Matthew,

What an interesting report!

Number's conclusion, sadly, seems to be right on - Adventists are lagging behind when it comes to science of origins, and their church's insistence on an outdated interpretation of Genesis 1 is to blame. Those who are familiar with what happens at La Sierra Uni in the USA can see a very good example. The "lunatic fringe" seems to be at the helm of the church and tries to tell us that God is a liar by writing the book of nature that flatly contradicts the interpretation of genesis through White's vision.

I have no doubt that White would have totally different visions if she was exposed to current scientific data.

And finally... "creation science" simply does not exist.

A brief comment on the phrase "Lunatic Fringe" that I've seen bandied about with increasing frequency lately.

It makes a strong and unmistakable point, and so it is full of potency. I wonder when I read it whether the point the phrase makes is the kind of point that will help foster dialog between the factions of our society.

My hunch, of course, is that "No, it probably won't."

Well, perhaps "Lunatic Fringe" is a little kinder than "Knuckle Draggers" and "Mouth Breathers" which is some of the more gentle monikers used to describe anyone associated with YEC or IDers by folks on the secular blogs.

Kenneth James

Jared,

I sometimes use the phrase as I picked it up from an LSU professor, one of those witchhunted by the said fringe. I therefore use it with a degree of sarcasm. And you are right, there is probably not a chance of dialogue with fundamentalists. Question is, can they and the liberal co-exist?

Thanks for the report of the Numbers presentation. It wold have been enlightening to also get a sense of the interaction with Ben Clausen of GRI. Surely there was meaningful discussion.

A couple of thoughts about the God lying argument.

The whole argument rests on the assumption that a religious belief in YEC must lead to the conclusion that God would not allow nature to appear to us as differently than what it should if it was created recently. This assumption is demonstrably false.

It is Genesis that claims that nature changed supernaturally. How much change can we allow for? Thorns and thistles? Snake crawling on it's belly? Immortal becoming mortal? Carnivorous food chains? How much change should we allow for, before attacking a literal interpretation? A literal interpretation requires that some change be apparent. A change is part of the literal interpretation.

How can anyone limit how much change there was? For example the whole lot of scientific interpretation could be allowed, including the appearance of evolution over long ages, then there does not need to be any conflict between modern scientific theories and a belief in YEC based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

It is consistent with Genesis that nature has changed now from what it should have looked like if there was no sin. If nature appears different than a YEC belief should provide, then it fits the literal understanding of a physical change due to sin as recorded in Genesis.

Another thought. There is nothing in the bible that claims God will prevent people from believing whatever they want. Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:11
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie

Now, for a different perspective. If YEC as per Genesis actually happened, then it follows that it MUST also be true that God told us about Creation. So, if God told us what happened, AND that is actually what happened, then how can it possibly be said that God lied? If creation is correct, then God told us the truth about it in Genesis. If nature appears now to not be consistent with a perfect creation, that is also consistent with the Genesis account.

Chris,

Genesis contains 2 different creation stories. By very different authors (Jahwist and Elohist). Very contradictory. That in itself shows they cannot be taken as anything but poetry.

Why would God make nature look as if it was very old when it's not? What's demonstrably false it's the "flood geology". All reasonable Christians (not to mention the Jews) abandoned it long ago.

As for the quote from Thessalonians... what if it refers to those like YEC's?

If God told us about creation (no issues here), wouldn't It tell us about it through nature? If there was a scripture to tell us about it, wouldn't it have to agree with nature? As it happens, Genesis was written by people, and less than 3,000 years ago - not by an eyewitness.

It is very easy to falsify evolution. Show me footprints if dinosaurs and people together. Show me human artifacts buried in coal. It's that simple. But as yet creationists failed to provide a single piece of evidence.

If you want to take the Bible so literally - why not believe in a flat earth as well? That is what Genesis 1 depicts! After all there would never be an evening and a morning unless the earth was flat.

Matt:

Thanks for the report! Did you get any notes on what Clausen had to say?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Jag

Of course Creation Science does not exist. Neither does evolutionary science exist.

The taxonomy of science does not include either. The assumptions of science may or may not include an assumption as to origins.

Neither creation nor evolution are subject to falsification--ie replication in whole or in part.

Both creationists and evolutionists can say with assurance that we live in a very diverse universe that appears ageless with many similarities and many strange unexplanable aberrations, todate.

What we do know is that man as a supposed rational being is prone to many evil thoughts and actions--consistent with the biblical story. The cure presented bibilically is appealing and obviously necessary to an eternity of joyous living.

If it turns out to be merely three score years and ten then so be it. In the meantime, I intend to love the Lord my God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself.

We are either grass or we are the Lord's beloved. I, with Paul, accept the latter. Meanwhile, I with John, praise God for His Creative Power and His Redemptive Love.

The Genesis stories of the first week and the flood are just that stories--capable of being understood by a unlearned people. I used to ask my father where I came from. He would reply: We found you in the cabbage patch. I knew, of course, that was not true. I also knew that was the only answer I was going to get for a long long time. I didn't press the issue.
I did know, I belonged to mother and dad and that they loved me and cared for me very very carefully. I thank them as I thank my God.

Tom

Interesting questions, Matthew.

Might Ellen White have changed her mind or had a contradictory vision if she had been exposed to current scientific data?

No. Current scientific data is a refinement of what was already known in her day- that the earth, and life on it, is NOT a recent event. Radiometric dating was invented in 1905 at the University of Montreal by Ernest Rutherford as a way to date the age of the earth. Since that time theories that did not comply with the scientific evidence that established the age of the Earth have not been accepted in the scientific community.

This debate between religiously motivated people and scientists has been going on for centuries. In the 1700's people that tried to make geology fit Genesis were known as Neptunists and those advocating long ages for the earth were known as Plutonists.

To what degree is the Adventist community bound to Ellen White’s interpretation of the Bible?

More than the Mormons are bound to Joseph Smith and his Gold Tablets.

What is the contribution that Adventists will have made in fifty years based on current debates

Similar to what an anchor designed for a toy boat would have dragging behind a supertanker.

What will it take for Adventism to embrace (or just allow) more than one interpretation of Genesis?

When the countries of Africa (yes, Sarah, Africa is not a country :D) can collectively be called "Developed". The literal Genesis myth along with Ellen's "visions" sells well in Africa, Central & South America, Southeast Asia, and the Southern USA. IOW, wherever ignorance abounds Adventism can grow like a weed. Christianity, like science today, spread first in the cities and towns. People that lived in the country- the "uneducated country folk"- were pagans, or non-city dwellers. Until a better term develops today the "uneducated country folk" known as pagans in Greek and Roman times are now the Lunatic Fringe whether they be Muslims in Afghanistan or Christians in Collegedale.

Jag,

I understand your other points, but I will address one theme at a time.

Do you agree or disagree that Genesis claims that nature changed due to sin?

You asked: Why would God make nature look as if it was very old when it's not?

'Why' implies that God should prevent people from thinking that. I turn the tables, and ask why should God prevent people from thinking that? The premise in your question ignores what Genesis claims! Take that in context of the bigger theological question: Why would God make nature look marred by sin, when it wasn't originally created that way? Point is, Genesis says that what we see now, is not what was! Do you disagree this is what Genesis says? I don't understand if you are you denying that Genesis claims that nature changed?

If God told us about creation (no issues here), wouldn't It tell us about it through nature?
Yes, I don't deny that nature can testify to creation. My point was that it is not a completely 100% perfect testimony because nature is changed by sin. This is not an either/or argument.

If there was a scripture to tell us about it, wouldn't it have to agree with nature?
My point, which I will say again, was that according to Genesis, there will not be 100% agreement!

Hummm,

It seems to be that Ron Numbers is Loma Linda University School of Religion's guru.

It is telling who is offered stages and spotlights.

He is everywhere, talking to everyone, about everything that rattles around in his heart's brain.

Agnostic and writing about Ellen White? And . . . let's get him to write another book about White . . .

Let's enlarge the stages and spotlights for agnostics telling us about our doctrines and beliefs? Interesting venture School of Religion. Oh, I forgot . . . it's "scholarly research by the superbrain powers in power."

I think that the superbrain scholars (Pharisee and Scribes) tried to engage Jesus in "scholarly research" also with interesting results.

Hummm,

6-day creation or evolution by Numbers? We'll soon find out the answers from the man himself . . . not in a Loma Linda University School of Religion spotlighted stage . . .

Jody

Jody,

See comments here.

Chris, you are arguing in generalities

Yes, God could have deliberately changed the laws of nature so that the sequence of events described in Genesis could be the cause of the world today.

Specifically the events and law changes could have caused

(a) huge geological formations that appear to have been bent by huge pressures and temperatures over huge periods of time, and then cooled over huge periods of time

(b) huge accumulations of lime stone with fossils in them

(c) fossils showing speciation that appears to have been caused by continental drift and evolution

(d) impact craters showing ages appropriate to the other ancient dating of the containing strata

(e) etc. etc. etc.

But
(a) you can't suggest a plausible set of changes
(b) you can't suggest why such changes would be necessary
(c) you can't explain why the Biblical descriptions of Eden and the pre-flood world do not vary radically from descriptions of the post-flood world

and, most tellingly,

(d) you can't explain why EGW's visions of Eden and other worlds are given in descriptions of a world very like our own, and do not describe a world with the radically different laws that would be necessary to achieve the effects you are trying to justify

The ONLY reason you have for proposing a radical set of rule changes is to align what science sees today with the fundamentalists understanding of a translation of a written transmission of a capture of a transmission of an oral history of middle eastern tribes circa 1000BC.

And, for that, you are prepared to have God be the Creator of a world wide lie.

The SDA church has, in its immediate past, something most denominations do not. An example of how 'sacred books' are produced. By well-meaning people in the context of their time, working with assistants, with editors, with friends, and within political and social climates, and with agendas.

/Bevin

RE: David Hamstra:

Hey my friend. I tried to take down some notes from Ben Clausen, but was sitting in the back of the auditorium, and he was really difficult to hear (and follow) because his mic was not close enough to his mouth, and the speakers weren't loud enough. He prepared a short response with four main points, which are as follows:

1. What can we learn about scientific research?
2. What can we learn about revelation?
3. Apologetics and attitudes
4. How the above three relate.

I was truly impressed with his willingness to admit ignorance. He said, in essence, that the biblical and scientific evidence are at odds with one another, and that the best he could do was to acknowledge both and hope for some reconciliation down the road.

What disappointed me about Clausen was it I didn't feel that he answered questions very well. I think this is also true of Numbers, however.

Matt Burdette
Constructing Adventist Theology

Jody,

LLU's School of Religion brought in Numbers because he is a historian of science. He was not there to defend evolution; he only presented the history of creation science, demonstrating that it originated with Adventism.

I am frightened to imagine a school of religion that would only listen to those voices that it approved of as adequately Christian.

Matt Burdette
Constructing Adventist Theology

Jag and Keafan,

Thanks for answering the questions I raised. I have to say, I'm moderately amused by both of your responses, as I agree with bits of both. Jag, you seem to be pretty certain that Ellen White would have changed her mind. I think she would have, but I'm not sure why she would have (beyond the simple fact that she did so often). Keafan, I laughed out loud at your comparison to Joseph Smith and "his Gold Tablets." All I can say is that I hope and pray that you are wrong!

Matt Burdette
Constructing Adventist Theology

"Lunatic fringe" was the term that drove M.L. Andreassen over the edge. The authors of Questions of Doctrine (1957) assured Barnhouse and Martin that only a "lunatic fringe" attributed a "sinful" nature to Jesus. This, of course, had been a main-stream view prior to the 1950s and Andreassen rose up in indignation and published his "Letters to the Churches" in which he struck back--a stand that unleashed accusations of senility from a GC that punished him by taking away his retirement (later reinstated).

It's tempting to resort to such terminology, and I suppose it can be polemically useful when you're fighting the influence of people you no longer talk to. I prefer Dawkin's straight-forward term "history-deniers." It's tough but not demeaning--or am I wrong?

