| Author | Message | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 265 Registered: 1-2003  |
WOW another "can of worms".  I only live about 6 miles from Hugh Ross' headquarters and have been there a number of times to pick up material. There is definitely a lot to consider in what he has to say. Richard rtruitt@mac.com | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 183 Registered: 3-2005 |
OHHHH light finally has dawned on my marble head! Bill, I want to make it very clear that I was not arguing that MY interpretations of the Bible are inerrant, only that, as Mary as stated so well above, the Bible itself is inerrant. Thanks for clearing that up, Mary. Patria | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 65 Registered: 6-2005 |
Mary - I guess that it is semantics - since I am willing to let God tell me what really was true then that will make the Bible inerrant. My problem now is we can only believe what we read or other people tell us they read and we all interpret - you are telling me that your and my interpretations are not inerrant - and I TOTALLY agree with that and I think that MOST people would. So if the Bible is inerrant then whenever we find a "problem" all we have to say is the Bible was not wrong, we were wrong in our interpretation. That is what we did as SDA's all the time with EGW - whenever something contradicter her we would rationalize with "What did she really say - did we take it in contect - she can't be wrong so how could it be right?" See what I mean? I am willing to say: 1. there is a God 2. he is wonderful and trustworthy etc. . . 3. The Bible is the Word of God. I will interpret it (the Bible) to the best of my ability and listen to what others say that it says, BUT - no matter what if something makes no sense and it is non-salvific I am going to ignore or disbelieve it. I think that we are saying the same thing possibly - when you have something that you no longer agree with you simply say that you misunderstood the Bible since it cannot be wrong. I am not saying that the Bible is wrong - simply that what people are making it say makes no sense. . . Thanks for your input <grin>... Bill | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 66 Registered: 6-2005 |
Mary - I re-read your missive and it was VERY well done. Given those parameters, you and I are on the SAME wavelength. The problem I have is when someone comes along and indicates they have studied and "this" is the answer. It is what the Bible says. Drink this Cool Aid. Ouch! EVERYTHING that I believe goes through the sense that God gave me. Not that my sense is perfect - but it is all that I have. Thank you again for your message - much better said than I could or have been saying. Bill ps HOW on EARTH do you edit a message on this board? | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 662 Registered: 7-2004 |
When I made my comment about the creation 7-day story not being a scientific treatise I meant it. I also want to point out that the story of the creation of Adam was not incorporated into that original story. You have to go to the middle of the second chapter before you get the particulars of that event. There, God says that the final act of his creation was that of creating man. The creation of mankind was a special event. God makes it clear that he didn't call mankind forth from the earth, but that he formed him of the dust of the earth and breathed "God breath" into that special creation. If you want to believe that a monkey is your uncle, that is your option, but I also believe God when he says he went to all of that additional effort to create man in His own image. Again, Genesis 1 is not a scientific description of origins. It is about a Holy God telling his creation that He is the origination of everything. | ||
| Lydell Registered user Username: Lydell Post Number: 718 Registered: 7-2000 |
Raven, much of the creation would appear to have age. He spoke, and there were plants already bearing seeds. Patria, Genesis does not just use the word "day", it says that "the evening and the morning" were a day. That's pretty specific. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2550 Registered: 12-2003  |
Mary, thank you for your wonderful, clarifying post. I really believe there are many things about which we will not have completely final answers until we enter eternity. The Bible just isn't specific about an awfully lot of things! It says just enough to make it clear that God is sovereign, in control, loving, merciful, just, and redeemingóand that we are His creations in whom He invested HIMSELF. The Bible is abundantly clear on the central issues: salvation, justification, Jesus' atonement, His word being our source of truth and reality--but nowhere does the Bible promise that we will find answers to every question in the Bible. What is does teach us, the more we study, is to trust Him and to know Him. It does teach us that the new birth is necessary, and it does teach us (both testaments!) that our minds cannot conceive of truth without the instruction and awakening of God Himself. Jesus and His trustworthinessóin fact, the eternal trustworthiness of the entire Trinityóis the message of the Bible. Many things are left unresolved