How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[jasd]

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}

(Pardon my proletarian – tchah!)

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

Again, and again, and again – I am a creationist – probably, moreso than you.

>>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.<<

Specious. jasd states forthrightly without equivocation that – both Jeremiah and Hosea advises us in Writ – that Gd removed His calendar from both the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Anyone can count to seven; the question obtaining is – would the OT calendar coincide with ours?

Those who observe the Jewish/’Hebrew’ calendar readily admit to the unBiblical aspects of it – for example: the postponements.

Remember, every one of the Ten Commandments are reaffirmed in the exhortative or the imperative in the NT – except the Seventh-day Sabbath. It is referenced only anecdotally re the others; never in the exhortative or the imperative.

>>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.<<

Jews are incorrect in ways too portentous to countenance. Xtians, as your .Org so accommodatingly points out – is wrong on Writ, dogma, and doctrine – not to mention morally and/or ethically – so often as to almost be discountable. Funny, that you should pick and choose in the above. Stick to Writ.

Quote:

Infidel geologists claim [...] 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.<<

Referenced quote aside, it becomes apparent that you read jasd much too cursorily.

Quote:

I have been shown

Indeed?

Quote:

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.

...and vice versa. Writ informs us that Gd’s creation and Writ must harmonize.

>>It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures.<<

Writ does not require conjecture, it requires harmony, which harmony is demanded between Gd’s creation and Holy Writ. The referenced author is not in view in that equation.

>>Hmm - lots of things to think about.<<

Unfortunately...

[karl]

Writ informs us that Gd’s creation and Writ must harmonize.

>>It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures.<<

Writ does not require conjecture, it requires harmony, which harmony is demanded between Gd’s creation and Holy Writ.

Jasd:

The harmony between writ and creation must occur in a priority sequence. It starts with what God has directly revealed (ten commandments, red words in our Bibles,) then proceeds to what God has indirectly revealed through the prophets and only then to what we can infer from nature.

If what we infer from nature contradicts God's deliberate revelation of Himself, we need to rethink our inference. We want what God SAYS before we proceed to what we think God IMPLIES.

It is vital that we have this sequence, because our thoughts are frequently vain imaginings, rather than the truth.

Can a man, by thinking, find out God?

[Robert]

Notice that the statements -- "I was carried back to the creation" and "was shown the first week" -- are all references to "revelation".

So? She still wrote down her preconceived ideas on what she saw in these books you read. In other words she interpreted these visions based on her mindset/theology at that time in her life. If not then you must insist that she was infallible in her interpretation of those visions.

Again when you make EGW's mind the measuring stick of truth you will be disappointed. It's way to easy to think "well, EGW knows it all, so I'll just skip studying the Bible and go directly to her." Been there...done that and this way of thinking results in two things: Denominational pride and self-righteousness!

Is the 7th-day the same as it was the first week of creation? I believe so. Does that make the Sabbath binding on believers? Not at all.

So what you really mean is that if one does away with creation through evolution one destroys SDA theology as it pertains to how they present the Sabbath.

Rob

[nuff sed]

If God made the 7th day "Holy" why is it not now "Holy" to believers?

Who "Unholied" it?

[Robert]

If God made the 7th day "Holy" why is it not now "Holy" to believers?

Who "Unholied" it?

The fall of mankind.....

[Robert]

Jack Sequeira:

The fall destroyed the Sabbath’s significance, since sin is turning from God-dependence to self-dependence. Isa. 59:2 says that your sin separates you from God. Gen. 3:19 is a good text. What did God say to Adam after he fell?

From now onward you will eat your bread by the sweat of your brow.

Before that, God worked for Adam. When you read about the Garden of Eden, it says it was God who planted the garden for Adam. Now God says,

From now onward you will eat your bread by the sweat of your brow.

That means, “You will have no rest.” So the fall destroyed the significance of the Sabbath.

[Robert]

Jack didn't say that the Sabbath was abolished or that it is no longer the 7th day, he is just saying that the Sabbath connected to creation is no longer valid as a sign. It is meaningless!

So again "the fall" caused the problem, not evolution....

Rob

[Guest]

Jack Sequeira:

The fall destroyed the Sabbath&#146;s significance, since sin is turning from God-dependence to self-dependence. Isa. 59:2 says that your sin separates you from God. Gen. 3:19 is a good text. What did God say to Adam after he fell?

From now onward you will eat your bread by the sweat of your brow.

Before that, God worked for Adam. When you read about the Garden of Eden, it says it was God who planted the garden for Adam. Now God says,

From now onward you will eat your bread by the sweat of your brow.

That means, &#147;You will have no rest.&#148; So the fall destroyed the significance of the Sabbath.

What a ridiculous heresy this is. Neither Isa 59:2 or Gen 3:19 is saying anything at all about the Sabbath. A little child could spot the error in that. The only thing saying the Sabbath has lost it's significance, is Jack S. What about these texts? Which God inspired the prophets to write LONG after the fall of man.

