Should you leave your church?

[Abigail]

That's fine Kuboes1831, it is just so hard to tell when everyone is so tetchy with each other.

[A Beautiful Truth]

OIC, so Charleen's faulty accusation was based on faulty logic. What else is new? Of course, YECs do believe in no death (of nephesh chayyah, before the likes of Morton dishonestly accuse YECs of not believing in plant or cell death) before sin. For mankind, the means was the Tree of Life. Once more, it's basic theology -- God ordains the means as well as the ends.

So you left out the answer to the question: If mankind needed the Tree of Life in order to maintain his physical life, what kept the animals and sea mammals from death? This is why the question of the Tree of Life is so important. If man was subject to physical death apart from the Tree of Life, so were the animals, and yet we do not see a miraculous provision for them as we do for man in the Tree.

[Socrates]

So you left out the answer to the question: If mankind needed the Tree of Life in order to maintain his physical life, what kept the animals and sea mammals from death?

Who knows? Let's go by what Scripture DOES reveal, and that is original vegetarianism for humans and animals.

This is why the question of the Tree of Life is so important. If man was subject to physical death apart from the Tree of Life,

Once again, it's not that he was subject to death, but merely that God ordained that he would not die physically and the Tree was His means, somehow.

Calvin agreed with AiG (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 110):

‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’

John Wesley likewise (God’s approbation of his Work, Sermon 56 (Genesis 1:31), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley...s/serm-056.stm ):

‘For as the human body, though not liable to death or pain, yet needed continual sustenance by food; so, although it was not liable to weariness, yet it needed continual reparation by sleep. By this the springs of the animal machine were wound up from time to time, and kept always fit for the pleasing labour for which man was designed by his Creator. Accordingly, “the evening and the morning were the first day”, before sin or pain was in the world. The first natural day had one part dark for a season of repose; one part light for a season of labour. And even in paradise “Adam slept”, (Genesis 2:21) before he sinned: Sleep, therefore, belonged to innocent human nature. Yet I do not apprehend it can be inferred from hence, that there is either darkness or sleep in heaven. Surely there is no darkness in that city of God. Is it not expressly said (Revelation 22:5), “There shall be no night there”? Indeed they have no light from the sun; but “the Lord giveth them light.” So it is all day in heaven, as it is all night in hell! On earth we have a mixture of both. Day and night succeed each other, till earth shall be turned to heaven. …’

so were the animals, and yet we do not see a miraculous provision for them as we do for man in the Tree.

Argument from silence. And Wesley agreed that there was no animal violence before the Fall:

‘We may inquire, in the First place, What was the original state of the brute creation? And may we not learn this, even from the place which was assigned them; namely, the garden of God? All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in paradise. And there is no question but their state was suited to their place: It was paradisiacal; perfectly happy. Undoubtedly it bore a near resemblance to the state of man himself. By taking, therefore, a short view of the one, we may conceive the other. …
‘How true then is that word, “God saw everything that he had made: and behold it was very good!” But how far is this from being the present case! In what a condition is the whole lower world!—to say nothing of inanimate nature, wherein all the elements seem to be out of course, and by turns to fight against man. Since man rebelled against his Maker, in what a state is all animated nature! Well might the Apostle say of this: “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now.” This directly refers to the brute creation in what state this is at present we are now to consider. [The General Deliverance, Sermon 60 (Romans 8:19–22), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley...s/serm-060.stm ]

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …

‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’ [God’s approbation of his Work]

This just shows that AiG's views are just the same as those of esteemed Christian commentators throughout the ages. So Ross and his devotees are misleading to claim that YEC is a modern aberration invented by SDAs.

[A Beautiful Truth]

So, please translate this for me in your own words so I am sure I have this right.

Do you believe that animals would have died without the Tree of Life or not?

It is pretty clear the Tree of Life was the thing that kept Adam from physical death.

It is pretty clear the animals were not given the Tree of Life.

Therefore, you argue out of ignorance if you say there was some miraculous provision for them. And this is aside from our differences about carniverous activity before the Fall. Would soulish animals have died, period, before the Fall, in your opinion, without a miraculous Tree of Life? In your own straightforward words, please.

[Socrates]

Abigail, if you want to know I am a straight down the line Creationist and Theist.