or merely hinted atófor example, the condensed creation account in Genesis 2 compared with that in Genesis 1óbut these things are not essential for us to know, or God would have made them as clear as He has made salvation. The important part of the creation story is God's deliberate decision to create humanity in His image, to establish Him as the source and ground of life and reality and morality, to show us our relationship to God. Even if the earth is "old", such a belief wouldn't change God's literal creation of Adam and the very real story of Adam and Eve and the serpent. Young earth or old, God is in control. As Dale Ratzlaff often says, where the Bible is clear, we should be definite. Where it is unclear, we should not be dogmatic. We are really going to learn a lot of details when we're not confined to time! Frankly, I can see linguistic reasons (such as the fact that the word for "day" is used in various places in the Bible to mean "day", "epoch",--in short, a measure of a unit of time not necessarily defined by 24 hours) for seeing the possibility of an old earth. I also understand and see the reasons for the arguments for a young earth. I'm not disturbed either way--although I know a great many Christians will disagree with me. I see Genesis reinforcing and foreshadowing the new covenant in ways I never saw it as an Adventistóand I know that the Holy Spirit teaches us the truths about God that we need to know from His word as we submit ourselves to His teaching. Colleen | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 260 Registered: 8-2004 |
Thanks Bill! Yes, I think we're probably closer to agreement than it sometimes seems. I would add that yes, God gave us each individual brains for a reason. Even then though, we must submit our brains: logic, emotions, certainty and all, to God, and ask Him to show us what we are to know thru His Holy Spirit. RE:Ellen White She herself said that if she contradicts the Bible she should be disregarded. One of the verses she often quoted was "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Is 8:20). Well she didn't speak according to the law and the testimony. The Bible says" God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. ETW taught that God uses deceit (covering the mistakes in Miller's chart for example) The Bible teachs, "You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." EGW taught that God expects to people to believe lies in order to be saved (for example, those who did not accept 'the message' that Jesus was coming in 1844 were lost) The Bible plainly says we are not to add or take away from Revelation. EGW taught that we can add to Revelation (for example, the health message became the 'right arm of the third angel's message) The Bible clearly teaches "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power . . .Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (Colossians 2:8-10, 20-22). EGW taught "The only safe course is to touch not, taste not, handle not, tea, coffee, wines, tobacco, opium, and alcoholic drinks. The necessity for the men of this generation to call to their aid the power of the will, strengthened by the grace of God, in order to withstand the temptations of Satan, and resist the least indulgence of perverted appetite, is twice as great as it was several generations ago." {CD 428.1} These are just a few contradictions I've found for myself. There are many others. And that doesn't even touch the places where she contradicts herself, and the amazing rationalizations she used to exonerate herself for contradicting by her practice the things she preached. But enough of that. Why drink from polluted fountains when we can go to the pure source? Blessings, Mary PS: there IS a way to edit your posts on this forum if you catch them soon enough. Unfortunately I don't know how to use it either! | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 67 Registered: 6-2005 |
Belvalew - Re: If you want to believe that a monkey is your uncle, that is your option Wow - going a bit over the deep end on this one aren't you? I have a VERY hard time seeing MACRO evolution - After reading Darwin's Black Box and seeing the logic that to create an EYE you need multiple things to happen all at the same time (multiple systems) and each one separately would not be BETTER for the organism but would actually "deselect" the organism until the final product it is obvious to me that macro evolution is not what is going on. The seven days of creation were fine with me - tiill I went to Harvard - got laughed right out of class when I was the only one that raised his hand to the question "Who here believes in creation?" After sitting through the class and listening to others it was obvious to me that the earth really is older than 6000 years. There are other questions not answered by the Bible as well - who did Cain marry? etc. . . My problem with this topic is that when I am with a Creationist their arguements are logical and I agree with them - evolution is for idiots. Then I am around someone of intelligence who believes in evolution and I hear their arguements and TA DA - Creationism is the stupid thing. Obviously I cannot be the decision maker here because I do not know enough - so for me - it is enough that I am a Christian - God will explain it to me when I get to heaven. Again - the only problem I have is - if there was no Adam - then no original sin - no original sin - no need for Christ. . . THAT is the rub <grin>. Bill | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 68 Registered: 6-2005 |
