• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolution and its effects.

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There is science involved in the question of violence.
Yeah? Why is all you have narrative?

As the data show, the great decrease in violent crime over the past few decades is most likely due to the aging of the boomers
Not really.

It's more likely due to the change in demographics:

1550276468128.jpg


So nothing to do with "boomers," who you seem to want to disparage.

As the number of young adults decreases, so does violence.

Nope. As the proportion of young adults decreases, so does the rate of violence.

For reasons everyone should understand.
Trump? :idunno:

The fact that this decrease is correlated with increasing public acceptance of evolution is interesting, but does not prove that acceptance of evolution causes a decrease in violent crime.
Yeah?

Nothing will. It's nice to see that you have a talking point to cut and paste though. :rolleyes:

It does demolish the argument that acceptance of evolution causes violence.
Not in the slightest.

1. Nobody has made such a claim. Evolution doesn't cause violence, people do. Evolution is a philosophy that erodes morals and leads to horrors.
2. As shown, you've taken a proportional decrease in violence that correlates with a demographic shift and pretended it is something else.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
The greatest effect of evolution is to destroy faith in God. Jesus is God and Jesus said the following. It was directed to the scribes and Pharisees but is just as applicable to us today as it was to them in their day.

[SIZE=+0]39[/SIZE] ¶Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
[SIZE=+0]40[/SIZE] And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
[SIZE=+0]41[/SIZE] I receive not honour from men.
[SIZE=+0]42[/SIZE] But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
[SIZE=+0]43[/SIZE] I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
[SIZE=+0]44[/SIZE] How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
[SIZE=+0]45[/SIZE] Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you,even Moses, in whom ye trust.
[SIZE=+0]46[/SIZE] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
[SIZE=+0]47[/SIZE] But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus is saying that if you will not believe the writings of Moses, and that Moses' writings are a testimony as to who He is for Moses wrote about Him, then it is impossible to believe in Jesus as God. Moses wrote the creation story and if we chose to reject it we are rejecting who God is, who He has revealed Himself to be. Saying evolution is true rather than the creation story of the Bible is the rejction of the creative power of God, and that we are His children for He created us in His image, in His likeness.

An evolutionist may say he worships God, and he is worshiping a god, but he is not worshiping the revealed God of scripture so he is worshiping an idol. It's pure and simply that way for Jesus made that plain by His own words. Were the Pharisees worshiping the God of the Bible, or another god? It's plain they were worshiping another god for they murdered the God of the Bible and their own Creator.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
An evolutionist may say he worships God, and he is worshiping a god, but he is not worshiping the revealed God of scripture so he is worshiping an idol.

If your new doctrine requires that you deny the faith of your fellow Christians, isn't that a pretty good clue that the author of that doctrine isn't God?

Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your new doctrine.

"In six days."

"The whole Earth."

"Male and female."

Turns out the only one who has invented scripture to suit your religion is ... dum dum dum: You.

Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your beliefs become the idol you worship too late they already have.

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution and let God be God.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
If your new doctrine requires that you deny the faith of your fellow Christians, isn't that a pretty good clue that the author of that doctrine isn't God?

Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.

Your lack of reading comprehension skills are showing once again. It was Jesus who said if someone didn't believe Moses that they couldn't believe in Him. I didn't create that I idea, God, as in Jesus, said it thousands of years before I simply paraphrased the statement after quoting Jesus' words. If you have a problem with Jesus' statement you'll have to take it up with Him and tell Him He is wrong. Telling me I'm wrong for showing what He said changes nothing. God's word, Jesus' statement, is reality whether you believe it or not.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Your lack of reading comprehension skills are showing once again. It was Jesus who said if someone didn't believe Moses that they couldn't believe in Him.

Moses didn't invent YE creationism. A Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" did.

I didn't create that I idea

Henry Morris, the director of the Institute for Creation Research did that.

God, as in Jesus, said it thousands of years before I simply paraphrased the statement after quoting Jesus' words.

Just a slight correction in what He said. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians. The fact remains:

Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Moses didn't invent YE creationism. A Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" did.

I didn't know an SDA wrote Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1...

:mock:

Henry Morris, the director of the Institute for Creation Research did that.

Just a slight correction in what He said. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

Chapter and verse, please.

You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians.

Do you include your own interpretation as one of them, Barb?

Or do you think yours is better than everyone else's?

The fact remains:

The fact remains that if Genesis 1 does not describe six literal days, then there is no reasoning for the cross.

The fact remains that thorns and death did not come before Adam sinned.

The fact remains that Jesus said that He made man at the beginning of creation, not at the end.

Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

:blabla:

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution,

Something which is not in dispute...?

:think:

and let God be God.

More unnecessary blather.

