What could the Pre Fall of Man biocycle looked like?

[AdamjEdgar]

Some other thoughts about the biocycle...

Poop produces methane gas...which is poisonous ans harmful to animals and humans...

Carbon dioxide we breathe out...not good for us yet plants use it in the photosynthesis process...its important for plants

Considering the size difference between us and insects such as ants, how did Adam and Eve avoid accidently stepping on ants and injuring or even killing one in the garden of Eden?

When termite eat trees, usually the tree falls over...what's the chances of that injuring insects or animals in the garden of Eden?

Seemingly silly points some of them, but in the bigger scheme of things, these are all real issues through the biocycle as we know it. Some of them seem impossible to reconcile with a sinless creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I cannot answer this because it's literally quite stupid when used in an attempt to discredit doctorate degree scholars who regularly research and publish said research. Few scholarly papers from the likes of Dan Wallace, Stephen Myer, Michael Behee, Andrew Snelling and many others are not found in the archives of well known universities. These papers are easily accessible on the public record...your argument falls flat on this point.

How was it "stupid"? And please, don't forget how weak your claims are when you use that word. And I do not know all of the fools that you listed, but Michael Behe (note spelling) sticks out like a sore thumb. He is not a biblical scholar. He is a failed biochemist. He also accepts the fact of evolution. He merely says that " God did it". When you make claims you need to be able to support them. You did not do so. Probably because you have no scholars.

OK so SDA's are the worst...um hang on, why then do you ask for a list of SDA beliefs. Didn't you already make the judgement we are the worst based on adequate research of our beliefs? If you don't actually know sda beliefs, where pray tell did you come up with the educated opinion we are a one the worst...you wouldn't be listening to wives tails as your source of authority would you?

HonestlySubduction zone...in reading many of your responses on these forums, your answers are often rehashed sourceless wives tails that are mostly misinformed and largely not even biblical. You provide few if any references for the apparent bible theology claims you make...

Do some proper study and then come back to these concepts when you adequitely understand the theological debate.

I rarely provide sources for my Bible claims because they are rarely needed. Make a specific challenge and I will defend it. Usually the people I am debating know that they have nothing and run away or make transparently false claims as you did in the first half of your post. We were discussing Ehrman, you claimed that there were biblical scholars that refuted him, and you listed people that are apparently not biblical scholars nor did you link any articles. You will probably run away too.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is not a denomination specific belief...its a generic biblical topic. I'm not sure why you would think it specific to SDA? What you are suggesting to me that this is some kind of weird SDA culture thing...I categorically reject that.

No I am not suggesting it is "Some kind of weird SDA culture thing." I want all kinds of people to be welcome on RF including SDA. I'm giving examples of how to use limiters in Same Faith Debates to include people who aren't SDA or to allow strictly only SDA's. This is important if you just want to argue a specific biblical topic without fielding questions about evolution and creation.

This topic has more to do with evolution actually, but it cannot go in the science forum because it also require deep theological understanding which is outside of science.

The topic is an important one for Christians because non-believers view their views on the creation account as being naive an illi formed given how the current bicycle works.

Which was why I suggested using the same faith debates section. You obviously wanted to talk about scripture. That's was (and is) unlikely to happen in this section. Its a religious forum that includes all religions and also the irreligious, but we want everyone to know how to have a productive conversation on specific things without having to explain the entire universe while discussing every topic.

To me its like this: Imagine a courtroom where instead of discussing each case in turn, you have to all discuss all of the cases at one time. Its not going to work. You can't argue both a murder case and a real estate case and a divorce case etc at the same time.

 

[Father Heathen]

I know that an Atheist would have problems with this.

Believing in a literal interpretation of Judeo-Christian scripture isn't a prerequisite for believing in god. Also, accepting evolution isn't mutually exclusive from theistic belief.

 

[Colt]

I am not sure if this has been discussed before or not, however, I have had this idea lingering in the back of my mind for some time. I do not have a logical order for what I have written below, they are all just randoms thoughts banging around in my head that I am putting down. Its a developing story...eventually some order will be made of it all I'm sure.

Ok, so on to the question...

We know that prior to the fall, God created the heavens and the earth and he saw that it was good. Now theological discussions centre on what is meant by the term good, however for now lets just accept that something created without sin must have been awesome enough that the world was not tarnished in any way and things lived forever.

Now there is the catch phrase that interests me...things lived forever.

If one considers the current bio cycle on this planet, we have seasons, we have trees that regularly loose their leaves (even outside of the seasonal changes), animals deficate on the ground, insects and various other forms of life feed on that stuff and convert it etc etc.

In the bicycle we see today, its not just the plant life that has to contribute to the bicycle...animals also form part of the process. So they live and die as well.

Are only things with a concscious mind able to be considered as dying...so plants don't count theologically (I can think of stories when plants are claimed to have died in the Bible...so this is problematic obviously)

The point is, when talking about plants, how does one define what is happening in the cycle when a leaf falls from a tree? Has that leaf died? Do termites feasting on trees actually cause the death of the tree or did termites not eat trees in the past?

the Bible I believe says lions ate grass...is a lion or cow eatings grass causing the death of grass?

Did mankind and even animals poop? If food was perfect, was the any waste produced before the fall?

The bible says God placed Adam in the garden to "tend to it"...what would that have meant/looked like in a sinless world?

If no waste produced, did plants remove nutrients from the soil such that it needed replacing?

Before sin entered this world, could any of the life>death>life bicycle as we know it today have actually existed or did this all come as a result of sin?

God says in the book of Revelation chapter 21

1. there will be no more night.
2. There wont be any sun or moon,
3. all of the light that sines on the New Earth will shine from the glory of God radiating out from the New Jerusalem from the Lamp of the Lamb

(see references below)

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city of Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11shining with the glory of God. Its radiance was like a most precious jewel
23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24By its light the nations will walk, and into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory.

How might all of the above and any other biblical statements that do not appear to align well with our current model of the life-death cycle providing nutrients to the earth, affect a Biocycle in the Biblical model of the future?

This I think would require us to try to reconcile the book of Revelation with the first 3 chapters of Genesis...and indeed I believe that even the story of the flood and what the earth looked like after it may also need to be references (even though we are living in the result of that change on this earth)

sorry for the mess above...its all just thoughts at present. I hope where Im going with this makes sense to people as it presents some very deep theological and scientific issues that could very well be almost impossible to reconcile, however, I would like to try to find a solution that is a compromise between biblical theology and inerrancy, and our modern understanding of the science.

