How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[Guest]

He talks real fast, and you have to listen fast.

[teresaq]

it would be interesting to give a test at the end of each of his displays. i wonder what the retention rate is....

[karl]

An old earth is not incompatible with the Bible account of creation.

Evolution is.

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, as Darwin and Dawkins and other proponents have discovered. It has death preceding sin. It simply cannot peacefully coexist with the competing religion of Christianity.

[olger]

Yes indeed (on evolution thoughts).

6-10,000 years is pretty dang old compared to my 5-year old car and six year old house.

g

[jasd]

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

I’d be veerrryyyy interested in a synopsis of Asscherick’s presentation posted here

[jasd]

>>An old earth is not incompatible with the Bible account of creation.<<

Indeed.

>>Evolution is.<<

Depends... on how we define our terms. ‘Evolution’ is irrefutably occurring both within and without our labs.

>>Evolution is incompatible with Christianity, as Darwin and Dawkins and other proponents have discovered. It has death preceding sin.<<

Can a grain of wheat multiply – except that it “dies” by falling to the ground – from whence it multiplies? I believe this concept was taught correlate with man. Does one wish to suggest

that certain plants did not reproduce by means of ‘dying’? Moreover,

addressing this issue (and not the linguistic use of the articles in the Creation account),

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast [chayah] of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

implicitly informs us that “beast chayah” of Genesis 1:24 was a carnivore – and that death occurred on earth – before the sin of Adam and Eve. (“...an evil beast [chayah] hath devoured him;” Gen 37:33)

Writ uses chayah as carnivore five times more often than it does not.

Should the chayah have destroyed carnivorously, implicit in the Creation account is –

that fish and fowl were similarly created in the like. Anyway, the NT ‘sin/death’ reference had Adam and Eve as its antecedent; suggesting a link between Adam and Eve – and their progeny – only.

>>It simply cannot peacefully coexist with the competing religion of Christianity.<<

‘Classic’ evolutionary principles may not be able to “coexist” with Xtianity; however, there is now the question of evolution by

Genetic Modification or Manipulation, recombinant DNA... (have you seen photos of the results of various experiments done with recombinant DNA? or read of the genetic modification of soya beans? or of pig genes inserted into the DNA of certain vegetable plants?)

Evolution a la 20th and 21st century – undreamed of by the early theorists! evolution by intelligent design.

Things change. Question: has this – genetic manipulation – occurred before our own time?

[Guest]

They have some David Asscherick audio sermons at Audioverse.com

Here's one about evolution, called:

Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes

http://www.audioverse.org/sermons/recordings/49/evolution-and-the-emperor-s-new-clothes.html

[olger]

Newsflash !! Just happened tonight.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3700888

Go to the 21 minute mark. Cliff Goldstein comes out on stage and talks until the 37-38 minute mark.

oG

[Guest]

Cliff is right. Evolution does cross the line. Pick one already.

Be an Adventist, or be an evolutionist.

Thanks for sharing that og.

[Guest]

I also watched the David Asscherick sermon. It was great. The Holy Spirit was in that place, and he came to my house too.....

Thanks again for sharing that link.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3700888

[Twilight]

I also watched the David Asscherick sermon. It was great. The Holy Spirit was in that place, and he came to my house too.....

Thanks again for sharing that link.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3700888

That link has been made private?

[Kountzer]

Ustream, audioverse, etc., these are new to me, and I need to get up to speed on how to use them.

I've been watching David Asscherick for years now, on 3ABN, and elsewhere. People like Asscherick, and Cliff, and many others, they are all about promoting this msg. They don't waste time groveling in insignificant nonsense, racial issues, watching the trees instead of the forest stuff...what Obama or some other politician is doing. They preach it, put it in a digital format so that whosoever can see it, and benefit from it. I appreciate their ministry and what they have to say, and how they go about saying and doing it.

DB

[olger]

Amen, Kountzer

g

[olger]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

I also watched the David Asscherick sermon. It was great. The Holy Spirit was in that place, and he came to my house too.....

Thanks again for sharing that link.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3700888

That link has been made private?

The videos will be archived in a few days. Sorry..