The fact remains that God described Himself creating in six literal days, and resting on the seventh.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Moses didn't invent YE creationism. A Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" did.



Henry Morris, the director of the Institute for Creation Research did that.



Just a slight correction in what He said. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians. The fact remains:

Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.

LOL. I notice you omitted all of your "scriptural" evidence for creation not taking place in 6 literal evenings and mornings and God resting on the 7th. I would consider myself in good company with anyone who accepts the biblical creation story, including SDAs.

I have to laugh at your assertion that the Biblical account of creation was first proposed by Ellen White. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Josephus, who lived just a day or two before Ellen White was born, confirms the literal six day account of creation in his writings. You know, back in 70 A.D. That's only 1700+ years before Ellen White's day.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
Here is a little quote from Josephus' writings. Notice the time frame Josephus gives us from creation to the death of Isaac. Josephus was a young earth creationist, not an evolutionist proclaiming the earth to be billions of years of age....

BOOK I. Containing The Interval Of Three Thousand Eight Hundred And Thirty-Three Years. — From The Creation To The Death Of Isaac.






CHAPTER 1. The Constitution Of The World And The Disposition Of The Elements.

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day. But Moses said it was one day; the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time. After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts, and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. On the third day he appointed the dry land to appear, with the sea itself round about it; and on the very same day he made the plants and the seeds to spring out of the earth. On the fourth day he adorned the heaven with the sun, the moon, and the other stars, and appointed them their motions and courses, that the vicissitudes of the seasons might be clearly signified. And on the fifth day he produced the living creatures, both those that swim, and those that fly; the former in the sea, the latter in the air: he also sorted them as to society and mixture, for procreation, and that their kinds might increase and multiply. On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man. Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made. And that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; whence it is that we Celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath, which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
LOL. I notice you omitted all of your "scriptural" evidence for creation not taking place in 6 literal evenings and mornings and God resting on the 7th.

As St. Augustine noted, long before anyone knew about evolution, the text itself says that it's not a literal history, citing mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

I would consider myself in good company with anyone who accepts the biblical creation story, including SDAs.

SDAa reject the Biblical creation story, substituting a literalized revision of Genesis.

I have to laugh at your assertion that the Biblical account of creation was first proposed by Ellen White.

Ellen White substituted her new ideas to revise the Biblical account.

She made a few revisions to God's word. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians. The fact remains:

The most greivious harm YE can do to you, is to lead you to reject the majority of Christians who accept the Biblical account as it is; a figurative description of creation. Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

You've added a new requirement to be God's follower; "You much believe Ellen White's revision of His word."

Josephus, who lived just a day or two before Ellen White was born, confirms the literal six day account of creation in his writings.

Josephus also believed that the Jews should acknowledge Rome as the highest authority in their lives. So there is that.

You know, back in 70 A.D.

Yep. Josephus, like so many others, thought that the Messiah would be a political leader who formed a kingdom here on Earth. When that didn't pan out, he joined with Rome. Jesus's followers took a different path.

That's only 1700+ years before Ellen White's day.

There have always been those who wished to edit His word to their satisfaction. White is far from the first.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
LOL. I notice you omitted all of your "scriptural" evidence for creation not taking place in 6 literal evenings and mornings and God resting on the 7th.

As St. Augustine noted, long before anyone knew about evolution, the text itself says that it's not a literal history, citing mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

I would consider myself in good company with anyone who accepts the biblical creation story, including SDAs.

SDAa reject the Biblical creation story, substituting a literalized revision of Genesis.

I have to laugh at your assertion that the Biblical account of creation was first proposed by Ellen White.

Ellen White substituted her new ideas to revise the Biblical account.

She made a few revisions to God's word. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians. The fact remains:

The most greivious harm YE can do to you, is to lead you to reject the majority of Christians who accept the Biblical account as it is; a figurative description of creation. Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

You've added a new requirement to be God's follower; "You must believe Ellen White's revision of His word."

Josephus, who lived just a day or two before Ellen White was born, confirms the literal six day account of creation in his writings.

Josephus also believed that the Jews should acknowledge Rome as the highest authority in their lives. So there is that.

You know, back in 70 A.D.

Yep. Josephus, like so many others, thought that the Messiah would be a political leader who formed a kingdom here on Earth. When that didn't pan out, he joined with Rome. Jesus's followers took a different path.

That's only 1700+ years before Ellen White's day.

There have always been those who wished to edit His word to their satisfaction. White is far from the first.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
As St. Augustine noted, long before anyone knew about evolution, the text itself says that it's not a literal history, citing mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.



SDAa reject the Biblical creation story, substituting a literalized revision of Genesis.



Ellen White substituted her new ideas to revise the Biblical account.

She made a few revisions to God's word. And of course, Moses never said that the six "yom" in Genesis were literal. In fact, the text of Genesis itself says that it's not literal.

