Ages of the Earth and Mankind: No Answers in Genesis or Ellen White, Part II

by Ervin Taylor, June 6, 2016: In Part I, we noted that in 2015, the corporate Seventh-day Adventist Church, in General Conference assembled, adopted a “fundamental” position that declared that the creation of life on this planet occurred “recently,” that it was accomplished in six, literal, 24-hour days, and that a recent, literal, world-wide flood occurred.
In Part II, I would like to begin to provide a historical background to the most important causes of the current theological polarization within First World Adventism concerning the nature of the creation narratives in Genesis. This position clearly contradicts what is known on the basis of scientific evidence about the physical history of our planet and life upon it. This fact may raise the question: If a faith tradition can be so mistaken about such a well-established scientific understanding, what does that say about its theology?
We earlier asked: “Why does corporate Adventism believe that, on this point, it is correct?” To address that question, we suggested in Part I where early Adventism obtained the key elements of its understanding of the Genesis creation narratives. We identified the two most important elements as being statements contained in the corpus of the writings of Ellen White and the influence of American Fundamentalism.
For those who would argue that contemporary Adventism received its information directly from God uninfluenced by the opinions and presuppositions of a long list of various humans and human institutions, there will be little point in continuing to read this discussion. Such a position suggests that they have already accepted one of the basic propositions of Fundamentalism.
If you would like to look at the evidence that those propositions are misplaced, you might wish to get a copy of the most recent print issue of Adventist Today (Spring 2016), which is focused on “The Plain Reading [of the Bible]? Another important source you might wish to consult is Part I, the “History of Adventist Theology,” in the 2nd edition of Malcom Bull and Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007).
As one of the co-founders of the Sabbatarian branch of post-Great Disappointment Adventism, Ellen White’s major initial function was as an oracle for the group’s early leaders and adherents when differences of opinion arose about some theological point or organizational topic. In colloquial terms, she became the “go-to” individual to provide authoritative statements about what should be done when disputes arose. The key role she played was to reduce the chances that early Sabbatarian Adventism would fragment before it could create some stable institutions that could transmit the ethos of the original movement into a second generation of believers and beyond.
Her charisma and thus authority within the group was derived primarily as the result of their acceptance of the view that the information that Ellen propounded came directly from an angel, from Jesus, or from God during one of Ellen’s visionary states. The written record of these early visions was edited initially by her husband, James White, who served Ellen White and the early Adventist movement in the capacity of business agent and publisher. He then served as the principal church administrator when the leaders of the movement determined that it needed to be formally organized and adopt a specific name.
While James was alive, he was able to provide much of the editorial work that communicated Ellen’s visions to the “Little Flock.” When he died in 1881, Ellen acquired several individuals and then a larger group of what she variously called “book makers” and “helpers” that assisted in assembling from various sources what came to be a large corpus of written materials published under her name.
The views that she included in her early writings concerning what we would today refer to as earth and early human history were consistent with the conventional understandings of the most conservative Protestant religious environment of her time, as expanded upon in several of her out-of-body experiences. For example, in one case, she stated that in vision she was taken back to the Creation described in Genesis and was able to witness what had occurred at that time. In writing about her visionary experiences and in other more general discussions, she, on a number of occasions, referred to “about 6000 years” to designate the time she believed that had elapsed since the time of the Genesis Creation. These largely incidental comments became normative doctrinal positions for traditional Adventism.
It is suggested that the most important element that motivated Ellen White in her views on the biblical creation was the consequence of her adoption of Saturday from the Seventh-day Baptists as the required Sabbath day of worship for Christians. The most obvious biblical basis for holding this position was that in the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath was said to be a perpetual memorial of the six-day creation. To confirm that determination, Ellen White reported that, in a vision, she saw the fourth commandment highlighted. That in the Deuteronomy version of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath was a memorial of the liberation of Israel from bondage in Egypt apparently did not cause any question to be raised about the linkage of the Sabbath with a literal interpretation of the “days” in the creation narratives.
In the first decade of the 20th Century, Fundamentalism arose in opposition to what was referred to as “Modernists” within the liberal wings of several major American Protestant denominations. One of the propositions which it propounded was that all statements in the Bible should be regarded as inerrant, i.e., not communicating any factual errors even in the areas of history or science. That point of view was one of the contributing factors that led Fundamentalists to later adopt a position that came to be called Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and/or Young Life Creationism (YLC). The YLC position is essentially the position that in 2015 the institutional Seventh-day Adventist Church adopted.
When American Fundamentalism became prominent among most conservative Evangelical American Protestants, Ellen White’s understanding of the topics we are considering was essentially compatible with most of the Fundamentalist agenda. While there were certainly obvious contrasts with regard to a series of other theological topics, with respect to evolution and the age of the life and especially human life on earth Adventism could be considered to have become almost completely aligned with Fundamentalism.
It is important to note that how Ellen interpreted the opening chapters of Genesis became embedded as part of a background treatment into the fabric of her master Adventist narrative or religious world view: “The Great Controversy.” Her views on creation were reworked and expanded several times over three decades in her writings before being assembled as a background element in the final treatment by her and her editors and collaborators. The major thrust of the “Great Controversy” theme systematized another major theological element that characterized Sabbatarian Adventism from its inception. This was the focus on a unique brand of Adventist eschatology that emphasized the key role that the Sabbath-keeping Adventists would play in the “End Times.”
EGW died in 1915 and between that event and the late 1940s, classical Adventism was consolidated into a tightly integrated, interlocking theological and organizational system with a strong focus on its eschatology and an active evangelistic orientation. Several Adventist church leaders continued to insist that Adventism clearly belonged within the Fundamentalist camp and, with few exceptions, that aspect of Adventism continued to be emphasized in the traditional versions of its public evangelism and official pronouncements well into the 1960s. In sociological terms, American Adventism, like the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses traditions, had evolved into an institutionalized sect. It, like they, had successfully passed on its unique brand of religious ideology inherited from the founding group to successive generations of believers.
It was in the late 1950s that the first public manifestation of objections to the traditional Adventist interpretations of the Genesis creation narratives began to emerge within the North American Adventist church. Some of these objections occurred within elements of the denomination which had renewed concerns about the appropriate role of Ellen White’s views on a number of topics within corporate Adventism. These objections renewed a major fault line that had appeared early in the 20th Century within Adventism that pitted elements of the Adventist physician class led by John Harvey Kellogg against the then-dominant professional clergy class. Even though Kellogg had once been a protégé of Ellen and James White, with James deceased, Ellen sided with the clergy and transferred her trust to one of her sons, William, aka “Willie” White.
Kellogg was banished and the church’s clerical establishment survived that challenge to its domination of corporate church operations. Following Ellen’s death in 1915, there ensued several decades where a tightly controlled Adventist orthodoxy was able to be enforced by a centralized bureaucratized church structure dominated by a professional clergy. With several notable exceptions, this control was moderately successful up until the immediate post-World War II generation of Adventist believers.
In the 1950s, an attempt by a self-appointed group of Adventist leaders to make certain key elements of traditional Adventist theology more acceptable to some conservative Protestant evangelicals was initiated. The outgrowth of these efforts resulted in the production of a book entitled Questions on Doctrine. This book attempted to reconfigure certain traditional Adventist theological constructs to make their expression more palatable to both Fundamentalist Protestants and non-Fundamentalist but conservative evangelical Protestants. The objections to this attempt within certain parts of Adventism created a theological and organizational firestorm as severe as that which had occurred at the beginning of the century for which Kellogg and his supporters were responsible.
The debates over this issue occupied the attention of many elements in the church for more than a decade even though these disputations, similarly to the subject of an earlier 1888 dispute, were considered by a number of Adventists to be tantamount to arguing that mythic medieval question about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
The debate over Question on Doctrine dominated much of North American Adventism in the decade of the 1950s and had a lingering effect that was, in part, responsible for the rise of “independent ministries.” The earliest questions concerning the traditional Adventist teachings on creation began to appear in such pioneering independent Adventist journals as the Claremont Dialogue and Burbank Church Perspective, as well as in early issues of Spectrum.
To answer the questions we posed at the beginning of this segment, in Part III we will consider the thesis that the ultimate source of the development in progressive Adventist thought on this topic may be traced back ultimately to a set of unintended consequences of the movement of Adventism into the field of health and medicine. Specifically, we will consider the effects that the need to accredit Adventist colleges (so that the accreditation of the Adventist medical school at Loma Linda, California, could be accomplished) had on the vitality and credibility of the Adventist Fundamentalist ethos, especially on its officially proclaimed views on earth and human history.
This will provide the background to a discussion of the current theological polarization within First World Adventism concerning the nature of the Genesis creation narratives. The principal elements of this debate concern the validity of biological evolution, objections to a belief in a recent worldwide flood, and the length of time that all living forms, including mankind, have existed on Earth.
If you appreciated this piece, please consider giving a donation to Adventist Today to keep this quality of content available!
Ervin,
Kudos for your provocative and perceptive dual articles raising
pertinent points about timing of Biblical events in Genesis!
While earth age is of paramount importance particularly where Adventist
estimates are so out of line with General Scientific thought.
For me WHY God created is far more important than when.
Why did God create 2700 species of mosquitoes?
For those who say sin/Satan created them,
my long held belief was that Satan himself a created
being had ZERO creative capability.
Mosquitoes though tiny are amazingly complex.
The males drink plant nectar, but the females require
a “blood meal” in order to produce eggs,
For his they are equipped with sensors that detect
body heat human smell etc to zero in on their meal.
The eggs laid in shallow water undergo amazing complete
changes before maturing into the fully fledged adult.
And the tiny Protozoa, the plasmodium parasite, cause of
malaria, has two,distinct and very complex life cycles, one in its human host, and one in the mosquito?
These super complex minute organisms, both mosquito
and malaria parasite clearly had an intelligent designer
programming them!
The current ZIKA threat, yellow fever, dengue fever,
all require mosquito vector, and not ANY
mosquito, but sometimes just one specific one of the 2700
varieties.
So much human misery and death over many millennia
have resulted from mosquitos, only a God who was sadistic
cruel would have created these pests!
Robin,
This is what happens when you spend too much time reading “God’s second book.” You decide the author is cruel and sadistic. In short, you know too much. Which is the whole problem with ‘Scientific knowledge.’ Too much confidence about what we can ‘know’ when we depend on, not the scientific method, but on”Thinking Scientific.”
I propose a much humbler system of thought: the existence and study of nature tells us a great deal about nature. We can’t observe nature’s origins, there are no experiment we can conduct.
No one knows, yea or ney. To insist on the 6000 actual years of EGW and TW, or you are no 7th day Adventist, is totally unacceptable, and idiotic.
William,
You did not address my questioning or doubts
at all?
Mosquitoes are just the “tip of the iceberg” when it comes to “created ” beasts/a I als.
We go from the tiny malaria parasite, unseen by the human eye, but with a dual life cycle in the mosquito/human, so complex it had to have an intelligent designer, to the most mammoth predator God ever created,
TYRANOSAURUS REX, a dinosaur the size of several elephants!
Please visit your nearest MATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM.
Many have skeletons of this giant predato (thousands of new ones are dig up every year,
The huge gnashing jaws, the huge talons on the feet, tell you that this was a lethal “”killing machine”. Adventists are told that these ferocious animals were “too big to fit in Moahs Ark”. !,
Scientists proclaim that theses killers PREDATED the existence of man
The coexistence of humans and these monstrous killers was not possible
— human’s would have become extinct!
Some dinosaurs had sharp projections on their tails. One lash of the tail would eviscerats any nearby animal/human. Which intelligent designer program,Ed the neurology of the dinosaur’s killer instincts??
Which designer/creator installed a sensor in the mouths of crocodiles, when snout in the water, they can detect the faintest ripple, unseen by human eye, created by some prey entering the water seventy yards upstream?
Who “created” the great white shark?
I rest my case!
Robin,
Why is there evil present in the observable creation? I’ll leave that for Dr. Hoehn to explain. He has it all figured out.
I didn’t address your questionings and doubts because I can’t. I just told you I didn’t think you could learn anything about God studying nature. All you can find in nature about God is questions.
