEC’s, however, I am quite sure that not all are.
Might i just complete this post by addressing a premise that is categorically false that continues to be pushed…YECism is not an SDA led science/theology. The SDA movement is just one of a large number of denominations that believe it and whilst i am sure the church would love the free marketing, they are not the leader in this field nor did EG White start the movement as is being claimed here.
Based on an article from 2008 in Educate Truth, the answer is yes.
That is not quite what is being said. SDA belief in a young earth is the leaven that leavened the whole lump. The idea only took off when it was introduced into other, larger denominations. Who had, I suspect, other reasons for opposing evolution.
Did you find something wrong in the video I posted, which is what this thread is about, after all? If so, please be specific.
Possibly, … but what the heck? Playing in a forum “sandbox” usually is, unless you think that forums serve an invaluable function greater than venting. Personally, I’m inclined to think you’re missing an opportunity to play on a bumper-car, which can be jolly good fun unless and until a moderator intervenes to call a halt to the bangitty-bang-banging of the bumper cars, and closes the thread. Consequently, … having plenty of time and chutzpah in my backpack, I say: Let’s go for it, let’s bring out our hunting dogs and see if, between yours and mine, we can “tree” a coon or corner a fox and put an end to their pesky egg-stealing.
Don’t get me wrong: I ain’t an SDA and have more than one belief that will raise the hair on the back of your neck, but I’ve got Deaf cousins who were and are and my mother’s maternal grandmother and great-grandparents were SDA.
1 Like
Hehe …I like your thinking…great post.
It’s just laughable that on the one hand the wider religious communityof hundreds of millions claims it needs protecting from the dangers of an illiterate plagerist, and on the other, theistic evolutionists claim she is responsible for the major worldwide push against evolution. I’m not sure which side needs to be laughed at first.
One has to question what is really going on…I think the outcome is a lot of Chinese whispers and very little fact.
If an evolutionist needs a scapegoat to feel better about themselves and their theology… Well darn, I’m sure EG White would gladly put up her hand to be 'the fall guy".
I’m sure my local church will be delighted when they hear that we are responsible for the resurrection of YECism movement almost half a century after White passed away.
1 Like
I think you’re misunderstanding what’s being said. I don’t think anyone has claimed that SDA beliefs about creationism and evolution had much direct influence on broader Christian beliefs on the subject (and if they have, I think they’re mistaken). Rather, the content of YEC and specifically scientific creationism, including many of its detailed arguments, can be traced to Price, whose work was motivated by his SDA beliefs. That content only came to be widely accepted because Whitcomb and Morris were widely read. For details of all of this, you could read the standard history of creationism, The Creationists, by Ron Numbers.
Not really, historically speaking. If you read early fundamentalists, including those who wrote The Fundamentals, you’ll find that they were generally quite comfortable with old earth creationism and were even open to considering a role for evolution. The Bible most widely used by fundamentalists (and the Bible I grew up with) was the Scofield Reference Bible, which explicitly endorsed an old-earth view. The decisive shift toward specifically young earth creationism only occurred some 40 years later, during the 1960s. I suspect its appeal had more to do with the culture wars then (and still) being fought than with any need inherent in fundamentalism or evangelicalism to believe in a young earth.
8 Likes
I remember reading that in the Scofield commentary! Thanks. I wish that were more widely read.
That also reminds me of how, when I was 17 and YEC, my grandparents offered to buy me a Bible with the translation of my choice. (They gave one to each of us grandkids as a “coming of age” recognition.). I chose the NIV Study Bible, and was surprised when my grandma protested that it was pro-evolution. I still don’t see how that could be the case, but it’s amazing how politicized translations could be (though it was the commentary, not the translation, in Scofield that was pro old-earth, as I recall).
3 Likes
Yes, the translation was King James.
1 Like