You're out on that limb with Henry Morris, not God. There are many, many different interpretations of things like this among Christians. The fact remains:

The most greivious harm YE can do to you, is to lead you to reject the majority of Christians who accept the Biblical account as it is; a figurative description of creation. Those who try to push other Christians away from God only succeed in separating themselves from God. Don't let your new beliefs become the idol you worship.

Set your pride aside and accept that Christians differ on the subject of evolution, and let God be God.



You've added a new requirement to be God's follower; "You must believe Ellen White's revision of His word."



Josephus also believed that the Jews should acknowledge Rome as the highest authority in their lives. So there is that.



Yep. Josephus, like so many others, thought that the Messiah would be a political leader who formed a kingdom here on Earth. When that didn't pan out, he joined with Rome. Jesus's followers took a different path.



There have always been those who wished to edit His word to their satisfaction. White is far from the first.

And still no scripture to back up your assertions that Moses taught that the days of creation weren't literal days.

I just have to laugh at your attempt to arouse prejudice by bringing up Ellen White. It just shows how desparate you are. You've completely abandoned the subject--evolution--to try to raise prejudice. It's the sure sign of a lost argument. As I would imagine there are quite a few people here who have never read Ellen White and yet they still believe the Biblical account, they will be pretty amused, as I am, at your assertion that they are clinging to an SDA only doctrine. The creation story stands on it's own to those who have faith in God as it is scripture and all scripture was given by inspiration of God.

All I had to do to disprove your assertion about Ellen White being the author of young earth creationism is to show that at least one author of spiritual material taught young earth creationism existed before she did. That's why I chose Josephus. But I could have chosen from a multitude of authors. Here is one:
Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
[SIZE=+0]7[/SIZE] He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
[SIZE=+0]8[/SIZE] Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
[SIZE=+0]9[/SIZE] For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

David lived approximately 1500+ years before Josephus, so I've traced young earth creationism back more than 3000 years before Ellen White.

Here's a link on the views of how early Christian's viewed creation and the age of the earth. https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/the-early-church-on-creation/ Notice how many of the Christians down through the centuries taught, and believed a young earth.

Notice that even your claim of Augustine is deceitful for Augustine believed in a young earth of 6000 years. He believed, not in evolution, but in an instaneous creation so to use him to support evolution is just patently dishonest.

