Lots of off topic comments on the transitioning post, moved to a new home here.
All my grad school professors were smarter than you and knew their Bibles better than you.
Blah, blah blah – all you’ve done is throw up a smokescreen that covers the fact that your position boils down to “I’m right and everyone else is wrong”.
That describes your entire worldview.
If you think that’s not true, then please provide chapter and verse where the scripture says that it intends to be scientifically and historically accurate.
Nope – that’s a human tradition, an addition to the text. To get that you have to throw the normal use of language in the trash, changing the meanings of words by forcing them to fit a MSWV, ignoring basic grammar, and totally refusing to consider the context of the text.
Why do so many responses amount to nothing more than making crap up about other people?!?
You have this set of mental categories that don’t allow for any other possibilities, so you have to force people into the categories you have. The trouble with that is that first it is inevitably wrong, and second that it is inherently disrespectful.
Nope. Just because one part of a book references real things doesn’t mean the rest of the book is right. As an example, Dan Brown’s ludicrous DaVinci Code – it’s full of factual references, but it is overall not factual. A better example would be almost any book by John Grisham; those are full of factual references and in fact by your criteria qualify as history, but they’re not and don’t claim to be history.
Why do you always bring science into it? That’s the basic YEC error, the idea that science is even relevant.
And again: stop the lies! Pay attention to Exodus 20:16 for once.
None of what you list is contrary to science. The only way to think it is is to treat science as a religion, which it is not.
The irony is that YEC insists on using science to interpret Genesis in the first place (while vehemently denying it).
I have my own option: stick with the text and don’t worry about the science (except insofar as some people get it wrong).
YEC has to mangle the text of scripture to fit, evolution doesn’t, though “full-fledged practically atheistic blind Darwinism” is a whole different basket of worms.
I will point out that originally intelligent design referred to the conclusion of design from science, as in the informal intelligent design club we had in university; it was made up primarily of atheists and agnostics who due to studying science (evolution, primarily) concluded there must be a Designer. I’m not thrilled at all with the version that starts with the proposition of a Designer and goes backwards to try to find evidence for that.
1 Like
Whilst i dissagree with even guided old age theology, i would absolutely encourage this approach as a way forward…good post there.
My personal criticism of Intelligent Design is that they give me the impression that they largely avoid the question of 6 day creation and time. At times it is brought upon them by others and then they must answer, its never well answered. Even from the likes of brilliant minds such as John Lennox.
Despite the above, i think its a better option than Darwinian theists who have almost zero biblical defense for many of their ideas. Whats funny about that is that quite often they publish the claim…we dont have any doctrines. I find such claims insulting of intelligent thought because doctrines are an inescapable part of the human condition.
Note what google AI has to say about doctrines…
AI Overview
A doctrine is a set of beliefs or teachings, often religious or philosophical, that are considered fundamental and authoritative by a particular group or organization. They can also be principles or policies that are taught, advocated, or followed
.
The thing is, individuals form the basis of groups and organisations and most often even a single leader determines the doctrinal absolutes. Some institutions claim non denominational, however they still have fundamental principles…and these are doctrines in my book.
I think these forums for example are full of doctrine.
Id be willing to test that any time any place amigo…send one of them here and ill discuss theology with them (im not joking…im dead serious about that). I am always open to a deep critcism of my views and that is because we should test our theology and faith…its not on a strong foundation if we dont i think.
I will bet, like you, they use almost zero biblical referencing to defend the views they share with you on the topics we dissagree on St Roymond.
The reason i can say that with co fidence is because you rate them highly, refer to them in you posts, you are a byproduct of their academic positions on said topics, and yet you cite equally near zero biblical referencing in you old earth theology! So either you are lying or your college professors use the same biblically absent or inconsistent arguments you do.
And again…as usual, you have not addressed the criticisms against you with biblical support. How many times have you done that now…20, 50, 100 times since i joined these forums during COIVD?
