Baptists are not monolithic. Reformed Baptists are not in the majority around here, hence my statement, based on what I have heard local Baptists (read local people, since the area is majority-Baptist) say.
??? The specific information that I was referring to was Lisle’s responses to Vischer’s remarks that I found in the AiG post and quoted that I linked to in post #90, and my summary of Visher’s remarks in post #91.
The first purpose for sharing “that information” was to tell Adam that he and I are not the only ones that think the claim that YEC is Ellen G. White’s metaphorical “child” is absurd. My second, unstated purpose was to dispel any illusion that he had or has that Biologos is “my heritage”. My third purpose was “to bond” with a bedeviled SDA before he finds out more about me and puts me on his “Ignore” list.
Far be it from me to dissuade you from “sticking with the scholars.” However, … I have serious misgivings about the accuracy and usefulness of claiming or suggesting that if it weren’t for Ellen G. White, YEC wouldn’t exist. Ockham’s razor isn’t always helpful.
Duly noted. Thanks. I realize that it’s difficult to see how different Adam and I actually are when I’m standing as close to him as I have been. But I guarantee you, we’re not cut from the same cloth.
I’m still trying to parse that. Until I do, I won’t wave my hand.
As an avid genetic genealogist for over 25 years, I agree 100%.
We do not have a copy of it, however, given the number of spectacular errors on a few randomly selected pages of a different book by just Morris (Science and the Bible) that we have, I am doubtful of its accuracy.
1 Like
Let me try to do better. All I was trying to say there is that just because my parents may have been the primary influence on me doesn’t mean that therefore nobody before them could have been an origin of some of my thoughts (perhaps even through my parents who themselves might trace their influences back through the influencer in question.)
I think one of the confusions that keep us talking past each other here is a different set of definitions of “young earth creationism”. YECs themselves will no doubt define it as “any belief that the earth is only some thousands of years old.” Because that way they can plausibly claim it to be the default belief of most history - most importantly back to to New Testament times which they need to see themselves as a continuation of. But most of us here think of YECism as a “scientific creationist” enterprise that is interested in far more than just insisting that scriptures teach a young earth. They badly want science to be on board with this too, and have attempted to move mountains (and hide other mountains) to make it seem so. The movement in that reactionary form obviously cannot be that old. And even as such, I don’t disagree with you that it would plausibly have arisen quite apart from Mrs. White. But nobody here is claiming that White single-handedly birthed the modern movement. Ted Davis showed that she was a major player and influence at the very least.
2 Likes
Most unfortunately, in my opinion. And what annoys the heck out of me, I actually was looking at it on-line less than a week ago, then moved on to other things and now I can’t find it again. If and when I do, I’ll download the darn thing AND post a link to it.
LOL! Lisle’s praise is Lisle’s praise and not surprising given his own views. As for its accuracy, I think that’s outside the scope of this thread. Whether it is or isn’t is unimportant to me. What is important (to me) is the connection between Whitcomb’s doctoral thesis (1957) and the book “The Genesis Flood” (1961) he co-authored with Henry M. Morris III. (Note: I edited the spelling of Whitcomb’s surname and the dates of his thesis and the book he co-authored with Morris.) @Paraleptopecten
I agree 100%; which leads me to greatly appreciate some stuff by Eugenie C. Scott that I find really interesting and useful in the National Center for Science Education website.
If you are referring to Mortenson’s thesis you can find it here.
It appears he sliced and diced it into shorter papers with similar titles.
Thanks, but I was referring to John C Whitcomb’s [no "e"s] doctoral thesis “The Genesis Flood: An Investigation of its Geographical Extent, Geological Effects, and Chronological Setting” (Winona Lake, IN: Grace Theological Seminary, 1957.) Source: “The Genesis Flood”, The History and Impact of the Book,"
So does that mean that the scholarly consensus that you are aware of says that Ken Ham’s Australian 1.0 YEC-ism, in 1974) was influenced or originated with Morris & Whitcomb’s book “The Genesis Flood” (written in 1961)?
Edit @Mervin_Bitikofer: Let the record show that I am NOT a creationist (young or old)
1 Like
I haven’t followed Ken Ham’s personal biography like you apparently have (other than having read what you posted of Ham above). So I’ll happily take your word for it that Ham found that book to be influential to himself. That sounds plausible to me and doesn’t appear to contradict anything I remember from Ted Davis and Ronald Numbers. And I think their views will be pretty representative of scholarly consensus around these matters.