IMOP

The fall occurred in the spiritual world, it was an ideological rebellion, an issue of loyalty to the unseen Father.

*Adam and Eve arrived on a previously fallen world, (the crafty beast) was already rebelling against God.

* The war in heaven in the BOR was retrospective. Sin and rebellion broke out in heaven among the high sons of God..

* Death was specific to Adam and Eve, its normal for humans, this isn't our permanent home.

 

[F1fan]

This is complete nonsense. It's certainly not Jewish history. Apparently Indian civilisation oral and written history is valid to you, but Jewish is not.

If you want to rewrite history then do your research and present it to other historians for review. All I do is defer to what the consensus of historians report. That is that the Hindu tradition began around 1900 BCE. It's that Judaism began around 6-500 BCE as it evolved from the polytheistic Caananites. The Caananites have roots back to about 1500 BCE. I notice you didn't dispute how Yahweh evolved from a polytheistic system to a monotheistioc system, so you must agree with that history.

Do you not see the inconsistency in your claim there? Israelite history long predates Indian.

The math doesn't work in yoiur favor. The Hindu history begins around 1900 BCE, and the Caananites began around 1500 BCE. The Hindu tradition is older. Of course there is roots of tradition before these dates since human civilization has evolved since our species formed around 150,000 years ago.

BTW the term Hinduism didn't come about until hundreds of years after Christ. Check Britanica if you don't believe me. It is believed to have been coined by Indians themselves around 16th century in an attempt to separate Indian tradition with that of the Turks. Greeks and Persians were responsible for it actually as they used it to label the geographical culture. It was not a spiritual or religious term it seems. The Indians appear to have taken on the term Hindu as a name for this religious belief in the 16th century.

I think you are probably referring to the ancient Verdic religion when you talk B.C as even Wikipedia states 7th century as the earliest known references to the word Hinduism to describing religion vs the geographic location/culture. Even that text only has connotations...so it's not an ideal reference. Most more definitive religious references using that term are much later(14th, 16 and 18th centuries)

All of the above suggest that the religious practises were not well defined prior to this time and may have actually been incorporated from other older civilisations/cultures. Which would not be uncomon given the habits of conquerors to also breed into locals their own culture and religions.

In any case an interesting reference below about Veda

Parts of the Veda are quoted in essential Hindu rituals (such as the wedding ceremony), and it is the source of many enduring patterns of Hindu thought, yet its contents are practically unknown to most Hindus. Most Hindus venerate it from a distance. In the past, groups who rejected its authority outright (such as Buddhists and Jains) were regarded by Hindus as heterodox, but now they are often considered to be part of a larger family of common Indic traditions.​

The labels Hindu and Judaism are a seperate issue to the roots of these traditions. Do the labels matter?

I suspect this religion is probably rooted the worship of false Gods by very early civilisations as illustrated in the Bible. Just my personal opinion (i would not be alone in this belief however).

If you look at some of the Hindu gods they represent real natural phenomenon. So these gods can be used and applied in some practical way in regards to prayer and devotion.

The funny thing is that Hinduism has remained fairly consistent through the 4000 years while the Abrahamic religions have changed and morphed into many diverse religions, some of which fight and kill each other: Muslims and Christians, Catholics and protestants, Christians and Jews, Sunni and Shia, etc. Not exactly a foundation for truth, is it? But somehow you have the truth, am I right?

 

[Alien826]

When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden, there was no sin.
How might the Biocycle in a sinless world actually function? Consider:

1. termites eat trees,
2. plant leaves fall off and rot thus fertilizing other plants,
3. lions ate grass,
4. did humans and animals poop,
5. no sun or moon to shed light on the world as the new Jerusalem will be the only source of all light and there will be no night...
6. Any other relevant things you can think of related to a sinless Biocycle in the new earth.

How interesting. I've just had an extended discussion with @nPeace on this very subject.

I'll just mention one point. Any animal that eats grass needs a mechanism to break down cellulose. For example, cows have four stomachs (or sections of one stomach, whatever) and use bacteria to break the cellulose down. They also cough up their food and chew it again. Other grass eaters have variations on this (goats have three stomachs). Modern lions do not have any such mechanism, and are unable to subsist on grass.

What follows from this? At the fall lions' GI tract (to stick with the example) must have changed to that suitable for meat eaters. Did God alter them? Did sin alter them? The latter raises all kinds of questions about sin.

 

[Valjean]

I will respond to this post as it basically sums up the ones before from a number of other respondents.

Let me give a great example of a well-known "former Christian" regarding the claim atheists know bible theology. The truth and facts are, they do not. I am not going to argue this point because in reality, the mere consequence of poor theology and lack of genuine biblical understanding finds it consequences in agnosticism and atheism.

Now back to Bart Erhman...Bart was a Christian (Baptist if memory serves correctly...however this isn't really important). When I listen to Bart's claims over the years, it appears to me that he lost his faith because he found it difficult to reconcile the idea that God allows us to have free choice and we may write his words accordingly. Bart in modern times demands imperfection in the bible and since it does not display (for want of a better phrase) absolute inerrancy, he claims there must be no God. Add to this the moral high ground where a loving God directs characters in the Old Testament to barbarically kill entire races of people (seemingly innocent women, and children, included), and finally how one can explain the evil against young children in current times...and obviously, Bart cannot believe in God anymore!

In taking note of some of Bart's original Christian doctrinal beliefs, and when I view it from my position as a Seventh-Day Adventist, I'm sorry but I can see exactly why Bart stumbled and fell. His foundation in Christianity was deeply flawed beyond that of just the issues with his denominational problems. Most Christian scholars who debate Bart really feel for him, they almost universally agree that he is really nitpicking at issues in the Bible that in reality, do not actually have any impact on biblical theology at all (despite his claims to the contrary). They have, in numerous debates, demolished his arguments against biblical truth so often its pointless even trying to reference all of the times this has happened (it's easy to find for yourself anyway)...instead, I will simply cite that it [Bart's theological error] is, on the balance of probabilities, proven fact! He is theologically wrong period!

Now, this isn't an earbash against Bart...that is not my intention. The point is, Bart is a non-believer who absolutely believes Jesus of the Bible really existed. He has written extensively about it and without a doubt in an expert on the historical Jesus (even though he does not believe Jesus was God).

Ok, so now that we dispense with the "the bible is a myth"...that is a non-argument easily proven false...back to the point about creation and the New Testament.

