How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[BobRyan]

It is commendable to show that creation is more believable than the theory of evolution. However, is it enough to believe in creation and that the Scriptures are the written word of God? If the Holy Scriptures are the written word of God and we accept them as written merely then we are most miserable creatures for "the letter kills." 2 Cor.3:7.

"The Scriptures are to be received as the word of God to us, not written merely but spoken." Ministry of Healing, p.122.

What do you understand this statement to be saying?

sky

Sky -

Thank you for that thoughtful post so applicable to this topic.

well said.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Given the points raised on page one of this thread -- it is easy to see how a former atheist evolutionist and well respected scientist like Walter Veith would have found no problem at all with the specific segments of the 28 Fundamental beliefs listed there - once he observed the following flaws in Darwinism -

Amazing Discoveries exposes Darwin's flaw

His position presents a perfect harmony between science and the Bible resulting in no conflict at all with the doctrines listed in the OP of this thread.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

Bob, I'm glad you're back. Bravus has just been moping around since you left. Maybe he can cheer up now.

[BobRyan]

I live to serve, my friend.

[olger]

ELL

O

Ell

oG

[BobRyan]

BTW - here is a quote from Dawkins that is very helpful in making the case for the OP.

. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.

He gives us that helpful bit of information at this link promoting his new book.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/t...icle6805656.ece

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

A high thinker that Dawkins.

[BobRyan]

Here is a case where Ellen White comments on points associated with the OP

It is in the form of an explicit statement regarding the opposition between Christ and Satan

Quote:

<Continued>

When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week,

91

points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days.

The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from

92

the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old.

These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God's rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God's holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. They have limited ideas of the size of men, animals and trees before the flood, and of the great changes which then took place in the earth. {3SG 91.2}

How true those words from the pen of inspiration sound -- when compared to this statement from Richard Dawkins as he notes the obvious confused doctrine that results from merging those two religions.

All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed!

[BobRyan]

Yes but maybe Ellen White was simply "a bad guesser" and maybe Dawkins is "uninformed" about how self-conflicted the marriage between the religion of evolutionism and Christianity would be...

And was God "also a bad guesser"??

"For in six days God MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and ALL that is in them" - Creation of all life on this planet and creation of dry land, seas, atmosphere, sun and moon all took place in a SHORT time -- in fact "6 days" then God FINISHED his work - that was the end "Hence the Sabbath".

What is even more amazing is that God commands us to observe that SAME 7 day cycle "SIX days you shall labor... FOR In SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." Ex 20:8-11. How incredibly obvious -- the "SHORT timeline" detail explicit in the 4th commmandment!

I am sure we can all agree on that simple point.

How amazingly "consistent" then is this eye-witness account of that SAME 7 day event.

Quote:

3 Spiritual Gifts 90

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/g...hapter05149.htm

And also in 1 Spirit of Prophecy -- at this link

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/g...hapter04907.htm

Chapter IX. - Disguised Infidelity

I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created." God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

[BobRyan]

I notice that recently the question has come up as to whether the Law of God is being codefied in Ex 20:8-11 in the form of fiction or metaphore.

What say you? Have you found that SDA scholarship argues for the language of Ex 20 being an appeal to fiction or metaphore?

What are your findings?

[skyblue888]

Chapter IX. - Disguised Infidelity

I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created." God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

Wow this is the best statement I have ever seen from her pen.

Thanks so much for sharing it with us.

sky

[olger]

A high thinker than Dawkins.

Wouldn't take much to eclipse highly polished doubt.

..G..

[Guest]

That's all it is.

[phkrause]

Some really excellent posts Bob. Again good to have you back.

pk

[BobRyan]

PK - thanks for the welcome -- glad to be back!

Consider the post below in the light of Romans 5 where Paul argues that Adam existed and that because of his real sin - humanity all has experienced "death".

Where (as Dawkins argues below) does Paul say to his reader "of course you know I don't believe what I just wrote literally because I am a Darwinist and so we all know I think Adam did not actually exist and I really think that death plagued us long long before Adam sinned"??

Dawkins statment is clear - Paul was not out front with his Darwinism and so proper exegesis would not "allow us" to bend the text of Romans 5, or 1Timothy 2 (Adam Created first, Eve sinned first) to insert evolutionism -- no not even by Dawkins' standards!!