And I have contempt for the many philosophers who have deluded themselves into believing they are men of ‘science.’ Scientists are the royal priesthood these days – gender-neutral of course.
If you want to know something about the creator study the bible, not the bones buried in the earth. Ponder the wonders of the Atonement, not mosquitoes. Enter into the mystery of the blood meal we must eat to have life.
William, ignorance is bliss! And holy, too! My question for you is, how does one know when he /she knows too much?
Bugs,
When they came and told Socrates that the Oracle at Delphi, when queried, had declared Socrates to be, “the wisest.” Socrates thought for a while and then he laughed and said. “I know why the Oracle said that. Because I am the only one who truly understands that I know nothing.”
I’ll leave the bliss and holiness to you and the gods in your ambrosia patch. Me? The beginning of wisdom is to fear the LORD. After that we work on humility. No Hubris. Nothing is more dangerous than thinking you know something. If your really want to get hopelessly lost in the woods, you first have to be certain you know where you are.
Bugs,
The guy who wrote this article knows too much. http://www.livescience.com/55014-miniature-hobbit-ancestors-discovered.html
Well said,
“Sanctify them in thy truth; thy word is the truth.” John 17:17.
Notice how little scripture is used in some of these articles, I appreciate some of the Adventist historic perspective of these articles but that is it. Test all things by scripture.
The Sputnik era coincided with my childhood, and the Adventist Church of that time (like the rest of North America) put a great deal of emphasis on the primacy of science in physical matters, and certainly the example at home was that of a physician (Dad) wrestling with riddles within enigmas in the treatment of patients who sought his counsel and cure. For me, the “second book” of testimony was a most humane and inspirational volume, within the medical/curative context. Dad was a great proponent of preventive medicine, but in acute situations, he turned to science for immediate and life-saving answers. Yes, we contended with all manner of parasites and mosquitoes in our overseas experience at a mission hospital, but I suppose we believed enough in the concept of “adaptation” that we recognized that a lot of the terrible traits of these bugs were not necessarily representative of what the Lord had in mind in earliest times. Even as today we have a small percentage of psychopathic people who seem dedicated to causing others distress, suffering, and pain (and sometimes develop their own religion based on their sense of personal destiny to clear the world of evil), certain species of non-human life seem to directly confront the viability of our species.
I cannot agree that the “second book” of testimony is faith-destroying. In a vacuum, it can lead us to question what in the world the Creator has in mind, but ultimately we need strong science as part of our Christian…
Nature itself reveals the story of good and evil. If human beings can develop mutations in labs, then surely an evil force can do the same. The idea of a not-very-bright devil who can’t use the materials of life to make monsters (even in some minds) is not logical. I would suggest that when death came the earth changed a lot. Whether the flood was world-wide or not doesn’t matter–it was the biblical world and that’s usually what they meant by world. As for all the other signs of age, I don’t pretend to be a science expert but we can all speculate for the fun of it and be as logical as all the many versions of evolution. How do we know the natural laws we see now were the same as those at the beginning? Before a worldwide flood, the planet could have been significantly different. Apparently the poles were tropical, and I can’t understand how that could be.
How can a human smaller than an atom compared to the cosmos know much of anything?
Brother Taylor, you are consistent and clear in your premises and ideas about creation you ignore the fact that there is a large amount of scientific evidence consistent with a recent, six-day creation and a global flood. To accept, by faith, the biblical statement “Thy Word is true from the beginning” (Psalm 119:160) is a reasonable position, which reasonable people, including scientists, can accept without committing intellectual suicide. I believe that the only intellectually honest approach for a Christian is either to believe what the writer of Genesis is saying, or reject it as untrue.
To disbelieve it, as you are urging us to, brings the following problems:
How can you know which other parts of Scripture are in error as well—that is, how can you reliably know anything at all about Christianity?
What about the New Testament evidence that Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) regarded Genesis 1-11 as inspired Scripture, giving us ‘true truth’ about historical characters and events?
What happens to the very basis of the Gospel—that is, the Fall into sin, death and bloodshed of the whole creation for which the Savior shed His blood in death (I Corinthians 15:21, 22; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:19-22)?
Sam,
You say that “there is a large amount of scientific evidence consistent with a recent, six-day creation and a global flood, but reference no scientific evidence.
Yes, there have been lots of books published by Adventists and other Fundamentalists but how have they been more convincing than the larger body of reputable scientists, extending back hundreds or more years? Are these being completely ignored by a simple choice of reading material? Read literally, the two creation stories raise many more questions than possible answers. It is the story orally passed down for thousands of years, much like many contemporary world cultures which also had their own stories of origins.
When someone chooses to accept the biblical creation account recorded in the first chapter of Genesis from the first there needs to be an explanation of why only one is accepted and essentially, the other one (which is recognized was told much earlier) is seldom mentioned.
Is there not a problem as accepting literally the creation account, one must also accept as literal all the other accounts that are impossible to replicate today: the sun standing still; a donkey speaking; a man being kept alive in a huge sea monster for three days? Isn’t is incongruous to accept any without accepting all?
Can you provide some references to support your comment that there is a large body of scientific evidence suggesting a recent, six-day creation and a global flood?
May I second Mr. Coleman’s request for references to publications that provide scientific evidence written by relevant specialists in the topics that they are talking about that presents evidence of a recent creation and even more recent world wide flood. Something published in a reputable scientific journal would be nice, not on a web site controlled by fundamentalists.
Erv,
Why don’t you prove the Gorilla is my kin first. We will let you go first because your ideas are new and fresh. (Compared to the Holy Scriptures which Jesus Christ trusted and taught from).
Erv, It is simpler to point out all the problems with evolutionary time. It isn’t difficult. I clipped this from Acts & Facts.
But we could go get these observations elsewhere. They are merely recent observations of Pluto:
Pluto rotates only once every 6.39 days, the New Horizons spacecraft could only capture one side of the dwarf planet in high resolution during the close flyby. The side it captured had a most interesting and unexpected terrain: an enormous heart-shaped feature, nicknamed Tombaugh Regio after Pluto’s discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh. tronomers expected that Pluto’s surface would be saturated with craters due to countless impacts over billions of years. But Tombaugh Regio has virtually none. Instead, the region exhibits a quasi-polygonal tile pattern, unlike anything seen on any other planet or moon. Astronomers now believe that this pattern indicates some type of convection—the circulation of material due to heat.
New Horizons images revealed other interesting geological features on Pluto. Mountains as large as the Rockies stretch across its surface, but they’re made of water-ice instead of rock. The spacecraft also captured cliffs and enormous canyons, what appear to be frozen lakes of nitrogen, and even evidence of past volcanic activity. This geology indicates that the surface was once active with motion driven by internal heat. Water Ice? No craters? Internal planetary heat? Pluto is smaller than our moon.
ERV
Now you and I know that any research or evidence of ID would not be allowed in a “scientific” journal because it will not tolerate the possibility of such. (How this can be called science I don’t know since science is supposed to be open to reasonable possibilities and be willing to research them without bias.)
However, creationists are guilty as well of not listening. When they debate the opposition they tend to present a God that neither side would want to believe in. We are all biased and scientists as well as clergy found their identity in their belief system and are influenced by colleagues or would face social isolation.
There is a novel just published that bring these tensions to light in the context of relationships and education in a fundamentalist Bible college with an Adventist teacher. You can find it on Amazon and in Kindle. The title is STARTING OVER IN THE PAST. (Yes, I wrote it and it is now published.)
Sam,
Irvin is not suggesting that the Biblical Genesis account is wrong, but rather that your interpretation of the author’s intended message is wrong.
The key intended message of the Genesis account is to convey the fact that God created the heaven and the earth and every living thing in it. The intended message is not one of “this is the exact historical account of when things were created.”
Erv believes the Genesis account is wrong as it reads. You have to read it with Erv’s special glasses to see it doesn’t mean exactly what it says. It means what Erv says it means. Post-modern truth has arrived.
Mr. Geli suggests: “I believe that the only intellectually honest approach for a Christian is either to believe what the writer of Genesis is saying, or reject it as untrue.: May I suggest several questions before we go with the either/or approach: For example, “What exactly is the writer of Genesis saying?” i.e., what idea(s) was/were he (it would be interesting to contemplate that it was a “she”) trying to communicate and why did he write this narrative in the particular style in which it was composed? And “Why is there two very different creation stories at the opening of Genesis?” To go the “either/or” route does not do justice to the complexity of the Hebrew creation narrative. For example, what is that “talking snake” doing in the story?
Sam,
… so how do you read Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians? Paul spends the first half his letter struggling with a totally messed up community of faith impossibly unable to come together by reason of difference over knowledge, spiritual practice and prophecy. It is interesting that Seventh-day Adventists read a passage from this letter when celebrating communion, but not when discussing Genesis.
Two things of special interest to me come at the point where the letter shifts away from trying to sort out the issues with the Corinthians, which comes at the end of Chapter 12.
First, Paul never threatens the Corinthians as risking their salvation by their behavior or beliefs. I take comfort.
Second, Paul comes to proffer what he calls ‘a better way.’ I take interest.
The better way is 1 Corinthians 13.
Paul explicitly explains that knowledge (theology), spiritual practice (tongues), and prophecy (Calvin: the interpretation of scripture applied to the present need) vanishes, ceases, and fails.
“We know in part, and we prophesy in part.”
What abideth, what endures is faith, hope, and love.
So do you believe that Paul would share any sense that Scripture is knowable? And if not, then what? And if so, for that matter, what about 1 Corinthians 13?
Erv,
Why is the church not growing far faster in North America? I think one need only look to your obsessive and exhaustive devotion to what distracts us away from the power of God, as evidenced by yet another article on a topic that cannot be proved one way or the other. Why do you persist in distracting people away from the weightier matters of Salvation? What makes it seem worth the risk of facing God’s eternal condemnation for so doggedly distracting people away from the weightier issues of salvation?
You’re a deep thinker and you challenge us to think. So, how about challenging us to think deeply about issues that actually weigh on our salvation, about the amazing ability of God to redeem from the uttermost, and what life will be like after God has taken us away from this sin-filled planet? How about focusing our attention on what we can use each day as we apply our faith to the challenges of life?
“Why is the church not growing far faster in North America?” There are probably many reasons, but one reason may be that thoughtful people will not compromise honesty by joining a church which too often corporately stifles intellectual integrity.
Mr. Noel asks an important question: “Why is the church not growing far faster in North America?” That could be the topic of an interesting commentary. Would Mr. Noel agree?
Erv,
I would agree. The answer should be obvious to anyone who reads the Book of Acts: the church grew where the Holy Spirit was present and people were focused on their relationship with God and using the power He gave them to spread the Gospel. My point of contention is that endless intellectual explorations on topics which cannot be settled, such as the age of the earth and scientific evidence of creation matching the Biblical story, prevents us from being focused on our relationship with God and learning to minister in His power. Just as the Holy Spirit gives a multitude of gifts enabling people to minister God’s redeeming love in a wide variety of ways not limited to preaching sermons, the number of specific ministry ideas that might be discussed is great.
Wm Noel
Though you have a point and may be right for most, I think you make a generalization. I tend to think classical Christianity or even evangelical Christianity has not been presented as intellectually viable to most of the public either in secular universities or by the nominal or even zealous Christian. Witness with good works goes a long way, but there are many nonbelievers who also reveal good works and because of the anti-Christian environment today we rarely hear about the Christian works. The root of the problem may just be a lack of information. The postmodern movement seems actually to be a better environment for the right kind of evangelism as they should be cynical of the modern scientific approach as always true.
I too was attracted to Sam Geli’s opinion: “I believe that the only intellectually honest approach for a christian is, either to believe what the writer of Genesis is saying, or reject it as untrue.”.
What really is the writer of Genesis saying? He gives us two stories — one in chapter one and the other in chapter two. They are so different, that both cannot be true. If any reader takes that approach, he is not honest: he is either blind, deficient or dishonest. In spite of all I have just said, there are some readers who say, since the Bible does not contradict itself, both stories have to be saying the same thing.
