How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[BobRyan]

But in the end - guessing about how unspecified details regarding starting conditions -- is not so much the point of the thread - as looking at the degree to which evolutionism directly undermines existing Adventist Doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

Amen

[The Searcher]

And if you are comfortable with your guesses, be comfortable. There will be a time for all the answers. As a scientist, I also must be comfortable with my understanding, and I am comfortable. God is the creator, and I am the creature.

Sincerely,

Seafarer

[jasd]

QR frame:

Some odd stuff in my work-up pages – lookin’ for a home...

Re the days of the Creation of Genesis 1:3 thru 2:3:

It is understandable why Genesis 1:3 uses the cardinal Day One. It is also understandable that the rest of the seven days of Creation should be referred-to as ordinals. That said,

why do days two, three, four, and five lack the definite article (rendering its reading as utilizing the latent indefinte article ‘a’ – a second day, a third day, etc) – and then, voilà! the definite article makes its appearance for the sixth day and the seventh day:

the sixth day and the seventh day.

Incomprehensible esoterica? poetic form? phantasmagoria? simple sloppiness in recitation of facts? Or,

rather, a careful specificity leading one to conclude that though the creation days bespeak

specific day/night periods approximating 24-hour cycles – with relevant texts attesting to unstated durations of time interspersing the days of Creation?

Seems that linguistically, Genesis 1:3 thru Genesis 2:3 allows for a lengthy creation epoch.

[phkrause]

You need to read the Hebrew translated to english by Rabbi Rashi. All the days in the Complete Tanach are translated as follows:

Genesis 1:5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8. And God called the expanse Heaven, and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13. And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:23. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis 1:31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

Another Hebrew Scholar Dr. David H. Stern ends those same verse's above from his Complete Jewish Bible, also translated from Hebrew to english, like this

verse 5=one day

verse 8=a second day

verse 13=a third day

verse 19=a fourth day

verse 23=a fifth day

verse 31=a sixth day

and each time they are preceded with "So there was evening, and there was morning,"

which indicates to me that they are all one day and does not leave it to mean long periods of time!

pk

[jasd]

Quote:

Genesis 1:5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8. And God called the expanse Heaven, and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13. And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:23. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis 1:31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

Quote:

verse 5=one day

verse 8=a second day

verse 13=a third day

verse 19=a fourth day

verse 23=a fifth day

verse 31=a sixth day

and each time they are preceded with "So there was evening, and there was morning,"

A coupla things: first, I’ve, in my past, read extensive passages from the Talmud and found that there are “Hebrew Scholars” who’ve indulged their use of ingenuity and imagination (that is not to say that the above mentioned scholars indulged...; however, it does give me pause). Second, with the exception of Stern’s use of a latent indefinite article re the “sixth day” rather than the definite article – they both pretty well track what I’ve proffered.

>>which indicates to me that they are all one day and does not leave it to mean long periods of time!<<

Notice my use of “allows for a lengthy creation epoch”.

Perhaps, I should have more nuanced the matter and stated instead, “allows for a lengthy epoch between certain of the days of creation” – as the simple use of the phrase “a second day”, “a third day”, etc – does not translate to a chronological sequence of days contiguous one to the another.

[BobRyan]

God summarizes Genesis 1 with the words "For in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE...and rested the Seventh-day" Ex 20:8-11.

Which takes all the guesswork out -- of trying to figure out whether to believe those Hebrew scholars that tell us that in Gen 1 we have

Quote:

Genesis 1:5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8. And God called the expanse Heaven, and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13. And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:23. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis 1:31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

Pretty fantastic to see how it simplified the already incredibly easy task of reading Genesis 1.

in Christ,

Bob

[phkrause]

Yes Bob and as I mentioned above, those verse's give no hint at all to think that it doesn't mean a 24 hour period, even if before day six its say's "the" because each time period is stated with "evening and morning". There is no getting around those words.

pk

[jasd]

>>God summarizes Genesis 1 with the words “For in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE...and rested the Seventh-day" Ex 20:8-11.