I note a respondant who is Hindu...

may suggest that since your religious faith has its roots dating back to only about 500 AD...that really doesn't have much supporting history to explain the origins of man. To my thinking, this might be why you have a problem with the idea of a creator God in the first place? Christianity builds upon 4500 years B.C of Judaism...it has extensive historical heritage. I think most scholars make the claim the isarelite culture and subsequent Christian story is the oldest historical oral and written references in the world.

For our Jewish friend here who responded...might I suggest you research Messianic Judaism . You need to get with the modern times on this one as have some of your compatriots that now recognize the Messiah you have been waiting for over a period of 6 thousand years actually really did minister and die between approx AD 27 and 31. Your culture simply missed the point of the prophecies in Isaiah for example about him. You also did not adequately interpret the prophecies in the book of Daniel which gave a very accurate timeline of when he would come (you ignored the wise men (Maggi) who understood the prophecies well enough to actually go looking for Christ's birth in/or around 4-2BC. I do not think it worrysome to accept He was killed by His own people. The fact is, the plan of salvation always proposed the Messiah would die for his own creation. God died for sinners not the sinless!

The debate about whether or not one should read Genesis literally or allegorically is really a side issue. It has been put to not only theological scholars but also literary experts (many of whom are not even religious) and both parties have conclusively proven the book of Genesis (and indeed all the books of Moses) cannot be read as allegories. They are historical narratives in the way in which they are written. From a theological perspective, they cannot be an allegory either as this actually causes huge (and I mean huge) theological issues with the entire Christian religious belief and in the authenticity of the bible writings themselves. Not least the major problem that if one says the creation story and the fall of man is an allegory, then how does one reconcile a "spiritual death" with the physical death that our Messiah endured on our behalf in order to pay the penalty for sin? ("wages of sin are death")

If Christ didn't need to die a physical death...what was the point of the entire plan of salvation as outlined in Genesis chapter 3? It becomes completely pointless, thus rendering the rest of the Bible unnecessary. Christ isn't our savior...if Christ isn't a savior...what is the point of being Christian exactly?

This also invalidates almost the entire writings of the apostle Paul. Nothing he writes is relevant when ones turns Genesis chapter 1,2&3 into an allegory! Im not going to go into the sanctuary...that is an even bigger problem because it completely destroys any relationship between us modern Christians (spiritual Israel) and taking the gospel to the Gentiles. This means no gentile can be saved...we are all lost.

Ok enough of the above...back to the O.P

Please focus on the following:

When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden, there was no sin.
How might the Biocycle in a sinless world actually function? Consider:

1. termites eat trees,
2. plant leaves fall off and rot thus fertilizing other plants,
3. lions ate grass,
4. did humans and animals poop,
5. no sun or moon to shed light on the world as the new Jerusalem will be the only source of all light and there will be no night...
6. any other relevant things you can think of related to a sinless Biocycle in the new earth.

The point of this is to bring it to the attention of Christians that we need to adequately explain the problems non Christians have with what is a naive view of a sinless (before the fall) vs sinful (after the fall) Biocycle.

More theological interpretation -- of folklore.

 

[Valjean]

I cannot answer this because it's literally quite stupid when used in an attempt to discredit doctorate degree scholars who regularly research and publish said research. Few scholarly papers from the likes of Dan Wallace, Stephen Myer, Michael Behee, Andrew Snelling and many others are not found in the archives of well known universities. These papers are easily accessible on the public record...your argument falls flat on this point.

Are these scholars, or apologists?
I daresay they're beginning their exegeses with questionable, theological premises

HonestlySubduction zone...in reading many of your responses on these forums, your answers are often rehashed sourceless wives tails that are mostly misinformed and largely not even biblical. You provide few if any references for the apparent bible theology claims you make...

"Rehashed sourceless wives tales?" That sounds suspiciously like religion...
I think you're projecting, AE.

Do some proper study and then come back to these concepts when you adequitely understand the theological debate.

I think theology is the stumbling block in debates like this. You're beginning with unfounded axioms and drawing conclusions therefrom.
Better to begin with the best established historical, archæological and scientific facts, and reason from these.

 

[Valjean]

How interesting. I've just had an extended discussion with @nPeace on this very subject.

I'll just mention one point. Any animal that eats grass needs a mechanism to break down cellulose. For example, cows have four stomachs (or sections of one stomach, whatever) and use bacteria to break the cellulose down. They also cough up their food and chew it again. Other grass eaters have variations on this (goats have three stomachs). Modern lions do not have any such mechanism, and are unable to subsist on grass.

What follows from this? At the fall lions' GI tract (to stick with the example) must have changed to that suitable for meat eaters. Did God alter them? Did sin alter them? The latter raises all kinds of questions about sin.

They don't even have the dentition to graze or chew the grass, much less digest it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are these scholars, or apologists?

Neither, well at least not for most of them. Snelling is a geologist that followed the money and became a YEC, supposedly. The same year that he published a peer reviewed paper on radiometric dating of some strata over a billion years old he decided to toss it all and join Ken Ham. Michael Behe, he keeps misspelling that name, used to be a professor of biochemistry. He is the one that first came up with the refuted a thousand times "Irreducible complexity argument. Stephen Meyer, another misspelling, works for the Disco Toot. Or the Discovery Institute. Another creationist group where following the scientific method is not allowed.

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia

Wallace might be a scholar, but he provided no papers at all of him refuting Ehrman. In other words his one possible valid source does not appear to support his claim.

EDIT: Wallace does appear to be a scholar and disagrees with Ehrman strongly. Now the question is whose work is accepted as being better supported by other scholars. It appears that the two have had debates or discussions with each other. I may have to see if I can find them.

Daniel B. Wallace - Wikipedia

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Which was why I suggested using the same faith debates section. You obviously wanted to talk about scripture. That's was (and is) unlikely to happen in this section. Its a religious forum that includes all religions and also the irreligious, but we want everyone to know how to have a productive conversation on specific things without having to explain the entire universe while discussing every topic.

To me its like this: Imagine a courtroom where instead of discussing each case in turn, you have to all discuss all of the cases at one time. Its not going to work. You can't argue both a murder case and a real estate case and a divorce case etc at the same time.

I am not following the point of any of this comment? The real problem here is that life on earth is not specifically random. There are mostly predictable consequences for actions based on a huge number of variables...but predictable nevertheless. So since we have such an interlinking of life on earth, again, I do not follow your point as this is NOT a same faith discussion!