Deu 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Deu 5:13 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work:

Deu 5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates; that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you.

Jer 17:24 And it shall come to pass, if you diligently hearken unto me, says the LORD, to bring in no burden through the gates of this city on the sabbath day, but hallow the sabbath day, to do no work on it;

Isa 58:13 If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words:

Isa 58:14 Then shall you delight yourself in the LORD; and I will cause you to ride upon the heights of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it.

So you see there is a huge disconnect between what Jack Seroquel says and what the Bible says.

You have allowed yourself to become blinded from following after a man, instead of following the Holy Spirit, and the Word of GOD.

[Robert]

Deu 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD your God has commanded you......

You have allowed yourself to become blinded from following after a man, instead of following the Holy Spirit, and the Word of GOD.

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written , Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

What you have given me is the Sabbath under the Old Covenant. Prove to me that the Sabbath is now a sign this side of the New Covenant....And do it without Ellen White.

[Guest]

Jack said it happened at the fall.

Quote Jack S.:

The fall destroyed the Sabbath’s significance

According to those texts I gave he is way off.

[Guest]

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

[Robert]

Jack said it happened at the fall.

Quote Jack S.:

The fall destroyed the Sabbath’s significance

According to those texts I gave he is way off.

No, you are way off.

Tell me, why do you rest? What's the meaning.....?

[Robert]

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

Who is Paul writing about? The Jews! Didn't they keep the Sabbath? Yes, under law....Yet Paul says that they need to enter "God's rest". Since they already kept the Sabbath what was Paul saying?

[Guest]

I'm not off. you're arguing with the Bible not me. Is the Bible off?

Deu 5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD your God has commanded you.

Deu 5:13 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work:

Deu 5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates; that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you.

Jer 17:24 And it shall come to pass, if you diligently hearken unto me, says the LORD, to bring in no burden through the gates of this city on the sabbath day, but hallow the sabbath day, to do no work on it;

Isa 58:13 If you turn away your foot from the sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words:

Isa 58:14 Then shall you delight yourself in the LORD; and I will cause you to ride upon the heights of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it.

[Robert]

I'm not off. you're arguing with the Bible not me. Is the Bible off?

[Guest]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

You are up to your neck in apostasy. It kinda makes arguing with you a waste of time.

Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

[Robert]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

You are up to your neck in apostasy. It kinda makes arguing with you a waste of time.

And you are a legalist who pushes his brand of heresy on ignorant believers....You bow before the letter, but fail to keep its spirit....But since misery loves company you also place this yoke of bondage around the necks' of believers....

You are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly look beautiful, but inside you are full of dead men's bones and everything corrupt....Shall Christ say more? Read the whole of Matt 23.

[olger]

You don't know "Jack."

:)

[Robert]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Rev 22:15

"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

Hmmm? Mr. King James did it again...he put his spin of Rev 22:14 in his Bible.....Just like he did with Romans 8:1 where he added, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"....

As to my "legalist" comment, well, John you can remove that post. The fact is a lot of folks don't like me and think I'm a heretic and I don't like many here too and end up calling them legalists.

So I've decided less with the name calling and more sticking to issues. Otherwise all communicate breaks down and none of us gets anywhere.

Rob

[Woody]

Quote:

You are up to your neck in apostasy.

How childish. If you can argue the issues ... attack the posters of Truth.

Problem is ... you are arguing with God.

[jasd]

>>The harmony between writ and creation must occur in a priority sequence. It starts with what God has directly revealed (ten commandments, red words in our Bibles,) then proceeds to what God has indirectly revealed through the prophets and only then to what we can infer from nature.<<

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

And..., at what point of that sequence does Gd depart from harmonizing that which is recorded in His Creation vis-à-vis that which is recorded in text? Are you suggesting that there does not necessarily exist – agreement? So, how does Creation depart from or otherwise negate either the Ten Commandments or the Red Letters? (I recall Creation being rather intrinsic to the Sabbath, yes?) Instead, I propose that

no matter the sequence, whether formulaic, arbitrary, artificial, or not – there must still be harmony. The infidel is said to be without excuse, as Gd has revealed Himself through His works.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Gd is not One who should inspire for naught. His servant, Moses, recapped the Creation events with a sequence of – one day numbered cardinally; followed by four ordinal days with latent articles - inclusive, five interim periods of indefinite duration each; ending with two ordinals utilizing the definite article. I think Gd is careful – even to the jot and the tittle, as it were. It is incumbent upon us

to understand the implications of that linguistic construct in conjunction with the witness of Creation.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, ... (not simply this segment or that)

Further, one, reviewing my posts will note that I temporized with the terms ‘allowed’ and ‘implicit’; meaning, I am not one descended from Mt Opinion with laser-etched stones seeking a golden reliquary in which to deposit them. I merely suggest that

we look again at the realities of the language utilized in Genesis 1&2 v Gd’s Creation – beginning with a tabula rasa, as it were. After all,

we’re all about truth(s), yes? Or are we?