Which takes all the guesswork out -- of trying to figure out whether to believe those Hebrew scholars that tell us that in Gen 1 we have<<

Given the linguistics of the indefinite in the following…

Quote:

Quote:

Genesis 1:5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8. And God called the expanse Heaven, and it was evening, and it was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13. And it was evening, and it was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:23. And it was evening, and it was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis 1:31. And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.

it’s kinda difficult to see how such as ‘sunset, sunrise, sunset, sunrise – one day following upon another…’ can be explicated as contiguous “evenings and mornings” with the absence of definite articles – unless one is a true believer, rather than a searcher and/or a seeker.

>>Pretty fantastic to see how it simplified the already incredibly easy task of reading Genesis 1.<<

As I’ve stated, and, moreover, Gd bless the “True believer.”

[jasd]

>>Yes Bob and as I mentioned above, those verse's give no hint at all to think that it doesn't mean a 24 hour period, even if before day six its say's "the" because each time period is stated with "evening and morning". There is no getting around those words.<<

4/7ths of the days of Creation ‘week’ rest upon latent, indefinite articles. Five interims allow for indefinite periods – no matter should one wish to argue that each “evening and morning” are of approximately 24-hours duration. We speak of

interstices.

The alternating salt and soil strata beneath the Mediterranean ought give pause to orthodoxy – as it simply staggers the mind to conceive of the lengths of time it would have taken for the Sea to evaporate, deposit salt, lay down soil buildup on top of that, refill, evaporate, deposit salt, lay down soil buildup on top of that, fill, ... etc – the number of times represented by the salt strata and soil buildup.

[karl]

I like the way SDA theology destroys evolutionism. If only the early, post-apostolic church had remained SDA, we would have much less evolutionism in the world today.

(La Sierra aside, of course.)

[BobRyan]

I like the way SDA theology destroys evolutionism.</blockquote>

Me too!

[BobRyan]

Yes Bob and as I mentioned above, those verse's give no hint at all to think that it doesn't mean a 24 hour period, even if before day six its say's "the" because each time period is stated with "evening and morning". There is no getting around those words.

pk

Amen! Preach it my friend.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The alternating salt and soil strata beneath the Mediterranean ought give pause to orthodoxy –

[jasd]

>>Indeed - the dark ages put the Christian church into a tailspin.<<

I remind, less the above statement is taken by the casual reader to be a pejorative reflection upon the early/later Xtian church – that there are ‘period’ writings extant, which point to climatic catastrophism as having

initiated the ‘Dark Ages’ - as well, contributing to its lingering effects.

>>Much better just to trust God's Word as though it is actually true instead of going down the doubt-the-Bible-first LSU road.<<

Indeed, properly parsed...

[jasd]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Yes Bob and as I mentioned above, those verse's give no hint at all to think that it doesn't mean a 24 hour period, even if before day six its say's "the" because each time period is stated with "evening and morning". There is no getting around those words.

>>Amen! Preach it my friend.<<

Are we so certain that the creation “evenings and mornings” were of 24-hours duration? or that the yearly cycles were 365 and ¼ days?

Fact is, we don’t – hence, my use of “approximating”.

Either Gd inspired Moses' writings to be unconcerned with linguistic intent - or He intended specificity. It is up to the Biblical expositor to

give an honest exposition - rather than utilizing rote.

[jasd]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: jasd

The alternating salt and soil strata beneath the Mediterranean ought give pause to orthodoxy –

>>Indeed - imagine all those Christians look at the mud at the bottom of the Mediterranean and tossing out their Bibles...<<

Not exactly tossing Holy Writ, but opening its pages and studying – that Writ may harmonize with the rest of ‘Gd’s writings’ – as provided in His creation. Despising Writ,

men will be judged by the very and record of Gd’s creation. Gd did not write only as holy men of Gd took up parchment and pen, but upon the fabric of what we behold – hopefully perceiving the while.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

as it simply staggers the mind to conceive of the lengths of time it would have taken for the Sea to evaporate, deposit salt, lay down soil buildup on top of that, refill, evaporate, deposit salt, lay down soil buildup on top of that, fill, ... etc – the number of times represented by the salt strata and soil buildup.

>>Yes - I always say that Christians should cut out whatever part of the bible that an evolutionist cannot "imagine to be true".<<

Check it out – the cored floor and substrata of the Mediterranean Sea.

>>Imagination is the key there - as the real test of scripture as it turns out.

Long live imagination!

Oh but wait! there is another option to "pure imagination" being suggested above as the "test of scripture".