I will be forever grateful to Dr. Ronald Numbers for opening my eyes to the false claims of Ellen White. He provided factual evidence that resulted in my first doubt about Seventh-day Adventism. Once I fully realized that Ellen White's claims were bogus, I thereby had a sufficient reason to wonder if some other SDA beliefs could not stand up to biblical scrutiny as well.

Regarding Dr. Numbers' current agnosticism, I am hopeful that our awesome and sovereign God will intervene and rescue him from unbelief. As Dudley Canright, Adventism's most notable heretic, observed more than 100 years ago, Seventh-day Adventism leads to people to nothingness. Remember, friends don't let friends become Adventists.

A former SDA insider,

Dennis Fischer
E-mail: dfministries@gmail.com

Tom,

Not sure where you got your education on evolution. Unlike creationism, evolution can be scientifically tested and falsified. The fact that no creationist has been able to falsify evolution is very telling. Why are there no traces of human existence is about 99% of geological strata, and why are they found exclusively in the most recent strata? Why aren't there any traces of dinosaurs and humans co-existing? Therefore creationism is fiction, evolutionism is scientific and falsifiable. Most Christians have come to terms with evolutionism. If a bunch of die-hard fundamentalists can't, I don't have a problem with it. It's even OK for them to believe in a flat earth as depicted in the Bible. All I ask is that they do not make a dogma out of their madness. Because, as you say, ultimately it does not matter what origin story we accept, what matters is how we love and live.

Chris,

I do not think Genesis claims much change to the human nature, though it does depict a rather changeable God, who first creates life on earth and then regrets his actions and wipes it out. As this is not the kind of God I could literally believe in, I have no problem accepting that the rest of Genesis (and the whole of the Bible too) is not to be interpreted literally either.

I would appreciate it if you could explain what sin is and how it would have changed nature (and where Genesis claims that). I never found any claim in Genesis that lions were created herbivores, for instance, and we do not find any fossils of herbivorous lions.

As for the dating - take a simple example. We can count yearly ice deposits on the earth's poles. We can cound yearly sedimentation layers in many lakes. The numbers we are getting are into tens of thousands of years. Are you saying that the earth was created with those layers? If so, what would have been the reason, except for God to deceive us? Or are you claiming that "sin" created those layers?

I'm surprised that there's been no mention of the "imperfectness" of God's prophets, e.g. I KINGS, Chapter 13. I'm confident that Ellen White (and Bible writers, too, for that matter) would have changed her views on a number of matters if she had lived long enough. She was very much a product of her times, her upbringing by her parents and family, her culture, her society, her local community, her state, her country, her world, her church, her education, her reading, her studies, her research, her visions and dreams, her heritage, her travels, her genes, etc., etc.

When you compare Ellen White's early writings with many of her later ones it shows me that she grew or matured in her understanding of God, his character, and his way of governing the universe. Did her understandings or her collective knowledge ever become "perfect"? Are God's prophets ever "perfect"? Aren't prophets first of all human beings? Are human beings ever "perfect"? I think not--at least, I don't think I have met one in person yet. (How would I know anyway since I fully recognize that I am far, far from being "perfect" myself?) Not even Jesus was "perfect."

I wholeheartedly agree with what Jag said in an earlier post:

"...ultimately it does not matter what origin story we accept, what matters is how we love and live." Amen!!

Studying scripture, the writings of Ellen White, the writings of other religious and non-religious writers, along with being open to the influences of countless others (including supernatural forces/beings I cannot understand or know now) have helped me to be the kind of person I am today. In the end, I choose who I am and who I am going to be. Learning to be "good" and acting accordingly is a lifelong journey, and doesn't even end in this life!

I appreciate all the postings that have been shared. Reading the postings on this website are always enlightening to me. I hope all who visit this website will continue to take the time to share their thoughts and ideas because, in the end, I know very, VERY little! I continue to learn about Adventist life, and life in general (both in the present and in the past) with your help. :-)

John Anderson
Yucaipa, California

P.S. I have read several of Numbers' books and find them to be extremely helpful in my understanding of the history of Science, Adventism, and Scientific Creationism. I personally believe our church owes Numbers an official apology for the way he was treated in the past by church leaders and administrators. That would be the Christian thing to do, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen--at least, until the time when those people involved have passed off the scene of action. My church's leaders still have much to learn about how to treat those inside and outside the church who disagree (sometimes vehemently) with some or all of the fundamental beliefs and tenets of the corporate church.

Jag,

I too would have a problem with it if that is what I thought it meant. But I suggest that is not the usual Christian understanding of Genesis with respect to God's character. You are introducing unnecessary problems here, and there are various theodicies to address them.

It's because of sin that we all deserve to be wiped out. God had every logical reason to follow through on what His law of justice requires. Thank God for his mercy, that the higher law of Love seeks to save, overriding the law of justice. It is that aspect that I find more appealing. Don't you think that is a worthy perspective?

Are you really claiming that God would have been in the wrong to wipe out all sinners?

So, where you see God changing His mind as a bad thing, I say thank God that He can and does.

You asked me:
I would appreciate it if you could explain what sin is and how it would have changed nature (and where Genesis claims that)

Sin has different meanings in different contexts. In this context, I would say that sin is the change that happened. i.e. sin describes a fallen nature. Genesis doesn't describe how, and neither is that a necessary part of the religious belief. I'm just talking about an interpretation of Genesis that I would have thought was more typical than you are suggesting.

Here is a bit from Genesis 3:

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

You tell me, what sort of change fits what Genesis is describing is a result of man's decision? What sort of change does the fruit from the tree of life bring us if we still had access to that? What sort of change caused thistles, or snakes to crawl?

You asked me about herbivorous lions. Well, we don't need any fossils, look up "Little Tyke".

You asked me: Are you saying that the earth was created with those layers? Are you saying that must be incompatible with a literal understanding of Genesis?

No, I'm not necessarily claiming that personally. My point was that Genesis taken literally is not incompatible with any modern science. Who knows what it means when God cursed the ground?

If so, what would have been the reason, except for God to deceive us? Your conclusion here is extremely emotive. And not logically a necessary part of the belief, because it is certainly not the only possible conclusion.

Who knows, perhaps it was done to rebalance a sinful world, that we could at least survive. Then we should thank God for burying all of the dinosaurs so that life would not become completely extinct on earth.

Who know what supernatural actions were involved that caused a cosmic cataclysm to occur? It need not have been only a flood of water, perhaps it was burying animals into rock that was required so life would not be completely eliminated on this planet! Perhaps the side affects of the supernatural actions had the side affect of the appearance of aging.

Also, who knows what other supernatural changes occurred when war in heaven broke out? This may be what caused the appearance of some of those things?

There are many possible explanations. Your pejorative conclusions about the religious belief in recent creation are unnecessary.

I'm not making any claims toward geology, or the fossil record, or the appearance of long ages, except to say that the appearance of those things are not incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Bevin,

(a) you can't suggest a plausible set of changes

Plausible? That just depends on how much supernatural change one is willing to accept! After all, we are talking about a religious belief.

(b) you can't suggest why such changes would be necessary
I have provided a few suggestions. I don't need to know all the answers. Do you claim that there are no possible reasons?

(c) you can't explain why the Biblical descriptions of Eden and the pre-flood world do not vary radically from descriptions of the post-flood world
The descriptions vary sufficiently that there were changes we do not understand.

and, most tellingly
(d) you can't explain why EGW's visions of Eden and other worlds are given in descriptions of a world very like our own, and do not describe a world with the radically different laws that would be necessary to achieve the effects you are trying to justify

WOW! Most tellingly. Is Sister White more important to you than the Bible? I didn't realise you saw her with such high regard! Each to his own I guess.

And, do you claim that you know exactly how different it should appear before the changes? You understand how the supernatural works, and what changes need to have occurred?

Most tellingly, is that you actually did agree that it is theoretically possible for someone to take Genesis literally, and to accommodate all of modern scientific theory. You belittle this as a trivial purpose. In my mind, this is a potential solution to the entire argument between modern science and fundamentalists. That is nothing to be scoffed at. The fact that you agree it is theoretically possible, is very significant.

The ONLY argument you have against this perspective, is that God must have lied, because nature looks different now than when He first created it! Scripture claims that nature DID change AND it provides some reasons why. Where is one to draw the line about how much change is allowed?

John Anderson
Yucaipa, California

Said:

Not even Jesus was "perfect."

Could you possibly expand on this so that I can understand what you are saying. How do you define perfection if Jesus / God is not perfect?

Many thanks,

Clement

Chris,

I draw the line before requiring God to have created a huge lie

It is interesting to note in the above

(a) G M Price was not a geologist

(b) The current GRI senior research scientist can't suggest a way to reconcile literal Genesis and nature

I did research into those limestone and water volcanos from P&P - that idea was present in mid-1800's geology texts, but seemed to be out of favor by around 1900. It is telling to see it in P&P - it tells us a lot about how P&P was populated, and that in turn tells us a little about how Genesis was populated

/Bevin

Jag

It is plain you don't understand the postulates of science.
Evolution is a theory of origins that suggests a process.
Neither of which has been demonstrated, reproduced, only
minor adaptations within kind has been cited. The only arsenal they have is time, sun energy, and environment; including food chain. MIT has demonstrated that there isn't enough time to produce a human eye let alone a human being.
Cited: The Mathematical Challenge of the Neo-Darwinian Theory.
MIT about 1966. The scientists at MIT conclude while time is not on our side, we still hold to an evolutionary process. Tom

Tom,

Ditto.

regards,
pat

Bevin,

I personally think that 'lying' is too strong a word. But, then, this depends on your own theodicy in the first place. I respect that some theodicies do not distinguish between God allowing sin and God intentionally causing sin. Is this the sort of thing you mean?

It's a lot like the sort of argument that Peter Singer and other atheists make against a benevolent and omnipotent God. They can not accept that God could be responsible (allow/create/curse) such a painful existence that we see now. But then they refuse to account for God also being described as omniscient, so then God ultimately has our best interest in mind, even if we can't fully understand it!

I guess you think it is impossible for God to allow so many people to be deceived? I can understand the motivation for that. And, I do respect you for it, believe it or not.

As to human fallibility, that is a given. Obviously, allowing for supernatural change is contrary to the mission of the GRI, given that they aim to prove religious beliefs with science.

MIT has demonstrated that there isn't enough time to produce a human eye let alone a human being.
Cited: The Mathematical Challenge of the Neo-Darwinian Theory.
MIT about 1966. The scientists at MIT conclude while time is not on our side, we still hold to an evolutionary process.

Tom

Your statement is FALSE. A couple of scientists that worked at MIT went to a symposium in Philadelphia in 1966 (the Wistar Symposium) and presented a paper which was debunked before the symposium was over by scientists at that symposium. Their idea was never presented at MIT or endorsed by MIT. In fact, the symposium was the first time their idea was ever stated publicly.

Your statement is an excellent example of the creationist's tactic of taking old, discredited statements and foisting them onto the ignorant as truth.

Science advances one funeral at a time. Max Planck

Does it matter what Jesus said, about creation?

>>> The Mathematical Challenge of the Neo-Darwinian Theory.
MIT about 1966

Tom, it is absurd to be quoting a 43 year old paper in this area.

>>> guess you think it is impossible for God to allow so many people to be deceived?

Chris, I think it is absurd to propose that God deliberately set out to create a planet sized lie. "Liar" is too weak a word for an omniscient all-powerful God that creates such a comprehensive illusion.

It seems to me that most YEC SDA simply don't understand the depth and the bredth of the evidence for millions of years of life on Earth. Instead they do things like quote 43 year old papers and repeat the incorrect and incomplete information published in the Adventist Review and other inadequate sources.

I have read G M Price's material. As a kid, it suckered me in. I wanted to believe. As an adult, I discovered the SDA church had deliberately deceived me - engages in continuous and deliberate misinformation.

When their own research scientists are their own GRI do not agree with the information they are printing, it has to be seen as deliberately dishonest.