>>If what we infer from nature contradicts God's deliberate revelation of Himself,<<

That cuts both ways, as we often mistake what it is that Gd is deliberately revealing; moreover, I ask, do you suggest that Gd did not deliberately reveal Himself in His Creation?

>>...we need to rethink our inference.<<

What I’ve been proffering on this thread suggests that those who’ve advanced the orthodoxy developed yon years ago – might oughta wanna rethink their position v what Gd’s Creation informs.

>>We want what God SAYS before we proceed to what we think God IMPLIES.

Umm, I am under the impression that Gd spoke/speaks through His Creation, as well as through his servants who’ve scribed that we might benefit – disabuse me should I err.

>>It is vital that we have this sequence, because our thoughts are frequently vain imaginings,<<

As well, certain of our ‘interpretations’ of Holy Writ and ‘revelations’ of those we sometimes turn to – for this or that unsupported reason.

>>...rather than the truth.<<

Truth wears many guises.

>>Can a man, by thinking, find out God?<<

In verity, ...even at the door.

[karl]

>>The harmony between writ and creation must occur in a priority sequence. It starts with what God has directly revealed (ten commandments, red words in our Bibles,) then proceeds to what God has indirectly revealed through the prophets and only then to what we can infer from nature.<<

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

And..., at what point of that sequence does Gd depart from harmonizing that which is recorded in His Creation vis-à-vis that which is recorded in text? Are you suggesting that there does not necessarily exist – agreement?

Not at all.

You are asking us to allow you to trump the Word of God with your perception of His second book - all in the name of harmony.

The point I am trying to make is that God's second book is the harmony part. It is not the melody. God's creation is subservient to God.

So, if your interpretation of the notation sounds discordant when played in concert with the melody, it is the harmony part which needs to be rearranged. (Please NOTE that I stuck with the metaphor all the way through that sentence, for once.)

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

And..., at what point of that sequence does Gd depart from harmonizing that which is recorded in His Creation vis-à-vis that which is recorded in text? Are you suggesting that there does not necessarily exist – agreement?

>>Not at all.

You are asking us to allow you to trump the Word of God with your perception of His second book<<

I ask nothing. I proffer. Indeed, I’ve engaged in attempting to perceive what Gd’s “second book” declares – as ought anyone who truly seeks to understand... Context and harmony is not limited to scribal effort.

>>...all in the name of harmony.<<

I reiterate, “Holy Writ requires that Gd’s Creation and His revealed text – harmonize.”

(I’ve only dealt with present Creation and partial Writ; actually, I’m inclined to the thinking that there existed at least one prior creation upon this earth [before present creation]. Moreover, it is my thinking that earth arrived at its present orbit from elsewhere – arriving as a [somewhat] hemisphere – its missing aspect left in a former orbit as asteroidal refuse. I am constrained to look at the general environs of the Pacific as indicating where the earth was most greatly scarred in a cataclysm of ‘Biblical’ proportions, as it were; moreover, I suspect that the oceans of Mars deposited, during a close flyby, an explosion of different species in our own oceans. )

>>The point I am trying to make is that God's second book...<<

I believe that honest exposition attributes Creation as the impetus for the rest that Gd hallowed; that is, the raison d’être of the .Org. That gives indication that Creation may, in fact, be the first book – with Writ its appurtenance.

>>...is the harmony part. It is not the melody.<<

Do not the notes of harmonious chords together - usually track a melody? Anyway, it may be that one errs,

supposing that ‘interpreted’ Writ is the melody... after all, so great many more beings will be judged from the book of Creation than will be from ‘interpreted’ Writ.

>>God's creation is subservient to God.<<

As, let us hope, textual revelation. Allow me an example: it has been estimated that there are ten followed by eighty zeros – atoms in the universe. It is likewise estimated that there are ten followed by a million zeros – neural circuits in the human brain. [/extemporizing from the top of my head, as it were]

THAT says, “GD!” That, as one might posit, carries the melody line.

>>So, if your interpretation of the notation sounds discordant when played in concert with the melody, it is the harmony part which needs to be rearranged.<<

Gratifyingly, the above is qualified with the conditional “if”. It is not my interpretation that sounds the discordant note: Mebbe, third row, second player, needing a better appreciation of the score... and/or more practice? Read above.

>>(Please NOTE that I stuck with the metaphor all the way through that sentence, for once.)<<

I don’t mind the mixed metaphor, but what’s that say?

[karl]

I reiterate, “Holy Writ requires that Gd’s Creation and His revealed text – harmonize.”

And they do harmonize. What does not harmonize is man's interpretation of what the second book says. For instance, God says that death came to the flora and fauna of this earth after man sinned about six thousand years ago. Man's interpretation of God's second book says that death preceded man and sin by millions, if not billions, of years.

That, in my book, is discord.

[jasd]

>>For instance, God says that death came to the flora and fauna of this earth after man sinned about six thousand years ago.<<

I'd be interested in the text(s) which sustains that thought.