It doesn't show.

For Socrates benefit, the majority of the geologists who worked out the vast age of the earth and the geoloigc column were catastrophists and not uniformitarian.

They were still rejectors of biblical history.

Hutton was only one geologist of many in the late 18th cnetury, and Lyell came a bit too late onto the scene to redirect the way most geologists were going.

Come off it -- he was most influential, even though he was a lawyer and not a geologist.

You say, "The main point is that the old-earthers started with the premise that the only permissible explanations were processes happening today, ruling out a global Flood a priori."
This is such a false statement!

Not at all. Hutton said:

‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added) [‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785; cited with approval in Holmes, A., Principles of Physical Geology, 2nd edition, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., Great Britain, pp. 43–44, 1965.]

No what happened was that the proto-geologists of the 17 and 18th century looked at strata with originally YE and flood geology assumptions and as they found evidence which did not fit they begin to recognise that the earth was older than they thought. Old earth was a CONCLUSION not a PREMISE. Go and do some history of geology and read the original writers of the period- in French as well, but remember the 18th century french used the imperfect tense in a different way!

Lovely ipse dixits all round. Conversely, I documented my claim.

So remember old-earth geologists came up with an old earth after research disproved their young earth. Also note that many of the geologists who worked out the column did accept a global flood, though most came to reject it for both biblical and geological reasons.

Certainly not biblical reasons, otherwise they would have been thought of before. And not even scientific reasons, but based on placing their fallible interpretations of geology above Scripture.

They were also not fixed in any view that only processes observed today could have happened in the past. You misrepresent them.

Not so as shown with Hutton.

Today's young earthers start with the presumption of a young earth and then twist the evidence to fit. They may have Exodus 20vs 11 on their side but not verse 16.

Please explain.

Finally Austin's nonsense on canyons on Mt St helens and the Grand Canyon out-lyells lyell for its extreme and flawed ultra-uniformitarianism. He makes Darwin's over uniformitarian geology seem quite catastrophist.

What piffle -- he shows that canyons, fossilized vertical tree trunks and fine laminae NEED not take long ages.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Dee Dee Warren

Edited out response to portion of prior post that was edited by me.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[kuboes1831]

There is no answer to utter nonsense.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Notice

Kuboes, take it to the Locker Room if you don't wish to debate or discuss or defend your statements.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[kuboes1831]

To keep everyone happy I shall attempt to explain things briefly and hope all have sufficient neurons to cope.

Geologists did not start with a belief in an Old Earth. Period. If we go to 1660s with Steno who looked at strata in Italy and worked out the principle of superposition – oldest always at the bottom of any pile unless something inserted later. He assumed a young earth pretty much in accord with 6 days and a big flood. (I don’t know whether like everyone else except Ussher and Henry he allowed for chaos and then reordering in 6 days.) The theorists of the earth Ray, Burnett, whiston, Woodward took for granted a young earth (6 days + chaos), and that all strata were laid down in the flood. Their biblical interpretation which pre-dated any field work let them be open to more than a straight 6 days. Many imply a long chaos but don’t define it. Lhwyd wrote to Ray on 30 feb 1691 suggesting from field evidence that the earth must be older than everyone thought. Letter in Ray Three Physico-theo discourses p285

It carried on in 18th century and slowly field work made people revise their young earth stance;
William Hamilton on Mt Vesuvius and at Pompeii in the 1770s realised that old lava flows developed soil and then covered by more lava and some of these were more than a few thousand years old because so many of them
De Saussure in the Alps in 1770s assumed rocks in the centre of the Alpine chain were creation rocks i.e. c4000BC until he noticed that at Vallocine by Chamonix these rocks had water rounded pebbles and were vertical bedded and thus “tres vieux”. His friend de Luc also found similar things and reckoned the earth had to be 10s of thousands (but objected to Hutton’s millions)
In 1880s Rev Jas Douglas gave paper to Royal Society saying that evidence pointed away from young to an old earth
Also William Smith abetted by the Evangelical rev J Townsend who stressed that the age was more than Ussher’s as a result of extensive field work. 1790s
There are many more excluding Hutton.
Only one who assumed YE and didnt agree with evidence for OE was the High church Rev William Jones of Nayland 1790s
Result they began with YE assumptions found them wanting and became OE at differing rates and to different degrees.