Ron Numbers shows the trajectory of correctly. Initially the SDA church tried to produce scientists that led the effort. For a while, they had some limited successes but it soon became clear that the science was against them. The SDA scientists have confined themselves to creationism research in little niches where genuine science can be done and to teaching the next generation the truth. The administration and the members quote dishonest non-SDA (non-)scientists and attack the honest SDA ones.

/Bevin

Chris

On the second day of creation God created a firm roof over the flat earth and divided the waters, putting part of the water above the dome. This roof is what God used to suspend the sun, moon, and tiny stars from which were to be created 2 days later. Jacob's Ladder was to ascend to the abode of God on the roof. The Tower of Babel was to reach to the dome. Isaiah writes that it was like crystal, but the Babylonians thought it was brass (too many sand storms). In Job it has little storerooms for the ice & snow. God opened the little windows to "Deluge" Noah and his boat. God's throne is there. God was so close to the surface (they thought it was a few miles up) that He could smell the sacrificial barbecues of humans. God sent messengers down and occasionally popped down Himself to interact with his subjects. Both Psalms and Isaiah speak of the waters above the roof. The sun and moon could be stopped in their little tracks across the sky so that Yahweh's favorite band of genocidal marauders could continue killing their neighbors. Paul had a friend that had gone to the 3rd level of heaven (by Paul's time they believed the roof (heaven) had 7 levels).

Genesis 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

In later versions (see Firmament, catholic encyclopedia) they even made it to the roof over the earth and were trying to chisel through into God's abode!

Creation has been, is, and will forever be, falsified.

Show us the roof over this flat earth.

Bevin,

I'm not convinced that if the Genesis creation account is literally true, then God necessarily intended to deceive. I'm certainly not claiming that.

The fact is that if Genesis is true, then God told us the truth in Genesis about what actually did happen. Therefore, it is our choice to believe in God's word over the apparent evidence.

It doesn't matter how overwhelming the evidence appears, the fact is humans have a choice to believe it. Your conclusion requires that God forces people to believe one thing over another.

Why do you think a small change in nature is OK but a big change is not acceptable? Where is the cut-off point? Does it matter how convincing the evidence appears? You have already agreed that the breadth and depth of the evidence can be fit into a literalistic interpretation.

How do your claims compare with arguments about sin in our world against the existence of God? Atheists have an equal claim to appearance as anyone else. Christians already accept that there is more to reality than meets the eye.

I don't know of any deliberate misinformation from anyone. I'm not aiming to deny your testimony about that. It's very sad that happens. I am very much against dishonesty.

It is clear to all that God does not make His existence obvious.

On the other hand, there are not continuous huge amounts of evidence that there is a Pantheon of god's either. Praying the Zeus for rain does not work, nor does sending messages via Hermes.

God, if He exists, clearly intends us to choose our paths of action based on something other than appeasing Him.

The facts are clear and well known to everyone. Everyone knows where the Book of Genesis came from - and it does NOT have any indicators that show supernatural origins. It came, like I said, from the human capture of humanly transmitted oral histories.

It is not, for instance, written on some amazing material clearly outside the manufacturing capabilities of Babylonians.

It does not have, for instance, an obscure fact such as 'the following 256 digit number is prime' that is clearly outside the knowledge of the Babylonians.

So it is obvious that God is NOT making His presence obvious. That is okay.

What is NOT okay is for a God to write "Thou Shalt Not Bear A False Witness Against Thy Neighbor" and then change the natural laws so that the world has an incredible depth and breadth of evidence showing life has been here for millions of years when it has only been here 10,000.

It is NOT okay to have a global flood and then carefully replace all the evidence so that the world looks like the flood did not happen.

To be a YEC requires either
(a) an inability to face the facts, or
(b) the ability to believe that God has created a planet-sized lie

Most SDA choose (a).

The SDA denomination helps them do this by a continuous mis-statements about those facts - mis-statements that their own scientists disagree with.

/Bevin

Keafan,

That certainly is one interpretation that has been falsified. You'll get no argument from me on that.

There are other valid exegeses available, which significantly differ from your exegesis. For example especially in light of the parallels with the tabernacle and the creation week. The parallels icons used for light, land, water etc in the temple, and each their theological significance. Take for example the veil/dome, and the dual nature of revelation and transcendence of God. God's dwelling place, God's throne in heaven with feet touching Earth, etc. There is too much to go into on this thread - that is why I offered you email me before about this. But consider that it is all part of the same Torah accounts, by the same author(s). So, those parallels can't be ignored when doing the exegesis.

The ancient Hebrew cosmology and creation accounts are sufficiently different to others such as the Babylonian's that we need to consider them separately, consider what the differences are, they are more significant than what is similar. Of course we have to allow for human understanding at the time, when they communicated what they were inspired to. One can understand why the influence in the language of the then contemporary thought mixes things up.

It is not the veil/dome that I am interested in. I care about the One who parted the veil, who breaks through the dome. Our attempts to reach it and break though it are futile. It is He who breaks through it for us. The language changes, but in all accounts, it is consistent about who does what.

This entire discussion would be amusing, if it did not, sadly, represent the two sides of a coin of origins.

The entire Bible account of creation is a product of the Hebrew writers who recorded the tale as it has been orally transmitted through thousands of years. The Hebrews, in their scriptural writings, literally "owned" their god: he was subject to their interpretations and ideas of how and when he operated. Their stories presupposes that not only were they a "chosen people" but all the rest of the nations were evil, corrupt and not deserving to live.

Yet, there are millions of people today who argue the literality of the creation story the Hebrews tell while rejecting the many other creation stories that contemporary peoples also had. Parsing, explaining, and attempting to interpret and "fill in the blanks" of a very poetic story, one written in the first chapter of Genesis by the priests who were diligently attempting to return the Hebrews during their exile, to the pure religion that they sensed had been forgotten. The second chapter of Genesis is an older version, where there are vast differences in the creation order and no mention of God's resting which is found in the first chapter.

Essentially, after all the thousands of words are exchanged it results in these two views: The Creation story is a literal and factual account of Creation week (resulting in many various views about how and what resulted in sin--all speculation in detail); and the Creation story is a poem giving God as Creator, acknowledging that primivitive and illiteral men who retold a story that no one can verify its human origin (no human was present at a creation).

These two view show little evidence of convicting either side. Why are the two views dependent on making converts of either? If all can honestly admit that, by human reason (none of us has the mind of GOd) we are limited in our understanding and that supernatural events that are attributed to Creation can never, ever by proved, why is there such a turf war? God is not rejected by either view, nor is there any possibility that either belief will limit one's eternal life. Let the scientists speak as they wish, and let the literalists continue their explanations. Why should it matter to us what anyone believes, unless they try to force them on everyone else? That is not in the spirit of the god they worship.

In humility, both sides should admit that there are many more unknowns than knowns and we end up like the Medievalists arguing about the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin.

Chris,
The point isn't whether there was change or even how much change. The point is how the change happened.

In order for Genesis to be accurate and reconciled with what we find in the fossil record and genetic evidence, someone/thing HAD to have very purposefully rearranged the fossil order and the genetic evidence to present something different. It isn't even so much a question of time as it is order for this particular issue.

There is simply no way to reconcile what we see in the fossil record with a literal interpretation of Genesis unless there was a supernatural effort to change the record in misleading ways. No matter how Answers in Genesis tries to spin otherwise.

And this is the point where we start to go round again because we have quite different understandings of the fossil record ;)

That certainly is one interpretation that has been falsified.

The dome cosmology is what they believed. Its the basis for their whole understanding of how things worked. Its an empirical fact, not an interpretation. Because their belief is also empirically false you and your cohorts have to reinterpret what they believed and wrote down in order to keep their gods alive. The beliefs of the day are found at Ugarit and many other archeological sites around the Middle East written on clay tablets. Their beliefs are written in the Bible.

You can interpret as much as necessary in order to keep your mental processes from exploding into insanity but it still does not change the fact that your interpretation is ridiculous to rational people based on the plentiful evidence accumulated over the past century. Biblicists can dig holes in the desert over there til this earth is consumed by the sun and they will never find evidence for the Exodus or Noah or the mythical Garden or any other fairy tales of Genesis.

I'll admit, you are an expert at conceiving a myriad of illogical questions and hypothesis for any line of logical thought. I'm beginning to think you could go down to the beach on your Gold Coast and get into a debate about whether the waves are actually rolling ashore. "But, what is a wave? How do you define a wave? The idea that these energy masses are actually waves could be interpreted in other ways!" Etc, ad infinitum. Or, if married, your talent could easily get you out of the claim of infidelity. "But, but, what exactly do you mean Honey when you say that I had an 'affair'?"

Bevin

The absuredity is that in 43 years no one has replicated either creation or evolution. The MIT argument still stands. Thus, the debate is not of fact but of faith.

This issue is one of wagers, As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. You appear to wager other. Thus, since our bets are down, there really isn't anything to debate or discuss is there? Tom

I will venture two hypotheses:

The lower the literacy rate in a given country, the easier to gain Christian, even Adventist converts;

The higher the literacy rate in a country, the lower the rate of converts to either Christianity or Adventism.

Anyone is free to challenge, by facts, these hypotheses.

keafan

Their paper was published in hardback in 1966. The MCG library had a copy until 1991 when an evolutionist took charge of the library and had it purged. Their paper was bebunked by those not equipped in computer science or math.
It was bebunked on belief alone. No math challenge ever was produced. Time, the second law of therodynamics, and the lack of replication all give the lie to evolutionary theory. That is it just ain't science. It is merely a belief system. Have at it if you will--but don't claim proof that doesn't exist.
How life emerged on earth remains to all a matter of a selected belief system. You have yours and I have mine. So it shall remain until the parusia.

The best evidence is Geico Ins. The Cave Man is just like us. ha. Tom.

"Between friends, differences in taste or opinion are irritating in direct proportion to their triviality." W. H. Auden

"Exclusive preference for either the past or the present is a foolish and wasteful form of snobbishness and provinciality." Mortimer Adler

Posted by: keafan | 07 December 2009 at 8:15

Creation has been, is, and will forever be, falsified.

Keafan, would you care to qualify that in any way? =)

Tom, I am not familiar with the MIT argument. Can you provide a link? Thank you.

Kenneth James

Maggie,

No.

Kenneth,
I can assure you that the only place you will see the argument is on creationist websites. The arguers were refuted at the conference and then roundly ignored by the scientific community because the arguments were based on a misunderstanding of how evolution works, even back then. However, hope springs eternal in the minds of creationists. . .

Occasionally it comes up as a source of merriment as you can see in this comment by Daniel Brooks, professor of evolutionary biology and ecology at University of Toronto:

"If one actually reads the conference transcript, one realizes that what really happened was that approximately two befuddled math/computer science people, Murray Eden and Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (who was later a longtime friend/collaborator of David Berlinski, by the way), were schooled in basic population genetics & evolutionary theory by the likes of Ernst Mayr and Sewall Wright. It makes hilarious reading, along the lines of “we biologists worked out this math 40 years ago, why haven’t you read up on it” and “I can’t get my particular evolution simulation to work on my 1960s-era computer, therefore something is wrong with evolutionary theory!” The central misunderstandings from the mathematician side involved, as always, the same old dumb “but it’s impossible/extremely improbable for these sequences to come together all at once by random chance!” argument, which ignores (as always) the elemental point that evolutionary theory is the exact opposite of all-at-once-by-chance assembly."

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/id-intelligent.html

The December issue of Ministry magazine contains and article:

"What does the Bible say about dinosaurs" by Raul Esperante, research scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute.

He begins by telling that several years ago a pastor approached him and asked, "Could you please talk to my wife and convince her that dinosaurs really did exist?"

The pastor's wife a school teacher and she refused to teach her students that dinosaurs had ever existed. Adventists have never fully been able to explain their existence, but particularly their demise. If God created them, why were they not saved during the flood as were all the other animals? Their disappearance has not received a scientific assessment; or even a religious one.

Did humans and dinosaurs co-exist? There are more questions than good answers.

Keafan, I see that you are a person of few words, but let me just ask you this to clarify:

Do you believe that falsifying the Genesis account of creation is tantamount to falsifying creation by a higher being altogether?

