Christianity and science .. vs.. junk-science evolutionism

[BobRyan]

There are five pages to this thread so forgive me if this has been tackled already.

However, one question I typically have with Protestants is that they seem to mostly believe the Early Church was mostly doctrinally right most of the time... mostly. This would appear to be BobRyan's estimation. And Bob, if I'm mistaken about that, please do correct me.

My one question then is precisely when did the Church descend into what I presume was error and heresy of so apparently great a magnitude that it required God's intervention vis a vis Ellen G. White's visions, prophecies and so forth?

A very interesting question but not sure why you are bringing it up on this Bible-vs-evolutionism thread - unless it is your point that belief in blind faith evolutionism is simply a byproduct of that former apostasy in the dark ages. Is that your point??

OR did you want to start a thread about Adventists??

Here are a couple with a lot of good information in them -
Oct 5, 2016 #1
Jan 4, 2016 #1

One could argue, I suppose, that Adventists were meant to evangelize "the true faith". But then that raises the question of why they have been so spectacularly unsuccessful in doing so. I would be the first to admit that evangelizing other parts of the world is no easy task. And yet the Early Church had begun that process by the middle of the first century.

Mind you, they were evangelizing abject pagans. This, I should imagine, would be the more difficult objective as one would think evangelizing those with something of a Christian worldview (as Adventists are presumably tasked with doing) to be a degree or two simpler in complexity.

And yet the task has eluded Adventists. Why?

I am always reluctant to identify winners and losers based on membership numbers. But the Adventists apparent lack of progress in the last century and a half surely raises eyebrows, does it not? By this equivalent point in history, the Early Church had reached into Europe and had made specific, measurable progress in converting Rome. True, that exact achievement was still another century and a half'ish away from completion. Not the point. The point is progress was being made.

Adventists are presently the 5th largest Christian denomination on the planet according to Christianity Today - in 2015 - and the fastest growing mainline Christian group in the world.

Starting with a few thousand in 1860's they are now almost 20 million. That is about 40 thousand percent growth in just over 150 years. What other denomination is doing that?

Yours?

So why haven't the Adventists had greater success (or at least made greater efforts) with respect to evangelization?

The paucity in your logic at this point is glaring.

This tiny group in mid 1800's now has the 2nd largest Christian medical system of hospitals and clinics in the world, the 2nd largest Christian educational system in the world - and the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world.

Given another 150 years... who knows where it will be.

None of which is a part of the subject of this thread - but go ahead and start a thread on that topic if you wish.

As for your claim that Christianity had converted Rome by around 180 A.D. -- history does not bear that claim out.
hint: http://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...y-church-gallery-of-persecuting-emperors.html

 

[thecolorsblend]

A very interesting question but not sure why you are bringing it up on this Bible-vs-evolutionism thread

If your suggestion is the thread has been derailed, I'd agree with that. However, I'm not responsible for derailing it. If you want a separate thread for this discussion, I well understand. By all means, feel free to steer this discussion back toward evolution vs. creationism.

Adventists are presently the 5th largest Christian denomination on the planet according to Christianity Today - in 2015 - and the fastest growing mainline Christian group in the world.

Without bothering to check the numbers, I wonder if the "success" isn't due to the other Protestant denominations splintering into pieces while the 7DA's have seemingly been relatively more unified.

As for your claim that Christianity had converted Rome by around 180 A.D. -- history does not bear that claim out.

I made no such claim. For your convenience, the relevant section of that post has bolded text so it should be easy for you to read what I wrote... which I do recommend doing as it seems you interpreted the direct opposite of the plainly stated text in my post.

 

[BobRyan]

If your suggestion is the thread has been derailed, I'd agree with that. However, I'm not responsible for derailing it. If you want a separate thread for this discussion, I well understand. By all means, feel free to steer this discussion back toward evolution vs. creationism.

In my post to you - I gave two links to threads on Seventh-day Adventists - that I started. If you don't like those you are free to start another one - let me know where it is and I will try to participate as much as I can.

Without bothering to check the numbers, I wonder if the "success" isn't due to the other Protestant denominations splintering into pieces while the 7DA's have seemingly been relatively more unified.