At first they argued that all strata were laid down in the flood but realised that there were too many strata for one flood and suggested more, - hence multiple catastrophist.

So in period from 1660 to 1800 “geologists” began with YE assumptions and moved to OE because of what they saw. Many were devout Christians and anti- desist and Hutton’s approach.

Reading matter Stuart MccReady ed The Discovery of Time 2001 p172-204
Evang Quarterly April 2002 vol lxxiv p 143ff
The Churchman 1998 vol 112 no 3 225-56

Austin’s extreme Uniformitarianism.

Austin rightly saw canyons which had been formed quickly after the eruption on Mt St Helens. But falsely extrapolated from that to a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon and suggests that the GC was eroded in a hundred years or so. He also assumed that the sediments were unconsolidated and these erodable – there is no evidence. It is simply Young Earth Creationists stating that the GC was deposited during the Flood and eroded soon after. If that isnt extreme Uniformitarianism I don’t know what is. It makes Lyell look positively anti-uniformitarian in his book, which is far more restrained than Socrates claimed.
Austin is far more uniformitarian than Lyell .

To save Socrates replying he will say that this is ipsi dixit. But he has never given any evidence to back up his claims.

[Socratism]

To keep everyone happy I shall attempt to explain things briefly and hope all have sufficient neurons to cope.

Geologists did not start with a belief in an Old Earth. Period. If we go to 1660s with Steno who looked at strata in Italy and worked out the principle of superposition – oldest always at the bottom of any pile unless something inserted later. He assumed a young earth pretty much in accord with 6 days and a big flood. (I don’t know whether like everyone else except Ussher and Henry he allowed for chaos and then reordering in 6 days.) The theorists of the earth Ray, Burnett, whiston, Woodward took for granted a young earth (6 days + chaos), and that all strata were laid down in the flood. Their biblical interpretation which pre-dated any field work let them be open to more than a straight 6 days. Many imply a long chaos but don’t define it. Lhwyd wrote to Ray on 30 feb 1691 suggesting from field evidence that the earth must be older than everyone thought. Letter in Ray Three Physico-theo discourses p285

It carried on in 18th century and slowly field work made people revise their young earth stance;
William Hamilton on Mt Vesuvius and at Pompeii in the 1770s realised that old lava flows developed soil and then covered by more lava and some of these were more than a few thousand years old because so many of them
De Saussure in the Alps in 1770s assumed rocks in the centre of the Alpine chain were creation rocks i.e. c4000BC until he noticed that at Vallocine by Chamonix these rocks had water rounded pebbles and were vertical bedded and thus “tres vieux”. His friend de Luc also found similar things and reckoned the earth had to be 10s of thousands (but objected to Hutton’s millions)
In 1880s Rev Jas Douglas gave paper to Royal Society saying that evidence pointed away from young to an old earth
Also William Smith abetted by the Evangelical rev J Townsend who stressed that the age was more than Ussher’s as a result of extensive field work. 1790s
There are many more excluding Hutton.
Only one who assumed YE and didnt agree with evidence for OE was the High church Rev William Jones of Nayland 1790s
Result they began with YE assumptions found them wanting and became OE at differing rates and to different degrees.

At first they argued that all strata were laid down in the flood but realised that there were too many strata for one flood and suggested more, - hence multiple catastrophist.

So in period from 1660 to 1800 “geologists” began with YE assumptions and moved to OE because of what they saw. Many were devout Christians and anti- desist and Hutton’s approach.

Reading matter Stuart MccReady ed The Discovery of Time 2001 p172-204
Evang Quarterly April 2002 vol lxxiv p 143ff
The Churchman 1998 vol 112 no 3 225-56

Austin’s extreme Uniformitarianism.

Austin rightly saw canyons which had been formed quickly after the eruption on Mt St Helens. But falsely extrapolated from that to a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon and suggests that the GC was eroded in a hundred years or so. He also assumed that the sediments were unconsolidated and these erodable – there is no evidence. It is simply Young Earth Creationists stating that the GC was deposited during the Flood and eroded soon after. If that isnt extreme Uniformitarianism I don’t know what is. It makes Lyell look positively anti-uniformitarian in his book, which is far more restrained than Socrates claimed.
Austin is far more uniformitarian than Lyell .