HeLovesMe2 - first of all I am not sure why you quoted EGW to me - for the last 40 years of my life she has not been an authority for me, as a matter of fact I have said to all who know me that if you have to quote her I realize that you have nothing on your side to argue with. Thanks for your input... Bill | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 261 Registered: 8-2004 |
I quoted her because of what you said here: "So if the Bible is inerrant then whenever we find a "problem" all we have to say is the Bible was not wrong, we were wrong in our interpretation. That is what we did as SDA's all the time with EGW - whenever something contradicter her we would rationalize with "What did she really say - did we take it in contect - she can't be wrong so how could it be right?" " I was just trying (and apparently failing) to show why I don't give her the 'she can't be wrong so how can I rationalize her words into sense' treatement! Guess I was 'preaching to the choir.' Sorry! Mary | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 262 Registered: 8-2004 |
PS: Bill, I envy you your chance to go to Harvard! There (or John's Hopkins) were my dream once apon a time! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2553 Registered: 12-2003 |
Bill--believing in an "old earth" doesn't mean believing in evolution! I completely agree with you that evolution makes no sense, and to believe in it removes all the reasons for Jesus to save us. While there may be such a thing as new breeds and species developing from existing ones (we even see this today in nature), "old earth" creationism does not mean cross-species development. I didn't hear Belva suggesting she believed in evolution at all! While there are many implications to old-earth/young-earth ideas, our evolving from anything isn't one of them! You can edit posts within 10 minutes of posting by going to the top of the thread and clicking on "edit profile". Follow the directions, and you will be able to edit your post! Colleen | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 185 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen: I know I'm thick, but I can't seem to figure out how to edit using the 'edit profile' button. Would you mind giving a little more specific directions? Thank you, Patria | ||
| Catalyst Registered user Username: Catalyst Post Number: 70 Registered: 6-2005 |
HeLovesMe2 - Harvard was a once in a lifetime thing - LOVED it - Actually took Hematology from Beck. . .(he wrote the textbook extant at the time <grin>). Colleen... I realize that old earth does not mean believing in evolution - but you do realize that this "old earth" could not have plants or anything living on it right? if it is old earth I mean - or some of those plants would have had to die and death did not come about until after the fall of man? I must not be communicating well - I did not hear Belva saying that she believed in evolution either - she indicate that I could believe that my ancestors were monkeys if I wanted to and I said essentially - where did I say that was what I believed - i.e. you have gone over the deep end now <grin>. Besides - taking the emotional side of the arguement is not something that I enjoy. It makes it difficult for the person on the other side to have a rational discussion with you because you have already shown disdain for their side of the arguement. And yes - there are creation old earth and young earth ideas and there are evolution old earth ideas so evolution IS one of them - just not one that you consider. Thank you for your "how to edit posts"... Bill | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 263 Registered: 8-2004 |
Bill: So, are you perchance in medicine? (or is that being too nosy?) Mary | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 546 Registered: 7-2004 |
Goldenbear, You started a great discussion...just wanted to let you know how thrilled I am that you are so involved in your church. They couldn't have asked a better person to help out with the youth! I am praying for your ministry as well as a wonderful blessing for you and Mrs. G as you teach this class! Bill and others debating Creation - This year in BSF (Bible Study Fellowship) we are studying Genesis. Here is a question that was posed: "Study Psalm 90; Exodus 20:11; 2 Peter 3:8. Do you think the "day" of Genesis 1 was a 24-hour day or a long period of time? Give Biblical reasons for what you think. (Do not be afraid of giving your opinion if it is based on Scripture, remembering that there are several ways of interpreting this record of God's creative work.)" After looking up all 3 readings that were suggested, I was completely in the dark. I have the same sense of the unknown as I do with the ongoing debate of predestination vs. free will. I really cannot analyze either side in order to make a certain "formula" work. I have to take the whole word of God seriously. Exodus 20:11 tells us 6 days and 2 Peter 3:8 one day is like a thousand days to God...I decided it is one of those no brainer issues for me. I know He created out of love, died out of love and arose out of love and will be back to get me out of love. The rest really doesn't matter because I know I am His and He is mine! | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 663 Registered: 7-2004 |