We may not want to accept that although Moses’ name is attached to Genesis, Moses may not have been the only writer of the book. Will any normal writer give two such opposing accounts consecutively?
Lots of people have to be honest readers, and refrain from putting into the Bible information which is not there. Lots more must learn to read with the Spirit’s help, taking off the spectacles of their mentors and pastors.
Nathaniel Moore wrote “He gives us two stories — one in chapter one and the other in chapter two. They are so different, that both cannot be true.”
CANNOT BE TRUE.
Who comes to take away the word? when it is sown. Scoffers abound.
And these are those along the road, where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word having been sown in them.
Scientific inquiry into quantum physics reaches conclusions that can’t logically be true, such as items existing in two places at once, test data influenced by the simple act of observing the data, etc. Being able to hold multiple opposing facts in intellectual harmony seems to be a requirement for further advancement.
What is truth?
It’s hard being merely human 😉
Yes. I am guilty as charged. I do believe that all Scripture stands or falls together. It is God’s word or it is not. You can’t pick and choose.
“All scripture is inspired by God . . .” (2 Tim. 3:16). God does not lie (Titus 1:2, Rom. 3:4). Because God speaks only truth, and all of Scripture is God’s Word, (inspired by Him) all of scripture must be true. This belief is the presupposition upon which a Christian reads the Bible. The Bible is authoritative because it is the Word of God and because God’s Word is true. Jonathan Edwards defined truth as, “the consistency and agreement of our ideas with the ideas of God. . . .God is truth itself.”1 It is therefore a most serious matter to suspect the accuracy of the Genesis creation account. If God is not always truthful, it is impossible to be sure when the Bible is telling the truth, and when it is not (or if it is ever accurate at all). If one part is false, then the rest is likewise called into question. Allowing for the possibility that some passage in Scripture could be inaccurate opens the door for an endless barrage of questions as to the legitimacy of every other passage.
I encourage persons to read carefully an excellent book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation Paperback – January 1, 2001 by John F. Ashton (Editor) Why would any educated scientist with a PhD advocate a literal interpretation of the six days of creation? Impressive book, worth reading!
No one here is accusing God of lying. But when you make that statement, are you also claiming God, himself, wrote every word of the Bible? Did men write the Bible and are men omniscient and perfect? Are humans unlimited by perception and understanding far beyond their knowledge? Or are they based on their world view?
In your position, is truth synonymous with actual facts, unrelated to time and place? What is meant by the the common Adventist term “present truth”? Does it mean “forever” or is it dependent on time? What part of the Bible do you accept as written by God, or did man interpret through his own perception?
Regretfully, as far as I can tell, no author who contributed to the Ashton volume had his or her Ph.D. is a relevant scientific field dealing either with evolutionary biology or geochronology. Someone with a Ph.D. in, for example, urban sociology from a major research university, clearly could speak with authority on the sociology of urban populations but, would have no better understanding of evolution or geochronology than any other reasonably educated individual.
Sam, you would need to define “true.” Yes, God created the world by His Word, and not through evolution, because of Who He is. That is what Genesis says to me. It happened in seven specific steps and the Sabbath rest was the completion–seven meaning the end of work; perfection, good, Since the use of day occurs in other places non-spefically a 24-hour day, that could be metaphor. I just don’t think the writer had 21st century knowledge but a different physical worldview. He could have believed in a flat earth and still be inspired. God’s inspiration has more to do with meaning and a spiritual relationship.
As Daniel said, knowledge would be increased and there is so much more to learn.
I don’t understand how one can take the Bible as inerrant (it wasn’t part of our beginning). Otherwise we would have a literal forever (contemporary term) hell and many other changes in biblical understanding. The Bible is a narrative with a theme of Jesus and salvation to me, and not a jumble or words dictated by God.
Sam,
No one is asking you to think of God as a liar. You have to understand that the Bible, as we have it today, has a lot of “man” in it: so that it is man who makes the mistakes, who forgets, who misunderstands, and who makes wrong conclusions; it is not God. He did not write, He did not translate, He did not interpret.
You asked, ” How can you know which other parts of Scripture are in error as well…? I hope that some of the theologians and scholars on this forum can help; but for me I trust in God’s Spirit to guide me and enlighten me as I read and study the Bible. God blessed me with the ability to read and with a fair level of understanding; so I begin with that and seek His guidance as I go on. I trust Him to forgive me when I go wrong; and ask Him to help me avoid misleading others.
The Bible was written by scores of writers, and had to be edited and arranged by many more score s of scholars. There had to be a host of copiers and translators and printers, and even interpreters (for some versions). Added to this, hundred of years of time elapsed between the start and the ending of the process. Man was involved, so there must be some mistakes along the way; and God will not punish you for saying so, if you recognise this.
Erv, Elaine, Bill Garber, and others who are so sure that they are right in debunking a literal six-day creation. Were you aware that a prominent chemist who was recognized this year as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world, says most scientists do not understand how evolution could explain the existence of life? Dr. James Tour is a well-known professor at Rice University, specializing in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Over the last 30 years, Tour has authored over 500 research publications, and he was recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org. Tour has also received awards and recognitions from the American Chemical Society, Thomson Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others. After recognizing that evolutionists are “collectively bewildered” by life’s origins, Tour joined nearly 900 other scientists (this number may not be enough for Erv, I understand) in signing A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, which states: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
“The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true.”
― Carl Sagan
“our preferences do not determine what’s true.”:
Very true. This has application to everyone who chooses positions based on a priori choices, disregarding any sources that disagrees with chosen positions and limiting reading to those that support only personal beliefs.
Since Erv is a member of the SDA Church, what I think would be most fascinating is if he was to personally undertake a re-writing of each of the now-28 Fundamental Belief statements as he would have (or prefer) each of the particular areas or aspects of belief (as covered in the current 28) to read.
As an academic exercise just for my own amusement, many years ago, I did rewrite the then 27 Adventist “Fundamentals” (sic)” It was a very, very short document. Might I suggest that each individual do that for him or herself. Would it not be interesting to compare the results?
If God had written the Bible Himself by etching it in stone or Gold. You could say it was totally God’s words. But being passed from mouth to ear for many many years will have gross errors, some truth, and much individual anecdotal additive.
I know it’s complex but kids seem to understand: If you believe the Bible, you were descended from Adam and Eve. If you believe science, your great, great, great, etc. grandfather was a gorilla. I’ve never had a child or university student say My ancestors were gorillas not children of God, even though they might believe it.
I”m sorry to hear that Mr. Hansen believes that he has descended from a gorilla. No scientist– evolutionary biologist, anthropologist, biochemist or any other — believes that humans descended from modern apes or any other modern primate. .
Dr. Taylor, Be so kind to explain just how we got here if we were not created by God nor ascended from a gorilla.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120306-gorilla-genome-apes-humans-evolution-science/
Primatologists know from fossils that humans, chimps, and gorillas shared an ancient ancestor. Tracing exactly when these lineages diverged, however, is tricky.
Thankfully for the scientists, pairs of DNA letters called base pairs mutate at a fairly regular pace. A single base pair of primate DNA, for example, has a roughly one-in-a-billion chance of mutating each year—which means genetic differences in a pair can help estimate when a split occurred. (Get a genetics overview.)
According to the new genetic research—when combined with known fossils—the lineage that led to humans, chimps, and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor about 10 million years ago.
Humans and chimps then popped off of that lineage some 6 million years ago, according to the new study.
Gorilla DNA Shows Surprises
Another surprising result is that part of the gorilla genome is at odds with the current structure of the great ape evolutionary tree.
For example, instead of gorillas being most similar to chimps and then humans in that portion of the DNA, the branches flip to humans being most similar to gorillas and then chimps.
Erv is picking nits. Descended, ascended, does Dr. Taylor really believe: “No scientist– evolutionary biologist, anthropologist, biochemist or any other — believes that humans [are not related to primates]”
Hansen, your NG article proves those scientists don’t understand how primates are related to man or how man ascended from them as you put it so aptly. But they all have degrees so Dr. Erv wants us to respect and recognize their authority.
Perhaps instead of telling us what they don’t believe, could Dr. Taylor tell us what they do believe. Better yet, they are respected scientists, maybe Dr. Taylor will tell us what they know about the evolution of man and primate?
My avatar and I will thoughtfully wait for the good Doctor’s reply.
Mr. Abbott changed the statement about the current scientific understanding about the relationship between modern humans and modern apes. Modern humans are not descended from modern apes. Modern humans and modern apes are descendant from a common ancestor. Both humans and apes are primates. I hope this helps.
May I very much agree with Nate about the excellent nature of the current print issue of Adventist Today. It addresses with a number of first rate articles the topics that need to be addressed when we talk about “the bible says.” May I also suggest that the problems we are discussing here are not problems with the scientific data, it involves problems with how we understand the biblical narratives.
Someone asked about the prime message of Genesis 1 and 2 (which are different stories but addressing similar issues.). There are a number of important messages. But I think most non-fundamentalist scholars would agree that the the most important one is to declare that the God of the Hebrews is responsible for the Creation of the world and the sun and the moon and the stars and everything that is good. The sun and moon are not deities. There is one Creator God. The second is to explain the origin of the Hebrew Sabbath.
My understanding is that there is a general agreement among non-fundamentalist Old Testament scholars that the final editing of these stories occurred during or after the Jews came back from the Babylonian captivity.
WA, I’m sure Erv has a good response as to the origin of humans; I’m truly interested in what he has to say. Just surfing around the net, I noticed articles from various institutions of distinction. [UC Berkeley, Smithsonian] and other places which clearly state “Humans did not evolve from apes”; however,as one reads the articles, the parsing of that sentence definitely blurs its clarity: “Humans and chimps or apes evolved from a common ancestor like a tree with two limbs”
“Humans are a kind of ape.”
“It seems logical that our common ancestor possessed both human and ape-like features.”
Seems to me that for practical purposes, if one believes evolutionary theory, our “grandfather” was an ape, more or less; definitely not Adam.
Dr. Taylor,
I haven’t read in Genesis about the ‘common ancestor’ that I assume all primates share. Or is it just modern man and the modern apes who share a common ancestor? I can’t keep up on the ever changing discoveries. As for the profound and nuanced purposes of Genesis 2 being an explanation of the Hebrew Sabbath. I’m assuming you think Genesis 2 was written from a Hebraic Sabbatarian perspective to justify the Hebrew Sabbath? It was not written to inform us of anything, but to evoke a response, right? Those Jew authors just returned from Babylon, do you think they made it all up? Or was their some earlier tradition they were borrowing from? Those non-fundamentalist scholars know a lot more than I do.
By the way, I followed the Chicago Manual of Style rules when I altered your quote. Just like a financial statement, you can make it say almost anything as long as you tell ’em what you did in the notes. It was not much altered. I tried to clarify it. You think my Avatar and I are related, not just similar in manners and appearance.
I thought your ‘modern’ distinction was quibbling, actually disingenuous – I still do, I altered your quote to emphasize my point, just like I’m repeating it now for the same effect.
By faith,we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Dr.Taylor, no one can understand the Creation narrative without faith. Your subscription to higher critical theories which have Genesis or parts of it written after the captivity clearly place you in the camp of unbelief. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Creation, like salvation, is not something to be figured out by scholars, it’s something to be believed. Doesn’t all scientific scholarship place the resurrection of Christ in fantasy land. Has it ever been reproduced in a laboratory? Only the final resurrection will convince skeptics of its veracity.
Thiele’s contribution to scholarship in sorting out the numbers of the Hebrew kings was a milestone in Biblical scholarship but it didn’t put an end to unbelief and skepticism. Virtually everybody was proved wrong, including the greatest scholars of the discipline. They were all wrong. David and Goliath. Faith was the difference.
Hanson said: Thankfully for the scientists, pairs of DNA letters called base pairs mutate at a fairly regular pace.
How can we know this uniformity has always been at the same pace? Doesn’t one have to start with the assumption that everything moved along at the same pace today as in the past? Isn’t time one mystery we can’t really tackle with assurance? Why would it always be linear? How much can we claim to know as far as the cosmos, inner space, origins, etc. Do we know 50%, 90%, 99% or just 1%? We only know we exist and some have questioned that claiming we live in virtual reality .