Are these scholars, or apologists?
I daresay they're beginning their exegeses with questionable, theological premises

OMG. I cant respond to this as its insulting my intelligence to even give it airtime (I am only a lowly Bachelor of Education degree holder)

Neither, well at least not for most of them. Snelling is a geologist that followed the money and became a YEC, supposedly. The same year that he published a peer reviewed paper on radiometric dating of some strata over a billion years old he decided to toss it all and join Ken Ham. Michael Behe, he keeps misspelling that name, used to be a professor of biochemistry. He is the one that first came up with the refuted a thousand times "Irreducible complexity argument. Stephen Meyer, another misspelling, works for the Disco Toot. Or the Discovery Institute. Another creationist group where following the scientific method is not allowed.

Stephen C. Meyer - Wikipedia

Wallace might be a scholar, but he provided no papers at all of him refuting Ehrman. In other words, his one possible valid source does not appear to support his claim.

EDIT: Wallace does appear to be a scholar and disagrees with Ehrman strongly. Now the question is whose work is accepted as being better supported by other scholars. It appears that the two have had debates or discussions with each other. I may have to see if I can find them.

I urge you spend time and thoroughly watch some of the many online debates Bart Erhman has undertaken with the likes of Dan Wallace on the topic of textual criticism. I notice that for you it seems suitable for Darwinian views that writers simply respond publicly to research by other academics and scholars, however, in this instance, you desire a scholarly paper as a response by Dr. Wallace to Bart Erhman! Peer reviewing does not always require an entire scholarly research paper...you will find plenty of evidence on the public record (oral and written) where these scholars have disputed Barts claims.

If you would just sit down and study deeply Dr Erhmans views, research his past, then look at the counterclaims against his views, you will very quickly come to the conclusion that he is absolutely wrong in his claim about biblical inerrancy. There are some very important reasons why he is wrong as highlighted by Dr. Wallace and others (such as Dr James White).

The facts are:
1. Erhmans claims of textual criticism make zero difference to any biblical theology/doctrine.
2. the majority of issues represent but 1 or 2% of the entire writings of the bible.
3. Of these, most are minor grammatical issues often inserted by scribes and translators making copies of the original rather than errors in the original scripts themselves

not that we actually have the originals we don't, however, if you want to get into that one I have a very simple illustration that anyone with even a small amount of Information Technology experience would understand RAID 5 drive redundancy!
Research how RAID 5 systems are able to rebuild the complete hard disk drive when one complete drive fails, containing apparently irrecoverable data. Two other drives can be used to rebuild the data on the third one. A similar principle applies to the bible believe it or not in that external sources outside of the missing originals can be used to help verify the most likely content. We can also compare said content with other books in the bible and search for consistency in doctrine/theology/historical information etc.​

One of the really interesting things about the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was how accurate the modern bible translations really were. The complete lack of corruption over the last 2000 years, during one of the most concerted efforts to destroy it, was nothing short of incredible. The nail in the coffin of course was the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherines Monastery. This find really did put to rest any issue of corruption of the text. Even where textual critics have attempted to claim additions to other versions such as the KJV, it is really interesting to note that the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus knew of the existence of these variations and often left evidence of their knowledge about such things in that manuscript!

If one is interested in getting a quick review of Barts problems related to biblical inerrancy with regard to copying errors, it is basically summed up in the first 7 minutes of this video. It is pretty easy to destroy Barts argument even from a simple position of logic and Dead Sea Scroll evidence, however, his view is well worth studying

​

Now, back to the topic of the O.P

​

It would still be very interesting to have someone on this forum develop a model for what a pre sin and post second coming biocyle might look like! It doesn't require a theological debate about whether or not religion is true...that is not the point here. The point is, how can one reconcile a biocyle with biblical accounts of creation and the new earth where there is no death, no pain, no suffering, no harmful things etc? I am not interested in hearing the bible is a fable its a waste of time. I am not interesting in debate about whether or not the Indian culture is older than the middle eastern ones...that is clearly wrong and genome research among other scholarly works has now really shown that to be false. I just want to focus on the biocyle in a sinless world please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OMG. I cant respond to this as its insulting my intelligence to even give it airtime (I am only a lowly Bachelor of Education degree holder)

How was that insulting to your intelligence? That is not a wise thing to say because it implies that you have rather little intelligence. It would be better to try to answer it.

I urge you spend time and thoroughly watch some of the many online debates Bart Erhman has undertaken with the likes of Dan Wallace on the topic of textual criticism. I notice that for you it seems suitable for Darwinian views that writers simply respond publicly to research by other academics and scholars, however, in this instance, you desire a scholarly paper as a response by Dr. Wallace to Bart Erhman! Peer reviewing does not always require an entire scholarly research paper...you will find plenty of evidence on the public record (oral and written) where these scholars have disputed Barts claims.

If you would just sit down and study deeply Dr Erhmans views, research his past, then look at the counterclaims against his views, you will very quickly come to the conclusion that he is absolutely wrong in his claim about biblical inerrancy. There are some very important reasons why he is wrong as highlighted by Dr. Wallace and others (such as Dr James White).

The facts are:
1. Erhmans claims of textual criticism make zero difference to any biblical theology/doctrine.
2. the majority of issues represent but 1 or 2% of the entire writings of the bible.
3. Of these, most are minor grammatical issues often inserted by scribes and translators making copies of the original rather than errors in the original scripts themselves

not that we actually have the originals we don't, however, if you want to get into that one I have a very simple illustration that anyone with even a small amount of Information Technology experience would understand RAID 5 drive redundancy!
Research how RAID 5 systems are able to rebuild the complete hard disk drive when one complete drive fails, containing apparently irrecoverable data. Two other drives can be used to rebuild the data on the third one. A similar principle applies to the bible believe it or not in that external sources outside of the missing originals can be used to help verify the most likely content. We can also compare said content with other books in the bible and search for consistency in doctrine/theology/historical information etc.​

One of the really interesting things about the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was how accurate the modern bible translations really were. The complete lack of corruption over the last 2000 years, during one of the most concerted efforts to destroy it, was nothing short of incredible. The nail in the coffin of course was the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherines Monastery. This find really did put to rest any issue of corruption of the text. Even where textual critics have attempted to claim additions to other versions such as the KJV, it is really interesting to note that the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus knew of the existence of these variations and often left evidence of their knowledge about such things in that manuscript!
​

It would still be very interesting to have someone on this forum develop a model for what a pre sin and post second coming biocyle might look like! It doesn't require a theological debate about whether or not religion is true...that is not the point here. The point is, how can one reconcile a biocyle with biblical accounts of creation and the new earth? I am not interested in hearing the bible is a fable its a waste of time...that is not an answer, its just an opinion ignorant of an entire culture's history that very definitely says otherwise!