Elaine,

I have come around to agree with Stephen Jay Gould's, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" in principal. The difference is where he said let science say what physically happened, I say let science say only what appears to have happened.

I'll easily admit that I don't actually know what really happened, I weren't there myself, believe it or not :). That's not hard to admit. And we have a choice based on what explains the world best to us. For me personally that currently requires belief in a creator God. And I accept that is religious faith - a personal choice that I make in order for things to make sense to me.

You said:
"These two views show little evidence of convicting either side. Why are the two views dependent on making converts of either? If all can honestly admit that, by human reason (none of us has the mind of GOd) we are limited in our understanding and that supernatural events that are attributed to Creation can never, ever by proved, why is there such a turf war? God is not rejected by either view, nor is there any possibility that either belief will limit one's eternal life. Let the scientists speak as they wish, and let the literalists continue their explanations. Why should it matter to us what anyone believes, unless they try to force them on everyone else? That is not in the spirit of the god they worship."

That is so close to what I have been trying to say. I really appreciate someone with different beliefs emphasising that.

As to dinosaurs, the question needs to be more specific, because things like birds, crocodiles and some sharks are considered dinosaurs, living fossils etc.

Thank you Beth

I certainly hope the "MIT" part of that doesn't mean what I think it means.

But it sounds a lot like that endlessly-circulating " HELL EXPLAINED BY CHEM STUDENT" argument for things transcendent. [If you don't know what that is, you can Google it yourself].

Kenneth James

Beth,

In order for Genesis to be accurate and reconciled with what we find in the fossil record and genetic evidence, someone/thing HAD to have very purposefully rearranged the fossil order and the genetic evidence to present something different. It isn't even so much a question of time as it is order for this particular issue.

Your conclusion requires the claim that someone/thing HAD to have very purposefully rearranged the fossil order and the genetic evidence. Which means that you must know that it must have been purposefully arranged with the intention of deceiving. But you have to rule out that there are other possibilities, which means that apparent arrangement could be a side-effect rather than the primary intention.

Keafan,

You have admitted that my interpretation is different to that. Then you attack whatever interpretation you mistakenly think I should make of it. Usually called a straw man argument.

You are not accounting for the fact that the same author(s) wrote about the tabernacle, and it's associated meaning in cosmology. This interpretation of the cosmology is still valid, and supports a different literal interpretation of creation in Genesis.

You are completely wrong. The West Coast beaches are where the real waves are!

Go wallabies.

PS. Your venture into my fidelity with my wife is on thin civil ice.

Sorry, Chris. We do not deserve to be wiped out. Why would we? Yes, we are imprefect, but it's not our fault, is it? Would you deserve to be wiped out even if you were Hitler's son?

A God that creates life and then denies responsibility for its action and decides to wipe it out would certainly NOT deserve anything but contempt from its own creation.

Genesis depicts a campfire story where God changes its mind because of people and decides to wipe out all land life (presumably including not only animals but plants too). Why not sea life too? That's not justice, is it? Sounds like collective responsibility. The good news is, it never really happened, it's just a story. The real God is not so bad after all! The story is not only incompatible with science (on literal level) - it is also incompatible with simple logic.

The supernatural changes you are claiming dwarf any and all miracles explicitly described in the Bible. Wonder why the miraculous burial of dinosaurs is not mentioned there? Science tells us that they died out millions of years before humans came into existence. I do not see any reason not to accept this simpler and more natural explanation.

Do you believe that falsifying the Genesis account of creation is tantamount to falsifying creation by a higher being altogether?

Of course not. I'm rooting for the Flying Spaghetti Monster! ;-D

I am waiting for evidence that there is any such thing as a "higher being" before spending time trying to figure out what that higher being has, or has not, done in the past. So far, in all of the recorded history of humans, every single claim about deities, creations, and magic events have been eerily similar to what would be expected in the incoherent ramblings of a psychiatric patient.

Tom wrote>>> This issue is one of wagers, As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. You appear to wager other.

On the contrary, I also choose to serve the Lord.

I don't think being ignorant, naive, foolish, or dishonest is serving Him.

/Bevin

Chris,
You are right. Speculation into intention is just that - speculation. I should have said that they would have to be purposefully arranged in a manner very different from what we would see if Genesis was accurate. The reason for that purposeful rearrangement is way beyond understanding. It makes the most sense to me that Genesis isn't accurate but that's me.

Beth,

Thank you for understanding about intention. Some insist that it has to lead to God lying. And that is not a necessary conclusion.

You are always good at pausing, contemplating and reflecting on what the other person is saying. You make conversation a real pleasure.

they would have to be purposefully arranged in a manner very different from what we would see if Genesis was accurate

Really? I disagree. Because you are still claiming to be able to explain in detail any supernatural change. The point I make is that we can not speculate on exactly 'what' the change was with so much detail. There is no real reason why it can't fit what we see, unless we presume to know exactly how a supernatural change works.

It makes the most sense to me that Genesis isn't accurate but that's me. Yeah, it's a lot of people who think that, it's not just you. It might be true, I don't claim to know first hand, but I don't know if we can honestly rule it out as impossible.

Kenneth,
No these arguments were made by quite intelligent scientists who were/are respected in their fields. Murray is/was a physicist/electrical engineer at MIT and Schutzenberger was a respected mathematician. They were hardly slouches but the consensus is that they were relying on a misunderstanding of how evolution works to make their argument. They didn't understand enough biology and so were mistaken. It is my understanding that this is what Ernst Mayr pointed out (Mayr being no slouch himself of course. He's sometimes referred to as the greatest evolutionary scientist of the 20th century.)

That is the limit of my understanding - I couldn't begin to tackle the actual arguments. I do know that, given the statue of Murray and Schutzenberger in their fields, people listened. I also know that their criticisms were not found to be valid ones by the scientific community and thus the irritation by biologists today when it keeps coming up as some sort of evidence against evolution.

Jag,

In the bigger picture, I agree that ultimately love rules. And I thank God that He does take some responsibility as well. Forgiveness is a higher concept than an eye for an eye. Forgiveness is not about what we deserve, forgiveness is beyond what we deserve.

But, the current situation that we live in now is that we will all die! And, if we are resurrected into more of this same nature, there will still be death! Do we deserve death? Is what we see around us now what we deserve?

Obviously it is wrong to say that we all deserve to be wiped out, when you understand the law of love and forgiveness. So, then why is it that we will be?

So yes, I take back what I said about us deserving to be wiped out. I was suggesting that perspective denies that God has chosen not to wipe us out. See the juxtaposition there? In the bigger picture, that's kind of where I was aiming to go, very poorly worded, sorry about that. My point was that there is a way of looking at it that says we deserve to be wiped out, but that obviously not what God sees, and His ways are always perfect and just and merciful, even if it confuses me sometimes. Like I said, I always look for how God chooses to forgive us, and not wipe us out. I can see that in those ancient stories. What it appears we deserve on the surface, is often different to what God decides in the end to save and restore.

Do we deserve death? Is what we see around us now what we deserve?

Maybe this is the way things are supposed to work.

Maybe we're not victims.

Maggie,

Yeah, maybe true. I've thought about that too. It does make a whole lot of pesky questions go away. It provides for an alternative response against the likes of Peter Singer who can't accept that a Loving God would be responsible for such a miserable nature.

It doesn't fit too well with my current paradigm, but I have no disrespect for that perspective. I just can't accept it right now.

Something inside me holds onto the idea that there is something better coming.

Kenneth

I am sorry, no. I had a copy and gave it to the Medical College of Georgia Library upon retirement. My successor had it purged rather than return it to me. I am sorry, I didn't keep a reference number or publisher.

According to the authors, the book was the outcome of a conference of interested biologists from Harvard and interested computor scientists and mathematicians. The biologists stated their hypothesis and the MIT group did the probability. Their two final conclusions were: We still believe in evolution but the current hypothesis won't fly--it is back to the drawing board boys.

Keafan

You simply don't understand the scientific meaning of the word to falsify. It means, in short, to demontrate experimentally that the prior hypothesis was incorrect. Since one cannot replicate creation: it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. The best evidence we have is Jesus calling forth Lazarus. A corrupted bio-mass came forth as a viable living being. Tom

Something inside me holds onto the idea that there is something better coming.

Maybe it's already here.

Maggie,

Sometimes, yes in part. But not fully all the time. Otherwise, I wouldn't get that feeling.

Are you at that place all the time?

If feeling that there is more, is part of what it is, then it is kind of self refuting!

Strange duality going on there.

I have faith that is on its way, that is sufficient for me, I can rest with that.

If a blind man can't see the sun, is it still shining?

the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings

He that hath the Son hath life.

Your talking the good stuff now Maggie.

I seriously question Numbers' conclusion that almost everyone in the Protestant or evangelical Christian community in the U.S., other than SDAs, had made peace with old earth creationist views.

Poll after poll for almost 30 years has shown that about 40% believe that God created humanity pretty much in its present form within the last 10,000 years. That shows a very high sympathy for a literal reading of Genesis among a substantial percentage of the population. I doubt very seriously if most or even many of these people are relying on the gap theory or the day/age theory to harmonize their conservative reading of Scripture with mainstream geology.

That being the case, is it reasonable to suppose that all of those people, some 120 million, were influenced by George McCready Price in the first half of the 20th Century as adopted by Whitcomb & Morris in the 1960s? I'm not buying it. There are fewer than a million SDAs in the U.S.; are we really expected to believe that this tiny tail is wagging such a large dog?

I think there's a problem for the researcher in that he is likely to be seeing what scholars were writing during this period and say, "Everyone was making peace with geology, and relying on the gap theory and the day/age theory until Price came along" not realizing that the average guy in the pew was ignoring what his seminary-bound "opinion leaders" were telling him, just as I would ignore what most of mine are telling me.

What I'm suggesting is that Numbers has been misled by a similar phenomenon that misled pollsters in the 1920s. Conducting telephone polling, they underestimated the percentage of Democrats and overestimated the percentage of Republicans. The reason? Republicans were more likely to have phones, and hence were over-sampled. It is no knock on Numbers to say that any scholar looking at the documentary evidence must over-sample the opinions of the document-producing class.

You simply don't understand the scientific meaning of the word to falsify. It means, in short, to demon[s]trate experimentally that the prior hypothesis was incorrect.

False. Tom, in science an hypothesis is falsifiable by experiment OR OBSERVATION.

Any 3rd grader knows that the moon & sun are not attached to a firm structure in the sky that God created on the second day in the Genesis hypothesis. That prior hypothesis of the goat herders 3,000 years ago has been falsified by observation. NASA does not make space craft with the ability to travel through the hypothetical, mythical ocean above the dome over this flat earth per Genesis, Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Paul's letters, and other ancient books in scripture. There are no current plans that I am aware of to attempt to construct another tower to the dome like the story of the Tower of Babel. Nobody would waste their time or funds on a project based on a theory that was falsified centuries ago.

The problem is that what was an hypothesis to the goat herders became The Word of God to believers. Sorry, but it ain't.

keanfan
The Creator God came to earth as a babe, grew up in an out of the way town, served His dad as a carpenter for about 30 years. Entered His ministry by turning water in to vintage wine, fed 5000 people with five loaves and two fishes with baskets left over, calmed the winds, stilled the waters, made the blind see, the lamb walk, and called forth one who was in an advance stage of decay. Restored the ear of the High Priest servant. How is that for observation of creative power? Or did you have to be there in order to believe? Tom

But Keafan, is creation by a higher being falsifiable?

The good stuff has lots of implications, doesn't it, Chris?

Kenneth The internet has a number of references to that work.

here is one.

Tom: this post is being deleted because it is excessively long (2654 words) and apparently is just pasted from an article on the internet. If you, or others, wish to refer people to some internet reference, please just post the link. Also, for everyone's benefit, very long postings - even of your own thoughts - disrupts the conversation as few people are likely to want to read it all. Hence length even defeats your purpose of being read and understood. Please, all posters, consider keeping your postings relatively short. We do not like to police this sort of thing with hard maximum sizes, but it is getting to be a problem with various people (not necessarily you Tom, although it was in this posting). Tom, we will email you back your post text if you wish or you can re-post just the link. - website editor

Tom

calling all YECS..... allo? allo? r u there?