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians2:14
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2Corinthians4:3~4
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1Timothy4:1
God‘s word is true though it goes against science. God is not a human being with a finite mind.
He walked on water He ascended to Heaven He died and rose again. If you apply science on those three events it doesn’t agree, does it mean the Bible is false? NO!
He is God and there is no one like Him. God is not subject to human judgement
He is able to create in Six days. He is not man who takes years just to make something. Man does not create he can only make.
God only speaks and it happens
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians2:8
Hansen and Justine…..
Hansen said: “Your subscription to higher critical theories which have Genesis or parts of it written after the captivity clearly place you in the camp of unbelief. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.”
Justine seconded.
But where is the logic? why does a study of ‘higher ciriticism’ demand, clearly, that that individual is an ‘unbeliever?’ Where is the logic?
Just because one believer has different assumptions underlying their belief structure does not make them an unbeliever.
I could just as easily say that fundamentalism is a kind of unbelief. Fundamentalism generally holds to certain assumptions / presuppositions. Included in these are a belief in literalism of the scriptures. I put it to you that a belief in literalism of scriptures is 100% at odds with ‘spiritual things are spiritually discerned.’ EGW and James were great promoters of literalism as part of their pre-emptive defence against ‘spiritualism.’ (But even their conception of spiritualism has a lot of literalistic elements to it.)
So, before you glibly say ‘spiritual things are spiritually discerned,’ and imagine that in the process you will condemn all those who do not share your assumptions, please examine what you take to be the underlying assumptions of your use of those ideas. And perhaps you might even be willing to define those assumptions. Otherwise, we are all just shouting in the darkness of our own echo chambers. Phew… ghost of Bugs.
Serge, Ever read the Anchor Commentary on Daniel? it’s ugly, obscene and nasty, a true hatchet job–the epitome of higher critical theory i.e. a deconstruction of any and everything sacred and holy about Scripture. The corollary of a post captivity authorship of Daniel?: A bunch of drunken Jews sitting around a campfire trying to make sense of their lives, spinning tales which became “Scripture”.
People crying about two Creation accounts in Genesis, boo hoo. There were four varying accounts of Christ’s life. For the SDA atheist, not a problem. They don’t believe in the death and resurrection of Christ anyway. Two Creation account, four gospel accounts, who cares. It’s all hokum to them.
An acquaintance of mine recently got a religious studies degree from a respectable university. A drunk; looks, talks, and acts like a man hating lesbian. She can tell you all kinds of intellectual reasons the Bible is rubbish. That’s where higher criticism leads some people.
To those who believe, Christ, the power and wisdom of God.
Hansen & Serge,
Reading this I suddenly remembered what Elder Ralph Neall told our New Testament class at union College one day. He said, “You can make it your life’s work to study all the contradictions and variations in the varying accounts found scripture and you’ll probably lose your faith if you do.”
Hansen & William A………
Yes, a simple faith for simple folks is good. But if reality is a little more complex, then those who are willing and capable to do more complex analysis will have a faith which is consistent with their deeper appreciation of things. There are plenty of atheists who do not appreciate the complexities of atheism also. And how, Hansen, do you know for certain when each book of the OT was composed, and exactly by who? Where is your evidence for the traditionalist view?
Literal/traditional beliefs are not the sole preserve of the true believer. Read David Tacey’s ‘Beyond Literal Belief’ for those who might see how a faith which appreciates the difficulties and contradictions to be found in the Bible, and still have a deep and abiding ‘faith’ in Christ who is our life.’
(btw, how can that text ever be taken ‘literally?’)
The Hebrew mind has constructed the OT in a way that it is meant to be understood at four levels, known as Pardes, meaning heavenly mansions, if I have that right. There is the surface/literal meaning, and three layers of increasing complexity above/beneath that. So if you are of the school that literalism is the only way to understand scripture, you have been badly misinformed. Or you might be intellectually lazy. Study to show yourself approved, Paul would say.
And how, Hansen, do you know for certain when each book of the OT was composed, and exactly by who? Where is your evidence for the traditionalist view?
Serge
While I find your smug condescension annoying, I do appreciate the very fine illustration of where your kind of religious experience leads. If I can’t pinpoint the exact date and writer of OT books, I should become an atheist or an agnostic, or an apikorsim? Judaism is full of cultural Jews, i.e. apikorsim — sophisticated intellectuals who fancy themselves too clever, adroit, insightful, to exercise believe. Incidentally, there is no such thing as complicated faith.”By faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God; thing made were not constructed of things which we see. If you don’t believe that because you think you are so smart, that’s your problem.
exercise belief i.e., have faith.
I hope that everyone reads the Spring edition of the Adventist Today print magazine that just came out. It explores some of these issues about Binlical interpretation in a very responsible, insightful manner.
Sam and others are offering a false choice between “Darwinian” theory and creationism. I also agree with Erv that the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 are far too profound and nuanced in their purposes, and we are too far removed from them, to reduce this part of the Bible to an either it happened the way it says or the Bible is lying. It’s next to impossible to carry on a conversation with folks who think like that, because the Bible is so filled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and conflicting versions of the same event. No one can really be a literalist when it comes to reading and understanding the Bible.
Good article, Erv
Nathan, is the same stick man model not created within presentation? Is creationism not the pivot, whether being compared to Darwinism or other composite Thesis?
Do we really have degrees within “theoretical evolution”, or are they just a compilation of individual studies and associated concepts comprising less than 5% of the lecture material within any program; whether physical, biological, psychological, social or other discipline? Then do we not use the term “evolution” incorrectly within any setting?
Likewise should the individual ideologies and interpretations of the BIBLE not be handled in same? Do we not potentially create the profound and nuanced BIBLICAL purposes ourselves; without the privilege of proposal of Thesis and applied scientific method? Maybe the contradictions, inconsistencies and conflicting versions of events are failure in Thesis and not Theory?
We can splice genes now, still leaving the cost of diploids, even removing selection of the fittest in controlled environments; the vast majority of attempts die off, why? Why did so many species become extinct at the same time? Why is there no concentric solid Theory proposed, yet so many pools of professionals plead untouchable? Why is counter-proof just dismissed? Why do we need ethics classes now that teach the more you learn should only show you the more you do not know, otherwise you learn nothing? Talk about an impossible conversation.
(Just creating discussion points).
Nathan,
Please explain about the profound and nuanced purposes of Genesis, chapters 1 & 2.
I promise it won’t be impossible to carry on a conversation with me. You have to keep it simple. I don’t know hardly anything. I’m a simple man. But I can listen, please explain.
I have another question: If the, “Bible is so filled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and conflicting versions of the same event…” doesn’t that severely circumscribe its ‘authority’ as the Word of God? How does one relate to ‘authority’ that is severely circumscribed?
There is no need for an interpreter to identify the differences between the creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. A grade school reader of average intelligence should be able to see the many differences. But read for yourself and ask: When was man created? Was it before or after the animals?
Which was created first: plants or animals? Was woman created the same day as man or was she a special creation as the last creative act? What day was Sabbath created and why was it unmentioned in the other account? When were the heavenly bodies created? Why was time separated into days (evenings and mornings) in one account, but time is unknown for the other account.
Would there be two such different accounts if they were written by the same individual?
William – take a look at the video by Rob Bell – “Everything is Spiritual.” If be interested in your perspective – not on Rob Bell personally or his theology – but this presentation of Genesis 1 and its spiritual implications. Feel free to email me at nschilt@llu.edu.
I don’t think so unless we take it as 100 percent literal. The Bible was written over many thousands of years and copied and recopied many times. It was written by many different authors with different viewpoints–but they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Dead Sea scrolls and other early versions do not show significant changes only in minor details. That is a miracle and could not be said of any other book in history.
All of the stories have great meanings vital for our salvation even if a post-modern person could not take them as literal happenings (like Jonah in the fish), they could understand the meanings and be saved because they point to Christ and His salvation. They are about principles that don’t change with cultures. When we focus on the details of a story, we can lose its meaning unless we ask how they apply to our lives.
Another way to look at conversations Nathan is that it is impossible to engage in conversations when fundamentalist anti-Creationists choose not to engage. You realize I’m sure, that there are such people (even though you are not among them).
What is dark energy? From where does genetic information originate? Since there is energy and matter, what caused them to organize in such a manner for someone to ask such questions?
For simple minded Creationist fundamentalists (like me), I would refer you to the Wikipedia entry on “The Evolution of the eye” for some humorous reading; and for a classic example of the layers of confirmation bias needed to explain how vision evolved.
My point is not that I can prove Creationism, but that the evidence for evolution represents futile attempts to disprove God.
Correction: …I would refer them to the Wikipedia…
Nathan Schilt said on June 7, 2016 at 9:30 pm
“Sam and others are offering a false choice between “Darwinian” theory and creationism.”
It is not a false choice my brother Nathan. To claim that the creation/evolution choice is a false one is to have a low view of Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it speaks on the matter of creation, why should we trust it to speak on salvation? That is why what we believe regarding creation is important to the rest of our theology.
Despite what position one takes on the doctrine of creation one thing is clear: God created the heavens and the earth. What needs to be stressed is that the Bible does not (either explicitly or implicitly) teach the Darwinian view of evolution. The choice that Nathan claims is a false choice confronts us today. Attempts to minimize or ignore it are what is indeed false. Therefore, to state that the creation/evolution choice is not ours to make is to have a low view of Scripture. If we cannot trust the Bible when it speaks on the matter of creation, why should we trust it to speak on salvation? That is why what we believe regarding creation is important to the rest of our theology.
Another thing to note is that much of Christian theology is based on the historical accuracy of the Genesis account. Paul links our salvation in Christ with our identification in Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, we read, “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man…”
To those who question how I can question the Genesis account without throwing the entirety of the Bible as God’s Word into hopeless subjectivity: again, I would encourage you to read the Spring edition of Adventist Today that just came out. I respect the perspective of so-called literalists. But I think reasonable committed SDA Christians can have different perspectives on how to read sacred text without rendering the text hopelessly subjective.
I accept the Genesis story as true and literal for purposes of my faith walk, just as I accept that I worship a God of infinite love and mercy, as well as a God of judgment, who will ultimately destroy those who reject His love and mercy.
I have said it many times before: I believe Gid speaks to us not so much to inform us as to evoke a response. The story of creation primarily tells us who God is and who we are in relationship to him. The Truth of what happened is beyond human finite capacity to understand without distorting filters. I do. It believe the creation stories were told and recorded in order to permit reverse engineering of nature.
I have found Rob Bell’s presentation, “Everything is Spiritual,” to be profoundly faith affirming on these issues, in its ability to transcend the debates over the science of creation. I think what truth paradigms or models we embrace can really ultimately only be tested by their fruits. Jesus said in Luke 7:35 that wisdom is proved right by all her children.
That should read “I do not believe the creation stories were told to permit reverse engineering of natural history.” …the woes of thumb typing on my cell phone..,
Yes, the story of salvation cannot fit into the theory of evolution. Jesus died because of sin and distrust of God which caused the first death. There could have been no sin before death or we would have a twisted salvation theology. I don’t believe a good God would have created with destruction and violence and then said creation was “good.” Evolution, as taught today, does not make room for a good God. The agnostic is the more honest when he or she says they do not know than the atheist who rejects even considering an intelligent being (how is that science?). I do depart from the insistence on 24-hour days at creation because it does not say. The earth movements could have been quite different. We also do not understand the worldview of the humans who wrote this. They had no access to the knowledge of today. It is progressive, and as Daniel said it would increase. We do not understand time or the universe.
Stephen, “evidence for evolution, futile attempts to disprove God”. How so?? God could have used the
evolutionary process to create life on Earth, instead of instant Ala Kazam, its done. Perhaps we prefer the instant method, but as most here agree, who knows for a certainty?? As time is endless, a slow creative method seems , considering the utter complexity, a preferred way. But thankfully these most
intricate facts we would like to have answers to aren’t held against us. God could easily have created Earth full of Adults, no children, as many here say He speaks it into existence. Think about it. Darwin’s
theory was “godless” God’s evolution of life was “His method” of creating life on Earth, each according
to its “kind”.