I'll keep you posted.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

That link has been made private? [/quote'] The videos will be archived in a few days. Sorry..

I'll keep you posted.

Thank you Olger. :-)

[jasd]

QR frame:

He said, she said?

[jasd]

>>creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week.<<

Without meaning to appear condemnatory, the above is the opinion of self-validation – full stop, period. It is obviously taken from a 'read' of the Authorized Version of Writ – without taking into account the linguistic character of that actually written; and repeats the findings of

those who’ve ‘gone before’.

>>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.<<

How so?

>>It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain.<<

Polemical.

>>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.<<

What? the Word cannot have understood or employed a synecdoche?

Again, polemical.

>>They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years.<<

Okay, infidel I… it seems that it is I – who am the only one who embraces the Bible record – attempting to harmonize – that writ in Gd’s Creation with that writ in text. It doesn’t do to

to simply accept “without proving”.

>>...and that the world is now only about six thousand years old.<<

So, why does Xtianity, by and large, concede that the age of Gd’s Creation may more closely align with the number 10,000 – should Writ be so clear re the matter?

>>…and the day of God's rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God's holy law.<<

I’ve already pointed-out that the grammar of the text provides both the sixth day and the seventh day of Creation with the definite article; moreover, I’ve stipulated to the days of Creation as literal days. My brief is with the days of Creation commensurate with the latent indefinite article and what they imply; that is, literal days – with unknown periods between.

>>…for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment,<<

No, I suspect the force of the “fourth commandment” still exists; however, both Jeremiah and Hosea revealed that – because of the COI’s profanation of the Sabbath-day before the heathen – Gd removed the knowledge of their calendar (priestly-kept); ipso facto, no correct way to determine Gd’s Seventh-day Sabbath.

To follow our own idea of what Gd’s Sabbath entailed time-wise is hubristic. At least, others acknowledge that the day they keep as unto the Lord is for the purposes of commemorating the Death and Resurrection of the Saviour – a more noble keeping in that

Gd may create over and over ad infinitum (as we may with Him create worlds sometime future); whereas, He may have sinned only the once and forever after been Satan’s minion with no salvation for either you or me.

>>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.<<

The tenor of this author quoted borders the insufferable. We, all, have limited ideas and knowing – that which belonged to the antediluvial age.

[Guest]

po·lem·ic

1- A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.

2- A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation

po·lem·i·cal

Of or relating to a controversy, argument, or refutation

[French polémique, from Greek polemikos, hostile, from polemos, war.]

[Guest]

Where'd you larn that werd jasd?

[jasd]

...wrote my own dikshunery, Richard

[Guest]

[BobRyan]

How facinating that even Richard Dawkins admits that the actual words of the speaker determine meaning and that you cannot simply expect the reader/listerning to "insert evolutionism" whenver it suits the evolutionist to "imagine a spin" or a "twist" in favor of evolutionism.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post270196

[BobRyan]

Quote:

3SG 90 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}

The "first complaint" JASD makes against this inspired statement above (inspiration that is relating the information given through revelation as it turns out ) is that it is "just like the Bible".

How "instructive" that this should be a cause to "complain".

Notice that the statements -- "I was carried back to the creation" and "was shown the first week" -- are all references to "revelation". (Not that surprising if you read 1Cor 12 and Numbers 12).

But in the review of this that JASD gives -- he offers us "his guesswork" as if this is supposed to be "equal" to whatever God chooses to "show" someone who actually has the gift of prophecy.

Instructive.

However to be fair to JASD -- I think we could probably find others who would object to the inspired text as stated above as well.

Quote:

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, 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}

I think that JASD objected to the quote above because it was in favor of creation instead of evolutionism - thus it is "argumentative".

Quote:

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}

Again I believe JASD responds that this text is just too closely alinged with creation and too opposed to evolutionism to be taken seriously.

Oh no wait! Now I remember - JASD "imagined" that Jeremiah claims that both Israel and Christ himself in the Gospels "forgot" how to count to seven. "forgot" which day was Sabbath.

How "fortunate" then that both Jews AND Christians agree today that Saturday is the SEVENTH-day of Ex 20 and that SUNDAY is then the FIRST day - -- the day upon which Christ was raised from the dead.