You have the rare, TV Gods given marathon opportunity to disabuse yourselves of unscientific explanations of how the earth was made...

tonite...

on the History Channel...presuming those overwhelming fears of change will allow you to cease reading antediluvian tea leaves for 4 hrs from 7 - 11, and come out of your closets and caves and try to locate at least a 9" black and white Philco connected to Cable or DTV....

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/earth/episodes/296768

and in just 4 hrs even the most scientifically undereducated YEC with at least a room temp IQ will be able to understand and appreciate the miracle of how the Earth was Made (OK, Created...)

by what appear to be natural processes....

but left to the imagination, for those who need a higher power to rule their lives, is the unstated, unasked, unanswered question of how the natural processes came about, which may be the best way for IDers, theists, the Pope and the http://www.grisda.org/ to claim to see the white light at the end of the wormhole.

this amazing YECucation starts in HD and surround sound with the now documented story of the formation of the Hawaiian Islands..which brings together radio dating, volcanism, oceanography, geography, geology, GPS, plate tectonics and the earth's most powerful telescopes into a spectacular picture story which will totally set straight all but the most willfully ignorant.

then New York is explained..amazingly, in just one hr!!!
not the bright lights, but the striations in the rocks in Central Park...and the basalt cliffs along the Jersey shore which are related to...Europe?

then the newest episode ...The Birth of the Earth...will take us back billions of years to the earth's coalescing from primordial gasses left over from the creative Big Bang into our solar system ...followed by 4 billion years of natural processes compressed into under an hr... processes which have shaped our planet and can now be understood better than ancient goatherders did. Including a massive hit by a proto-planet which created our moon...without which life would NOT be possible!!!

we should be thankful that we are all lunatics!!!

then, the last in the 4 hr marathon tonight, Asteroids are explained.... a great opportunity to learn how (if not why) God bowled a strike on the Yucatan and buried all the dinos under the iridium layer some 65 myo... tho for the ultimate, frightening Shiva Hypothesis, you'll have to google that yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=rampino+shiva+hypothesis&...

wouldn't it be wunnerful if all YECs could stay, unafraid, out in the sunshine of new knowledge instead of retreating back into their prehistoric caves at 11PM EST?

John: it would actually help your cause, I think, if you would dial down the sarcasm significantly. We try hard not to censor due to viewpoints, but respectful tone is another matter. And you have consistently had a problem with your attitude. - website editor

Tom

I've seen magicians do better than that today. They can make elephants and planes appear, walk on water, turn water into your choice of wine or beer. Magic (from the Magi) has improved quite a bit in 2000 years. You should read what Jesus did to his little playmates in the Gnostic Gospels! He was a real little Harry Potter.

The same source for the magic stories also has Jesus stating that He came for the Lost Sheep of Israel ONLY. As Yahweh in the flesh he was the God of Israel. God the Father had many sons (70). Yahweh was ONE of them. Israel was Yahweh's special people he chose to live on his inheritance of dirt in the armpit-of-the-world middle east. Not the God of Rome, the Greeks, Persians, or anybody else. Surely you know that with all the years of study you have under your belt?

Matthew 15:21-28 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Jesus was a racist, and was not here to save anybody except Jews. Paul, the pagan-trained wayward Jew, changed the whole deal. Paul NEVER quotes Jesus to back up anything he says. He ALWAYS goes to the Hebrew Bible to find his sources.

If I were Jewish I might (doubt it, but might) care whether Jesus was even an actual person and could "save" me. As I am not, all the magic tricks in the book are meaningless to me.

But Keafan, is creation by a higher being falsifiable?

Of course not. Its possible that 87 trillion years before the Big Bang some frog-like creature did something. If you care to be a little more specific about what you mean by "creation" and "higher being" it might be more meaningful than your extremely broad statement.

The Creation of Genesis is very specific (while at the same time contradicting itself) about what was created, and in what sequence. There is plenty of information to test a few of the claims. It is falsifiable and has been falsified. I do not believe the origin story of Native Americans. I do not believe in the Creator Coyote. I do not believe the supernatural coyote exists, nor has it ever existed. Same for for the magic sky deities of the ANE, including El Elyon or his sons Yahweh or Baal.

keafan

If you are not a Christian, no problem. As an agnostic you are a free bird to be pitied. We have no basis for dialogue.

Just to condense the story from my view-point. Genesis begins with: In the beginning God. The story follows that He spake and it was done.

Then we move to the New Testament and find in Hebrews 1 a reprise of that begining with the words: And, Thou, Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. Heb. 1: 10

Then strung throughout the Gospel story we read snippets: water to wine, feeding five thousand with five loaves and two fishes, calming the winds and stilling the waves, casting the nets on the other side of the boat and receiving enough fish to alsmost flounder the boat, making the blind see, the lame walk, turn corrupt decaying flesh into a living human being with full memory and faculties. Once again He spake and it was done!

The National Geographic poses the issue that life appeared on earth attached to a rock flung out of space. I believe life appeared on earth because of the purposeful design and act of the Rock of Ages. You and I differ on stories--neither of us were there or have any confirmation unique to us alone. We just have a tax collector, a few fishermen, and a pious scholar--some would include a young sensitive girl with facial trauma and a zeal to lead after the fashion of the Holy Club of the Wesleys.

To each his own. I am standing pat with Moses, John, Paul, and the Writer to the Hebrews. Tom

The ultimate question behind all the discussions: Must one believe the Bible is literally true to have eternal life?

Will there be a quiz at the Pearly Gates to separate the true believers from those who were agnostic? Our heritage, personality, and reasoning is the dependent factor of whether we easily believe or whether it is impossible to reject all our reasoning ability and accept what has been written.

Thankfully, our love for our fellow man will be the only measure.

Elaine, why do you believe in the Pearly Gates (i.e., life after death)? If it is not based upon belief in the Bible, upon what do you base your belief in an afterlife?

Elaine,

>>The ultimate question behind all the discussions: Must one believe the Bible is literally true to have eternal life?

No but God likely will question the parts, given the opportunity, one refused to believe.

>>Thankfully, our love for our fellow man will be the only measure.

Elaine, I think it is Love to God...and man.

The problem is that often we are "codependently addicted" in what we feel is "love" in our relationship with others. Tough love is love too...with Love being also a principle.

but...I get your drift and accept it's face value.

regards,
pat

The mainstream SDA understanding of 'inspiration' is that the person is inspired, not their writings, and certainly not others translations etc. of their writings.

Furthermore the SDA understanding of 'inspired person' does not mean that what they say is infallible.

So, when Tom says he is standing pat with Paul et. al., I wonder which Paul he is standing pat with - the one that helped people stone Steven, the one that argued with Peter, the one that forbade women to teach, the one that reinterpreted an assortment of OT texts, the one that tossed out the 'unclean foods' concept, ...

In short, the NT writers (all of them) do not show themselves bound to consistency within their own writings, or with the writings of others. Instead they feel free to modify those prior positions as more data and ideas flow in.

Now there is a Paul I can stand pat with - one who is prepared to change.

/Bevin

If one believes all the Bible is literally true, she would have to be a masochist to "love" the god spoken of by its writers. Were they true or were they untrue?

Question: Would anyone be surprised if a child did not love his father if he killed a sibling and ordered the killing of thousands?

Loving such a person in ordinary life today would be the epitome of loving their abuser. Rejecting such a person would be the only sane and sensible choice.

However, if someone can hold to the many illustrations of a god given in the Bible, please explain how such cognitive dissonance is possible.

As for "Pearly Gates" it is a common symbol of heaven for both Christians and non-Christians as the U.S. and even atheists are quite well versed (perhaps better) in the beliefs of that religion.

Bevin,

I am sorry, I was not able to understand you. You used WORDS to convey your thoughts and writings. ;~)

regards,
pat

Tom, I did get a brief glimpse, on my iPhone early this morning, of the deleted cut and paste.

Since I have noticed that you frequently tell a story to make a point, it reminds me of a little white-clapboard, very rural church up in the frozen northland. It was a bitterly cold January morning and the deacon made his way to the church. After getting a little coal fire going in the pot belly stove, he sat there on the front bench, wrapped in an old horse blanket, waiting for somebody else to show up. In time, the preacher did. And the preacher sat next to him on that bench for awhile. Waiting. But nobody else showed up. Pretty soon, the preacher mumbled something to the effect should they just shut the stove down and go home. "Well," the old deacon said "I ain't no preacha, I'm jest an'ole farma, and when I's goes outs to feedz za cows, and zares only one dare, I feeds 'em." With that encouragement, the preacher got up behind the pulpit and let rip with a hell fire and damnation sermon that lifted the planks from the roof rafters. Finally, mercifully, the sermon came to an end and the preacher stumbled down from the pulpit and headed for the door to greet his congregation. The deacon went over and said "I ain't no preacha, I'm jest an'ole farma, and when I's goes outs to feedz za cows, ands zares only one dare, I don't giv'em the 'ole load!"

But from what I now understand that MIT thing to be, and with computing power being orders of magnitude more powerful now, and the seemingly importance of establishing once and for all that evolution is false, surely there are mathematicians, computer modelers, and biologists that are both capable and motivated to repeat that demonstration . . . has that been done? If not, why not? Computer modeling is not that expensive . . . compared to the apparatus for splitting atoms and the like or sequencing massive amounts of DNA.

And secondly, is there any palpable reason for justifying that kind of experiment that is NOT based on a postulate of a literal Genesis 1 and/or 2 and subsequent references to a God or Lord that has dominion over the earth as found in the Hebrew narrative, prophecies and wisdom writings.

In other words, is there any NON-religious/NON-spiritual reason for believing a history of the earth/universe that is comparable to the paradigm as depicted in Genesis?

Are there any atheists/agnostics that have a personal conviction in their certainty of and for the requirement for a young earth history? And what would be their justification?

Am I to suspect that the only reason for believing in a YEC scenario is that it is required to establish and sustain the belief for one's salvation?

If so, is that only for one's personal salvation or is for a "corporate" salvation for a defined group of people?

Does the amount of energy expended in disproving the plausibility of evolution correlate with degree of angst in dealing with one's (or that defined group of peoples) salvation?

Is being a fierce advocate for YEC/ID something that is only for one's own personal salvation, or is it involved with the collective salvation of a defined group of people?

If America were to abandon its separation of church and state, and adopt an official policy of whatever, based on a paradigm of creation science (and "science" is now used in a lot of non-science science ways), would America be "saved" in the ways that religious peoples wish that America would/could be saved?

When you watched "Inherit the Wind," what was your gut reaction?

Please don't consider this as snark, I would think there are reasonable and legitimate answers to these questions.

Kenneth James

Maggie,

"The good stuff has lots of implications, doesn't it, Chris?"

Only good ones.

Elaine,

Good question.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Tom,

Which of the evolutionary processes has not been demonstrated/reproduced? Surely you do not expect billions of years of evolution replicated in a lab within a few months or so? We do have more and more evidence of evolution, and although evolution is falsifiable, no-one has managed to falsify it so far - including ID scientists. If you want any particular proof/evidence, please let me know what you are after exactly. Will try to help.

You also repeat an old creationist myth, according to which the second law of therodynamics and evolution are supposed to be at odds. What makes you think that?

Only good ones.

Mmmm...I agree, but...those "good implications"...pretty radical, huh?

Yep. Some simple, some profound, some radical, some revolutionary. All triple dog-dare good.

Keep talkin'!

Genesis begins with: In the beginning God.

Tom

Alternate: In the beginning the Gods.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness ...."

"Us" & "our" are plural. The Gods made a male and a female in "our" image, just as a child is not an image of the father only but of the mother and father. This theme of "Gods" is carried to Yahweh, a Son of the Gods, receiving 1/70th of the land as His inheritance. The Divine Council of Psalms where the Most High God tells the other Gods (the inheritors of the various earthly nations) that if they don't rule justly He (El Elyon, the God Most High) will cause them to die like men.

Psalm 82: A Psalm of Asaph. God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge.