Trust God to know more than an evolutionist!<<

(ah, hyperbole, yes?)

So, propose a Biblical means by which alternate strata of salt/soil is laid down as – let’s say layered sweet trifle.

>>(and since pretty much EVERYONE on this board has at one time come out and said they are not evolutionists -- I am sure we can all agree on that last point of affirmation above.<<

“Pretty much” being the operative phrase here? I’ve always held that Gd (in the plural Elohim; that is, the later known-as Father and Son, as well the feminine designated Spirit) created; moreover, I proffer that ‘They’ still do, and will continue – probably forever, with us as future participants. But how does that remove

all aspects of “evolution” as might be otherwise defined?

>>Come to think of it -- there is NO other topic here where EVERYONE has come out in agreement on a single point -- the way they have on the "I am not an evolutionist" point here. )

So we finally have at least ONE topic in this area where all actually do have a point of agreement!<<

Wrong.

>>Aint unity grand?!!<<

Wouldn’t it be, were it so!? and, would that include unitary entanglement?

>>(still -- innexplicably -- the topic with the most unity - has the most sensitivity on this board for some odd reason. oh well...)<<

How are you using “sensitivity” here?

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Yes Bob and as I mentioned above, those verse's give no hint at all to think that it doesn't mean a 24 hour period, even if before day six its say's "the" because each time period is stated with "evening and morning". There is no getting around those words.

>>Amen! Preach it my friend.<<

Are we so certain that the creation “evenings and mornings” were of 24-hours duration? or that the yearly cycles were 365 and ¼ days?

Ok I'll bite!

Let's say for illustration that "Evening and morning" was 23.5 hours and that the world's rotation "slowed by 6 minutes" from Creation to Sinai. So that when God said "SIX days you shall labor.. for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE" well - the world was now spinning at a rate of 1 rotation every 23.6 hours.

Is that helping LSU with an evolution story in some way?

Or let's say that instead of 365.25 as the orbit of earth around the sun it was 360 day on the dot at creation. Is that helping LSU bend that 7 days of creation in some way??

The answer appears to be "no it is not helping LSU at all".

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Bob

Trust God to know more than an evolutionist (can imagine)!<<

(ah, hyperbole, yes?)

So, propose a Biblical means by which alternate strata of salt/soil is laid down as – let’s say layered sweet trifle.

Does the Bible say anything at all about layering at Mt St Helen's, about the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico, about the Mississippi river delta sedimentation rate, about the layering of the Mediterranean, about the salty brine lakes still being discovered at the bottom of the Mediterranean? (hint: The lakes formed when seawater dissolved deposits of salt-rich rocks along the seafloor.) About the mini-ice age ending around 1000 A.D? About the fact that the Mediterranean is higher in salt content than the Atlantic ocean? about the closing off of the strait of Gibralter as the African tectonic plate moved northward?

Or are you simply saying that "my imagination is better than an evolutionists?"

In any case it is helpful to note how evolutionism seeks to pit the imagination and guesswork of an evolutionist "against God" and then claim "evolutionist wins".

Kinda funny when you think about it.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Recall that Darwin admitted to this "game of imagination" and finally admitted that he himself could not find enough ways to "imagine the Bible to fit Darwinism" and so he eventually rejected Christianity altogether.

Dawkins, Provine and Meyers all admit to pretty much the same exercise "on camera" in the video "Expelled".

How instructive for the unbiased objective reader.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:pkrause

Yes Bob and as I mentioned above, those verse's give no hint at all to think that it doesn't mean a 24 hour period, even if before day six its say's "the" because each time period is stated with "evening and morning". There is no getting around those words.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Are we so certain that the creation “evenings and mornings” were of 24-hours duration? or that the yearly cycles were 365 and ¼ days?

>>Ok I'll bite!<<

No need for biting – I was proposing, by means of the query, that we don’t know – and are unjustified in making the extrapolation from Writ of 24-hr days, pre-flood. Anyway, I was simply pointing out the pitfall of

holding to a particularly unverifiable position and attempted to steer the issue away from pure doctrinairism.

>>Let's say for illustration that "Evening and morning" was 23.5 hours and that the world's rotation "slowed by 6 minutes" from Creation to Sinai. So that when God said "SIX days you shall labor.. for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE" well - the world was now spinning at a rate of 1 rotation every 23.6 hours.