I would love to claim the SDAs grew by the exact amount that all the other non-SDA growth rates shrank. For example in the 1970's we were at around 4 million and Southern Baptists were at around 14 million. But Protesant, Evangelical and Catholic church growth rates have shrunk in far greater numbers than we have gained in that time.

As Barna reports in one of his studies - SDAs are one of the best as reaching "the unchurched" and it is world-wide. The U.S. portion is less than 10%.

 

[BobRyan]

I made no such claim. For your convenience, the relevant section of that post has bolded text so it should be easy for you to read what I wrote... which I do recommend doing as it seems you interpreted the direct opposite of the plainly stated text in my post.

I provided a link for you of persecution of the Christian church for that first 160 years of Christian church existence -- persecution by the pagan Roman Empire.

If you are interested in the actual history - please take a look at it. If you want to cast some alternative to it - start a thread and let us know how you do it.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Indeed - the NT writers were "Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, ..."
....

hint: the NT church IS the "early church"!!



Until you read the actual Bible. 2Thess 2 comes to mind.



1. Ellen White never made a 1260 year prophecy.
2. Daniel 7 was not written by Ellen White - neither was Rev 11, 12,13 written by Ellen White.

Blaming Ellen White for what you find in the Bible - is not reasonable.



The schism between the east and west took place about 1000 A.D. -- in the middle of that 1260 years of dark ages persecution of the saints.

Speaking of apostasy - aren't you supposed to be discussion your faith in evolutionism on this thread??

in Christ,

Bob

Before we debate further I need you to clarify you are not accusing me of apostasy, that is, of not being a Christian.

I do have several counter-arguments to present, but your assuring me that you have not called me an Apostate, ane thus non-Christian (and note, I have never questioned your Christianity), because I do not believe the seven days of Genesis 1 refer to seven 24 hour periods but rather to the aeons of creation that the physical, geological, and natural sciences have established (and they could be wrong, by the way), is somewhat of a sine qua non for us having this discussion.

 

[thecolorsblend]

In my post to you - I gave two links to threads on Seventh-day Adventists

Which isn't why I mentioned steering this discussion back to evolution/creationism.

Yes yes yes, you linked to 7DA threads in your other post, that's just lovely, we're all very happy for you. So with that out of the way, if you'd like to take steer this thread more toward the intended subject, please do.

If you are interested in the actual history - please take a look at it. If you want to cast some alternative to it - start a thread and let us know how you do it.

Good golly, please go back and read my post. I haven't edited it. It says now what it said originally. Until then, please do not reply to it as it seems you haven't read it. Thanks!

 

[BobRyan]

If your suggestion is the thread has been derailed, I'd agree with that. However, I'm not responsible for derailing it. If you want a separate thread for this discussion, I well understand. By all means, feel free to steer this discussion back toward evolution vs. creationism.

In my post to you - I gave two links to threads on Seventh-day Adventists - that I started. If you don't like those you are free to start another one - let me know where it is and I will try to participate as much as I can.

Which isn't why I mentioned steering this discussion back to evolution/creationism.

Yes yes yes, you linked to 7DA threads in your other post, that's just lovely, we're all very happy for you.

I am not the one that brought up the SDA denomination - you are.

Seriously - you are about to blame me for your own work here??

So with that out of the way, if you'd like to take steer this thread more toward the intended subject, please do.

Indeed - I keep trying to insert that idea - asking that this discussion go to some other thread.

Consider it suggested "again".

 

[BobRyan]

I do have several counter-arguments to present, but your assuring me that you have not called me an Apostate, ane thus non-Christian .

There is no question that many Christians have stated their faith in evolution.

It is also clear that I don't think the doctrines on origins found in evolution are right or even compatible with the Bible.

These are two "givens".

I don't recommend it -- but like praying to the dead and a great many other things I don't recommend - many Christians do it.

Since you express an interest in the subject - I have started an entire thread on it --
2 minutes ago #1

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Indeed - the NT writers were "Creation-ists, virgin-birth-ists, bodily-resurrection-ists, ..."
....

hint: the NT church IS the "early church"!!



Until you read the actual Bible. 2Thess 2 comes to mind.