Rise, O God, judge the earth, For Thou hast inheritance among all the nations!

Even in the NT the Father is the God Most High, El Elyon. Jesus is a UNIQUE son, not an only son. The Bible for christians has been translated by christians to match what the church teaches, not what the original texts say.

Its Christianity's Clear Word version.

Therefore, I will assert that your claims are built on falsehoods from the very first line of the Bible.

Keafan

The alternative is even more absured. Yesterday, I viewed a National Geographic Program that suggested that life was implanted on earth by a blazing hot rock from outer space.

They showed several such rocks on an ajoining program--melted iron. Please tell me what life you know of on earth can endure the heat of molten iron? Yes some microorganism live in boiling water but that is one thousdand degrees cooler that molten iron.

Only one of us is rational. I am waiting to see which. Good Luck. I have been assurance, thank you. Tom

Maggie,

Consequences: Agape (chara, eirene, makrothumia, chrestotes, agathosune, pistis, prautes, egkrateia)! All agape. Agape is the big circle.

Tom....you probably are referring to the hypothesis of http://www.panspermia-theory.com/

it does seem to be really "out there"!!!!

but those incoming rocks from out in space were/are cold, until they enter(ed) our atmosphere...and while the outer surfaces heat up, larger space rocks may survive entry with the interior not melting...leaving the possibility of life surviving the process....obviously, its just a theory...

but

this is a theory some portions of which scientists can at least test...as they did with a recent mars rock...found in Antarctica, with what seems like chemical fossils of life inside....but which have not been proven to be remnants of life any more than simple organic, chemical processes.

but how do scientists test a theory that some deity out there in space somewhere, wearing a white robe with a long, white beard, suddenly, in October of 4004 BC decided to "speak into existence" a whole universe, in just 144 earth hours, including people who He knew or shudda known in advance would go bad, and He would have to drown them and all the innocent animals in a flood leaving behind scant if any scientific evidence and a very questionable philosophical justification?

and the reason given???
....(CEV) Genesis 6:1 More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted. ... 4 The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later. 5 The LORD saw how bad the people on earth were and that everything they thought and planned was evil. 6 He was very sorry that he had made them, 7 and he said, "I'll destroy every living creature on earth! I'll wipe out people, animals, birds, and reptiles.

I'm sorry I ever made them."

I have not read any of the comments above so this may have already been discussed. The meeting was interesting in that I don't think Ben Clausen was there to make any particular ideological point. There is that institutional concern that may want to see one of our more "conservative" representatives be present wherever Ron Numbers makes an appearance. The intent was not a debate.

I was struck by what I considered to be an odd statement by Numbers. In response to a question Numbers said that Ellen White stated creation took place in 24-hour literal days. I was going to ask him if he had a reference. (At this point I should state that I don't have a stake pro et contra creation or evolution. Yet, I do think much of the disagreement is based on conflating the role of Genesis and science. In my opinion they are not involved in the same thing.) As a philosopher of religion I have an interest in elucidating the possibilities of sense in the accounts of religious practice, including SDA.
I was about to stand up and ask Ron about his first statement, when in response to another question he said that in no uncertain categorical terms E. White stated that the creation took place in "24-hour literal days." I have scoured her writings and only find references to "literal days" but never 24-hour. Although there are church statements and publications from the White Estate that append 24-hour to literal days with quotes on the latter.
I see quite big difference between "literal" and "24-hour" for the possibilities of what Ellen White may have meant.

Please clarify how "literal" days differs from "24-hour" days.

Are there different definitions?

Ed G

Ellen stated that elapsed time during the first six days were equal to the elapsed time of six days today. Please read this passage from Chapter IX - Disguised Infidelity, Spiritual Gifts, vol 3, and then explain how anybody could come to any conclusion that Ellen was speaking of something other than literal days that are 24 hours long just like today? If you want to question Ron Number's statement that the days were not 24 hours I believe it would be up to you to prove that Ellen did not believe a literal day had 24 hours in it.

"When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

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.

Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old."

To Kefante,

I find it curious that the onus of showing that literal is not equal to 24 hour days falls upon me. I am not the one involved in inferential leaps. The text simply does not say that.

Now I am fine with long quotes though I don't think they bolster the logic of argumentation. But I am compelled to ask, where does Ellen state, as you say, "elapsed time during the first six days were equal to the elapsed time of six days today." I may grant that you believe that is what she meant and even that this may be one among many legitimate readings. Still I would want to know how you say she said such a thing when there is no extant writing that says it. I am not defending or attacking the little lady's remarks. I simply want to know what hermeneutic is at play in making such a specific determination about the existence of a concept of measurement when there is no mention of it. This is utterly glaring in the light of her numerous statements about literal days. Why exclude a measurement that was common to her time? Surely, she knew about 24 hours. But further, why is it that literal should imply such a specific concept, yet exclude others like vernal equinox or during of daylight and darkness separately. This are things we do, and things done at the time of her writing. My suggestion is that perhaps we project a specific sense of literal day, without considering that she was not at all involved in making such a determination.

I suppose your argument is that 24 hour is constitutive of the "literal days." Perhaps, but not necessarily. It doesn't take much cogitation to come up with scenarios where literal doesn't include mathematical measurements or units of time, even when speaking about days. Try a few thought experiments with various uses of literal. This is a perennial problem that vexes philosophical and theological discussion: the presumption of a univocal sense to a concept or word when there are other senses at play.

What we do know is that she was addressing Genesis' story of creation wherein a day is given as light and darkness. We also know that she emphasized that her literal days were originated in the days of creation (90). Notice the sequence, she places the meaning of day in the Genesis story. This is not an anachronistic reading of Genesis. She isn't establishing what Genesis days are, rather she establishes what the cycle of days (Days 1-7) are today, according to the creation cycle of days (pg 90).
I may take literal to mean real, a fact, or as philosopher's put it a state of affairs. So her days had the same states of affairs as the Genesis days, we can even say that as far as we know those are light and darkness. But I find it strange to read further into it, to apply to her use of literal that is married to a more contemporary designation. We might want to admit that if 24 hour is based on planetary cycles, we simply don't know what those past cycles might have been. I imagine the writer of Genesis looking at his solar system model, thinking of the earth as a globe or for believers a God concerned with mathematical concepts.
There is an ostentation at play when we say that our concepts were indubitably constitutive in other times and cultures. I think it is quite possible that Ellen White recognized the faultiness of making such an extremely specific determination 24 hour); one that finds its sense in her contemporary world and not that of Genesis.

My argument is that perhaps we assume much more than Ellen White does.
In the end, we need to take a closer look at how we use the word literal. What informs its meaning?

I apologize for the poor spelling, especially that of your name, keafan.
There are others such errors as "this" for "these", "during" for "duration", etc.

Sincerely,

Ed G

"It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods."

Seven literal days = 7 24 hour periods.

God's creation lasted 6 literal days and God rested on the seventh literal day.

Therefore, Ellen's claim that the creation days were literal days means 24 hour days.

Ed, the whole chapter is titled Disguised Infidelity. She stated that people who claimed time periods different than what we know today to be 24 hr days were infidels.

"It is the worst kind of infidelity."

She is scoffing at people such as yourself that claim the creation days are anything different than what we call a "day". A literal day. A 24 hour day.

Ed

Another way of saying it... She wrote that God would not have commanded that we observe something different than the object that it commemorates. He commanded six days for work, and the seventh to rest, just like, as Ellen wrote, "his example on the first seven days of time."

Now, if you think she was wrong, that's one thing (along with being, in her words, an infidel). All these so-called Adventists that are trying to make creation be some indefinable period of time in a possibly metaphorical tale are, to Ellen, infidels. Personally, I agree. They want to be SDA's without believing all the idiotic things that make the SDA church what it is.

You have to follow the text carefully or for lack of a better term, literally (smile).
I can appreciate the math, but it certainly isn't a logical operation and it isn't an a priori proposition. To say that literal equals 24 hour is to make an inference based assertion. What you would have to do is gather the body of evidence and inductively explain your argument for the premise. The latter would be the idea that "literal days = 24 hours." Yet even the strongest inductive argument would have to recognize the possibility of evidence that points to dissimilar conclusions. In other words, there are other possibilities of sense for the idea of literal days.

I see where this is going and you obviously have an axe to grind. You keep stating that she said these 24-hour statements but she didn't. One mustn't confuse what one believes for what is ostensively present in the text. This is a quintessential example of horrendous teaming of fallacies. There are too many to fallacies at play in your emendation of Ellen White's statements. The most troubling of these fallacies is the definist one. This has to do with the 24-hour equating of 24 hour with literal day, despite the paucity of supporting evidence. That is not to say that you cannot believe this equation, but rather that idea of those who disagree with this equation as infidels (of whom White speaks), doesn't bear out.

Look, in the end my intent is not to malign Ellen White, but in some ways it is to recover an appreciation for her as a thoughtful leader and writer. My reading of literal is that the days are a reality, or that both days share the same reality. The problem would come in how one defines reality. I don't give the terms of reality to science, mathematics or any external system to religion. I rather let reality be defined by the Biblical poetry (pay attention here, not metaphor but poetry). The Genesis account makes exhaustive claims about God and reality, to wit that God supplies the sense of reality to which believers appeal and in which believers live. This reality is exhaustive it is the reality that give reality to everything. It takes place before such concerns as the empirical, the verifiable, or the reproducible; it is not concerned with any of these. Therefore, if you have trouble with not being able to give a further measurement to the Genesis account I would ask you to inquire as to your conception of reality. Ask yourself whether it is informed by the very science you repudiate. If so you are in a contentious place, at once appealing those values in science for a conception of reality that will underwrites Genesis, then use that reality in order to reject the claims the scientific institution makes. Do you see a problem. Why not abandon the realism that fetters your belief? (Hint: Lest you misunderstand I should explicit state that realism is a pejorative designation.)

Since I see that for you positions other than a literal day = 24-hour day automatically means the person is the infidel that E.White talk of, I should say something in my defense. I don't believe in an indeterminate time of creation. Frankly, I am not sure what kind of timing was involved. I think the duration of creation days is one of those unknowables, that will always remain so.
But I will say that I am okay with the belief that it took place in days, literally like ours: light and darkness and then there was day. I would resist the temptation to try and say more, because the preoccupation with determinateness that the 24-hour designation represents is not, as I see it, any kind of concern for Genesis or Ellen White.

This is the last I will say on this matter. I have lots of work that will extend for about two weeks and given that these topics are within my field I find it difficult to resist discussion. Therefore I will excuse myself, until another time.

Ask yourself whether it is informed by the very science you repudiate.

I don't repudiate science. Science falsified Genesis long ago. Its christians such as your self (it seems from your brief interlude here) that want to make the ignorant beliefs of the goat herders be consistent with the scientific facts of this planet and universe. You desire to keep the system of a literal God that created and controlled the environment and lives of the superstitious hebrews while at the same time crying for the license to reinterpret almost everything that the hebrews claimed that their literal God did. When the literal claims of literal actions are found to be literally false then that literal God is literally false.

I think the duration of creation days is one of those unknowables, that will always remain so.

That belief is what Ellen called the worst kind of infidelity.

I wonder how many folks even realize why there are 24 hrs in a day?

probably because superstitious, scientifically ignorant ancient goat herders lay on their backs during the night when there were no lions to chase, and watched 12 signs in the sky cross overhead...constellations that looked like gods, animals, hunters, fish, etc...

http://zodiac-signs-astrology.com/

thus the number 12 became the figure representing
"all night long", or completeness....

after all, the number 12 represented divine signs in the sky
that's why Olde Jake had 12 kids...
and Jesus picked 12 apostles
and the holy city has 12 gates in the walls we won't need because we can fly over them, and walls are only needed to keep the bad guys out, right? or are they to keep the good guys in?