You make quite a few claims here. The burden of proof is upon you. And weren't you the first to bring up Ehrman? You wanted to attack an atheist and he was your first target. Meanwhile your problems are as others and I have pointed out that you are basing your exegesis on parts of the Bible that are mythological. We are talking about the myths of Genesis primarily. Ehrman is more of a New Testament scholar.

And no, there is nothing all that amazing of the Dead Sea Scrolls showing little change in the text of the Bible. That is why the written word is preferred so much over oral traditions. Oral traditions change quite easily. The written word does not. When people make copies there is almost always time to double check those copies. The Dead Sea Scrolls argument is a yawner. Now if one had an oral tradition where there was no change, that would be truly impressive but we do not have that..

 

[exchemist]

I am not sure if this has been discussed before or not, however, I have had this idea lingering in the back of my mind for some time. I do not have a logical order for what I have written below, they are all just randoms thoughts banging around in my head that I am putting down. Its a developing story...eventually some order will be made of it all I'm sure.

Ok, so on to the question...

We know that prior to the fall, God created the heavens and the earth and he saw that it was good. Now theological discussions centre on what is meant by the term good, however for now lets just accept that something created without sin must have been awesome enough that the world was not tarnished in any way and things lived forever.

Now there is the catch phrase that interests me...things lived forever.

If one considers the current bio cycle on this planet, we have seasons, we have trees that regularly loose their leaves (even outside of the seasonal changes), animals deficate on the ground, insects and various other forms of life feed on that stuff and convert it etc etc.

In the bicycle we see today, its not just the plant life that has to contribute to the bicycle...animals also form part of the process. So they live and die as well.

Are only things with a concscious mind able to be considered as dying...so plants don't count theologically (I can think of stories when plants are claimed to have died in the Bible...so this is problematic obviously)

The point is, when talking about plants, how does one define what is happening in the cycle when a leaf falls from a tree? Has that leaf died? Do termites feasting on trees actually cause the death of the tree or did termites not eat trees in the past?

the Bible I believe says lions ate grass...is a lion or cow eatings grass causing the death of grass?

Did mankind and even animals poop? If food was perfect, was the any waste produced before the fall?

The bible says God placed Adam in the garden to "tend to it"...what would that have meant/looked like in a sinless world?

If no waste produced, did plants remove nutrients from the soil such that it needed replacing?

Before sin entered this world, could any of the life>death>life bicycle as we know it today have actually existed or did this all come as a result of sin?

God says in the book of Revelation chapter 21

1. there will be no more night.
2. There wont be any sun or moon,
3. all of the light that sines on the New Earth will shine from the glory of God radiating out from the New Jerusalem from the Lamp of the Lamb

(see references below)

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
5And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”
10And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city of Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11shining with the glory of God. Its radiance was like a most precious jewel
23And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24By its light the nations will walk, and into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory.

How might all of the above and any other biblical statements that do not appear to align well with our current model of the life-death cycle providing nutrients to the earth, affect a Biocycle in the Biblical model of the future?

This I think would require us to try to reconcile the book of Revelation with the first 3 chapters of Genesis...and indeed I believe that even the story of the flood and what the earth looked like after it may also need to be references (even though we are living in the result of that change on this earth)

sorry for the mess above...its all just thoughts at present. I hope where Im going with this makes sense to people as it presents some very deep theological and scientific issues that could very well be almost impossible to reconcile, however, I would like to try to find a solution that is a compromise between biblical theology and inerrancy, and our modern understanding of the science.

Congratulations. You seem to be starting on the journey that most other Christians and Jews, from the dawn of Christianity, have already taken, namely the realisation that the creation accounts are to be taken allegorically, not literally. Fathers of the church such as Origen had already concluded the accounts cannot be literal, as early as 200AD, as had the Jewish scholars in Alexandria of his time.

 

[Brian2]

Now there is the catch phrase that interests me...things lived forever.

I don't think that is something from the Bible.

the Bible I believe says lions ate grass...is a lion or cow eatings grass causing the death of grass?

Did mankind and even animals poop? If food was perfect, was the any waste produced before the fall?

The bible says God placed Adam in the garden to "tend to it"...what would that have meant/looked like in a sinless world?

If no waste produced, did plants remove nutrients from the soil such that it needed replacing?

Before sin entered this world, could any of the life>death>life bicycle as we know it today have actually existed or did this all come as a result of sin?

If you believe in a literal 7 24 hour days of creation then there was not much time for anything to happen on earth. The full 14 Billion years is usually a starting point to reconcile the Bible with science and taking the days as periods of time instead of 24 hour days. This of course can lead to a full or part evolution belief, and depending on where you draw the line for yourself your theology can change as a result.
Personally I can see how evolution fits the bible story but I do not necessarily believe the whole scientific evolution thing because science does not need to be 100% true and science probably does make some bad mistakes in their work of discovering what happened in the past because they ignore what God has said that He has done in the Bible.

sorry for the mess above...its all just thoughts at present. I hope where Im going with this makes sense to people as it presents some very deep theological and scientific issues that could very well be almost impossible to reconcile, however, I would like to try to find a solution that is a compromise between biblical theology and inerrancy, and our modern understanding of the science.

It's something that most Christians have to go through and reconcile these days, esp if you start off in a church that teaches a literal 7 24 hr days.
I hear that the SDA teaches this and that it was an SDA who initially had the idea that the geological column was the result of the great Flood.
But really the order in the geological column is good evidence for evolution and is probably not so good as the order dead animals would settle out in a big flood.
It can be a long and hard journey to go from that YEC belief to another and I hope it is not too long of hard for you and that you make it to the end.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

More theological interpretation -- of folklore.

omg. you simply hit the quote and reply button and didn't actually read anything you quoted!

You make quite a few claims here. The burden of proof is upon you. And weren't you the first to bring up Ehrman? You wanted to attack an atheist and he was your first target. Meanwhile your problems are as others and I have pointed out that you are basing your exegesis on parts of the Bible that are mythological. We are talking about the myths of Genesis primarily. Ehrman is more of a New Testament scholar.

And no, there is nothing all that amazing of the Dead Sea Scrolls showing little change in the text of the Bible.