1. Ellen White never made a 1260 year prophecy.
2. Daniel 7 was not written by Ellen White - neither was Rev 11, 12,13 written by Ellen White.

Blaming Ellen White for what you find in the Bible - is not reasonable.



The schism between the east and west took place about 1000 A.D. -- in the middle of that 1260 years of dark ages persecution of the saints.

Speaking of apostasy - aren't you supposed to be discussion your faith in evolutionism on this thread??

in Christ,

Bob

Yet those 1,000 years you claim were the Dark Ages (and the idea by the way that the 18th or even the 15th century were the Dark Ages is ludicrous; the Renaissance began in the 12th century due to the success of Venice as a merchant power, which greatly helped the reconstruction of the Western European economy), were a golden age for the Eastern church; despite being squeezed between Islam and Roman Catholicism.

I don't believe Ellen G. White was aware of any details of the Eastern churches beyond their mere existence, if that. But the Oriental Orthodox of India, for example, who were later persecuted by the Roman Catholics, but not for not being Adventists, but rather for trivial differences in liturgics, practiced a faith consisting of Sunday and weekday worship centered around the Eucharist and Pascha. There was no persecution; the Nasranis were a privileged caste who the Brahmins would allow to live in certain areas that would have been inaccessible to others, and unlike the Zoroastrian Parsis or Iranis, the Nasranis were not prohibited from proselytization. There were also Jews in India, in the same area (Kerala, the Kochin Jews, and more inland, the Bene Israel; the celebrated hair stylist Vidal Sassoon was a scion of the most prominent family of Kochin Jewry), and I have no doubt that Adventism would have been tolerated there at least before the Portguguese showed up and began wreakimg havoc.

So, I don't see why you insist we accept Genesis 1 literally while rejecting the institution narrative of the Eucharist that occurs in all three Synoptic Gospels, the doctrine of which is further explained in detail in 1 Corinthians and other Pauline epistles, and in John 6.

Now Jesus is a door; he is also a way, therefore, he is a door and a way, a door way. I suppose one could even argue that in a sense the precious and life giving cross is a wooden door, or rather the doorframe, of the door, to salvation. The fact that it is our Lord is not shaped like a door is irrelevant; in His incarnation he was also not shaped like bread and wine, but it is in this shape that the Holy Spirit causes us to receive his flesh and blood.

So our Lord is a door, suspended from a wooden frame, like an ordinary door, but He is no ordinary door, but a door of flesh, blood and the divine essence, and no one comes to the Father without passing through Him, which involves being sacramentally united with Him in the mysteries of the Church.

How he created the world is of only a passing concern; John 1:1-17 makes it clear that He did it, but I think the amazing extent to which Genesis 1 reflects actual science, for example, in how it depicts the formation of land masses and simple life forms followed by more complex life, culminating in man, validates the Christian faith, because no other religion has a creation narrative that even remotely accords with science. Whereas the correspondance between Genesis 1 and what actually happened is so great that if one had atheists put together a CGI rendition of the creation of the world culminating in the rise of man, Genesis 1 would work as a narration.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I am not the one that brought up the SDA denomination - you are.

?????

Indeed - I keep trying to insert that idea - asking that this discussion go to some other thread.

Consider it suggested "again".

This is a great opportunity for you to lead by example.

 

[BobRyan]

?????

This is a great opportunity for you to lead by example.

Here was my most recent "example" -

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

The T.E. argument that the Bible is myth and fables - is denied by NT writers

False doctrine teaches that the Bible is myth in Genesis 1-2
False doctrine teaches that Bible legal code is myth in Ex 20:11
False doctrine teaches that there was no actual Adam and Eve created by God from the dust of the ground - sinless , perfect, adults.

2 Peter 1
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

1 Tim 1
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

Titus 1
13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

2 Tim 3:16 "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine"

2 Peter 1:21 " holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"

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

Are you a literal "virgin-birth-ist"?
a literal "bodily resurrection-ist"?
a literal "ascension into heaven-ist"?
a literal "7 day creation-ist"?

or do you say that since none of that is reproduced by tiny mankind - in the lab -- then none of it happened "in real history"?

==========================================
2+2 = 4 ... is NOT "a matter of interpretation".