Once the superstitious ancients invented sand dials/egg timers lasting long enuf to measure the 12 hrs of night, then they could measure 12 hrs of day to get thru the day,and reach the next night when the 12 signs and 7 gods would reappear.

the number "7" came from those ancient goat herders failure to invent telescopes, and only being able to see 5 planets with the nekkid eye which along with the sun and moon, moved differently against the star background....these 7 were thought to be gods inside the dome, from which we got our 7 days of the week and so many other "7's"....including the 7 periods of creation...7th heaven....the 7 secrets of somewhere lake in an old nature book my parents used to read to me as bedtime story....which brings us back to the creation stories....

as further proof that EGW believed in the literal 24 hr day, doesn't she emphasize how the sabbath is required to be kept from sundown to sundown, 24 hrs?....tho up in alaska, the locals recently have been known to sometimes use 6 pm to 6 pm when the sun does not cooperate well with work schedules
or salmon runs.

whether or not EGW uses a literal 24 hr day for her belief in what everybody else did for Creation "week", she was mathemagically challenged enuf to be unable to figure the square root of 144,000.... and thus was unable to realize her mistake that 144,000 virgin WHOLE guys cannot stand in a perfect square.

>>> and thus was unable to realize her mistake that 144,000 virgin WHOLE guys cannot stand in a perfect square

Sure they can

(a) it can be hollow, or have other notches cut out of one or more sides

(b) they don't have to stand evenly spaced within it

/Bevin

Eg: Here are 5 guys standing in a perfect square

X---X
-----
--X--
-----
X---X

/Bevin

lsts see you do that with the number 12, representing completeness, then multiplied by itself, representing completeness squared, then multiply the whole thing by the largest Roman numeral then known of 1,000....

that's how many are going to reach the "golden strand", (sunset beach) after crossing the stormy seas of life, with Christ as our captain, in a church shaped like a nave (naval vessel), when we finally reach safe hafen...heaven.

the grand total of "saved" will be...
the complete number 12...squared to make it completely complete, then multiplied by the biggest number in the then known universe....

maybe, some day, along with Steven, Joe and the Beantown Boiz, we're ALL gonna make it to the other side!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7cVukevcH4

To those expressing interest in the creation debate,
I would urge everyone interested in this discussion to read Dr. Hugh Ross's book "A Matter of Days" I don't think most of us following this topic have as a good a grasp of this subject as he does. He is known to many at Loma Linda and is well versed in Adventist theology. He cannot be dismissed as some kind of off-beat astro-physicist who is out to promote some kind of non biblical based version of Creation. It is soundly rooted in biblical scholarship and widely accepted scientific observation and he is highly regarded in both the scientific community and the Christian churches.I'm not here to promote Dr Ross (although he is a fellow Canadian) but ask that reason and facts prevail. Truth like cream will eventually rise to the top and not our individual perception of the truth. Unfortunately we become married to our "truth" and our emotional attachment to it is an extremely difficult bond to break. However if you can analyze your relationship to "truth" without prejudice, assumptions and humility I think it will allow for less acrimony and better discussion.
As Dr Ross correctly points out, the Hebrew word for "day" is "yom" and has 4 literal definitions, biblically 1. a portion of the daylight hours 2. sunrise to sunset. 3 sunset to sunset. 4 a segment of time without reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch) Yom cannot be interpreted as indefinite ie anytime or someday or infinite time Yom refers to a finite time period. The context will drive the appropiate meaning. Therefore it is correct to say that "yom" in the context of the creation event is best interpreted as an "epoch" Hence a literal reading. (the english word "epoch does not exist in Hebrew - Moses would done us a big favor if he had coined such a word and spared us this divisive debate). Why "epoch"? Given that present data on the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years and the many other creation accounts harmonize with this definition. Also thanks to Albert Einstein and his theorems of general relativity which have proven that the universe has a finite beginning (13.7 billion years ago), the 7 epochs (days) of creation fits perfectly with the observed reality as demonstrated by relatively recent findings, particularly those made by the Hubble space telescope. Since Einstein's theorems have accurately described the dynamics of the universe and is one of the most exhaustively tested
principles of physics, then to interpret Genesis "days" as 24 hours is to ignore what modern astro-physics has proven to be the reality of our universe. I realize that those who hold to "24 hour days" in Genesis will not be persuaded by the solid evidence presented because it does violence to the sacredly held belief in the 7th day sabbath. I'm not sure what the problem is. Is it based on their fear that God will punish us for "observing the wrong day"? Is the observance of Saturday "sabbath" the defining criteria that God uses to determine who is "faithful" and who is not? That is not the Gospel of Jesus that I'm aware of. Be it far from me to tell anyone what to believe but to blatantly ignore what is known about God's created order through the sciences serves only to destroy ones credibility. The God of the bible, the God of nature is one and the same. The bible and nature are complementary revelations and both are needed to better understand a very tiny part of His character.

Dave Okamura Toronto

A Brief Note to Tom
You state that creation science does not exist. Well let me inform you that "creation as Science" does exist. I've read it and refer to it often. The author Dr Hugh Ross is a graduate of University of Toronto with a degree in astronomy. Please don't dismiss him because he's Canadian. Here's a comment I'll quote from the jacket cover of the book." This book is a must-read for any person who is seeking a voice of reason in the midst of the controversy between differing theories of the origins of the universe and particularly the origins of mankind. Ross's clear identification of the players in the debate is worth the price of this book. Here is the ultimate proof that you do not have to give up your intellect to believe in the God of the Bible"
Robert L. Stewart PH.D brigadier general
U.S, Army (ret) astronaut
You can obtain your copy from Reasons to Believe -reasons.org. Their office is located in Glendora Calif. I sincerely hope this book becomes a part of your library.

Regards
Dave Okamura

John Alfke,

I wouldn't be surprised. It's a nice thought, isn't it?

Poor Ross!!! he is sniped at by all sides!!!

Creationists shoot to kill from the right-eous direction claiming he has sold out to the devil when he believes in the ancient age of the earth...

evolutionists claim he fails to understand the mechanism or "motivation" of evolution...since he seems to say God USED EVOLUTION as part of His creative process...
He created rocks a long time ago, and animals and people more recently. I haven't learned yet how he explains limestone...which most often comes from the long term death and deposition of tiny marine ANIMALS and their bodies and shells.....

and to make things better? god used...
you know...the food chain? dog eat dog...the best and biggest dog survived by eating the best and propagated his genes and tendency to be top dog.

Ross claims to be able to tell us how to straddle the fence and satisfy our needs to be in many places at the same time!!! like apparently Tiger Woods tried to perfect.

I just looked Hugh Ross up on wicked pedia....and no longer know WHAT to believe!!! its all so frightening....you know?
half the people I know are below average, and I'm no longer sure where I fit in...or even if I do.

now, where did I put those lithium pills.....and my prosac....who took my prosac?...and I forgot where I left my ginko?

Dave

I get your point, never-the-less creation is not reproducable. Thus is not amenable to scientific confirmation or falsification. It lends itself only to observations such as David: "The Heavens declare the glory of God" or the creative and healing acts of Jesus. Certainly calling forth Lazarus is in the same category as making Adam out of clay or Eve out of a rib. The declaration of Jesus as the I Am that confronted Moses at the burning bush or the I am that held Abraham's hand and directed Abraham toward the Ram caught in the thicket was certainly confirmed in making water into wine, into calming the waves, in stilling the waters, in making the blind see, the lame walk, the lepar clean. Wonder of wonders He invites us to join Him in the wedding feast of the Lamb. I accept, rejoice in, and worship the One with creative power and redemptive love. I base my confidence solely on the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. Never-the-less, I honor Abraham, David, Job, Isaih, and the worthies of the Old Testiment who saw ahead and believed.

What a wonderful Savior is Jesus our Lord.

Tom

Dave Okamura pointed to Hugh Ross.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)
"Ross believes in progressive creationism, which posits that while the earth is billions of years old, life did not appear by natural forces alone but that a supernatural agent formed different lifeforms in incremental (progressive) stages, and day-age creationism which is an effort to reconcile a literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans.[8] He rejects the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) position that the earth is younger than 10,000 years, or that the creation "days" of Genesis 1 represent literal 24-hour periods. "

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm

/Bevin

To the Hugh Ross naysayers,

It is very obvious that no one has read or heard Ross and your comments are so off base that it is very difficult to discuss creation science with any degree of objectivity. To use wikipedia as a reference source does not reflect much scholarship. I think that until you read his work (it is a rather extensive body of work) or hear him in person (very approachable) then there is no room for discussion.I don't know about you,but one of the most frustrating thing in a debate is to call into question the integrity of the speaker, author, presenter or impugn their character without knowing the person. That's just so sophomoric. Let's just discuss the facts of the case in question. I realize that creationism is an "emotional" issue for many of you and I can tell by some of the comments that you have deep feelings on the subject. But just because one "feels" that something is true doesn't make it so. That just doesn't cut it the real world. I think the better approach in these discussions is to present your facts or data and see if in a year or so you have more supporting evidence for your model. If your evidence is increasing with respect to time then you may be on the right track. If the evidence is decreasing then you need to review your hypothesis. As an example, research tells us that there used to be about 80 phyla in the fossil record. Today that number is about 50. Here is an example of evolution going the wrong way. The onus is on the evolutionist to explain this observation.
I think we can raise the level of the debate if we can argue the facts of the case and not resort to opinions, personal biases, assumptions. After all, correct understanding of creation is not a condition for salvation- agreed?-.

Dave Okamura

Dave

Why would an SDA care about Hugh Ross? His theories contradict the Bible. You throw the word 'creation' around enough and it becomes meaningless. Whatever deity Ross has in mind its not El Elyon, the God Most High that created the flat earth with the dome on top and the animals and man in 6 days.

There are lots of creation or origin stories from different cultures all over this planet. The Hebrews had one which was written down and forms the basis for their system of Gods. To bring up other creation theories on an SDA forum is just a diversionary tactic since the story in your holy book is clearly false.

There is only one Creation theory claimed by the writers of the Bible. The same God that is claimed to have performed that feat is also the God that, for the last 722,700 days, has been claimed to be going to do the feat of 'salvation' ANY DAY NOW. That God of Salvation has nothing to do with any theory of Ross'.

BTW, I am very happy for you that you have been able to spend some of your short life in the physical presence of your hero Ross. However, to claim that a person cannot question a person's authority because we have not read his books or met him is stupid, to be kind. Have you ever read anything Jesus wrote? Have you met him? Have you ever read anything the hebrew god wrote? Have you ever met him? Everything you know about your deities is hearsay. Then you tell others to shut up if they use hearsay or quote experts on the subject? Get a grip dude. I have personally met and had discussions with PZ Myers about the pros and cons of debating creationists. I have met and had discussions with Victor Stenger. I have attended a debate of Christopher Hithens'. I have read a large quantity of written material by those intellectuals. If I quoted what they wrote, or their theories, or held them up as authorities on this board I would fully expect people to find sources to disparage them. They would be right to do so. The more info the better.

"There is only one Creation theory claimed by the writers of the Bible."

But there are two distinctly different stories. How are we to believe one theory when the two differ so greatly?

Keafan

I also read and listen to Christopher, he is a very captivativing drunk. He is a reporter/commentartor, not a scientist or a thought leader in any sense. The Christ event is the validation of the ceation event no matter how many vesions are extant.

The prsent geopolitical world is proof enough of the Biblical story. Never--the-less they will have have to come and get me where I am; not where E. G. White suggests I go hide. She wrote years prior to geo-positioning I bet that the "black Helicopters": could find Herbert Douglass in a nano second.

"Our times are in His hands who said, a whole I planned, see all nor be afraid!" Tom

Tom,

Herbs, yours, and my house can be seen online today. A "remote flown plane" could remove it today. Incredible.

They can come and get us both so that we can tell them of Jesus. "Why do you come in darkness...I was with you every day." WWJD.

regards,
pat

Dave,
I'm curious having never read Ross. I understand the argument for the word "day" being a length of time but what about where the verse talks about the evening and the morning were the first day etc? Are there also Hebrew alternatives that are non-specific time periods to "evening" and "morning"? Otherwise it would seem pretty strange to me to be saying that the "evening and the morning were the first indeterminate length of time which could be up to millions of years."

Come to think of it, it would also be strange to say, "the unspecified length of time and the other unspecified length of time were the first indeterminate length of time."