Added edit:
You make it sound like Biologos has a dungeon and a rack for suspected creationists! 
Let ‘the record’ further show that many of us here are unapologetically creationists.
3 Likes
For clarification, “my word” is my opinion constructed while flying on the seat of my pants while awake.
I know who Ronald Numbers is (i.e. he’s the author of “The Creationists”). Who’s Ted Davis? (i.e. what book did he write?)
And yet I think (but am not sure) you practice a religion that includes the Christian God by some description or other. Any chance you think as I do that while there are reasons to believe in God that there is no need to associate what that is with creation … leastwise not the creation of galaxies, atoms and cells?
LOL! My statement was intended to dispel any illusion that someone might have that I am a “typical evangelical” or “a fundamentalist”.
You might have overshot the mark.
1 Like
How long have you been hanging around here?
1 Like
I just got off the boat. Thanks.
2 Likes
I would never put you on my ignore list…I come to these places to talk with anyone and everyone…I feel we should always be able to express our thoughts without that kind of stuff going on. I might be an SDA, but i was born into a Catholic family and yet grew up thinking we evolved from Apes. Im about as confused in heritage as they come i think.
1 Like
now here is a question i can answer without throwing stones at people…um, actually come to think of it…maybe that will still happen anyway.
So heres the deal from an SDA perspective on Jesus turning water into wine:
Seventh Day Adventists, at least in my upbringing in the church from about the age of 11, believe that the wine Jesus made from water in John chapter 2, was not alcoholic.
I cannot say that there is irrefutable proof of this, however, if we go back to the writings of Solomon in the book of proverbs we find:
19 Listen, my son, and be wise,
and guide your heart on the right course.
20 Do not join those who drink too much wine
or gorge themselves on meat.
21 For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty,
and drowsiness will clothe them in rags.
and this
29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has contentions? Who has complaints?
Who has needless wounds? Who has bloodshot eyes?
30 Those who linger over wine,
who go to taste mixed drinks.
31 Do not gaze at wine while it is red,
when it sparkles in the cup
and goes down smoothly.
32 In the end it bites like a snake
and stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things,
and your mind will utter perversities.
34 You will be like one sleeping on the high seas
or lying on the top of a mast:
35 “They struck me, but I feel no pain!
They beat me, but I did not know it!
When can I wake up
to search for another drink?”
Generally we just feel that a God who inspires king Solomon to write such things is hardly being any kind of role model by then turning around and having his own Son create alcoholic wine that dulls the senses and blocks the whisperings of the Holy Spirit and our reasoning ability is immediately affected even with just a small amount. I do not buy into the argument “oh but just a little doesnt do anything”…well i could say the same about having other gods, stealing, coveting, or taking Gods name in vain…one could explain away many sins in a similar manner using the same processes.
Now i know that a notable rebuttal to the SDA view would be the question “what about medical drugs?”…that is a different argument that I think most Adventists say is not really the same. My lifes experience tells me people dont generally drink alcohol for some kind of self prescribed medicinal value and that the effects of using it to escape things in life in a manner such as this actually has a tendency to make it far worse rather than better.
I guess to tie this in with the context of this topic, SDA’s would also tend to link fermentation with sin and the fall of man. I have not yet studied or researched how this view can reconcile with the biocycle that exists in nature or indeed if there would have been the need for rotting of vegetation etc prior to the fall of man. What we do know from the narrative in Genesis, for those who take the reading literally, is that after the fall, weeds and tares would grow and that man would tend to the crops he grew by the sweat of his brow. My thoughts are that statement in Genesis after the fall probably supports the view that prior to sin this cycle was not necessary in the way we see it today (leaves and flowers didnt die and fall off plants). Having said that, honestly, who really knows…its a question we can ask God when we get to heaven.
Hi Adam
Here is a quote from Pastor Bill Klein
“The word for wine always indicates the fruit from the vine. But the custom in those days because of the bad water is to drink wine that has been diluted with water sometimes it’s as much is as nine parts water one part wine just to bring down the alcohol level. Their alcohol level in their drinks was much lower than ours. It is not the same as our wine today. So people say, why did Jesus create wine so that people could get drunk? Well it doesn’t say that He did. But they did say it was the best wine that they had, proof of the miracle.”
I thought this was a pretty good article on being sober-minded and vigilant.