To save Socrates replying he will say that this is ipsi dixit. But he has never given any evidence to back up his claims.

There must be something wrong with this post. Austin is far more uniformitarian than Lyell?

[Socrates]

St Basil the Great (On the origin of Man 2:6-7):

Let the Church neglect nothing; everything is a law. Gid did not say: "I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds." It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for were were still judged worthy of Paradise.

What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?

To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) .... We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. what fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of al foods; "eat all that in the same was as edible plants (Gen. 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them [I would say the animals began to eat meat after the Fall, which is the big discontinuity as Basil himself says].

Since then the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures werennot yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that teh vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness: hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores .... But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow ...

Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with rgard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.

Calvin agrees that death came through sin (Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 110):

‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’

John Wesley likewise (God’s approbation of his Work, Sermon 56 (Genesis 1:31), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley...s/serm-056.stm ):

‘For as the human body, though not liable to death or pain, yet needed continual sustenance by food; so, although it was not liable to weariness, yet it needed continual reparation by sleep. By this the springs of the animal machine were wound up from time to time, and kept always fit for the pleasing labour for which man was designed by his Creator. Accordingly, “the evening and the morning were the first day”, before sin or pain was in the world. The first natural day had one part dark for a season of repose; one part light for a season of labour. And even in paradise “Adam slept”, (Genesis 2:21) before he sinned: Sleep, therefore, belonged to innocent human nature. Yet I do not apprehend it can be inferred from hence, that there is either darkness or sleep in heaven. Surely there is no darkness in that city of God. Is it not expressly said (Revelation 22:5), “There shall be no night there”? Indeed they have no light from the sun; but “the Lord giveth them light.” So it is all day in heaven, as it is all night in hell! On earth we have a mixture of both. Day and night succeed each other, till earth shall be turned to heaven. …’

Wesley also greed that there was no animal violence before the Fall:

‘We may inquire, in the First place, What was the original state of the brute creation? And may we not learn this, even from the place which was assigned them; namely, the garden of God? All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in paradise. And there is no question but their state was suited to their place: It was paradisiacal; perfectly happy. Undoubtedly it bore a near resemblance to the state of man himself. By taking, therefore, a short view of the one, we may conceive the other. …
‘How true then is that word, “God saw everything that he had made: and behold it was very good!” But how far is this from being the present case! In what a condition is the whole lower world!—to say nothing of inanimate nature, wherein all the elements seem to be out of course, and by turns to fight against man. Since man rebelled against his Maker, in what a state is all animated nature! Well might the Apostle say of this: “The whole creation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now.” This directly refers to the brute creation in what state this is at present we are now to consider. [The General Deliverance, Sermon 60 (Romans 8:19–22), 1872; http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley...s/serm-060.stm ]

‘However, none of these [animals] then attempted to devour, or in anyway hurt, one another. All were peaceful and quiet, as were the watery fields wherein they ranged at pleasure. …

‘But …there were no birds or beasts of prey; none that destroyed or molested another; but all the creatures breathed, in their several kinds, the benevolence of their great Creator.’ [God’s approbation of his Work]

[Socrates]

[Acanthostega]

Abigail, if you want to know I am a straight down the line Creationist and Theist.

Please can you clarify? When you say you're a "straight down the line Creationist", does that mean you reject the concept that all living organisms descended from a single common ancestor (or a very few original ancestors)? I know that some theistic evolutionists also like to call themselves creationists - but this part of TWeb specifically excludes those advocating theistic evolution. So that isn't your position, correct?

[apostate]

what is an "ipse dixit" anyway?

Moderator Notice

Apostate this section is for OEC/YEC's only. If you do not fall into this category then please refrain from posting here. If you are apologies it is not clear.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[A Beautiful Truth]

As I've said before, I'll give you a Garden with not carniverous activity. But the whole earth was no Garden, Socrates. The Garden was set apart from the rest of creation.

[A Beautiful Truth]

what is an "ipse dixit" anyway?

I've been wondering that, too. I never asked since it was always directed to me in a negative way.