Also notice the time frame as to when old earth ideas entered Christianity. Where your ideas of scripture come from is the French revolution that was based on hatred of God and the Bible. The ideas of the neologists all came from there and then spread into Christianity through the German seminaries who began teaching the same trash the French were. Nathaniel Whiting, a linguist, Bible translator and Baptist preacher, wrote a small book on this and traced how neology came to enter the Christian church. Here's an excerpt from his book Origin, Nature, and Influence of Neology:
The term Neology, or Rationalism, has been applied to the actual creed of a large portion of the members of the German church, who profess a nominal adhesion to the Augsburgh Confession of Faith, while they reject its fundamental principles, and maintain tenets which the Saxon reformers would have regarded as "damnable heresies." Like many other forms of error, Neology did not make its first appearance among the common people. In all countries, the simple faith of this class in the book of God, and their reverence for its instructions, have made them the well known conservators of truth. It is seldom that their course of life is such as to drive them to the necessity of impugning the authority of the Scriptures. Neology had its birth among those, who held the part of "watchmen on the walls of Zion;" among professors of theology, whose rank, learning, and talents gave them a controlling influence over the opinions of the religious world. These were the men, who applied their strength to rend down the pillars of the temple of truth, who labored by every insidious art of false interpretation to pervert and render
4
powerless that book, which its Author designed to be "a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, until the day should dawn and the day-star arise in our hearts." All experience proves that heresy is rather the offspring of the heart than of the head. When the moral condition of the soul is such, that man has nothing to fear should all Scripture be, in very deed, the word of Jehovah; no ordinary strength of temptation will lead him to wish it untrue; still less will he wish to persuade others that it is not entitled to full credit. He, who has felt the power of divine truth, as applied to his conscience by the Holy Spirit, convincing him of sin, and leading him to the Lamb of God,-will not lightly esteem the book which embodies that truth, nor wish to shake the confidence of others in "the law of the Lord," which "is perfect, converting the soul."
Unhappily, in the case before us, the German church was a national establishment. The public authorities patronized the church, because they supposed its influence would give stability to political institutions. Princes paid an external respect to the Bible because they appreciated the commandment,-"Render to CÊsar the things which are CÊsar's," rather than that, which with equal clearness says, "and unto God, the things which are God's." Both in the Protestant and Catholic states civil rulers exercised a control in the appointment of preachers, pastors and professors of theology. Thus a door was opened for the admission of unconverted men into religious offices. While the magistracy insisted on high literary qualifications in all candidates for the ministry, and demanded those still more elevated
5
from men who aspired to theological professorships, the most important of all requisites, vital piety, attracted but little attention. The results are obvious. Men, who were accurately acquainted with the sciences, familiar with the varied topics of biblical literature, with the history, languages, customs and antiquities of the East, might be found occupying the station of teachers in theology, though destitute of the first elements of religious experience, and strangers to the power of godliness. Such men as they knew nothing of the influence of the Spirit on the soul, despised and ridiculed the very language by which God describes that influence, as the mystic phraseology of enthusiasm.
It could not be expected that such guides would quietly acquiesce in the popular belief that all scripture was given by inspiration of God. Disliking the moral restraint which the Bible imposes, so long as it is regarded as a revelation from heaven; chafed in the false position into which they had blindly thrown themselves; often obliged, especially if pastors, to perform duties entirely foreign to their tastes, and yet fettered by the force of public opinion, and restrained from an open avowal of their sentiments, they were compelled to wait for a more convenient season, when their principles might be exhibited, without hazard, in the face of the world. Before that season had arrived, the metaphysical skepticism of Hume, and other authors of the English deistical school, had found its way to the continent. The writings of these authors attracted the attention of numerous readers in the ranks of the German ministry. They were often translated
6
and published with pretended refutations, in which the author allowed himself to defend truth with sophistical arguments, and thus effectually betrayed the cause which he appeared to defend. The unwary reader was led to suppose that what he had heretofore deemed to be truth, was error which could not be logically sustained. In some cases, these writers asserted that a proposition might be true according to the principles of sound philosophy or metaphysics, yet, when examined theologically, it was very questionable. The reader was left to infer that sound philosophy and religious truth could hold no alliance-that Christianity was not based on facts-that a sincere Christian, of course, could hold his position only by believing without evidence, and at the very best, must be but a sorry philosopher. At a later period, the productions of the French encyclopedists obtained an extensive circulation in Germany. The lively style and sparkling wit of these writers enchanted many of the Germans, who had hitherto been content to plod along the beaten path usually taken by men, who confine their attention to plain matters of fact. The want of solid thought, so characteristic of the French school, was overlooked in the admiration paid to eloquent phraseology and flights of imagination. At this disastrous era, vital piety was rapidly declining in Germany. With the exception of a few favored spots, the life-giving influence of the Holy Spirit was hardly felt. In the church, the form of godliness existed, but its power was gone. German pastors, instead of searching the Scriptures with prayer, that they might learn and follow the Divine
7
will, toiled in composing elegant disquisitions on some point of ethics. "Christ crucified" was more rarely the theme of their sermons. Men, who had not known what repentance was by personal experience, ceased to call on the; sinner to turn to God and do works meet for repentance. Philological dissertations, critical essays on oriental archaeology and languages, took the place of those plain, pungent addresses to the conscience, which, in a happier age, rendered the preaching of Luther and Justus Jonas so effective in warning sinners to flee from the wrath to come.
An event now burst upon the world, which was destined to give public sentiment an impulse which it had not felt since the fall of the Roman empire. It was not a reformation, but a revolution. A convulsion commenced in France, which tested the stability of every institution, creed and opinion known to the civilized world. That its final results were not unmingled evil, can never be ascribed to the virtues of those who directed the storm. It is a consolation, amidst the wildest outbreaks of human extravagance, that still "the Lord reigneth," that he can "restrain the wrath of men, and cause the residue of that wrath to praise Him." The example of an entire nation, which arose as one man, to vindicate its freedom, and proclaimed itself the champion of the oppressed and the supporter of liberal sentiments, enlisted the best wishes and the warm admiration of all who paid more attention to words and acts than to principles. The actors in this drama were equally impatient of political and religious control. Making no distinction between
8
the corruptions of the Papacy and the religion of the Saviour, they assailed both with the same blind fury. Those who could wield the pen, deluged Europe with pamphlets and volumes filled with the bitterest attacks on Divine Revelation. The ruling powers of the new republic, which sprang to light like the prophet's gourd, however inconsistent with themselves in everything else, remained constant in their enmity to the word of God. The unsparing boldness of French skeptics was communicated to "kindred spirits" among the more cautious Germans. Public sentiment received a shock from the revolution, which went far to destroy its conservative power. Lax sentiments on the subject of religion were hardly considered as a reproach to the clergy: still, while the members of this order received salaries for the avowed purpose of teaching the truths of the Bible, some respect for appearances must be preserved-a sort of conventional decorum, in the treatment of that book, was yet necessary. The time had not arrived when a religious instructor might announce that he believed in no other religion than that of nature. Some latitude might be allowed, on the ground that though he was not a believer of Luther's school, yet he was a rational Christian, as might naturally be expected of one, who lived in "the age of light." He might be a skeptic in heart and life, so long as he pretended to be a disciple of Christ. He must profess to believe the Bible, while he was allowed, by every art of fallacious criticism, to explain away all those doctrines, which hold a vital alliance with the redemption of man. However revolting such
9
hypocrisy may seem to men of integrity; in Germany, multitudes were found, men of varied condition, possessing talents which gave currency to their opinions, who would stoop to such hypocrisy. By acting thus, they have given a memorable lesson to the world. They have proved, that in the cause of divine truth, genius and learning are worse than useless, if their possessor is destitute of an upright and humble heart-if he does not fear God and tremble at his word.
Such was the origin of Neology. Its form has varied with the changing breath of public opinion and the exigency of circumstances. At one period, it boldly took the field against evangelical religion, and hardly sought a disguise. In the writings of Fichte and Forberg, and some others of the transcendental school, it would have received the name of atheism, in our land. In the hands of other artists, it has assumed the shape of the Pantheism of the Greek philosophers. Now it is "liberal Christianity," or "Rationalism"-again it is marked by an icy indifference to all revelation. Like the demons of Milton, its votaries, turning from the promised land lit up with the beams of the sun of righteousness, survey their congenial domain-
"A frozen continent Lies dark and wild, beat with perpetual storms Of whirlwind and dire hail."
The influence of the moral condition of the heart on the interpretation of the Scriptures has long been a subject of familiar remark. As the preacher, destitute of vital piety, will not appreciate the spiritual element in truth, because he
10
has not experienced its power-so he will not present it in its living energy, and will be at the test, a mere "hewer of wood and drawer of water for the congregation of the Lord." Thus it is with the interpreter. In all that addresses itself to the conscience of man, he is sure to fail, because, in his own conscience, there is no chord that responds to the touch of truth. If, perchance, he should feel at all, he will be offended with those declarations which announce his danger as a sinner, and his entire dependance on God. "That blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," is a strange thing to him, one that excites no aspiration for the rest that awaits the saints. With a temper of mind, which is "earthly and sensual," his expositions will bear the stamp of the mould through which they pass. That which belongs to this present world, that which is earthly, he may appreciate, but the "new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness," lies beyond his ken. The writings of neologists afford lamentable illustrations of this principle.
We find the descendents of the original neologists in people like you and organizations such as The Jesus Seminar, a wholly satanic organization.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
And still no scripture to back up your assertions that Moses taught that the days of creation weren't literal days.

