SDA choice to Believe the Bible - and not mock the Bible YEC OEYC

[BobRyan]

Ex 20:11 Legal code not "myth".
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Genesis 2:1-4 inspired historic account --
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

=================================science vs nonscience
science knows "How" to make salt in an experiment. For example the salt NaCl

It does not know how to get dust,rocks, water, gas, and sunlight to "make a rabbit" in an experiment.

It also cannot incinerate a rabbit in a sealed container - then re-assemble the rabbit from its parts.

Nor can it show that dust,rocks,gas, sunlight ever self-assembled into a rabbit "over time and chance" via very convoluted storytelling. But it can show that we have rabbits and we have dust rocks air and sunlight.

===========================================
There is a thread here that starts with a mock-the-Bible list -
Apr 30, 2016 #1

By contrast we could choose to believe what the Bible says. Because it is so clear and irrefutable in its statements that even atheists can figure it out.

Notice how the devil starts with "mock the Word of God" as his opening gambit in Genesis 3?


And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

=====================

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable"

-------------------------------------------------------------

But then arises the religion of evolutionism whose by-faith-alone claim is that "A pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

Such a religion as that is ideal for an attack on the Bible.

And for the sake of the T.E. that does not want to start with the atheist's earth-sized 'pile of dirt' -- we have the "tiny amoeba" version of that same doctrine on origins.

"An amoeba will sure-enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented amoeba ... and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with just-so-stories that are easy enough to tell".

 

[BobRyan]

Darwin and Dawkins both looked into this and came to the same conclusion - better to "mock the Bible" in their POV.

The T.E. quote above is not the only one who claims that his Christianity was being set aside by belief in the doctrine on origins found in evolution -

Darwin also claimed that faith in evolutionism destroyed Christianity for him - ...

-- Darwinism leads to atheism according to a number of prominent scientists.

When I said in the OP that "rejecting Romans1 is a 'distinctively atheist' position" - I refer to this

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse


Darwinism's ability to destroy christian faith in those that accept it (given a long enough period of time) - is something that Christians 'should not notice' say 'some' in the Christian community. Others argue it should not be discussed so it can continue its work without detection.


"Among leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87% deny existence of God, 88% disbelieve in life after death, and 90% reject idea that evolution is directed Toward an “ultimate purpose.” 12 "
from http://www.kmlhs.org/UserFiles/Serv...e/FACULTY_FILES/Bartelt/losingfaith020214.pdf



Darwin's Christianity - destroyed by belief in evolution
===================================

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee.



But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details…

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.



I can, indeed, hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 omits the last sentence which is included in the later version of the work [Barlow (1958)].

=====================


Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that Romans 1 statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not

 

[BobRyan]

• everyone can easily see that life-comes-from-life not from dirt and rocks.
• Everyone can see - that in 50,000 generation experiment since 1988 - bacteria remain bacteria - and yet blind faith evolutionism 'imagines" that in LESS generations - humans evolved!!
• Everyone can see "in real life" - the much-predicted y-chromosome Adam in real life - "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to 'imagine' a bunch of "Adams" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind.
• Everyone can see 'in real life' -- the much-predicted mitochondrial EVE -- in "observations in nature" -- and yet blind faith evolutionism is left to "imagine" a bunch of "Eve's" that magically vanished from the entire genetic code of all mankind
• Everyone can see "in real life" -- attempt after attempt by evolutionists to 'double-down' on the "stories easy enough to tell" methods that were entirely debunked even by your own evolutionist leadership. Why do they "double-down on junk-science methods"? answer: Because that is all they have !
  
• Everyone can see that the earth and moon could not possibly come from the accretion disk of the 90%-hydrogen sun -- and yet blind faith evolutionism has to "imagine" the sun snatching earth and moon from outer space.
• Everyone can see that a mere 100,000 years of erosion would have wiped out all mountains on earth that are 100,000 years or older.
  