Earl,
Perhaps it would have been better for me to have said that that evidences presented for evolution that are reliant on piled layers upon layers of confirmation biases represents futile attempts to disprove God.
Theoretically, there is evolution and evidence of evolution that aren’t reliant upon confirmation bias; but the evidence presented of the evolution of vision is certainly not one such example of such evidence; that’s for sure.
Sam,
Let me offer this additional comment.
To study Genesis is to study special revelation. To study genetics and paleontology is to study natural revelation.
Special and natural revelation share a common Divine Revelator, or we must discard monotheism and with it pretty much the whole of Scripture … it seems.
So, we are at a point where there is obvious contention between what we sense of special and natural revelation. What response on our part do you suppose would most harmonize with the intention of the Divine Revelator?
For me, I’m thinking just one word. Interesting! Or equally meaningful, Confusing!
Either is totally expected in the context of the everlasting gospel spoken by the First Angel of Revelation 14. The angel said with a loud voice for clarity, fear God, give glory to him, and worship him who made heaven and hearth. There is no room in the everlasting gospel for human explanations, only fear, glorification, and worship.
The good news is that the First Angel will, in time, universally make clear the everlasting gospel.
Do we need to wait? How about we realize that we are undone. We cannot know God, but we can sense God as beyond both special and natural revelation.
And what we sense of God, faith if you will, is measured to us individually and unmediated by either Moses or the rocks.
If so, Moses and the rocks are in the service of faith, rather than dependent on faith.
Mr. Garber wrote: “We cannot know God, but we can sense God as beyond both special and natural revelation.” We cannot “know God” but we can “sense God.” This is a very interesting idea which, it seems to me, has great potential to provide a “second way” between to a “either/or” way of thinking. Particularly, when Mr. Garber further suggests that this is “beyond both special and natural revelation.” May I suggest that an important word here is “beyond.” Now if we could only get some way of addressing the differences and similarities between “special” and “natural.” Perhaps we need to put these concepts on a continuum not as opposites. I know that literally multiple kilos of ink have been used by biblical scholars and theologians on this topic but in every generation and every religious tradition the terms used by previous generations need to be revisited.
Sense is cognate to sensual. Apprehend the gods through the senses, of course. Paganism at its heart is a sensual religion. Talk about a sexless church, the church of Moses, compared to the religion of the Canaanites. The worship of the one God, the Great I AM, is not a sensual experience. The religion of Israel is special revelation through and through.
Until the incarnation: then the religion of Israel becomes the ultimate sensual religion. The religion of crucifixion, death and resurrection. All the non-fundamentalist scholars agree the text says: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
Sensual indeed.
The fact that sensual is derived from sense doesn’t suggest to me that they mean the same thing or have the same connotation. Yes, both are physical experiences. But when I hear a horn honk with my hearing sense, that is not a sensual experience.
Feels like you’re sliding into Greek dualism. I think it is most Biblical to speak of experiencing God With all our faculties.
If hearing isn’t sensual, you tell me what it is. How do you sense God without your senses? With your spirit? Then it isn’t a sensual, but rather spiritual, experience.
I’m a bulwark against dualism, do not worry about that.
But I should have said it like this: Compared to the other religions, Israel’s religion is special revelation through and through. Yes there are sensual dimensions in the law of Moses. But they are not the essence or substance of the divine Word. Universally, pagan religions depend on sensuality for affirmation in worship. Think prophets of Baal vs the still small voice.
I think Erv should clarify what he means: This is a very interesting idea which, it seems to me, has great potential to provide a “second way” between to a “either/or” way of thinking. Particularly, when Mr. Garber further suggests that this is “beyond both special and natural revelation.”
Getting ‘beyond’ the special revelation of God’s Word and the Natural Revelation of God’s only begotten son, Jesus Christ? Beyond revelation is not where I want to go. I’m not getting on Erv’s bus unless he explains where ‘beyond’ is.
I am a perfect predictor of the future. Some would call me a prophet.
Don’t believe it? Look:
• Donald Trump will say something divisive or offensive tomorrow.
• Ben Carson will say something wacky or weird tomorrow.
• AToday will post something deeply intellectual tomorrow.
Just watch and see if I’m not right!
Apparently these days one needs to be a scholar, theologian, historian, scientist, well worded in numerous literatures, highly intellectual with great debating skills to overcome the world and to understand the meaning of life.
“3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2 Cor. 11:3.
“28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”” Matt. 11:28-30.
Oh DD, thank God you are here. I think you can help me. All my Christian life I’ve been looking for a Jesus yoke, and I’ve never so much as seen one. Do you know where I can get one? I do so want that rest for my soul, but until I can get one of those yokes, I fear I will never have it. Please help me. Thank you.
Sorry Serge, I can’t help you. You need to ask Jesus what His “yoke” really means.
I’m sorry that “DD” thinks that his mind has been “corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” He is too hard on him/herself. That talking snake in Genesis was one crafty creature.
Ervin, “that talking snake in Genesis” appears to have deceived only one woman — Eve. Everyone else isn’t that stupid — at least that’s what most think these days. Right?
Why is the “Adventist” Left, which prides itself on embracing love and tolerance as the essential guiding principles of Christianity, so snarky toward comments like DD’s. After all, the words are those of Christ, aren’t they? Do you really think Christ was an intellectual elitist?
Nathan & DD………… was Christ ‘an intellectual elitist?’ That is a crucial question. It is said, He spake to them in parables, and without a parable spake he not unto them. A parable is but an extended metaphor. A metaphor is not to be taken literally. A yoke is a metaphor for something else. So in this sense, Jesus did not speak in ‘plain’ language. One has to do some intellectual work to get behind the superficial meaning and consider the underlying reality He is wanting us to understand. Is that elitist? Who knows, but it is the case. And if a talking snake is not meant to be taken literally, then the rest of the story is not to be taken literally either.
To me these metaphors are real–like the talking snake. But it is still a metaphor. If one cannot accept it as literal, they can at least take it as metaphor and dig into the meaning which is much more important. Creation, however, goes beyond metaphor for God created and called it “good.” That’s what Genesis means. The Bible is all about Jesus and the salvation He gives us–from the Eden story, to Jonah’s three days in the prepared fish, the Exodus, the sanctuary, etc.
“Snarky” What a neat word. slang. 1. testy or irritable; short 2. having a rudely critical tone or manner, as in snarky humor. Adjective, snarkier, snarkiest. Use in a sentence: “Some people are snarkiest when someone makes a pompous and pious statement.”
Yes. That does sometimes bring out the worst in us, Erv. Jon Stewart was the king of snark. It’s a good word.
But Nathan, by placing the word Adventist in quotation marks with the word left ( “Adventist” left) aren’t you guilty of expressing your own brand of snarkiness? Do you really believe that Adventists on the left (which some would call an oxymoron} aren’t real Adventists? 🙂
Actually, the reason I put quotes around Adventist is that we have a number of commenters who claim not to be Adventist. I didn’t mean to suggest that commenters like Erv and others who do claim to be SDAs weren’t real SDAs. But I can see how it might have come across that way. Besides, everyone knows I can get pretty sarcastic and yes – snarky at times. I don’t subscribe to the notion that the essence of Christianity is non-judgmental tolerance for and acceptance of “deviant” ideas and behavior.
Adventist Left…….. = Adventists who have left.
But some of us still have regard for the lost sheep of the house of Adventism. We’re here to help.
Some people in this forum do not see any discrepancy between the two creation stories in Genesis chapters one and two. I cannot understand how these people read. Let us forget all the talk about the theories of evolution and the ideas of inspiration -just read the first two chapters of Genesis, and convince yourself whether you have read one story , or two. If you have read two accounts, consider if they both say the same thing.
At least one commentator suggests that those who see inconsistencies are not led by the Spirit. I get the impression that many people just read the Bible without understanding what it is telling us. Such people are advised to go beyond reading ,and study the Bible. That is a sure way to prepare them to refute statements like the one Nathan makes above at 9:30pm on June 7th, that: “…the Bible is so filled with contradictions, inconsistencies and conflicting versions of the same event”, and warns that, “No one can really be a literalist when it comes to reading and understanding the Bible”
In reading my Bible I encounter a few problems which illustrate the observation made by Nathan. As time and circumstances permit, I note a few below. Continued….
Nathaniel,
OK, you and Nathan say: , “No one can really be a literalist when it comes to reading and understanding the Bible”
So you have a better system? The problem with other interpretative systems is the interpreter ultimately becomes the authority about what scripture means. The scripture no longer is allowed to interpret itself.
“…the Bible is so filled with contradictions, inconsistencies and conflicting versions of the same event”
“The scripture no longer is allowed to interpret itself”.
If that is so, why do Adventists claim to have the true explanation of Daniel and Revelation; a unique interpretation that no other Christian denomination has accepted, and not all Adventists? How many other churches have found that the “cleansing of the sanctuary” represents the church; that the 2300 days mentioned in Daniel meant that it ended in 1843, not in the Jerusalem temple’s desecration but extended far, far into the future, despite Christ saying “no man knows the hour” and Paul and the apostles taught that Jesus would return soon, even in their lifetime?
I do have a better way, though I can’t say that it’s a system. First of all, do you really think God hardened Pharoah’s heart? That’s just a real simple example. There are countless others. In the O.T. Now I think there are explanations, but the minute you do that, you’re no longer a literalist. Don’t you think the Jewish leaders of Christ’s day would have claimed to be literalists?
I believe that God dwells in every human heart through His Spirit. I think He leads us into truth and into like-minded communities of faith. I think He also leads other like- minded folks into different communities of faith. There are many paths to God, and it is my privilege and responsibility to be absolutely faithful to the path on which He leads me. I like the model of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral for perceiving truth. There are many self proclaimed literalists in lots of different faith communities. So I don’t see that being a literalist yields a faith consensus. Was Jesus a literalist? I doubt it, but I really don’t know. What I am pretty sure of is that those who claimed to be literalists were by and large in opposition to Jesus.
Just some thoughts in answer to your question, Bill.
“I think He also leads other like- minded folks into different communities of faith. There are many paths to God, and it is my privilege and responsibility to be absolutely faithful to the path on which He leads me.”
Will you expand on this, Nathan? I think of the faithful members of the Westboro Baptist Church who would probably have no trouble agreeing with your statement and faithfully follow their God’s prompting to witness by protesting at military funerals. I’m not sure I would give God the credit as much as I would the general culture or parents when a faith community is introduced to a child. If I was born in Thailand to Hindu parents, I would probably start my spiritual journey in Hinduism. In the sense that religion recognizes and provides shape and a means of expressing spiritual needs I suppose I could agree with your statement. One could claim that inherent (“created”} in each of us as human beings is a desire to act unselfishly and a recognition that to do so is a very difficult undertaking. Spiritual giants such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have modeled behaviors and spoken to the importance of doing so. However, I’m not sure I understand what you meant when you blogged the words quoted. above. explain.
My first problem is in Jeremiah 7: 21-23. “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this comand I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it will be well with you'”.
Throughout the book of Leviticus, dealing with the laws and regulations about burnt offerings and sacrifices, it is stated, “The Lord said to Moses”, “The Lord said to Moses”
What, then does Jeremiah mean?
Secondly, in Ezekiel 18:1-4, we have: “The word of the Lord came to me again: ‘What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine: the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine.; the soul that sins shall die”
Most of the rest of the chapter goes on to insist that a man will suffer for his own sins and not for the sins of another.
We are told that God wrote the ten commandments with His own finger, and gave them to Moses; and verse 5 of Exodus 20 says, “…for I the Lord your God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the…
Nathaniel, That’s a great text in Jeremiah. What it means, if you will allow me to say, is that it was God’s original plan that the priesthood would consist of individual family heads as typified by people like Job, Jethro, Abraham, and Melchisedec. His original plan was that Israel would be a nation of priests if they believed/obeyed God, There would have been no Aaronic priesthood pr Levitical system.
Abraham’s style of religion was always God’s ideal, which is why Paul drew so many lessons from his life.
children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments”.
This time it is the word of Moses against those of Ezekiel. Is it that God changed His mind in Ezekiel?