More the point, Moses never said that they were literal. Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that they weren't.

I just have to laugh at your attempt to arouse prejudice by bringing up Ellen White. It just shows how desparate you are.

My experience is that SDAs tend to be committed Christians, who live their faith. They're just wrong about this particular point. Since God doesn't care if you interpret it literally or accept that it's not literal, SDAs aren't in any trouble with God over it.

But she did invent YE creationism:

Denial of Deep Time Emerges

Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Evangelical Christians published The Fundamentals which laid out what they believed to be the fundamentals of the Protestant Christian faith. This launched the Fundamentalist movement. One thing that might surprise many people considering the modern connotations of the term “fundamentalist” is that the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement did not have a problem with evolution or deep time. One of the original Fundamentalists, Benjamin B. Warfield, a prominent conservative theologian of the day, even talked about how evolution could be the process used by God to create life.

It was not until the 1960s that denial of deep time and evolution became prevalent in Evangelical circles in the United States. If this is the case, then where did the Young Earth Creationist movement come from? Why did the position of many American Evangelicals shift so dramatically?

Although most conservative Christians did not reject evolution or deep time in the early 20th century, there was one group that did, the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). The Seventh Day Adventists are a theologically orthodox sect of Christianity which was founded by the prophetess Ellen White in 1863. One of their more visible beliefs is that church services should be held on Saturday instead of Sunday. Ellen White had a series of visions which her followers took to be divinely inspired. Among these visions were insights into how the world was created. From her visions, she concluded that the universe was created only 6,000 years ago in six literal days and that all the rock layers and fossils within them were laid down in a global deluge based on the flood account recorded in Genesis 6-9.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/hum...s-old-young-earth-creationists-say-yes-008146

The great Baptist theologian, Charles Spurgeon, noted that the Bible is consistent with millions of years of Earth's history. SDA changed that:

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), pp. 72-101. On Ellen G. White, see Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row,...

https://counterbalance.org/history/floodgeo-frame.html

You've completely abandoned the subject--evolution--to try to raise prejudice.

I'm just showing you that your doctrines have very modern roots. No point in denying the facts. Instead of dealing with the issue, you're just complaining about my motives. It's the sure sign of a lost argument.