Dear Bill, I agree about the "monkey's uncle" bit being over the top, but it is what I usually say to people who are determined to have evolution be their god. You see, I have no problem with the evolution model because there seems to be a perfect overlap with creation, except for the time element. Another thing is that in evolution plants and animals are emerging apace. That is why I choose to see Gen. 1 as allegorical. It bears the fingerprint of God, as does the very earth on which we walk. The story says much the same thing as God did to Job -- "Where were you when I did all of this?" The awesome design of a simple leaf is so complex that it is impossible for me to accept that it was accidental, no matter how long a period of time you allow for it to happen. Add to that the fact that there are plants and animals that live in the depths of the ocean at boiling hot vents on the ocean floor. God intended this planet to teem with life and it does. God also bent low over a lump of fine mud and molded it into a special creation that he called Adam. He breathed endless life breath into the nostrils of Adam, and that opened the door for original sin. The "of sin comes death" had to do with "human" death. The earth evidence to the contrary has been about animal evidence. I trust what the scriptures say, and they are all God breathed. The wonder is that over the centuries the information has not changed all that much because of man's input or the evolution of languages. The most important portions of scripture have to do with the Gospel, and the fact that God has reached out to me, died for me, opened up eternity for me. My response He inspires. I have nothing to boast about except for the fact that He has done it all. I've earned nothing, but I'm worth everything in God's economy because God blood was spent to redeem me. Belva | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 796 Registered: 3-2005 |
A whole new way of thinking about this debate was started when Hugh Ross of www.reasons.org started agitating the young earth dogmatists. The vitriolic response to Hugh Ross, a good brother in the Lord, who also has credibility as a physicist, was disappointing. What is wrong with the debate in civil terms. The Hebrew text in Genesis does not require a 24 hour day. The Young earth enthusiasts use the argument of Ex. 20 with regard to the Sabbath. I don't have a strong opinion as to what happened either, but listening to Hugh Ross defend Christianity and then explaining his view on creation is an inspiring and stimulating experience. Ken Samples is also very credible Biblically, and has worked closely with Ross. Stan | ||
| Derrell Registered user Username: Derrell Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2002 |
I disagree with any blanket statement asserting that evolution has no credibility. Perhaps the larger set of theories is questionable, but there are a variety of subsets that seem to hold water. The same can be said for creationism. Whereas both ideas are founded on theory, and the theoretic interpretation of science, any total belief in either theory is an act of faith - right or wrong. Going back into Judaism as the Hebrew foundation to Christianity, lots of questions are raised in my mind regarding significant inconsistencies. Judaism: 1. God is one 2. How God created is unknown 3. God is unknowable 4. God created good and evil 5. Much of the written word is allegorical 6. Much of the written word is a history that was written after generations of passing it down orally 7. There is mention of post-diluvian surface geography in anti-diluvian context 8. No belief in/reference to life after death for centuries Christianity 1. Claims Jesus to be the ancient, self-proclaimed unchanging God of the Hebrews, yet he does a 180 from that god in many ways 2. God is three 3. God is not only knowable, but demands to be known 4. Life after death is a big part of it 5. Heavy influenced by then current religions (Judaism, Greek, Egyptian) 6. Picks and chooses parts of the Old Testament to be applicable, yet claims the whole thing was inspired Both 1. On a timeline paralleling Judaism and Christianity with the religions and cultures of their time and location, there are a suspiciously high number of stories, philosophies, rules, etc. that they have in common and appear to have taken from the other religions and cultures. All this to say that taking canon scripture as totally unerring and unquestionable in a literal manner is very difficult. As Bill has indicated, these questions can lead to questions regarding Adam & Eve which opens a whole new line of questions. It is difficult to view it much differently than you view belief in EGW. It is all subject to personal interpretation, following someone elses, throwing it out, or some combination of any/or all three. |