Quote:

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 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}

Not sure how JASD gets out of the obvious connection between creation and the 7th day of creation -- that is noticed in the text above.

Quote:

I have been shown that without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence. {3SG 93.1}

To ALSO see that in 1 Spirit of Prophecy p 89

Hmm - lots of things to think about.

in Christ,

Bob

[jasd]

>>...how much "worse" in the case of Paul in Romans 5<<

verse 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

T-Rex: could exert a bite of 22 tons; pursued prey at speeds up to 40 miles per hour (cheetah reaches speeds of 60 miles per hour); unique tail design provided excellent balance and agility for the 12,000 lb predator; had a predator’s frontal vision, which furnished it with binocular vision and depth perception; its nasal passages indicates an extraordinary sense of smell; its teeth were serrated on the backside to better tear flesh from its prey (500 lbs a bite); and..., T-Rex, contrary to depiction in Spielberg’s Jurassic Park – walked on its toes, tippy-toes, mega-stealth extraordinaire!

It is preposterous to forward in dialogue that – T-Rex was not designed to be an extremely efficient predator but rather a vegetarian - in a pristine paradise.

Did Gd create this superb killing machine or did it mutate upon Eve’s taking of the fruit of that infamous tree? or was there another intelligent designer in the mix? if so, when...? where...?

Okay, so at what point on an imaginary graph is the demarcation – where a change is no longer mutation but evolutionary? and can a species be ‘evolutionarily’ changed within one generation or does it require immense periods of time?

[jasd]

Quote:

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.

Does not this statement serve as an example of self-validation? Yes? Than I suspect that the expected “two or three witnesses” are more numinous than not? Yes? Did the good author provide anything other than the assertive statement? such as an exegesis of the original language?

>>The "first complaint" JASD makes against this inspired statement above (inspiration that is relating the information given through revelation as it turns out ) is that it is "just like the Bible".<<

Umm, Charles Russell Taze, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Cayce, etc? all prophets...

>>How "instructive" that this should be a cause to "complain".<<

Not necessarily complaining – but actively questioning. Truth ought not have reason to shy from the light of investigation.

>>Notice that the statements -- "I was carried back to the creation" and "was shown the first week" -- are all references to "revelation". (Not that surprising if you read 1Cor 12 and Numbers 12).<<

‘Prophesying’ is a thing not ascribed to by the madding crowd, nor is it a thing claimed by an individual for casual reasons.

>>But in the review of this that JASD gives -- he offers us "his guesswork" as if this is supposed to be "equal" to whatever God chooses to "show" someone who actually has the gift of prophecy.<<

jasd parsed as able. jasd utilized Gd’s Writ. What equals Gd’s word? Extraneous texts requiring purcha$e? Moreover, jasd proffered the Mediterranean Seabed coring – as Gd’s nature in agreement with Gd’s Writ. Did the author of the above referenced quote do as much – that, at least, Writ might have borne ‘witness’? No, indeed not. It may have proved more efficacious than the singular “I was shown” – or variation thereof.

Per “guesswork”: have you forgotten the ‘first visions’ and the “shut door” dogma? That closely approaches guesswork, yes?

>>Instructive.<<

Let us hope...

>>However to be fair to JASD<<

Do, let’s.

>>I think we could probably find others who would object to the inspired text as stated above as well.<<

I am inspired. My revelation is of a more recent inspiration; therefor, trumping anything preceding.

Ought you to accept what I’ve just stated? No? NO!? Sheesh, why not?

Quote:

When God spake his law [...] "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 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}

>>I think that JASD objected to the quote above because it was in favor of creation instead of evolutionism - thus it is "argumentative".<<

Should you care to review my posts you’ll find that I advance the “literal days of Creation” doctrine as vigorously as anyone else. What I object to is that issuing from Mt Opinion – asserted as verity itself – for $ale.

Anyway, the author of the referenced quote, though enthusing upon the Fourth Commandment, still hitched a beast of burden to buggy on the Sabbath – a thing strictly forbidden by said commandment – rendering any accumulated gravitas on the author’s part suspect.