I just gave you plenty of evidence of "real scholars" who have extensively studied Erhmans claims and comprehensively refuted them. I really find your comment a bit simplistic...indeed it appears your intent is to cry wolf here in defense of atheism. Might I also add, to make the claim Bart Erhman is more of a New Testament scholar woefully understates his credentials? Bart Erhman is a textual criticism expert. He can read the language of both testaments of the bible and is highly academically qualified in both. He has considerable knowledge of bible theology, the problem is he was simply unable to reconcile the barbarism in the old testament at the hands of men under God's direction with the barbarism in society today (at the hands of men under the direction of the devil) and when combined with his perceived inconsistencies in the New Testament Gospel, he dumped religion and became an agnostic. Let me just also add, just because someone is a scholar, indeed a world expert, it does not mean that their theology is sound. Jesus clearly highlights this when he said to those around Him, unless we become as little children we cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Your comment about the Deada Sea scrolls is very unfortunate. Their discovery is one of the most important finds of the modern era. It was important not only because of its contribution to Christianity and the bible, but because these are some of the oldest complete writings ever found. Given what they are written on...that is even more amazing. Only someone who knows nothing about textual criticism and shows no interest in written history, or indeed the study of ancient materials upon which ancient civilizations recorded their history, can fail to recognize the importance of the dead sea scrolls. If only you truly understood what this discovery means for the historical accuracy of the bible. It proves that if the bible is a fabrication...it is truly the most elaborate and rock-solid fabrications in history. The lie has been unchanged almost to the letter for more than 2,000 years based upon writings that have been locked away in a cave for millennia. Do you not understand how incredible that actually is? It should be a simple equation and its significance impossible to understate...but apparently, some individuals simply don't comprehend such things.

I hear that the SDA teaches this and that it was an SDA who initially had the idea that the geological column was the result of the great Flood.

That is a fair statement Brian, however, I might be able to shed a little bit of light on it. A caveat...I have not deeply studied this aspect of YECism and its apparent SDA roots and have only dealt with it on forums once or twice before (a couple of years ago I think from memory). That is not to say I have not studied it at all...just not extensively, so my answer is quite general and I'm sure my interpretations may be slightly off. I think the gist of what I say below is a reasonable basic understanding of it. Here goes:

In the late 1800's (perhaps early 1900's) an Adventist by the name of Price took an interest in science (even though this was not his formal area of training. i think he was a minister or teacher from memory). Anyway, he [Price] was convinced, based obviously upon the writings of Ellen White where she outlined her belief that the creation account was literal as per the straightforward reading of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, that there must be some physical evidence in the world around us that could support the Genesis literal reading and so he began to search for that evidence. I haven't read his book, however, my understanding is that he hypothesized that a biblical basis upon which to interpret the geological record would/should support the his fundamental view of creation and the flood and it went on from there. He was labeled essentially as an uneducated crackpot on the subject and by the late 1920's his audience really went no further than the Adventist church mostly.

That was the last really that was said of his work for basically 40 years until in the early 1960's an author decided to write a book against the literal creation account (possibly in response to a knowledge of Prices work and attempted to get this new work infiltrated into the church...I have forgotten if it was Adventist church or some other denomination) ...this kinda had the reverse effect to what was expected by this new author and consequently, two other authors dug up Prices original work and decided to republish that information in response to the new heresy infiltrating the church (although their work was twisted a bit to not give to much credit to Price least they also be labelled crackpots like he was). These two guys managed to get noticed rather quickly and before long they had sold 200,000 copies of their work and undertook speaking engagements around the US (and I think the world) promoting a literal reading of the Geneis account with geological evidence...thus was officially born the term YECism. So it [YECism] really started in the 1960's...not the late 1800's with EG White. Having said that, if anyone wants to give the SDA church credit for it...

The point is, it is not really specifically attributable to the SDA church. Ellen White's main focus in her ministry, the things that made her unique among the Christian church of the late 1800's, was the Sabbath, Education and Health. She was not unique really in her belief of a literal reading of the creation story...that has been a general consensus among the majority of the Christian church for 2,000 years (contrary to TEists claims)...she had no need to focus on that, although I do absolutely agree it is a very important part of the Seventh Day Advent message because we believe in the 4th commandment. It is a fundamental belief of our church.

As for AIG and Creation Ministries...these guys are far as I understand it, have no relationship with SDA church. I am not even sure if any of their founders were or are Adventists? Anyway, if YECism was truly an SDA invention, it seems strange to me that it is other Christian groups who are at the forefront of scientific research on the topic (such as Baptists for example). To me that alone should cast doubt on the credibility of it being an SDA only thing. I think our church would be far more excited if Baptists gave up Sunday worship and changed their day back to Seventh Day Saturday...now that would be awesome!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just gave you plenty of evidence of "real scholars" who have extensively studied Erhmans claims and comprehensively refuted them. I really find your comment a bit simplistic...indeed it appears your intent is to cry wolf here in defense of atheism. Might I also add, to make the claim Bart Erhman is more of a New Testament scholar woefully understates his credentials? Bart Erhman is a textual criticism expert. He can read the language of both testaments of the bible and is highly academically qualified in both. He has considerable knowledge of bible theology, the problem is he was simply unable to reconcile the barbarism in the old testament at the hands of men under God's direction with the barbarism in society today (at the hands of men under the direction of the devil) and when combined with his perceived inconsistencies in the New Testament Gospel, he dumped religion and became an agnostic. Let me just also add, just because someone is a scholar, indeed a world expert, it does not mean that their theology is sound. Jesus clearly highlights this when he said to those around Him, unless we become as little children we cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.

No, you did not. You gave me a list of people, only one was a biblical scholar, the rest were creationist hacks. And in no way at all did you show that Dan Wallace refuted any of the works of Ehrman. Dropping a name is not a refutation.

Your comment about the Deada Sea scrolls is very unfortunate. Their discovery is one of the most important finds of the modern era. It was important not only because of its contribution to Christianity and the bible, but because these are some of the oldest complete writings ever found. Given what they are written on...that is even more amazing. Only someone who knows nothing about textual criticism and shows no interest in written history, or indeed the study of ancient materials upon which ancient civilizations recorded their history, can fail to recognize the importance of the dead sea scrolls. If only you truly understood what this discovery means for the historical accuracy of the bible. It proves that if the bible is a fabrication...it is truly the most elaborate and rock-solid fabrications in history. The lie has been unchanged almost to the letter for more than 2,000 years based upon writings that have been locked away in a cave for millennia. Do you not understand how incredible that actually is? It should be a simple equation and its significance impossible to understate...but apparently, some individuals simply don't comprehend such things.