As I would imagine there are quite a few people here who have never read Ellen White and yet they still believe the Biblical account, they will be pretty amused, as I am, at your assertion that they are clinging to an SDA only doctrine.

That's an important point. YE creationism, as it is today, was originally an SDA-only doctrine. But as you see above, an Adventist, George McCready Price, successfully proselytized evangelical Christians to his SDA doctrines. Before him, most evangelicals were OE. That was the form of creationism that was presented at the Scopes Trial. Bryan openly admitted that creationism had no difficulty with millions of years of Earth history.


The creation story stands on it's own to those who have faith in God as it is scripture and all scripture was given by inspiration of God.

This why White's revision of Genesis is such a problem for creationists. We all believe that we are understanding His word correctly. But there are countless different interpretations among His people. It is a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word, unless you accept my interpretation of it." You are in error here, but that doesn't mean you aren't a good Christian. It's not a salvation issue in any way.

All I had to do to disprove your assertion about Ellen White being the author of young earth creationism is to show that at least one author of spiritual material taught young earth creationism existed before she did.

See above. You lose.

[quote\That's why I chose Josephus.[/quote]

It was easier for Josephus, because he rejected most of the teachings of the Torah.

Notice that even your claim of Augustine is deceitful for Augustine believed in a young earth of 6000 years.

Nope. I told you accurately that St. Augustine denied a literal six day creation week. Which is correct. Perhaps you're upset and forgot what I wrote. You are forgiven, but try to do better. St. Augustine also believed that everything developed from the potential God placed in the initial creation, which is also entirely inconsistent with YE creationism as it is today:

It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. It is thus that God unfolds the generations which He laid up in creation when first he founded it.
...
This tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. ... took its shape as it ]developed with all its parts.

... One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true of animals.
...
In the tree, then, there [is] invisibly present all that develop into the tree. And in this same way we must picture the world at creation
...
it includes also the beings which water and earth produced in potency and in their causes before they came forth in the course of time.
...
The works which God produces even now as the ages unfold have their beginning in the original creation.

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

He believed, not in evolution, but in an instaneous creation so to use him to support evolution is just patently dishonest.

See above. An English translation is still available. Might be worth reading it?

Also notice the time frame as to when old earth ideas entered Christianity. Where your ideas of scripture come from is the French revolution that was based on hatred of God and the Bible.

St. Augustine was long before the French Revolution. You're just wrong on that one.

Neither YE creationism nor evolution is inconsistent with Christian faith. Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way. You're setting needless barriers to keep people from coming to Him. Please don't do that.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
More the point, Moses never said that they were literal. Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that they weren't.

This is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy.

I'm inclined to take what God wrote for Israel on the stone tablets as is:

"For in six days God made the heavens and the earth..."

Tell me, Barb, was there any reason for the Israelites to believe that when God used the word "yom" in the 10 commandments, that He meant anything other than what they knew as a "yom"?

My experience is that SDAs tend to be committed Christians, who live their faith. They're just wrong about this particular point. Since God doesn't care if you interpret it literally or accept that it's not literal, SDAs aren't in any trouble with God over it.

But she did invent YE creationism:

Denial of Deep Time Emerges

Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Evangelical Christians published The Fundamentals which laid out what they believed to be the fundamentals of the Protestant Christian faith. This launched the Fundamentalist movement. One thing that might surprise many people considering the modern connotations of the term “fundamentalist” is that the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement did not have a problem with evolution or deep time. One of the original Fundamentalists, Benjamin B. Warfield, a prominent conservative theologian of the day, even talked about how evolution could be the process used by God to create life.

It was not until the 1960s that denial of deep time and evolution became prevalent in Evangelical circles in the United States. If this is the case, then where did the Young Earth Creationist movement come from? Why did the position of many American Evangelicals shift so dramatically?

Although most conservative Christians did not reject evolution or deep time in the early 20th century, there was one group that did, the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). The Seventh Day Adventists are a theologically orthodox sect of Christianity which was founded by the prophetess Ellen White in 1863. One of their more visible beliefs is that church services should be held on Saturday instead of Sunday. Ellen White had a series of visions which her followers took to be divinely inspired. Among these visions were insights into how the world was created. From her visions, she concluded that the universe was created only 6,000 years ago in six literal days and that all the rock layers and fossils within them were laid down in a global deluge based on the flood account recorded in Genesis 6-9.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/hum...s-old-young-earth-creationists-say-yes-008146

The great Baptist theologian, Charles Spurgeon, noted that the Bible is consistent with millions of years of Earth's history. SDA changed that:

During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992), pp. 72-101. On Ellen G. White, see Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row,...

https://counterbalance.org/history/floodgeo-frame.html

And yet, Jesus Himself said: God made man at the beginning of creation.

