The distinction between the three time periods is this:
A. 11 minutes and 58 seconds of the video are about the “origins of Young Earth Creationism”.
B. 13 minutes and 30 seconds of the video are not.
C. The length of the whole video is 25 minutes and 58 seconds.
There are several points that I’d like to make:
I watched the video.
I’m in a position to say that the video is neither a “review” nor a “well-done summary” of Ronald Number’s book, The Creation, nor any other book by Numbers or, for that matter, by George McCready Price, Bernard Ramm, Henry Morris, John Whitcomb, or Ken Ham. IMO, the video is a scurrilous, anti-YEC opinion-piece, introduced in this forum by an even less informative OP.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but, IMO, it is a fact that we (you and I) disagree with a fundamental feature of a claim stated in the OP and in the video: i.e. that an E.G. White vision is “the origin of modern YEC-ism”. Is that your objection too?
At this time, I’m looking at two mysteries, one much ess important than the other. The first mystery is why is my/our objection important to anyone in Biologos? I wasn’t preaching my objection before the OP appeared. Were you?
The second mystery is the difficulty I’m having in tracking down the precise “origin and lineage” of the claim that YEC (2022) originated in the ravings of a madwoman deemed a prophetess of the Seventh Dad Adventist Church. Don’t worry about it: I’ll figure it out. I’m searching for the crashed airplane’s “black box” now.
I view the resistance to the notion that moden YEC had roots in or could have arisen in non-SDA soil as odd.
I have my father’s 3 volume set of Franz August Otto Pieper’s Christliche Dogmatik,published in St. Louis MO in 1920 and translated into and published in English in 1950. Pieper (1852 – 1931), a Confessional Lutheran theologian served as the fourth president of what was known at that time as the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States (Missouri Synod).
Vol. I, “The Creation of the World and of Man”, Page 468: “The time in which creation was completed was six days, as Gen. 1:31 qne Gen. 3:2 expressly state (hexaemeron. These six days are neither to be shortened, for pious reasons (to set forth God’s omnipotence), to a moment (Athanasius, Augustine, Hilary), nor are they to be extended, for impious reasons (to bring Scripture into agreement with the “assured results” of science), to six periods of indefinite length (thus almost all modern theologians). Scripture forbids us to interpret the days as periods, for it divides these days into evening and morning. That forces us to accept the days as days of twenty-four hours.”
The idea that Pieper could describe creation as occurring in six 24-hour days and be a Lutheran theologian and yet not be led to that belief by E.G. White’s vision-experience suggests to me that the desire to harmonize Scripture with geology really doesn’t require “a vision”.
Everyone agrees that there were people throughout history who believed in a 6 day creation in the relatively recent past. Let me repeat. Everyone agrees that there were people throughout history who believed in a 6 day creation in the relatively recent past.
We are talking about Young Earth Creationism, which is a specific set of beliefs that goes beyond just believing in a young Earth. YEC is the attempt to scientifically justify the belief in a young Earth, and that heritage can be traced to EG White through Price and then through Morris and Whitcomb.
The black box is George McCready Price.
What is odd is your continued refusal to understand the nuanced difference between Young Earth Creationism and a basic belief in a young Earth.
Price claimed his motivation to harmonize Scripture and Geology was inspired by a raving madwoman deemed a prophetess of the Seventh Davy Adventist Church?
I don’t think so. Quote his words.
I realize that it’s really important to you to think that you know what I have a problem with, … but you don’t.
Ahh! Appeal to Common Belief! Why didn’t you say so? That changes everything.
What’s even more odd is why an atheist would hyperventilate over my intentional refusal to make a distinction between Young Earth Creationism and a basic belief in a young Earth when I insist there’s a distinction between Ellen G. White and George McCready Price and the big “We” doesn’t.
It’d be easier to help you out if you were as flexible as you want me to be.
Help me out here.
and
Suppose I conceded that every origin is an influence. Would you say that every influence is or is not an origin? If you said the latter, let me ask you: Is the title of this thread “The Influences on YEC” or “The Origins of YEC”, and if the latter, how many origins can YEC have?
We’re getting into word games now. Think of a mighty river that is the result of many streams joining together. Is every stream an origin? Could someone pick one of the larger streams and say that it is the origin of the river?
Does the title of this thread really impact you so much that you go to great lengths to refute it?
Another way to put it is that Karl Marx is to communism what White is to YEC. Was Karl Marx the only person in history to describe some type of communism? No. Was Karl Marx the only influence that led to Soviet era Russia? No. However, Marx’s impact is really important for understanding the history of modern communism. I would say the same of Ellen White and George McCready Price, the Marx and Lenin of modern YEC.
Sorry you won’t get this seeing as I am on your ignore list, but how is asking questions an attempt to silence you? You answering said questions would mean you get to say what you want.
Maybe, just maybe, Young Earth Creationism is actually the way everyone in the church including the apostles have seen Genesis 1 for thousands of years…
If you insist that the Bible has to be interpreted to support YEC, then you are saying the Bible is false because all of the facts demonstrate that the Earth is old, there was not a recent global flood, and life evolved over billions of years. When you insist on the Bible being wrong, people will conclude that the Bible is wrong.
I am inspired by Neil Tyson…does that make me an atheist?
I do not see the point of such an argument about Price or EG White with regard to the 6 day creation movement and the age of the earth being approximately 6000 years.
As i have said before, the reason for the resurgence in creationism as a six day event and a literal flood correlate with the rise in evolutionism. That is cause and effect!
Now if any other group wish to assign prophetic brilliance to EG White as the founding mother of this doctrine, free advertising is always welcome, however, i think it highlights the sillyness of the argument.
Perhaps she really was a prophet of God and He inspired her to write these things in direct response to the apostacy of evolution? Could that in fact be true? Can evolutionists prove its not true? I mean that is really the question here is it not?
The argument is that EG White inspired Price to write hundreds of papers and books trying to scientifically justify a young Earth, a recent global flood, and argue against evolution. The arguments that Price constructed were then passed on to the larger Christian community and comprise a large part of the modern YEC movement.
I am trying to go through this piece by piece to understand which link in the chain you disagree with. The first link is EG White inspiring Price. Do you agree that this happened?
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
230
As YEC pseudoscience couldn’t start until science rightly adduced old earth deep time in the early C19th, no one in the Church prior to the C19th was YEC. It only really got under way when Ellen G. White got hit on the head… by a rock.
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
231
Evolutionists no more have to prove it’s not true than they have to be a-theists. Neither ever arise is scientific propositions. They explain nothing at all for infinitely more bizarre, unnecessary complexity. It really is that child simple. Could the Earth in fact be flat? Can isostasists prove it’s not?
on this we agree, and yet for some reason this theistic evolution group called Biologos was formed with what i perceive was the specific intention of gluing the two together!
i do not subscribe to the idea that the only thing that matters is ls faith expressed in love. The problem here is that it is not faith that is being put forward but rather evolution!
I do not recall Jesus preaching evolution.
From what I can see, people here are trying to find a way to meld the facts of the universe with Christian theology. They are trying to show people that you don’t have to abandon science in order to be a Christian.