My defense has grown in size and complexity…ive developed quite a number of theological arguments that refute your view biblically and im working an additonal line of them at present. Unlike the others, these additional ones will add in the scientific solutions…when combined with the biblical, the aim is to present a consistent defense between philosophy and science.
In all that time, surely by now you should have researched and developed a sound and consistent biblically referenced theology there and yet, its still notably absent in your reeponsee. You latest defense “my college professors” isnt even biblical…where is the biblical evidence to support your world view there?
Also, i note the usage of the term “conservatives” a lot on these forums. Funny that because for a person who must be clearly a conservative, i sure have some rather liberal habits…being on these forums is one of them. (another is reading publications outside of my worldview)
To my knowledge, ID folks avoid the question of not just day 6 of creation, but of all 6 days of creation, no?
ID, for good or bad, essentially as a method ignores scripture or any revelation from God, and pursues what is knowable from science alone…
… but in contrast to Biologos’ method, the possibility of detecting intelligent intervention, or of concluding intelligent agency as a possible conclusion remains on the table… whereas Biologos very method begs the question and rules out intelligent design as a possible conclusion before even examining the facts. Hence my own personal sympathy with the basic methods of ID.
ID essentially ignores Scripture entirely, uses science alone, but says, “We will follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
Biologos’ method is "we will follow the evidence unless it points to intelligent intervention - that conclusion is ruled out a priori due to “methodological naturalism.”
Definitely – besides the fact that viewing it literally throws out almost all the theological message in the text!
Coming at it from the Hebrew that’s fairly obvious – it’s the wrong kind of literature. The Flood and the Tower of Babel stories are theological mythology that take historical events and interpret them theologically, but they’re not history though they’re the closest thing to it in those opening chapters.
2 Likes
Please, give me biblical support for what kind of literature the Egyptian Book of the Dead is. While you’re at it, do the same for the Code of Hammurabi.
Your “provide biblical support” request is a smokescreen to hide the fact that YEC has no biblical foundation because it rests on a non-biblical foundation. It’s a way of hiding the fact that YEC does not come from the scriptures because it starts with a definition of truth from outside the scriptures.
My professors started with the scriptures and refused to add to them the way that YEC does. In that, they were smarter than any YECist who ever lived.
Their worldview came from the text. There is no biblical evidence for YEC – period. YEC starts with the assumption that ignorance is a virtue, imposing a MSWV onto the scriptures without recognizing they hold to that worldview.
Absolutely false – what is now called “intelligent design” is ruled out on the basis of facts and reasoning. Today’s ID is a game that tries to find evidence for a Designer in the wrong way: assuming a Designer and looking for evidence not in the architecture but in the implementation.
Methodological naturalism is the only sound basis for science, theologically: it rests on only two assumptions, God is faithful, and humans are fallen. The latter is why science cannot comment on divine action – humans would need a Divinometer to detect and measure divine presence and/or energy, and theologically that is an absurd device.
3 Likes
You’d have to demonstrate that this is false; until then I stand by my original assertion, based on the self-descriptions of each organization. Biologos main site confidently affirms:
At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena.
I don’t know how they can’t see this, but this is textbook begging the question… The very question that is raised is whether some phenomenon is or is not the result of natural forces. Biologos confidently asserts (begging the question) that “we do not see any reson to give up pusing natural explanations to how God governs natural phenomena.” They assert, or assume, that the phenomena under examination is in fact natural, rather than demonstrating or proving such, when that is the very question that is being asked. This is textbook “begging the question.”
(Hence why I prefer an organization that is committed to the methodological principle that “we follow the evidence wherever it leads”, rather than one that explicitly says " we will follow the evidence only so long as it leads to certain predetermined conclusions.")
1 Like
That is a good point Daniel, and we share common ground in that regard.
For me though, the overwhelming philosophical criticism…(and I focus on the philosophical here because we are fundamentally Christian)
The bible clearly tells us that “the heavens declare the Glory of God”, right? The problem I have with where scientific theism takes this text is this:
If we decide that God is found in Science, where does the plan of Salvation come from?