Is that helping LSU with an evolution story in some way?<<

So, how does the imaginative illustration above – especially that capped and red-fonted – detract from an ‘extended periods’ argument? when parsing beyond the superficial? Moreover, why is that you think

LSU ought not to teach its students evolutionary principles? Is it to be preferred that LSU send its graduating students into the world – having no concept of positions other that those to which they’ve been either exposed or indoctrinated?

Were I to have spent monie$ educating my son at LSU – I’d have preferred that he was made aware of “evolutionary” theories and/or facts with corresponding arguments either sustaining or refuting them.

>>Or let's say that instead of 365.25 as the orbit of earth around the sun it was 360 day on the dot at creation.<<

The entire matter presently revolves upon the linguistic aspects of text and its exposition; that said, I believe that one – reading the Genesis account of the Noahic event – arrives at

the conclusion that Writ frames an antediluvian Biblical 360-day year, which continues presently for purposes of prophetic fulfillment.

>>Is that helping LSU bend that 7 days of creation in some way??<<

The history of the .Org has been one of adjusting dogmas and doctrines as necessary. Perhaps, it is time the .Org parse the Creation events for linguistic cogency – that it may better harmonize that written in text with that written in Gd’s Creation.

>>The answer appears to be "no it is not helping LSU at all".<<

Help LSU? or help its students? Prioities?

[jasd]

>>Does the Bible say anything at all about layering at Mt St Helen's,<<

Salt layers in the Mt St Helen’s ash!?

>>...about the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico,<<

What about the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico?

>>...about the Mississippi river delta sedimentation rate,<<

Lotsa muddy silt, yes?

>>...about the layering of the Mediterranean, about the salty brine lakes still being discovered at the bottom of the Mediterranean? (hint: The lakes formed when seawater dissolved deposits of salt-rich rocks along the seafloor.)<<

So, there are briny ‘pools’ occurring in the Mediterranean. Briny rocks notwithstanding, seepage and percolation from salt laid down as substrata can provide the explanation. That said, how does briny pools account for the alternating strata of evaporated salt and soil cored from beneath the Mediterranean?

>>About the mini-ice age ending around 1000 A.D?<<

Ah, one of several little ice ages... The one mentioned above seems to have coincided with the sometimes interpreted – RC introduced the ‘Dark Ages’....

>>About the fact that the Mediterranean is higher in salt content than the Atlantic ocean?<<

Seepage? Percolation?

>>...about the closing off of the strait of Gibralter as the African tectonic plate moved northward?<<

Indeed – the question obtains, “How often and over what periods?”

>>Or are you simply saying that "my imagination is better than an evolutionists?"<<

You’re kinda hung-up on “imagination”, yes?

>>In any case it is helpful to note how evolutionism seeks to pit the imagination and guesswork of an evolutionist "against God" and then claim "evolutionist wins".<<

What’s so imagined about that which Gd has written in the witness of an old-age earth?

>>Kinda funny when you think about it.<<

Parochialism – from any point in a spectrum is suspect, especially when robed in 'faith'.

[jasd]

>>Recall that Darwin admitted to this "game of imagination" and finally admitted that he himself could not find enough ways to "imagine the Bible to fit Darwinism" and so he eventually rejected Christianity altogether.<<

Anecdotal. Darwin had problems with the idea that the eye developing evolutionarily. Finding that Writ conflicted with his ideas – was but only one of his problems.

>>Dawkins, Provine and Meyers all admit to pretty much the same exercise "on camera" in the video "Expelled".<<

That’s Dawkins, Provine, and Meyers...

>>How instructive for the unbiased objective reader.<<

Indeed, however, one wonders at the numbers of ‘new species’ in both the plant and animal kingdoms: just the beginning but evolutionary just the same – whereby, outside forces impinge upon a “kind after its kind” stasis.

We’re currently the ‘outside force’ influencing natural order – any possibility that there were other ‘outside forces’ manipulating nature – prior to us?

Theories on/of/about evolution have undergone adjustments – as have faith-based dogmas and doctrines.

[olger]

David Asscherick just knocked this issue clear out of the park at GYC for the Friday night sermon. Woowwwwwwwwww

God has raised this man up for this time.

(I'm olger and I approve this message).

[Guest]

I like David Asscherick.....