God can say something that is accurate, correct, and understandable - and so with "literal virgin birth" and "literal bodily resurrection of Christ" and "literal bodily ascension of Christ" and "literal 7 day creation week"

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".

As for "the obvious" it is not merely Bible believing Christians that notice it.

Turns out ---

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.’

 

[thecolorsblend]

Here was my most recent "example" -

Excellent!

The T.E. argument that the Bible is myth and fables - is denied by NT writers

That's fair.

False doctrine teaches that the Bible is myth in Genesis 1-2

If you define "myth" as something along the lines of "It never happened and is completely made up", I would agree.

However, I do believe a Christian of good faith (irrespective of his affiliation) can read Genesis 1 and 2 as literal fact or as allegory in equally good faith. My view is Genesis 1 and 2 impart absolute truth... though not necessarily literal fact. The salient issues are that God created the heavens and the earth, He created man, man rebelled and sin and death entered into what was a sinless, deathless creation.

The precise modalities by which those things happened could have been a literal Adam and a literal Eve being tempted by a literal serpent and then eating literal fruit. But perhaps not.

Having said that, while I do consider myself to be an old Earth creationist, there is considerable observable evidence of "adaptation". I'm trying to avoid using the word "evolution" here but it seems clear to me (as a scientific layman at best) that mankind undergoes some amount of natural selection. Indeed, a casual review of history shows at least some people going from hiding in caves to developing sophisticated forms of government to flying to the moon through the millennia. I don't see how that happens without a considerable amount of natural selection.

This is a far cry from an animal changing into a different species of animal over a multi-billion year process (eg, the theory of evolution), which I don't subscribe to.

‘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.’

Many civilizations have a "myth" of a vast, worldwide flood. The precise reasons for the flood tend to vary. But there are certain similarities with Noah's story in Genesis.

In a court of law, that would probably be called "corroborating testimony".

To me, it increases the likelihood that a worldwide flood truly did take place. If Genesis was the only source of a worldwide flood, one would think skeptics would be less likely to believe in Noah's story since his would be the only source for any story like this. But since other flood "myths" exist, it seems logical that a worldwide flood truly did take place. Noah's story has a considerable amount of logic and theology behind it so I find his story to be the most persuasive.

Since we're on the subject, this is one thing about "academic criticism" I always find baffling. "Myth" is often treated as fiction rather than an interpretation (however flawed) of actual historical events.

Frankly, I tend to blame the likes of Joseph Campbell and his half-baked, inconsistent and incomplete "monomyth" ideas for all these armchair literary critics talking about this "myth" or that "fable" or what have you as though they're necessarily fictional rather than a fragment of actual history.

 

[BobRyan]

However, I do believe a Christian of good faith (irrespective of his affiliation) can read Genesis 1 and 2 as literal fact or as allegory in equally good faith.

Possibly -- if they keep the "details" at enough of distance.

Darwin admitted that if you look at the details - it is clear the two religions do not agree at all. Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and many others admit to having been Christians until they too discovered the truth of Darwin's observation - that the two religions -- the two doctrines on origins - are not compatible.

And as James Barr points out (who himself does not believe the Bible account for a minute) admits that the Bible is describing a 7 day literal week and NOT Darwinism.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Possibly -- if they keep the "details" at enough of distance.

Yes, that's the other thing. I didn't want to make my already long post longer so I skipped that part. But yes, the allegorical model I mentioned requires a certain lack of specificity. If one wishes to read Genesis 1 and 2 as something other than literal fact, that's fine... but, as you say, it isn't license to make Genesis 1 and 2 say anything one wants at all.

Darwin admitted that if you look at the details - it is clear the two religions do not agree at all.

I could be mistaken but I think he admitted that he intended his theory of evolution to be a competitor to creation narratives.

And it is true that they don't agree. It's one reason why theistic evolution has no truck with me. In order for evolution to be part of the equation, we have to radically redefine what "created man" means as well as acknowledge that Sacred Scripture errs on some level or another by implying that death entered into creation only through the fall... which couldn't be factually true if one believes in evolution.

Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and many others admit to having been Christians until they too discovered the truth of Darwin's observation - that the two religions -- the two doctrines on origins - are not compatible.