That means at the beginning. Not millions or billions of years after the beginning.

I'm just showing you that your doctrines have very modern roots.

And we have shown you that those roots stretch all the way back to Moses.

Do you believe Moses? or do you believe the evolutionists?

No point in denying the facts.

Yet you continue to do so.

I wonder why...

Instead of dealing with the issue, you're just complaining about my motives. It's the sure sign of a lost argument.

That's an important point. YE creationism, as it is today, was originally an SDA-only doctrine. But as you see above, an Adventist, George McCready Price, successfully proselytized evangelical Christians to his SDA doctrines. Before him, most evangelicals were OE. That was the form of creationism that was presented at the Scopes Trial. Bryan openly admitted that creationism had no difficulty with millions of years of Earth history.


This why White's revision of Genesis is such a problem for creationists. We all believe that we are understanding His word correctly. But there are countless different interpretations among His people. It is a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word, unless you accept my interpretation of it." You are in error here, but that doesn't mean you aren't a good Christian. It's not a salvation issue in any way.

The Hebrew and Greek versions are still available, Barb. It's not like they've been lost and all we have are second-hand translations.

You believe that you are understanding His word correctly, but your interpretation of what is actually written is just one of many. It's a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word unless you accept my interpretation of it.

See above. You lose.

\That's why I chose Josephus.

Fix your formatting. You need to replace "" with "]". I inserted a ] here just so it wouldn't mess up my formatting.

It was easier for Josephus, because he rejected most of the teachings of the Torah.

Nope. I told you accurately that St. Augustine denied a literal six day creation week. Which is correct. Perhaps you're upset and forgot what I wrote. You are forgiven, but try to do better. St. Augustine also believed that everything developed from the potential God placed in the initial creation, which is also entirely inconsistent with YE creationism as it is today:

It is obvious that in accordance with those kinds of creatures which He first made, God makes many new things which He did not make then. It is thus that God unfolds the generations which He laid up in creation when first he founded it.
...
This tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. ... took its shape as it ]developed with all its parts.

... One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true of animals.
...
In the tree, then, there [is] invisibly present all that develop into the tree. And in this same way we must picture the world at creation
...
it includes also the beings which water and earth produced in potency and in their causes before they came forth in the course of time.
...
The works which God produces even now as the ages unfold have their beginning in the original creation.

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

And what Moses wrote and what Jesus said still trumps Augustine.

God made the heavens and the earth in six days, and He created man at the beginning of the creation.

See above. An English translation is still available. Might be worth reading it?

St. Augustine was long before the French Revolution. You're just wrong on that one.

And Moses and Jesus and David and many others were LONG before St. Augustine.

Neither YE creationism nor evolution is inconsistent with Christian faith.

Rather, it's one or the other, it cannot be both.

Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way. You're setting needless barriers to keep people from coming to Him. Please don't do that.

Maybe you should look in a mirror...
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian observes:
More the point, Moses never said that they were literal. Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that they weren't.

This is an argument from silence, a logical fallacy.

Nope. Just pointing out the fact. Since Moses never said that the creation week days were literal, it's an error to claim that he did.

And I'd be happy to see your support for your argument that if Moses repeated a figurative verse, that changes it to a literal one.

Tell me, Barb, was there any reason for the Israelites to believe that when God used the word "yom" in the 10 commandments, that He meant anything other than what they knew as a "yom"?

The fact that it us used for "always" "in my time", "forever", etc. And as St. Augustine pointed out, it's logically absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

And yet, Jesus Himself said: God made man at the beginning of creation.

Hm... that's testable interpretation of His words...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Sorry. He makes it clear what is there at the beginning of creation, and there's no male and no female. Jesus is speaking of the beginning of humans, not the beginning of the creation of the world.

Do you believe Moses? Or do you believe the creationists?

Instead of making a desperate attempt to limit God's people to only those who share your new doctrine, why not just admit that Christians differ on this, and leave it to God?

You believe that you are understanding His word correctly, but your interpretation of what is actually written is just one of many. It's a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word unless you accept my interpretation of it.

And what Moses wrote and what Jesus said still trumps Ellen White

God made the heavens and the earth in six days

As you now realize, Genesis itself rejects that belief.

[/QUOTE]and He created man at the beginning of the creation.[/QUOTE]

And you now see that God specifically listed what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there.

We came later. How much later, God does not say.

And Moses and Jesus and David and many others were LONG before Ellen White.

As I said, your struggles to push other Christians away from God, only removes you from God. Let it go.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

Your formatting is atrocious. Fix it please.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Barbarian observes:
More the point, Moses never said that they were literal. Which is why most of the world's Christians acknowledge that they weren't.


Nope. Just pointing out the fact.