My third problem is in the gospel of John, In chapter 10, verse 30 Jesus says, “I and the Father are one”. In chapter 14, verse 28, He says,”…for the Father is greater than I”.
People quote thefirst text to prove that Jesus claimed equality with God, therefore He is God.
When I read these parts of my Bible, I wonder why some people teach that there no inconsistencies in the Bible. Does God contradict Himself? Or is it that I do not understand what I am reading in the Bible? Can someone help me? Please!
Try leaving the the contradictions unresolved. At some point you can say, “I don’t know”. You can always return to the interpretive problem later. Jesus Christ is subordinate to the Father. Equality was not a thing to be grasped. He became a servant obedient unto death, even a death on the cross. God hath highly exalted Him.
I inhabit a body of death. I believe in the resurrection of the dead. That is a big contradiction. I’ll lose my faith if I try and resolve it. I’ll rejoice and be thankful instead.
WM A. “i inhabit a body of death, and i believe in the resurrection of the dead”. A supernatural happening. This is the marvelous transition from a limited flesh life to the eternal spiritual life. Flesh
can not survive beyond Earth. While the eternal spiritual soul has access to the entire Cosmos. God who
gave the eternal soul to every new creature. Retrieves it at death of the flesh, and restores it at the resurrection. The soul is never, not one instant, outside God’s protection.
Adventists claim to be Trinitarians: belief in the Nicene Creed:
“We believe i one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of all things, visible and invisible,
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
the only-begotten of the Father,
that is, of the substance of the Fatherr,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through whom all things were made….
William,
I do not know if the examples I have given will help you understand some of the problems we encounter when we try to interpret everything in the Bible literally. How then will we understand the parables of Jesus, the books of Revelation and Daniel? There are also figures of speech like, under His wings and, He will bear you up in His hands, and the clouds being the dust of God’s footsteps. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom,etc,etc.
What do you make of the statement of Jesus that what you put into your stomach does not defile you? If you take that literally, then try some poison!
Nathaniel,
There is nothing difficult in understanding Jesus Christ’s words in Matthew 15: “And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Poison might kill a man, but it wouldn’t defile him.
Yes, there are difficult passages in scripture. Ponder them, but don’t fret over them. Be like a little child. They are not capable of understanding everything an adult understands. Wait.
Farther along we’ll know all about it
Farther along we’ll understand why
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine
We’ll understand it all bye and bye
As we return to the creation story, it is well to note that the Bible does not state that what ocurred in creation week marked the beginning of the life of the earth. Obviously, the land mass and the waters existed before, since we are not told on which day they were made. During that week the dry land was separated from the water, and the waters of the seas were separated from the waters above; but they were already in existence.
We are not told how long the earth, the sea and the heavens remained empty and in a state of chaos before God said, “Let there be light”, and brought order to things. Nor are we told what the situation was before chaos
In Jeremiah 7 is GOD only stating that HE wants our obedience; not our sins and the continued requirement of sacrifice? 1 Corinthians 15:56 “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”. Sin has no strength if we obey. The fathers are the example. The children are taught. The blessings are in the teaching; HIS blessings are always in teaching and blasphemes in absence. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 also covers your question in John 10 about the authority of CHRIST. HE is GOD but for our sake (again we created the problem), until that day.
Actually 1 Corinthians 15 is a good chapter for this subject also. It teaches of the natural and spiritual. To enjoy the natural (without corruption by us) and see HIS Spirit there. To see the Spiritual (again without our corruption) and see HIS Spirit there.
Sometimes we have to look at things as children. Some of the greatest learning experiences come from teaching children; they are not corrupted and ask questions as such, while we have “baggage”. To search is great, but as William states; do not be confounded. Always remember where our strength comes from (Philippians 4:13). We can do all things through CHRIST (and nothing “good” without HIM).
I thought that I would add my two cents on this topic.
Ellen White referred to the notion of the earth being 6000 years about 30 times – give or take a few that are repeats or quotes. Not once does she ever state or imply that “the angel told her,” “The Lord showed or told her,” or “I was shown in vision that . . . ” In every single case she merely refers to the accepted conservative view of Bible scholars of her day who, by and large, accepted Bishop James Ussher’s chronology, to discuss what she considered the important issue – namely that God created the world and the organisms that inhabit it, in recent time. She quoted other authors of her day, some of whom have been shown to be very inaccurate in their statements, as well as those who were accurate. To try to demonstrate that she spoke definitively of a 6000 year age of the earth is not to play fair with her words or convictions on the subject and makes her out to be somewhat of a fool when we have villages, continuously inhabited in Palestine for at least 12,000 years (Siegfried Horn), have Aztec and Inca calendars going back well over 10,000 years. Even the most conservative scholars at the Geoscience Research Center attest that a person can be a conservative Adventist and believe in a young earth less than 50,000 years old with the organic components created in 6 days and a Sabbath sanctified – something Ellen White would have had no trouble with.
Mr. Appel stated that “Even the most conservative scholars at the Geoscience Research Center attest that a person can be a conservative Adventist and believe in a young earth less than 50,000 years old . . .” I wonder if he would be so kind as to provide a reference where we could go to read that a GRI staff members has said in print that 50,000 years is acceptable to conservative Adventism. That would be a very interesting quote.
Dan Appel,
Another example (and there are others) is EGW’s reason for earthquakes. I remember reading it and writing to an earthquake research institute in my youth. They told me her explanation was an old one believed by scientists at the turn of the century. This was the up-to-date information she had at the time.
(con’t) I would also suggest that the term she used “I was shown” may not have been some special revelation, but a way of deciding intellectually the best answer. I think we have all had times when we felt we were “shown” certain things that made sense to us. We might call this thought inspiration if we want. She also said “every flash of intellect is from God.”
Dan Appel,
The latest scandal. In the SID DIVISION involving its president Paul Ratsara,
whom “whistle blowers ” revealed had plagiarized his doctoral dissertation
Is, as the French say “deja vu”.
Walter Rea, a very compelling “.whistle blower” revealed the extensive plagiarism of EGW.
More recent information uncovers the huge input in editing and writing , that was done by her team of assistants.
So which, any or all, of her thirty comments about earth’s age being six thousand years old, is to be credible??
I say this not to discredit EGW, because I am vehemently, desperately wishing for a REALLY young earth!
That God and “the universe” would allow multiple millenia (50,000 years??)
of abject human misery is for me unacceptable
I would rather be an atheist than worship a God so lacking in compassion and caring. A God so obsessed and consumed with his eventual “vindication”, that He would allow EGW’s alleged GREAT CONTROVERSY, to be so painfully protracted!
For me, even six thousand years is MORE THAN ENOUGH time for the
“Universe” to have voted in favor of God or Satan. That they have not yet come to a suitable arbitration in this matter, is dismaying and disheartening.
Should we not rejoice when each lost sheep is found? Should we not allow sufficient for all the lost sheep to be found? Even up and to the point that none would be saved? Should we not Love that much? Remembering that we are also the ones creating such misery, without compassion?
Do we not have the same continuing battles of good and evil, with motive and intent? Should we not have knowledge of action and justice within judgement?
Search wiki for Flood Geology. It shows those who searched and continue. It show the rejection by court and institution; but without proof of alternate or why? Is it not the same continuing situations? Within our search, would we not divulge findings against our theories? Would they in alternate?
Do we have proof of and in dating of a civilization before 3500 BC? Were we not social back then? Why do we have civilizations spawning on both sides of the pond at about that same time?
For the flood, we have like documentation. The for the latest addition search for the telegraph Noah’s Ark the facts behind the flood. For research, a nice article in July 2012 Discover magazine and ABC news 2012 (the search by Robert Ballard). A nice article in Smithsonian April 2000 stating lack of such proof or research, but historical documentation.
The real question is what is required for proof in Faith or discard without Faith and what is the intent? Is it not the same for our individual search for HIM?
CONVICTION,
Your “conviction” that “we should allow sufficient time for all the lost sheep to be found” postpones the Second Coming into undefinable infinity.
EGW opined that ” ifAdventists had been faithful, Christ would have come in her era”
This implied that the Second Coming was a movable event.
The mantra that “God does not want any to perish” is patent nonsense.
There are now BILLIONS more on the planet than when EGW made that
proclamation. Billions more have perished.
We have billions of “heathen ” currently alive— Hindus, Buddhists,
Muslims, pagans, Atheists and seculars. Most of these will probably
be lost.
A truly loving God, when he found that his nefarious “experiment”
vidicate Himself in Noah’s era, should have translated Noah
and his family to heaven ( as He did with Moses and Enoch).
That would have prevented millenia of famines, wars, genocides,
atrocities, rapes murders and an infinity of human MISERY.
The price for God’s ultimate “vindication” is an incalculable
and interminable infinity of MISERY Afor mankind.
Matthew 24:
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
We do not know. I would just as soon leave that decision with HIM; since HE seems much more Loving than you. If HE took Noah and his family away, where would that leave us? Yes, all the human made misery is out there because we have choice; but with HIM we do not have to worry about it. That is the joy and peace of absolute Love. I strongly suggest Love over hate any day.
Yes, billions. Maybe your God is too small.
Irv,
I agree with the general thrust of your article, which appears to be headed towards the interpretation offered by Bull and Lockhart (Seeking a Sanctuary). However, I respectfully disagree with several of your specific statements and claims.
I disagree with your interpretation of Ellen White’s role in the development of doctrine in the early Adventist church. Setting aside the fact that there was no doctrine per se (early Adventists were strongly anti-creedal), Ellen White didn’t play the “go-to” or oracular role you describe. Her own writings say that was not her role, that people should study the Bible themselves. But beyond that, historical documents show that in the early years when “the pillars” were being hammered out, when the sabbatarians were most at risk of fragmenting, the work was mostly done by Bates, White, Edson, Andrews and others.
Along with Bible Conferences, the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald played an important role in doctrinal discussions, debate, and development and promulgation of consensus views. The first several years of the Review do not contain Ellen White’s writings, and James White vehemently insisted that this be so, for he did not want people to attribute his or other Adventists’ beliefs to “the visions” (not because he was covering up, but because indeed they were not).
(This is Part 1 of my response)…
I think you may be projecting later (20th century) attitudes towards Ellen White and use of her writings for doctrinal resolution back to the founding years, but that is not what actually happened, as the early documents show. Her role appears to have been more of an encourager of early Adventists (to not give up post-1844) and a reinforcer of the views being promulgated by her husband and others. (Her reinforcement could sometimes take the form of sharp attacks on others).
Additionally, Adventist doctrine on creation did not originate with Ellen White, but existed before she came on the scene. It was a strong component of Millerite doctrine. The view was also dominant among many other Christian groups, though eroding with the 18th and 19th century developments in geology and biology.
In that vein, her statements of “about 6000 years” did not BECOME normative doctrinal positions, as you suggest, but rather, they WERE the normative doctrinal positions. She merely reflected the accepted wisdom (though it should be understood that, contrary to Dan Appel’s claim which is widely held, she did not hold Ussher’s chronology either, but that is a topic for another day). She also applied this for polemical purposes, e.g., on the seventh-day Sabbath.
(This is Part 2 of my response)…
I also strongly disagree that the church adopted YLC in 2015. Rather, their use of “recent” instead of 6000 years was an attempt to unite both YLC and YEC factions against “theistic evolutionists” and others holding a long chronology for life on earth, even while not “clarifying” FB6 as they had promised. It was a (cynical?) political gambit that allowed contradictory positions to be held while excluding views perceived as more threatening. Had Ted Wilson, for example, pushed his own YEC view, the whole thing would have blown up.
Ron Numbers (The Creationists) showed that your view on EGW vs. Fundamentalists is inaccurate. Evangelicals were actually quite content with the Gap Theory. It was EGW that influenced Fundamentalists to adopt flood geology, not the other way around, i.e., they eventually aligned with her (and her disciple George McCready Price).
I am presently researching this subject in great depth, using early Adventist literature, and hope to share my findings in a suitable publication when I have completed my work.