Indeed. And while I disagree with their beliefs, I can at least respect their intellectual honesty in this matter. Certainly more than I can respect someone who attempts to combine evolutionary theory with a biblical creation narrative.

 

[BobRyan]

I could be mistaken but I think he admitted that he intended his theory of evolution to be a competitor to creation narratives. .

Competitor as in -- Bible is dead wrong - -- according to Darwin.

============================= Darwin --

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Certainly more than I can respect someone who attempts to combine evolutionary theory with a biblical creation narrative.

Indeed - like respecting the Democrat candidate who claims to be a faithful Catholic while promoting every form of abortion known to mankind and fighting diligently lest some abortion not be allowed. All the while arguing that because he is doing this and also claiming to be a good Catholic - that somehow the pro-abortion platform is perfectly in line with good Catholicism. After all "he/she is doing it"

 

[thecolorsblend]

Competitor as in -- Bible is dead wrong - -- according to Darwin.

Yes, that's the passage. I was too lazy to search for it myself. But that's the one.

Indeed - like respecting the Democrat candidate who claims to be a faithful Catholic while promoting every form of abortion known to mankind and fighting diligently lest some abortion not be allowed. All the while arguing that because he is doing this and also claiming to be a good Catholic - that somehow the pro-abortion platform is perfectly in line with good Catholicism. After all "he/she is doing it"

True. It really goes back to the Kennedys, unfortunately. Once they became pro-abortion, that was the end of it. Abortion was officially mainstream in the Democrat Party after that. Why, say, Nancy Pelosi's or Joe Biden's pastor or bishop haven't corrected them yet (or publicly denied them the sacrament until they repent) is a source of scandal for a lot of faithful Catholics.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, that's the passage. I was too lazy to search for it myself. But that's the one.

True. It really goes back to the Kennedys, unfortunately. Once they became pro-abortion, that was the end of it. Abortion was officially mainstream in the Democrat Party after that. Why, say, Nancy Pelosi's or Joe Biden's pastor or bishop haven't corrected them yet (or publicly denied them the sacrament until they repent) is a source of scandal for a lot of faithful Catholics.

in the current election the VP for Hillary claims to be a faithful Jesuit trained pro-abortion Catholic. The same argument holds - they claim that this is compatible because -- after all -- "they do it".

My argument on this thread - is that people are doing the very same thing with the Bible married to evolution

 

[thecolorsblend]

in the current election the VP for Hillary claims to be a faithful Jesuit trained pro-abortion Catholic. The same argument holds - they claim that this is compatible because -- after all -- "they do it".

Heh, yeah. I don't think Kaine is technically violating the teachings of the Church. "I oppose it personally". That's another way of saying "I'll do nothing to oppose it for others!"

My argument on this thread - is that people are doing the very same thing with the Bible married to evolution

It's a fine line. Honestly, a lot of Christians probably don't understand evolutionary theory or the implications thereof. So to them, as they want to avoid conflict over the matter, it's easiest to just say "God guides evolution" or whatever the theistic evolutionist's party line is than to invest deep thought on the matter.

And that's no criticism either. It's okay to say "I don't know" sometimes. Nobody knows everything.

The fact remains though that theistic evolution has a lot of logical flaws to it and I don't see an easy way out of those flaws... so perhaps these go-along-to-get-along theistic evolutionists shouldn't comment on things they don't understand.

 

[BobRyan]

Heh, yeah. I don't think Kaine is technically violating the teachings of the Church. "I oppose it personally". That's another way of saying "I'll do nothing to oppose it for others!" .

the laws they promote/defend/create/write are all pro-abortion.

The law suits and condemnation they give - is for anyone who would not be in favor of abortion on demand.

Imagine that sort of "value for human life" applied to slavery in America in the 1800's - because that is exactly what democrats were doing then.

It was a democrat pro-slavery south back then just like it is a democrat pro-abortion America today. Same "value for human life" in those policies.

But it is all "completely compatible with Christianity" as they say - since "they do it AND they claim to be Christian".

Which is the same argument we get about the incompatible contradictions between the Bible - and blind-faith-evolutionism that our T.E. friends try to marry into "one". And of course that must "make sense" because after all 'they do it'.