The Gospel record started in the Garden of Eden with God communicating his plan directly to Adam and Eve (mankind). The bible doesn’t record that Adam figured it out via study of the theory of primordial soup origins. From the text, God quite directly says to the serpent (during the arraignment of Adam and Eve) “He will crush your head and you will bite His heel”.
That text is clearly referencing the future birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ/Messiah. It’s referencing this as a physical future history…a real-world event.
One of the significant dilemmas with the idea that the early bible books of the bible are allegorical/metaphorical is that Moses is the very one who taught us about the physical plan of Salvation via the birth, ministry, death, resurrection and Second Coming of Christ…almost none of the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled without real historical outcomes…including the prophecy about Christ!
So there is no consistency in claiming early Genesis is allegorical/metaphorical and then its prophecy about the Messiah and our future Second Coming are somehow real events!
It gets worse when we find that the gospel was illustrated and explained in physical and literary form for more than 1,000 years in the Old Testament Sanctuary Service, recorded by the prophet Moses in his writings and that this gospel starts out with our origins in Genesis chapter 1! These origins are not written in a non-literal form…it names times, places, days, individuals, the ages of people in genealogies from Adam all the way down to Christ with little gaps (certainly not enough to account for millions of years).
It gets even more problematic…Cain and Abel were offering sacrifices (“sin offerings”) soon after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden…they were both young men. I think we can be pretty sure that the Day of Atonement service in Leviticus was already being performed long before…it was something Adam and Eve would have also done annually. The reason I think that is because of what the defilement of the Sanctuary actually looks like…it clearly references a defilement of God’s creation…probably the spilling of blood in the garden of Eden in order to clothe Adam and Eve’s nakedness with animal skins. (not really relevant to the discussion just my personal thoughts at present)
Anyway, the point is, people often think the Sanctuary Service only refers to a future prophecy of the death of Christ; however, I think that is only true in that Christ becomes the substitute…it also points back to the original defilement took place long before in the Garden.
Irrespective of the above, i think:
Firstly, that generally TEism doesn’t really rely on gaps in the genealogies; they tend to go for a parallel existence outside the Garden of Eden that predates Adam and Eve, but there is no consistent biblical support for that idea.
Secondly, there is no consistency in making claims that early “anti-science” statements in the bible must be allegorical/metaphorical whilst at the same time trying to then claim the fulfillment of those non literal histories is found in a literal Messiah and a literal Second Coming! (If the Messiah and Second Coming are real, then the history leading up to those historical events must by association and internal consistency in the trail of evidence, also be real)
If one reads the Biblw and understands the evidemnce available and how it alighns with scripture, i.e., as in Genesis 1-11 one will not be YEC. If still YEC the truth is missing.
1 Like
you have given an opinion there…but what evidence are you using to support that opinion?
Note…your evidence needs to be consistent with philosophical writings (the Bible), history, and science there!
I find it interesting how the counter claims to what i write have almost zero Bible evidence…that tells me that humanism is what is being used as the foundation…not the bible. This is not the Christian method.
People are getting very good at claiming science is truth. To me that is problematic, truth is usually based on judgements of morality…not science.
An atheist can claim morality comes from social experimentation
Christians claim morality comes from God and is revealed to us in the Bible. The Holy Spirit leads us to that revelation because God has written it [his laws- the ten commandments] on our hearts and in our minds (the new covenant)
One could claim that social experimentation is scientific…the trouble is, what about the decisions of criminals (including the ones who are never prosecuted and even lead entire cultures astray (North Korea comes to mind)…is that science or pseudoscience?
I can accept that right and wrong are different from facts about the natural world…the problem there is, the Bible tells us that the natural world was corrupted by sin. It also tells us that the world prior to the flood was very different from the world after the flood. It tells us that the average age of mankind began to decline dramatically in a very short number of years immediately after the deluge and that i think is significant. It supports the idea that there was a devastating environmental change at that time…one that modern science has not bothered to explore (because there is no room for God in science…so philosophical claims of men living to 900 years of age pre-flood are impossible given our current average ages and therefore are of no interest)
What we should be asking ourselves is “what scientific factors could cause the average age of a human to drop from about 900 years to just 100 in such a short time?”