(This is Part 3–the last–of my response)
Too much pomposity of worldly knowledge mixed with the truths of God’s Word in these comments. Have we not been told not to throw the pearls to the hogs for they will only trample on them?
I thank Robert for his very helpful suggestions with regard to the cause and effect problem in early Adventism. I think he wold agree that the record that we have has many missing parts. There is a lot of what went on for which we have no contemporary documents. For example, we don’t have many details about what happened in Ellen’s family life. We don’t know particularly her relationship with her father and the situation with her twin. Reasonable and well informed individuals can and have come to different conclusions. We need to lay out the documentary evidence and evaluate what it tells us. But their inevitably will be differences of interpretation. We all should look forward to Robert’s publication.
Erv,
Sorry for spelling it “Irv” above; I seem to slip up on that because I used to know an Irvin. Anyway, to your point. There is indeed much we will never know about Ellen White’s family dynamics. It does appear that she and James White did not always agree (pretty normal marriage in that regard!).
And to Earl, my research is a lot of fun, to be honest. So I really don’t care if others think it a waste of time or not. I think we can approach any subject with a spirit of truth-seeking and if we dig hard enough, we may find some new perspectives that have not been previously discussed. I believe that is the case with what I’m learning about Ellen White, early Adventists, and the age of the earth. It has nothing to do with a hatchet job on Ellen White. To the contrary, it shows the hypocrisy of present church leaders who claim to follow her teachings but in fact deny much of what motivated early Adventists to hold the 6000 year view in the first place. Enough of a teaser, though…! I’ll share more when it’s ready.
EGW’s familial or any other ongoing in depth research into her history, so that you will report your finding of her writings, personal insightful data as known at her times, of her eras; anecdotal offerings, trials and tribulations, that will provide nothing that hasn’t been printed before. Why waste your time writing redundant data, unless it’s your hobby, no one is waiting, with bated breath, to read another EGW expose, that would be redundant. EGW, was a personality, such as were several other very prominent women, of the time, such as Eddy/Christian Science. Obviously blessed by God to share
their faith, for life, but not prophets. None of this personality praise or negativism will advance your desire for the resurrection of the saints. We know nothing of the origins of Earth, or life, but 6000 years as the beginnings of all things, within the knowledge of everyone, in this the 21st Century, reveals SDA ism is a cult.
If any of you want to read a eye opening book about the bible look for “The Bible Tells Me So…….Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable To Read It” Author Peter Enns.
The thing that caught my eye and intrigued me this statement on the back cover. “What Do You Do When The Bible Doesn’t Behave?” Peter tackles some very hard subjects with a wicked sense of humor. At times while reading the book I was amazed, laughed, cried, threw the book across the room, and picked it up again. I don’t agree with some of what he writes but he is really compelling about how we view the God of the ancient world from an ancient book. Read it!!!!!
Thanks for telling us about this. I will check it out.
We forget, or do not understand that for someone to be called a “prophet” does not rely on self-proclamation but by a group that assigns the title and place to a particular person. Only Adventists, and not all, call EGW a prophet, and few, if any in other churches even know of her “prophetic status designated by Adventists. She is exclusively an Adventist labeled prophet and only speaks to those now who embrace and almost deify her above Scripture.
What is to limit other prophets arising in the future, among Adventists or other churches? Thy might have their own criteria for calling someone a prophet.
I hope there will be such persons. They may not carry the label of Adventist either!
There is also the term “prophetic voice” and I think there a many of those in the Christian world now. We just need discernment.
Why cant we have like buttons?
Yes, I do wish we could click on “like” or “agree” on some of these. We don’t have time or space to speak to all of them.
ERV,
I did like your history lesson and agree with the influence of the era on EGW’s writings. Even the style she used was very much like her period, and that’s part of the problem so many contemporary readers have with her works. The majority of it has a lot of beauty and love but some can sound scolding and even harsh. And guess which style we hear most about on here?
I think Robert has also added a lot of info from his research. Thanks.
Didn’t we once have a way of getting the replies to the right person? They don’t all follow here when there is more than one. I need to remember to put the name in, I suppose.
The author clearly declares “scientific evidence” as his ultimate authority. He then skips through God’s Word with but a causal reference to it and ignores the obvious. With this approach do not expect a Biblical outcome.
SIX LITERAL DAYS OF CREATION. Who says?
Exodus 20:
1 And God spoke all these words:
2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Vs. 8-10 is a reminder spoken by God, written in stone by God, by the finger of God. Vs. 11 God declares the six days of creation and the seventh day of sacred rest ORIGINALLY were blessed and made holy by God at Creation. That would be six days of creation and yes, 24 literal hours.
When God spoke this message Himself, He began by stating that He is the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt. This information is in addition to the fact that God as created the heavens and earth just as He said.
Deuteronomy 5
1 Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them.
2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
Moses is speaking. Moses directs that they keep the covenant into which they and God entered into in Exodus 20. It should be clear that Moses is not attempting to do a rewrite of Exodus 20.
Moses again states in vs. 6 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
The same command was rehearsed without change vs. 12-14
part II
IN ADDITION Moses reminds them that the same Lord God who entered into the covenant with Israel in Exodus 20 is the same God Who brought them out of slavery with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.
So Israel you are commanded to worship God on His Holy Seventh day. HE made YOU and HE saved YOU. (Same two reasons for us.)
Salvation from slavery, including the slavery from sin does not destroy the underlying fact that God cares because God our creator.
15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
The greater issue:
Ervin Taylor:
“If a faith tradition can be so mistaken about such a well-established scientific understanding, what does that say about its theology?”
This is pretty plain isn’t it? The author self proclaimed he doubts—the opposite of faith, concerning the SDA understanding of Scriptures because what God said, what God wrote with His finger in stone, what God directed to be placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, which when unlawfully approached with common fire resulted in the immediate death of two of the most trusted spiritual leaders of the time. Yet without apparent fear or concern the author attempts to pit Exodus 20 against Deuteronomy 5 as evidence that he has truth.
Each of us much judge for ourselves what is truth, and based on that judgement stand before God and explain to Him why His own words were discarded in favor of so called scientific evidence. Give science time. It will reverse itself. It changes over time. It gets some things right but not all. Why do doctors of medicine say they are practicing? Right. It doesn’t always work out right does it?
Choose well who you trust. God will be the final judge. You think I have my head in the sand? It’s ok. I don’t answer to you do it? And you don’t answer to me do you?
Whenever there is an attack on faith it is time to be alert… someone is walking about seeking who he may devour.
ANY TIME so called science is used to test God’s Word there should be NO QUESTION who is…
“ANY TIME so called science is used to test God’s Word there should be NO QUESTION who is …”
I agree. But, my answer is the opposite of yours. “Bible believers” have been on a steady retreat for centuries regarding their interpretation of truth as the bright light of science continues to erase or dispel the shadows of superstition. Christians modify their views gradually, constantly revising their view of “truth” while assuming that their view of truth is the same as New Testament writers, Christians of the Reformation, or even that of the pioneers. In fact, there are many ways that Adventist views or practices of today don’t match up with that of a few decades ago. I left the church in the mid-80’s. When the orbit of my life intersects with that of Adventist friends or family I am often surprised as to how much things have changed.
Robert,
I’m certainly looking forward to reading your report of your study.
George Knight supports your apparent position that Ellen White is not the source of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs and that she studiously avoided settling theological differences. Knight’s position is that Ellen White consistently responded to inquiries regarding controversial issues of belief with, in effect, this response: Please do not ask me. Just read the Bible.
I’m wondering if your study will confirm that the 75-year role of Ellen White in Seventh-day Adventism is as the living personification of God’s endorsing presence despite the very human enterprise that was and remains Seventh-day Adventistism.
I personally found it liberating that Hiram Edson reported that God’s endorsing presence was sensed as having been made stunningly ‘sublime’ the morning of October 23, 1844, by reason of their studied certainty regarding Miller’s teaching having being ‘blasted’ to rubble the night before.
Is your research tending to find that Ellen White’s role confirms that truth is reliably found in God’s presence rather than in an edifice of knowledge? The just live by faith, after all, Paul notes, and elsewhere confirms, ‘whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether their be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.’
About the differences between Special and Natural revelation, Erv. Your suggestion that we put these ‘on a continuum not as opposites’ sure is a step in the right direction. They are not opposites.
And you rightfully infer they are about different aspects of God.
The fundamental issue arises out of a mistaken sense that Special Revelation and Natural Revelation both focus on the same reality. For Seventh-day Adventists the challenge also involves the sense that the body and soul are one.
Now, if Natural Revelation were sufficient, there would never be a need for Special Revelation.
So what is the essence of what is missing in Natural Revelation that is the focus of Special Revelation?
It appears that for Christians Special Revelation reveals God inferrentially in the collection of parables of humans sensing God’s presence in their experiences of life. Indeed, Scripture documents that Jesus, God incarnate, preferred parables to reveal the continuing essence of God’s creative engagement with humanity.
So, is Special Revelation essential to making sense of Natural Revelation? Apparently not. Every sense of Natural Revelation in scripture puts Natural Revelation as but part of a metaphor confirming there is one God and that that God is supernatural. And if God is supernatural, any sense of Natural Revelation reveals God.
It helps, though, to marvel at the Sun crossing the sky when reading Scripture.
Art Klym my friend from academy and college days. Your are correct. The SDA church has changed through the years. Some changes for good, and some not so good.
Evolution theory has many scientific problems. For example, in the fossil record, where are the missing links between species? How about the rocks formed by water action? Why are there so many places in the world where twisted rock layers are formed from violent action of water? Another question. Why have man made artifacts been found in beds of coal? Help me Dr. Taylor.
If Scott would be so kind as to provide a reference (not a posting on a web site) but an actual textual reference that one can look up to support the statement that artifacts have been found in coal seams, we would all appreciative it so anyone can check on the validity of such a statement.
“Thankfully for the scientists, pairs of DNA letters called base pairs mutate at a fairly regular pace. A single base pair of primate DNA, for example, has a roughly one-in-a-billion chance of mutating each year—which means genetic differences in a pair can help estimate when a split occurred.”
This is at-best a statement about present genetic mutation rates. We have only been able to directly measure this for a few decades. And measurements taken from ancient DNA samples are dated based upon other dating methods that may or may not be reliable.
I think the possibility that mutation rates were much higher or much lower in the distant past, cannot be discounted. I never cease to be amazed at how readily humans are willing to presume that what we can observe today is how things have always been, or always operated, depending upon your particular presuppositions.
I am NOT claiming that fundamental physical and chemical processes have changed significantly (though this cannot be proven one way or the other). I AM claiming that the rates of biological adaptation may have varied markedly at different times and places. We are relatively early in the pursuit of DNA sequences, to be making such rash assertions about the distant past based upon DNA.
William A,
Your reply of June 11, 12:54pm puzzles me. You say there is nothing difficult about the saying of Jesus. You also retorted that, “poison will not defile: it will kill”. The context is that it does not make sense to read and understand all Scripture literally. Instead of showing how to read and understand the story literally, you simply state that it is not difficult. Well, if it is literal and not difficult, try this for a week: eat all meals without washing hands; eat all fruits and vegetables unwashed; eat lots of fish, pork and shrimps(unwashed); remember to include lots of juices and beverages, including coke and some beer. This may sound ridiculous; but don’t mind; trust the Bible – “what goes in does not defile,” it will come through the system and will end in the sewer.
Clearly, Jesus was not speaking in the context of health and nutrition; but teaching about the futility of Jewish ceremonial practices, and the mixing of priorities. The kingdom of Heaven is more than food and drink. Pay attention to the weightier matters of the law!
What about the Moses vs Jeremiah and the Moses vs Ezekiel predicament I drew attention to in the earlier post? Is that also Not difficult?
Nathaniel,
Rereading the questions about the passage in Jeremiah and its apparent contradiction to the law of Moses I also read Hansen’s explanation that none of the Aaronic priesthood was God’s original plan. Hansen’s explanation I reject out of hand. I call it fantasy hermeneutics. To say that God’s plan was not really His plan, Aaron and Moses are plan ‘B’, so to speak, is incompatible with the unchanging, omnipotent and omniscient nature of the God of Israel. He doesn’t make mistakes and humans do not mess up His plans. You never find Hansen’s idea in scripture; you do find it frequently in the Adventist imagination.