The problem is that those were copied from completed works. And I have not seen any scholars write exactly how accurate they are. But since Judaism was the accepted religion at the time that is the field where the scholars of that time would be found. In the early days of Christianity there would have been few scholars. Most would still be Jews. And Ehrman does make a good point that the earliest manuscripts appear to have the most errors. Once Christianity was well accepted the number of errors went down since the religion attracted those with the talent to transcribe properly. The Dead Sea Scrolls argument does not give you much support.

EDIT: I see that I missed a response. When you address several people at once the responses may not be noticed.

I did not see that you acknowledge how you screwed up with your list of "scholars" in that one. Why did you not own up to your error?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

No, you did not. You gave me a list of people, only one was a biblical scholar, the rest were creationist hacks. And in no way at all did you show that Dan Wallace refuted any of the works of Ehrman. Dropping a name is not a refutation.

This has gotten way offtopic, but what the heck, ill go with it.

The point of dropping the name and links to information is so that you can research it for yourself. as can the many others who read these threads. See that is the point, by your not providing decent evidence with supporting links to the majority of your comments you fail to provide your audience with anything stimulating that they can use to support that world view. You are grossly undermining the learning opportunities for those readers who follow you. What they do see on the other hand, is significant amounts of resources posted from the opposing side and some of them are going to study those resources...and will even be convicted by them (FYI, I'm talking about religious conviction here...not criminal)

I gave you Bart Erhman because he is not a Christian...he was an absolute gift for your camp, however, it appears that you have failed to utilize this to find additional supporting evidence from other individuals who may be used to support Bart's arguments.

Google is your friend, I suggest you spend some time using that skill like the rest of us do...there is a host of information regarding debates Bart Erhman has had over the years with textual critics on the topic of biblical inconsistencies. An excellent illustration is shown in the debate with James White and when you see the illustrations of just what the real equation of errors looks like you will quickly realise Bart is floundering...his claims are statistically insignificant.

Simple example: if one was to claim that a person who only gets 99% in an exam is failing...then we are all stuffed. That is what Bart is essentially attempting to claim with his stupidity regarding biblical inerrancy.

His other claim of no originals is actually a bum steer as has been proven by the dead sea scrolls . We know for an absolute fact these texts have been hidden away in caves untouched for almost 2,000 years. There is simply no way they could have been utilised for any kind of comparison from that time to now and yet, they closely match the modern bible translations.

Prior to the advent of the internet, individuals intent on facilitating any kind of ongoing "con" did not have the power of google to ensure the "con" could retain its consistency over the 2 millennia (the universally accepted age of the scrolls). The Chinese whispers issue has simply not happened here...and that is key to my point. There is simply no way of getting around this fact!

Whether you wish to admit the blatantly obvious or not, the age of the scolls is very accurate and scholars have proven that the textual issues Bart is complaining about are less than 1% of the entire new testament and more importantly make zero difference to any biblical theology or doctrine!

Lets forget all of the above for a minute and just focus on the following scenario (its simple well known one used often so you should be very familiar with it):

Possible world view scenarios for an Atheist vs Christian

1. I claim to believe in God. His bible says that in order to attain salvation I must believe and bear fruits of that faith by demonstrating that belief to others (I am not saved by works). If I do not accept and believe, then at the close of probation just prior to the second coming or when I die (whichever comes first), I am unable to receive salvation. The point is, I must accept and believe the gospel to be saved. I choose the believe in the gospel...I'm not good at it, but I genuinely do believe. Im really lousy at it (my efforts are nothing but filthy rags), but I honestly choose to have faith.

2. You absolutely deny God exists. You do not have any belief or faith. The gift of salvation being offered to you, you openly reject 100%. According to the Bible, you have no chance of being saved.

Possible Outcomes

A. If I am wrong...what do I lose exactly? I die and rot in the grave exactly as you do and that's it for the both of us. If I'm dead I won't know any different so in reality, I don't think I lose anything more than you do actually....we both end up exactly the same.

B. If you are wrong...what do you lose? At the end of the millennium, the bible says that all of the wicked will be raised to face their judgment. They will have all of the sins of the world put in front of them (I suppose metaphorically or on some kind of "big screen in the sky") and the Bible specifically states that all of these wicked people will realize they have chosen poorly and accept that they were wrong. Then they will face a terrible second, and very final, death. Fire will come down from heaven and burn the crap out of them and everything else that is evil in this world. In the meantime, I will look upon you and watch you die a terrible death, and then off I go to live in a new world for all eternity...a world with no more sickness or death...a happy place. I get to visit other galaxies and see things that we only dream of right now.

I do not care whether or not you think the above option B is a fairytale...simply look at the point for what it is for a minute and ask yourself the following question;

Out of the two of us, who is going to suffer the most if they are wrong? Who's is the potentially better outcome really...your worldview or mine?

Might I ask at this point...how many people reading this are non-Christians that play lotto? Why do you play? Shouldn't that same philosophy apply to Christianity...you engage with the hope that you might win?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point of dropping the name and links to information is so that you can research it for yourself. as can the many others who read these threads. See that is the point, by your not providing decent evidence with supporting links to the majority of your comments you fail to provide your audience with anything stimulating that they can use to support that world view. You are grossly undermining the learning opportunities for those readers who follow you. What they do see on the other hand, is significant amounts of resources posted from the opposing side and some of them are going to study those resources...and will even be convicted by them (FYI, I'm talking about religious conviction here...not criminal)

I gave you Bart Erhman because he is not a Christian...he was an absolute gift for your camp, however, it appears that you have failed to utilize this to find additional supporting evidence from other individuals who may be used to support Bart's arguments.

Google is your friend, I suggest you spend some time using that skill like the rest of us do...there is a host of information regarding debates Bart Erhman has had over the years with textual critics on the topic of biblical inconsistencies. An excellent illustration is shown in the debate with James White and when you see the illustrations of just what the real equation of errors looks like you will quickly realise Bart is floundering...his claims are statistically insignificant.

Simple example: if one was to claim that a person who only gets 99% in an exam is failing...then we are all stuffed. That is what Bart is essentially attempting to claim with his stupidity regarding biblical inerrancy.

His other claim of no originals is actually a bum steer as has been proven by the dead sea scrolls . We know for an absolute fact these texts have been hidden away in caves untouched for almost 2,000 years. There is simply no way they could have been utilised for any kind of comparison from that time to now and yet, they closely match the modern bible translations.