The speaker, the writer, the author has not clarified his point to allow much less dictate that the reader insert darwinism into the text instead of simply accepting what is actually written.

Hence the OP!

BTW - here is a quote from Dawkins that is very helpful in making the case for the OP.

Originally Posted By: Richard Dawkins

. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.

He gives us that helpful bit of information at this link promoting his new book.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/t...icle6805656.ece

in Christ,

Bob

Now think about that for just a minute. It means that even if you had no other "clue" than following the logic of Dawkins to 'guide you' in understanding the text of Genesis 1-2:3 and Ex 20:8-11 you would be left saying "well they did not specify Darwinism SO God really is claiming to have made the world in 7 actual days!!".

Which leaves us "accepting" rather than recting Ellen White when she says that God showed her the very same thing.

All -

I realize I have presented this as if it were glaringly obvious.

Please help me see what I am missing.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The same holds for Christ's appeal to the reality of the flood in Matt 24 as well as Peter's appeal to that reality in 2Peter 3. Using Dawkins' standard of interpretation alone - you would have to accept those references as affirming "real events".

But Romans 5 shows just how the Gospel itself is tied to the reality of Adam being a real person - the real first human who really fell into sin and thus allowed death to touch all mankind.

The same as we see for God's argument for the reality of the Sabbath day in Ex 20:8-11 being based on the reality of the 7 day week of Genesis 1-2:3.

Using Dawkins' rule alone would clearly inform the reader that the writer means to convey exactly what is written "instead" of darwinism.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Then of course there is Christ's argument for Marriage -- made from the reality of the example of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. A doctrine I should have added to the OP list of doctrines that are eliminated when replaced by the doctrines of evolutionism.

And as we see from the above posts - even Dawkins logic itself would argue that point.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Question for the group - since I just noted above how I missed the fact that Christ's argument for marriage is also affected by Dawkin's "no such thing as Adam and Eve" idea in my OP -- did I miss any other doctrines that would be undermined by the doctrines of evolutionism?

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight]

Question for the group - since I just noted above how I missed the fact that Christ's argument for marriage is also affected by Dawkin's "no such thing as Adam and Eve" idea in my OP -- did I miss any other doctrines that would be undermined by the doctrines of evolutionism?

in Christ,

Bob

Maybe a list of what you have would be good?

[BobRyan]

I was referring to the Opening Post ( OP ) as my list.

in Christ,

bob

[Bravus]

Again, *my* marriage is not effected one skerrick by whether Adam and Eve were real historical people or metaphorical archetypes. You can keep making these broad assertions that 'if Genesis is not literal, nothing means anything', but assertions is all they remain - rhetorical flourishes intended to support a particular position.

I have a question for you (everyone reading): who was Zeus's wife?

[olger]

Contraire David. If Adam & Eve did not exist, then neither does your spiritual authority to be married. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe in the Bible if Adam & Eve were ficticious.

I marvel at some of the things that you speak. Without confidence in the Bible, what other magisterium do you have for life?

g

[Bravus]

Again, you are making massive assertions, based on your interpretations of the Bible. The bolded text there is the bit you guys always conveniently omit. You accuse people of not trusting 'The Bible', but what you mean is not agreeing with 'your interpretation of The Bible'. There's an enormous gulf of difference there. There are thousands of mainstream Christian Biblical scholars who do not read the first few chapters of Genesis as literal. It is possible to have complete confidence in the Bible without agreeing with your interpretation of the Bible.

And, as with the Sabbath, so with marriage. God instituted it and blessed it: whether Adam and Eve were real historical flesh-and-blood people or mythological archetypes who represent all of humanity does not effect the Scripturality or spiritual authority of marriage.

[Bravus]

And you guys are playing an enormously dangerous game in doing as you do. You very explicitly tie the authority of the Bible itself to your interpretation of the Bible, making big statements about 'if Genesis is not literal then there is no reason to trust anything at all in the Bible'. Then, if in the future your interpretation is found to be wrong - as the geocentric view of the universe, about which similar comments were made, ended up being - you have impugned the authority of the Bible itself.

Does it occur to you that your efforts to defend it may have the effect of harming it?

[olger]

Again, you are making massive assertions, based on your interpretations of the Bible.