I am yet to see anyone here even attempt to entertain that question and certainly no one seems to be interested in exploring it…other than me of course
What i do get is “that’s impossible” …rather strange coming from individuals who are quite happy to believe in a resurrection of the dead rotting corpses and a Second Coming - where humans drift off against gravity into outer space (a vacuum) without their bodies exploding!
Agree with most of what you said except the following;
A. “you have given an opinion there…but what evidence are you using to support that opinion?”
B. “Note…your evidence needs to be consistent with philosophical writings (the Bible), history, and science there!”
A. The opinion is based on personal experience and the conversion of an atheist PHD who for the first time saw the relationship with scientifically derived evidence and scripture. It still takes the Holy Spirit but evidence whan alighned with the scripture can open a door.
B.The evidence I an talking about is consistent because the evidence is history and science. Again it alighns with the scriptures. It may call for a reinterpretation of certain events and as long as the reinterpretation does not negate Christian theology it is okay. Truth is what matters and in no case have I found that evidence finds the scriptures errant. Even in the extreme case where the evidence disagrees with scripture I have found that the explanation is one of timing.
My comments basically apply to Genesis 1-11 on which I am getting ready to publish in my book Reflections on Genesis.
1 Like
In short, that is why I don’t find myself fitting in neatly with the ID movement carte blanche… I am indeed extremely sympathetic (especially given my own science background)…, but i don’t like their complete disregard of special revelation in their pursuit of scientific data.
You can put all the work you want to into the theological basis of YEC, but it won’t change the mountains of observable facts that contradict a young Earth, a recent global flood, and separate creation of biological kinds. In the same way, no amount of effort put into supporting a theological perspective for Geocentrism or a Flat Earth is going to change the observable facts that contradict them.
3 Likes
If the evidence really does support YEC then why wouldn’t science come to the same conclusion independently of scripture? If the only way you can arrive at YEC is because of religious convictions then that seems to be a tacit admission that YEC is not supported by the evidence.
4 Likes
I’m not sure why you can’t acknowledge the Bible’s many exhortations toward truthfulness, which have been pointed out to you many times! You seem to think that because it doesn’t specifically endorse something, then that something can’t be true! By that logic, computers shouldn’t exist because the Bible has zero evidence for their existence. Nor would germs exist or galaxies or a host of other things.
Why can’t created reality be the foundation or basis for anything? You keep ignoring the mountains of evidence that people keep laying out for you here. Do you want your religion to be one that only works for those whom you can persuade to ignore reality along with you?
4 Likes
Though you still fail to see it, that describes YEC: it’s foundation is not the Bible, it is an a priori rule imposed on the Bible, and that rule came via humanism, specifically from the subset of scientific materialism.
And the fact that YEC is fairly recent movement and a small one at that is tacit evidence that YEC is also not supported by the text.
1 Like
- The 18th of the 28 Fundamentals states the Adventists viewpoint on the Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.).
- Are any Seventh Day Adventist prophets members of the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders (ACPE)? If not, why not?
Too many self appointed apostles for my liking.
Richard
I would modify that to scientific creationism being a recent movement. Before modern geology and biology I think the consensus was a young Earth, a recent global flood, and separate creation of species, the same fixity of species put forward by Linnaeus and addressed by Darwin. A young earth and a recent global flood were largely abandoned by the larger Christian congregation, but evolution was often a sticking point. If memory serves, there was a period of discomfort amongst Old Earth creationists with scientific creationism (i.e. modern YEC) because it was largely a Seventh Day Adventist position which they saw as being cult-like. The modern movement has attempted to reclaim those older beliefs and dress them up in the language of science.
1 Like