Prior to the advent of the internet, individuals intent on facilitating any kind of ongoing "con" did not have the power of google to ensure the "con" could retain its consistency over the 2 millennia (the universally accepted age of the scrolls). The Chinese whispers issue has simply not happened here...and that is key to my point. There is simply no way of getting around this fact!

Whether you wish to admit the blatantly obvious or not, the age of the scolls is very accurate and scholars have proven that the textual issues Bart is complaining about are less than 1% of the entire new testament and more importantly make zero difference to any biblical theology or doctrine!

Lets forget all of the above for a minute and just focus on the following scenario (its simple well known one used often so you should be very familiar with it):

Possible world view scenarios for an Atheist vs Christian

1. I claim to believe in God. His bible says that in order to attain salvation I must believe and bear fruits of that faith by demonstrating that belief to others (I am not saved by works). If I do not accept and believe, then at the close of probation just prior to the second coming or when I die (whichever comes first), I am unable to receive salvation. The point is, I must accept and believe the gospel to be saved.

2. You absolutely deny God exists. You do not have any belief or faith. The gift of salvation being offered to you, you openly reject 100%. According to the Bible, you have no chance of being saved.

Possible Outcomes

A. If I am wrong...what do I lose exactly? I die and rot in the grave exactly as you do and that's it for the both of us. If I'm dead I won't know any different so in reality, I don't think I lose anything more than you do actually....we both end up exactly the same.

B. If you are wrong...what do you lose? At the end of the millennium, the bible says that all of the wicked will be raised to face their judgment. They will have all of the sins of the world put in front of them (I suppose metaphorically or on some kind of "big screen in the sky") and the Bible specifically states that all of these wicked people will realize they have chosen poorly and accept that they were wrong. Then they will face a terrible second, and very final, death. Fire will come down from heaven and burn the crap out of them and everything else that is evil in this world. In the meantime, I will look upon you and watch you die a terrible death, and then off I go to live in a new world for all eternity...a world with no more sickness or death...a happy place. I get to visit other galaxies and see things that we only dream of right now.

I do not care whether or not you think the above option B a fairytale...simply look at the point for what it is for a minute and ask yourself the following question;

Out of the two of us, who is going to suffer the most if they are wrong? Who's is the potentially better outcome really...your worldview or mine? (might I ask at this point...how many people reading this are non-Christians that play lotto? Why do you play? Shouldn't that same philosophy apply to Christianity...you engage with the hope that you might win?)

I was well aware of Bart Ehrman long ago. And you never did refute him. You only claimed to. But you totally messed up on the argument. We can go over your failed argument about what you lose later.

You sank your very own arguments early on by referring to parts of the Bible that we know that are false as if they were real. Pointing that out is not an argument for atheism since most Christians seem to know that Genesis is a book of myths. Many of them know that of Exodus too. We should get back to what you do with the parts of your Bible that are false.

 

[Brian2]

That is a fair statement Brian, however, I might be able to shed a little bit of light on it. A caveat...I have not deeply studied this aspect of YECism and its apparent SDA roots and have only dealt with it on forums once or twice before (a couple of years ago I think from memory). That is not to say I have not studied it at all...just not extensively, so my answer is quite general and I'm sure my interpretations may be slightly off. I think the gist of what I say below is a reasonable basic understanding of it. Here goes:

In the late 1800's (perhaps early 1900's) an Adventist by the name of Price took an interest in science (even though this was not his formal area of training. i think he was a minister or teacher from memory). Anyway, he [Price] was convinced, based obviously upon the writings of Ellen White where she outlined her belief that the creation account was literal as per the straightforward reading of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, that there must be some physical evidence in the world around us that could support the Genesis literal reading and so he began to search for that evidence. I haven't read his book, however, my understanding is that he hypothesized that a biblical basis upon which to interpret the geological record would/should support the his fundamental view of creation and the flood and it went on from there. He was labeled essentially as an uneducated crackpot on the subject and by the late 1920's his audience really went no further than the Adventist church mostly.

That was the last really that was said of his work for basically 40 years until in the early 1960's an author decided to write a book against the literal creation account (possibly in response to a knowledge of Prices work and attempted to get this new work infiltrated into the church...I have forgotten if it was Adventist church or some other denomination) ...this kinda had the reverse effect to what was expected by this new author and consequently, two other authors dug up Prices original work and decided to republish that information in response to the new heresy infiltrating the church (although their work was twisted a bit to not give to much credit to Price least they also be labelled crackpots like he was). These two guys managed to get noticed rather quickly and before long they had sold 200,000 copies of their work and undertook speaking engagements around the US (and I think the world) promoting a literal reading of the Geneis account with geological evidence...thus was officially born the term YECism. So it [YECism] really started in the 1960's...not the late 1800's with EG White. Having said that, if anyone wants to give the SDA church credit for it...

The point is, it is not really specifically attributable to the SDA church. Ellen White's main focus in her ministry, the things that made her unique among the Christian church of the late 1800's, was the Sabbath, Education and Health. She was not unique really in her belief of a literal reading of the creation story...that has been a general consensus among the majority of the Christian church for 2,000 years (contrary to TEists claims)...she had no need to focus on that, although I do absolutely agree it is a very important part of the Seventh Day Advent message because we believe in the 4th commandment. It is a fundamental belief of our church.

As for AIG and Creation Ministries...these guys are far as I understand it, have no relationship with SDA church. I am not even sure if any of their founders were or are Adventists? Anyway, if YECism was truly an SDA invention, it seems strange to me that it is other Christian groups who are at the forefront of scientific research on the topic (such as Baptists for example). To me that alone should cast doubt on the credibility of it being an SDA only thing. I think our church would be far more excited if Baptists gave up Sunday worship and changed their day back to Seventh Day Saturday...now that would be awesome!

I suppose Ellen White did not need to focus on YEC. With her being a prophet in the eyes of the SDA, any little thing she said would be considered true. There are plenty of Christians in many parts of Christianity who read Genesis 1 and 2 in a YEC way and I don't think SDA was a cause of that, it is just that I heard of Price and his ideas about the geological column showing a record of the flood.
It is of course possible to not be a YEC and still see the 7 periods of time in the creation account and keep the Sabbath as a SDA or Jew etc (the initial Sabbath is not said to have an evening and morning so maybe that means it was not a literal day and has not ended yet.)
When it comes to those Christians who say that Christians should be YECers or they are denying the gospel, I cannot see it.
IMO YECers who insist on a literal understanding and that it cannot be anything else, are responsible for many young people turning away from the Bible once they go to University and learn some science.