The fact is that your claim is an argument from silence.

Since Moses never said that the creation week days were literal,

He never said they were figurative either.

it's an error to claim that he did.

Then it is equally an error to claim that he did not.

Rather, what you should do is let the passage speak for itself, read it plainly, without interpreting it.

Try letting a third grader read the passage, and ask him what he thinks it means, and that's probably what it means.

And I'd be happy to see your support for your argument that if Moses repeated a figurative verse, that changes it to a literal one.

You lost me... where did this come from?

The fact that it us used for "always" "in my time", "forever", etc.

A fact which is not in question whatsoever...

And as St. Augustine pointed out,

Forget Augustine for a moment, Barb, and focus on what the Bible itself says. You'll have a better time understanding it that way.

it's logically absurd

This is an appeal to incredulity.

to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

No, Barb, it's not.

Hm... that's testable interpretation of His words...

:think:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Sorry. He makes it clear what is there at the beginning of creation, and there's no male and no female.

In other words, you're calling Jesus a liar.

Here's what Jesus said:

And He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[/JESUS] - Matthew 19:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew19:4&version=NKJV

Jesus is speaking of the beginning of humans, not the beginning of the creation of the world.

Sorry, but that's not what the verse says.

It says:

And He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[/JESUS] - Matthew 19:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew19:4&version=NKJV

"The beginning of humans" is something you've added. It's not in scripture.

Do you believe Moses?

Yes.

Or do you believe the creationists?

Only because they agree with Moses.

Instead of making a desperate attempt to limit God's people to only those who share your new doctrine,

Please show (by quoting the portion of my post) where I have done so.

why not just admit that Christians differ on this,

Where have I disputed this fact?

and leave it to God?

In other words, you want me to concede the discussion simply because you want to be right?

Sorry, Barb, but that's not how discussions work.

I'm only interested in finding out the truth. Not in opinions.

You believe that you are understanding His word correctly, but your interpretation of what is actually written is just one of many. It's a corrosive arrogance that says "you aren't accepting His word unless you accept my interpretation of it.

Right back atcha.

[Section removed due to questionable formatting]

As you now realize,

No, Barb, that's just your imagination.

Maybe you really are going senile, because you haven't convinced me of anything.

Genesis itself rejects that belief.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

[Section removed due to questionable formatting]

And you now see

No, Barb, that's just you going senile.

that God specifically listed what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there.

Sorry, Barb, but this is you being deliberately obtuse.

There's more to "the beginning" than just Genesis 1:1.

Barb, would you say that the first six days of creation would be at the beginning of creation, as opposed to the first six days after billions of years not being at the beginning?

In other words, which fits better?

A) At the beginning of creation, man was made on day six, followed by about seven thousand years of recorded history.
OR
B) After billions of years, man was made at the beginning of creation, followed by about seven thousand years of recorded history.

We came later.

Again, calling Jesus a liar.

Jesus said at the beginning.

Barbarian says "we came later."

Who's right, Jesus or Barb?

How much later, God does not say.

God said on day six.

Barbarian says "we came later".

Who's right, God or Barbarian?

As I said, your struggles to push other Christians away from God, only removes you from God. Let it go.

Please drop this argument unless you can show where I have attempted to do such.
 
Last edited:

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
and He created man at the beginning of the creation.

Barbarian observes:
And you now see that God specifically listed what was there at the beginning, and neither male nor female were there.

We came later. How much later, God does not say.

And Moses and Jesus and David and many others were LONG before Ellen White.

As I said, your struggles to push other Christians away from God, only removes you from God. Let it go.


The fact is that your claim is an argument from silence.

Rather, your argument is that he didn't say one way or another so it's the way you'd like.

He never said they were figurative either.

Right. He just doesn't say, either way. Could be literal, or it might not, as far as scripture goes.

Then it is equally an error to claim that he did not.

It would be an error to say that he claimed it was figurative. But it would be correct to say that he didn't say one way or the other.

(Barbarian mentions that that he now realizes that Moses didn't say the Genesis story was literal)

Maybe you really are going senile, because you haven't convinced me of anything.

When people realize they messed up, and don't want to admit it, they often become angry and verbally abusive. You're not unique in that.

In other words, you're calling Jesus a liar.

I could equally say you're calling God a liar.

Here's what Jesus said:

And He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[/JESUS] - Matthew 19:4

And here's what God says:
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

So, either God is contradicting Himself, or these aren't the same beginnings. One or the other

"The beginning of humans" is something you've added. It's not in scripture.

See above. They can't both be correct if they are talking about the same beginning.

You're getting agitated and abusive now. Perhaps you should take little time to calm yourself. Take a little time, get that pulse down, and come back when you can do this embarrassing yourself.
 
Top