Beth,

There are several "time terms" in Hebrew.

Genesis 1 uses "ereb boqer (#) yom" evening morning-(#)day.

If the author desired to express "extremly long time periods" between "the days" of creation he could have used Heb. olam- with the meaning "a very distant time and even further."

Genesis 1 does not use olam.

Hope this is useful.

regards,
pat

Tom

You wrote I also read and listen to Christopher, he is a very captivating drunk.

That's also what the detractors said about Jesus. Course, they also called Jesus a glutton. Christopher is a little on the pudgy side but doesn't appear to be a glutton. Maybe he needs to work on that area to get up to the same level of name-calling that the alleged Jesus got.

The Christ event is the validation of the creation event no matter how many versions are extant.

Then you add circular reasoning to the giant helping of ad hominem? You're on a roll with the fallacies. Maybe toss in some logically valid pieces here and there to keep me reading.

keafan

To comparing Christopher with Jesus is blasphemy of the first order. Christopher is a brilliant drunk, Christ was not. What is circular about the Great I Am making Adam out of clay and calling forth Lazarus out of decaying flesh? So you disagree, why be so mean about it? How does that help your cause? Tom.

Pat

I can find my house on Google, It even shows the new deck. Tom

... [C]omparing Christopher with Jesus is blasphemy of the first order.

Reread my statement. I compared what you wrote about Hitchens to what the Gospels claim people said about Jesus. I compared ad hominems, not persons.

Christopher is a brilliant drunk, Christ was not.

How do you know that Jesus wasn't a brilliant drunk? You could make that assertion about John the Baptist, but Jesus? Jesus stated positively that he was a drinker, and did not deny the very claim you make of Hitchens- that he was a drunkard (Matt 11 & Luke 7).

What is circular about the Great I Am making Adam out of clay and calling forth Lazarus out of decaying flesh?

There is a book that you believe has factual, literally true statements in it. One of the claims is that there was a human known in english as Jesus. That person, Jesus, allegedly brought a dead person back to life. Because you believe that to be true, you claim that "the Christ event" proves Creation. Your reasoning is invalid and wrong several different ways which I couldn't be bothered to point out except for the most obvious- That its circular reasoning.

So you disagree, why be so mean about it?

Sometimes sarcasm is called for. If you take sarcasm to be "mean" then I can't help that.

How does that help your cause?

What "cause" might that be? I don't have a goal of doing anything on this forum. I just enjoy it. I enjoy the "conversation" with people of similar backgrounds. SDA backgrounds. Some of us have moved on and others here have not. This makes for some interesting dialog with a wide variety of opinions among people that have Adventism in common.

Do you have a "cause" which leads you to post here? An 'agenda'? Some here (David Read, Loren Seibold, Shane Hilde, RC, Cliffy, etc) DO have a "cause" or agenda. You and I seem to be here for our own enjoyment.

keafan

I am here because, I was at the founding of Sectrum. I am here because I was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist. I am here because I held responsible posts in Adventism. I am here because I found that Seventh-day Adventism is not consistent with the Pauline Gospel. I am here because of the fear motive that drives people both in and out of Adventism. I am here to give testimony to: By Scripture alone, By Faith alone, by Christ alone.

When Jesus claims to be the Great I Am, I respond just as I am will out one plea! Thus, "Peace like a River Attendeth my way". I want to shout that saving Grace to all who can read and understand The Creative Power and Redemptive Love of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I learned this at my parents knees, renewed it with Dr. Edward Heppenstall, and found voice in Dr. Graham Maxwell. Now I find the same hope, love, and assurance in Dr. Leslie Holmes, Senior Pastor of Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church and a frequent contributor to Ministry Mag.

I am not here for the fun of it. I am not here to engage in vain argumentation. I am here because at 84--after 63 years as a Sabbath School teacher, Elder, Trustee, I have few places to testify to the love and saving Grace of Christ my Lord. To doubt, to deny, the love and compassion of God, our Creator and Redeemer is vanity and self agrandizement. I lived 41 years at the peak of academia. Yet I find nothing more challenging and rewarding than the testimony of John and Paul. To the extent the E. G. White echoed their thoughts and reasoning, I read her. I believe, her inspiration was entirely out of her Methodist heritage. The rest was pure marketing. Tom

I have few places to testify to the love and saving Grace of Christ my Lord.

In your posts that I have read there have been a lot of personal experiences (worthy of an autobiography IMO- I would buy it) and some positive comments about the emotional and intellectual appeal of your present (and some former) pastors at your present church. But, I can't remember any personal testimony of love from Christ or personal testimony of the saving Grace of Christ. Even if you have (I am certain that I have read only a small % of your total number of posts) it would be personal. Hearsay. Personal conclusions that could be attributed to the expected events of a similar person's life experiences. Testimony that a Buddhist would attribute to The Way, or that a Chinese would attribute to following the philosophy of Confucius, or that an atheist would attribute to purely natural events.

IMO, if you are claiming to have an agenda, the agenda would be promoting the superiority of the Presbyterian interpretation of the Gospel or their ministerial training.

Thanks Pat. That is helpful.

I take back my earlier statement - I have read some of Ross but it's all been online. Things blur together after awhile.

I think in an effort to try and make an accurate Genesis view fit with an old age non-evolution view, he has to ignore some pretty blatant scripture and ignore some pretty blatant science which doesn't win friends from either perspective.

Keafan

I'll let the sum of my entries speak for themselves. Tom

Keafan

In case, some of my entries are no longer available. I submit my beliefs which I posted about 10-12 months ago.

My Basic Beliefs
Tom Zwemer

:

I believe that there is a community of faith held together by a common love of Christ and in a common hope of His soon return that crosses denominational boundaries. Acts 1 and 2.

Those communities come together to study His life, His dying, His resurrection, and the consequences for their lives. They come together to celebrate salvation in Jesus Christ alone. I Cor. 15: 1-22

With them, I accepted the Bible as the best revelation of Christ’s life and its meaning to them.. However, I will accept any helps from godly men and women who are students of the Bible. I believe their insight and experience can improve our understanding of the Bible in its witness to Christ. However, if any person’s doctrine is contrary to the Bible I will stand with the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17 2 Peter 1: 19-21

With them, I believe that coming together in study and celebration will increase Our faith, strengthen Our love and hope, and will improve our ability to tell the story of Jesus Christ to others. 2 Tim 2: 15

With them, I believe that we are part of an open community and are not willing to exclude anyone from fellowship. We believe the community of faith is for the sick as well as the whole. Eph. 2:19-22

With them, I believe that we have the opportunity and responsibility to grow. We believe that no expression of our faith, hope, and love is final or non-negotiable, including this statement. 1 Cor. 13:12

With them, I believe that Jesus Christ is God in the fullest and highest sense. John 1: 1,2
Hebrews 1: 1-4

With them, I believe that God is three persons, yet one in purpose, character, and power. Heb. 1: 1-4 John 16: 13,14 Heb. 10: 15

With them, I believe that Jesus Christ set aside His prerogatives as God and became man in the full extent of humanity, sin excepted. Phil. 2: 5-11

With them, I believe that the ultimate expression of God’s personality, character, and purpose ever revealed to man, was made in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. [Jesus Christ is the ultimate Prophet.] Hebrews 1: 1-4

With them, I believe that Jesus Christ became the ultimate and only necessary advocate [mediator] between God and man. [Jesus Christ is the ultimate Priest.] Heb. 4: 14-16

With them, I believe that Jesus Christ conquered sin and death and thus holds within His power the keys to heaven and hell and has dominion over the earth and the spiritual realm. [Jesus Christ is the ultimate King] Rev. 1: 5 Rev. 1: 17-18

With them, I believe that God has exalted Christ to the highest place and has given Him the name that is above every name. Phil. 2: 5-11

With them, I believe that after Christ provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. For this reason, I believe that Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant. Heb. 10: 12

I believe that Jesus Christ is in the presence of God as our High Priest and King and therefore, He is now, and has been since His ascension, in the most reverent and Holy place in the universe. There can be no place more Holy than the place where God is. Heb. 10 [voice against dispensational thinking]

With them, I believe that Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people, and that He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him. Heb. 8-10

With them, I believe that while Christ is away He has sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. I believe that all truth, particularly in this context, saving truth, is embodied in Jesus Christ. John 16: 13,14

With them, I believe that if one confesses with their mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead they will be saved. Rom. 10:9

With them, I believe that no man can say Christ is Lord or believe in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12: 3

With them, I believe that as a consequence of these beliefs that we are our brother’s brother. We believe that as a consequence of having been purchased with such a great price, we honor the One who bought us back from Hell and Death by Our celebration of His act, by the etiquette and ethics with which we deal with our neighbors and by our stewardship of our vitality and talents which He has so richly bestowed upon them. Eph. 1-5

With them, I believe that true worship is in Spirit and in Truth and thus is not limited by time or space. John 4: 23,24

With them, I believe that Jesus Christ is the object of true worship and to Him alone every knee should bow in reverential awe. Rev. 19: 10

With them, I believe that such worship will result in dynamic fellowship and service to their brothers and sisters of contrary opinion as well as those of like faith. Eph. 1-5

With them, I believe that one who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. Such a love will neither keep score nor try to even or settle a score. Rom. 13: 9-14

With them, I believe in that freedom from condemnation compels them not to judge our brother in food and drink or in days and seasons. Rom. 14: 1-23

With them, I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the judgment hour to those who
truly hear the good news unadulterated by institutionalism.

Belief or trust in Jesus Christ as Savior brings a declaration of freedom from condemnation. [Such a believer is declared just.] On the other hand, rejection of the finished work of Jesus Christ brings condemnation and death. Hebrews 9-10

With them, I, with them, believe that those who come into Gospel fellowship by the guidance of the Spirit and continue there in, will have an opportunity for growth and service afforded no other community. Acts 17: 11, 12

With them, I, with them, believe that those who have such a faith, hope, and love will neither cling together nor hide from the world but will go and teach all nations, kindred, and tongues and people, the Good News about God in Jesus Christ. Matt. 28: 19,20

These beliefs form the foundation and substance of my joy, my fellowship and my sharing.

Tom Zwemer

Keafan

In a narrative form my belief is stated below:

John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim’s Progress, published one of his sermons entitled: “Justification by Faith” as a little paper- back. He took his text from Ezekiel 16: 1-14. Using the charm of the 1611 King James Version, Bunyan describes God’s Children (Israel) as born, with an uncut cord, unwashed, and unwrapped or “swaddled, and cast away in an open field; a pitiful and desperate sight. The Lord took pity of the poor tyke, bathed, salted his cord, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes. What is more God decked the baby out in fine embroidered linen, adorned the baby with ornaments of silver, gold, jewels and even added a crown and a chain with matching earrings.
The Lord fed him with fine flour, honey, and oil. A vivid account of the blessings God had bestowed on the Children of Abraham. The lad (nation) grew and prospered. But the lad (nation) grew proud and followed the heathen customs of the day. Looming before the lad (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) was captivity in a foreign land and stripped of all his jewels.
Bunyan aptly applies the analogy to each one of us. Christ comes to us and finds us unwashed, unsalted, and un-swaddled. In accepting Christ’s living, servicing, dying, resurrection as necessary and sufficient for our redemption, He washes, salts, and dresses us in His fine linen. He presents us to the Father as sons and daughters of the “new Adam” the prince that has prevailed against Satan and with God, the Father.
The story is reminiscent of Adam and Eve in the Garden discovering for the first time their nakedness and the loss of their garden home.
I believe in that Alien Righteousness that resides in Jesus Christ, our Lord and coming King, and to its corollary Proper Righteousness or ethic the springs forth from those who find themselves washed, salted, and swaddled by the Righteousness of Christ. To those with a historic bent, Martin Luther first presented the concept of Alien and Proper Righteousness in a sermon given in 1519 and translated by John Dillenberger in 1961.
The two terms Alien Righteousness and Proper Righteousness clearly delineate justification and the ethos and ethical response we know as sanctification: both consequential to the redemptive act of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as our Guide and Comforter. Tom