• Everyone can see that the Bible dictates a 7 day creation week in Ex 20:8-11 so the Bible is either condemned or ignored by those devotees to evolutionism - that prefer wild guessing -- to the Word of God, to science, to actual observations in nature.
• Everyone can SEE that even your own blind-faith evolutionists are forced to admit to the fact that observations in nature show that life is designed - for a purpose -- much to their own consternation

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

See it in living color ---

Christians choose to believe the Bible. Even when it is "inconvenient".

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

 

[BobRyan]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism

1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

 

[Monk Brendan]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism

1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

The same chemical elements in living creatures are also found in dirt and rocks.

The Bible should not be compared with scientific theories and hypotheses (which I admit are always changing and being adjusted). Rather, the Creation accounts in the Bible should be compared with those of the surrounding cultures. This will provide even more contrast.

The Bible was not intended to be a scientific or historical treatise as we understand those academic disciplines today.

 

[BobRyan]

The same chemical elements in living creatures are also found in dirt and rocks.

You appear to be making my point for me.

And God formed man of the dust of the Earth - Genesis 2:7

19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, Gen 2:19

The Bible can always be compared with scientific theories and hypotheses (guesswork) and the most bogus of the junk-science guesswork will quickly become apparent. Leaving us with real science.

The Bible was not intended to be a scientific or historical treatise

So then - no historical Jesus? no virgin birth in actual history?
No historic miracles of Christ?
No crucifixion and bodily resurrection "actually happened in history"??
No bodily ascension of Christ actually happened in history? Because the Bible is not a trustworthy source for real historic event that it claims to report??

How sad the conclusions determine by such assumptions.

Hint: science knows "How" to make salt in an experiment.

It does not know how to get dust,rocks, water, gas, and sunlight to "make a rabbit" in an experiment.

It also cannot incinerate a rabbit in a sealed container - then re-assemble the rabbit from its parts.

Nor can it show that dust,rocks,gas, sunlight ever self-assembled into a rabbit "over time and chance" via very convoluted storytelling. But it can show that we have rabbits and we have dust rocks air and sunlight.

 

[BobRyan]

Consistent observations in nature for Bible creationism


1. It predicts the BIG BANG so hotly debated in science for decades in the 1900's - yet Young Earth Creation science "predicts" that all matter had a start. The discovery of the expanding universe confirms that prediction.

2. Expanding universe - in the case of God "stretching out the heavens"

3. Mitochondrial Even and Y-Chromosome Adam - IN the 1900's science was speculating "FIVE RACES of MAN" - but Creation science predicts ONE Race - and mitochondrial EVE, Y-Chromosome Adam point to a single race - not 5.

4. Creation Science predicts "other worlds" as Heb 1:1-4 tells us - for decades in the 1900's science had NO evidence at all of other planets outside of our solar system - much less "other worlds". Now almost nobody doubts this after finding planets in the so-called "Goldilocks" zone.

5. Bacteria - remain Bacteria - after 3.8 billion years supposed of "evolutionism" bacteria remain bacteria - Prokaryotes still not becoming Eukaryotes much less bacteria evolving into horses. The various gene pool "domains" remain without prokaryotes crossing over to become eukaryotes much less horses. After 50,000 generations “observed in nature” of bacteria colonies since 1988 – bacteria-remain-bacteria. Yet humans are imagined to have evolved into existence in LESS than that number of generations!!

6. New diseases over time - instead of the human body "evolving" to shut down all disease over time.

7. Abiogenesis will never work - failed Miller-Eurey experiment in the mid-1900's now replaced by "well then aliens must have done it".

8. Soft-tissue find still available in supposedly 60 million year old relics.

9 variable rates of radioactive decay - affected by things such as neutrinos.

10. sediment of all major river deltas - no river older than 5000 years.

11. Supposed 100 mile sediment and geologic column -- for 3.5 billion years of evolutionism - missing - with only a mile or 2 remaining.

12. C14 concentration rates still building

13. No tree found with tree-rings indicating an age over 5000 years

So then "consistent observations in nature" are observable and repeatable.