I start out assuming both contradictory texts are true. I want to jump to three very obvious problem texts: Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record an incident where Jesus heals either one or two blind men either entering or leaving Jericho. The easiest way to dispatch with the tension in these accounts is to assume minor inaccuracies exist in scripture and the real importance of the story remains intact in spite of the inaccuracies. The problem with this approach is the sacred scripture is rendered ‘errant’ and the reader becomes the judge of scripture. The reader decides error exists and the reader becomes the authority regarding the text.
So I appreciate the magnitude of your dilemma Nathaniel. How can man (the reader) judge scripture? You lose your faith, if you become the author of your faith. (cont)
WA, The passage in Jeremiah 7 hearkens back to Exodus 19:6, God’s promise to Israel that they would be a nation of priests if they kept the covenant. This was given shortly after Jethro, a priest in his own right, went back to his own land. To reject out of hand my assertion is to reject the plain testimony of Scripture. The promise of Exodus 19:6 regarding the kingdom of priests Peter says was/will be fulfilled by the church of the NT:
Ex. 19:5, ‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”
22 “For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
23 “But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’
1 Pe,2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
Jeremiah 7 is quoting Exodus 19 and 1 Peter also quotes Ex 19. No fantasy, no fiction, no hyperbole, just Scripture upon Scripture.
Hansen,
Let me clarify. The scripture never speaks of God’s original plans, or his thwarted plans, or His plan “B”. God does intend His people to be a ‘kingdom of priests’ and His plans always come to pass. Jonah can tell you. There is no plan “B” with God. Everything that happens in the story of Jonah is within God’s plan.
Everything was planned from the foundation of the world. The lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Even time and chance are part of the plan. The contingent will of God.
WA,
Sorry to disagree but Scripture is full of plan B. The Decalogue enshrined in the ark was plan B, written by Moses. Plan A, written by God, was destroyed. The grafting in of the gentiles was plan B. It wasn’t God’s plan for the Jews to reject Christ; it wasn’t his plan for the Babylonians or Romans to destroy Jerusalem. When these things happened, plan B was put into effect. It wasn’t God’s plan for Adam to sin, plunging the world into vanity; God didn’t plan to destroy the world with a flood. It seems to me that Scripture is largely a record of plan B .
Especially in view of the text from Jeremiah, it seems obvious that plan B was always an option. People like Jethro, Job, Melchisedec, Shem, these men were all saved under a different plan than Israel. Maybe Israel was plan B. Reading Paul in the NT, it would certainly seem so, since he continually points us back to Abraham as the model of salvation.
Then the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world was plan B? Sin is not God’s will. God is not constantly busily making new plans and plotting new courses in response to sin and sinners. If He was slain from the foundation of the world – God incarnate was always the only plan.
WA, Neither of us know exactly what “slain from the foundation of the world” means. It probably means that God and Christ had made arrangements to resolve a sin problem if one developed. Otherwise, if God compelled Adam to sin so Jesus would be rejected and killed by the Jews in concert with the Romans, we are living a grand farce. No free choice, just a script to follow. i doubt it.
Hansen,
The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world means something. Contextually it doesn’t sound like grand farce. Contextually it surely sounds like it was the plan, period.
Hansen, Is He really the God of the Chinese Fire Drill? Is God constantly doing the next best thing, because man and serpent are constantly messing up His plans? That doesn’t sound like the God who reveals Himself to us in scripture. Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
The reality of free will is not threatened by God’s dominion over free will. His sovereignty is not subject to our choices. We are subject to His choosing. And He chooses whom He will choose. He chose Jesus Christ. He chose Him from the foundation of the earth. In His death we are revealed – I have betrayed Jesus Christ. I have denied Him. I have crucified Him.
In His resurrection God the Father Almighty is revealed in Jesus Christ. From the foundation of the world God has revealed Himself to man as the Son of Man.
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
William Abbott,
There you go again. You have set up a false dichotomy, a false choice, between God’s sovereignty and our free will.
God is bigger than we think He is. He can give us complete free will and still execute His sovereignty, within or without that context. It’s not either or, it’s both and. Since He is omniscient and omnipotent, nothing catches Him by surprise—not even our free will decisions.
He is working everything out within—or without—the context of our free will. Perhaps we should consider it this way: our individual free will is contingent upon the extent to which He permits our individual will to be executed. However He will not override our choice to either accept Him or reject Him. Otherwise the phrase “whosoever will” has no meaning whatsoever; and neither does Deuteronomy 30:15-20.
The Plan laid from the foundation of the world is a result of His omniscience. Foreknowledge simply means knowing what will happen before it happens. Meteorologists can now predict with a high degree of accuracy (sometimes 100%) weather before it happens; because they have more information and access to a more revealing perspective than we do.
Stephen,
With all due respect, it is Hansen that set up the false dichotomy. I’m trying to resolve it. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world is a reality, not a false dichotomy.
Science is a methodology, only a tool to help us understand where we are. Within a neutral, unbiased approach; it can help fill in our holes of knowledge. As William states, Theology is no different. Both can be used for and to justify good and bad; within motive.
If theology is your god, maybe maybe we should apply a little science to that. If science is your god then maybe we should apply some theology to that. In simple; If GOD is not your GOD, we know who you serve. HE created not only the application, but also the results of both tools. We only created the miserable inability to use either.
In many cases we doubt, just as Thomas. Is that not our problem? But if we seek in earnest, does HE not always open HIS cloke and provide proof? If we search within our own intent or motive separate from HIM using any tool, who do you think is going to provide the answer?
Is the issue ripe for more that discussion. I see no new science in the first part or theology in the second.
Just noting, Ellen stated multiple times she was not a prophet, but a messenger and to only use her words in inspiration. I like to consider her and the many like as “our angels”. They bring kindness and tenderness of Truth into this harsh world as only they can. To state differently only removes that value which has belonged to HIM, from the beginning. (Please help an old man, I am at a loss of words to better describe now.)
Conviction,
Mrs. White used the term, ‘lesser lights’. Lights that shine not of themselves, they are like the moon, mere reflectors of the true Son. Idolatry is the worship of ourselves. Believing we have a little light in ourselves.
Science and Theology are ways of knowing: epistemologies is the fifty cent word. Epistemologies become vehicles or tools to facilitate our naturally idolatrous natures. The epistemology becomes truth to us. The words the old man is searching for are these: I AM the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
It shouldn’t bother me as much as it does, but I am always aggravated when I read a claim that Ellen White never claimed to be a prophet. That is an extremely misleading statement. She wrote that: “I am now instructed that I am not to be hindered in my work by those who engage in suppositions regarding its nature, whose minds are struggling with so many intricate problems connected with the supposed work of a prophet. My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend.” Letter 244 1906.18
Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief #18 states: “The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.”
I always use the BIBLE for the test.
Colossians 2:
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Battle Creek Tabernacle, Sunday, October 2, 1904
“I am not, as I said yesterday, a prophet. I do not claim to be a leader; I claim to be simply a messenger of God, and that is all I have ever claimed”
Your later quote from her was in response was to this statement. I see her humility attempting to show through, while others are engaging in supposition by nature.
Do her writings not bring comfort, guidance, instruction and correction? Should we not test them and use them as such? Why do we not?
Are you not the one taking away from her remembrance? Within compassion, I definitely would not. Hopefully HE will have more compassion that we can understand; we need it.
Nathaniel, (cont)
So I do one of two things; I either imagine how the contradictions might not be really contradictions at all. I imagine the singular account of blind Bartimaeus does not contradict the account of two blind beggars. The Bartimaeus account omits the second blind beggar, reducing story detail but not erring in content. It isn’t hard to imagine entering and leaving a city all at the same time if you think about certain cities. How many ‘old towns’ are adjacent ‘new’ towns. Colored town, China town, et cetera. Both leaving and entering might be right at the same time, depending on the perspective.
But sometimes I must do the second thing. I just set the texts aside for pondering. I think abut how they both might be right – literally. If I can’t make a bridge… I go work on something else. I am not going to ‘solve’ the problem in my own wisdom. I am not going to make myself an interpreter of scripture. I am not an authority.
The story of Job is an object lesson in the moral hazard of trying to figure it all out. (The book of Job deserves a longer essay). Coveting knowledge, wisdom, answers is what got us into this sin mess. It is obedience and faith that got us out. Jesus Christ never doubted. He never questioned. He never yielded to the temptation to make Himself an authority about anything. The Father was the Authority. He was the submissive Son.
William A,
Thank you for your advice on how you treat what others point out as contradictions in the Bible. According to you: ” I either imagine how the contradictions might not be contradictions at all”, OR: ” I just set the texts aside for pondering … I go to work on something else” Good for you: my attitude is different.
I don’t imagine: I read and reread to ensure that I understand what I read; then I come to a conclusion. When I encounter several other instances of the same sort, I conclude that there are contradictions and errors in the Bible. When I realise that they are there, I can then affirm they do exist. It will be self deceptive of me to imagine they do not exist. People who write, correct these contradictions and other errors in their own work before it is put to the final print; but if it is not their work, they can always note them: that is not a sin. Anyone who submits to be spoon-fed by others, will soon ingest hurtful food, that will defile.
Nathaniel,
You write correctly: “It will be self deceptive of me to imagine they do not exist. “ I suggested we imagine how they might not contradict. Perhaps you don’t understand the central role imagination plays in human thought processes. If a man builds a house he must first imagine the house he will build.
The each of the synoptic gospels record Jesus healing the blind beggars of Jericho differently. One obvious possible explanation for the differences is one or more of the three stories contains errors. But one can imagine other possibilities – that the apparent contradictions may not be errors at all. The two or three so called creations accounts in Genesis 1-3 can also be harmonized with imagination. The problem in judging scriptures and saying, “this passage is true”, “this one is not true” is scripture loses its authority. We pick and choose what we believe and we become the final authority on bible truth.
We spoon feed ourselves on doubt. Doubt is a powerful fidicide.
The problem with
Recently, we had a group of academics in South Africa,
one of them related to me, who were “whistle blowers”
on the fraudulent claims of Paul Matsara the SID president
to a plagiarized PH D thesis.
Walter T Rea was a similar “whistle blower” who showed
the extensive and expansive plagiarism of EGW.
More recently we have learned of the major role
in both editing and even writing, that EGW’s
“literary assistants” played in the production
of her writings.
How do we know which sentence or paragraph is
“stolen” by EGW from other writers, or originated
not with her but with an assistant?
The only EGW’s comments I take as GOSPEL.
are those preceded by “I was shown”
The rest of her writings have either suspect
sources, or are merely her OPINION”
She was human, mortal, frail and fallible
like the rest of us.
To elevate her to “Virgin Mary” status or
infallible like the Catholic pope is unacceptable.
“I was shown” may have meant she was shown by an angel, or shown the exact words from books that were on her shelves.
EGW’s “I was shown” statements might be difficult to analyze since we don’t have most of her autographs, i.e., writings in her own hand. For some reasons, it was not thought necessary to keep those, once the editing had gone on and a final version completed. Since I am of a suspicious nature, it is possible that James or her later editors did not want such autographs around for contrasts and comparisons. Or it was just that those doing the work did not anticipate that later historians would like to see the originals. Back to the “I was shown” problem–I have seen some discussions of this issue and one conclusion was that EGW lacked the intellectual and emotional sophistication to distinguish between the ordinary sense impressions she received in her dream states and what came to her in her out-of-body experiences. In her thinking, they were all merged together. On the other hand, there could be a number of explanations for this custom of hers.
Doctor Taylor, you might have a point about the coal artifacts. You haven’t answered my questions about the missing links in the fossil record and twisted rocks formed from water action. One other question for you. Have you ever read the book Footprints in the Ash, The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens, 2003 by John Morris and Steven A. Austin? (Master Books, Inc.) It may give you a new perspective on the creation vs. evolution. You do raise some interesting points about the SDA position on creation.
About the ‘I was shown’ statements by Sister White. Let’s not attempt to distinguish between supernatural visions and everyday experiences. Inspiration, by Sister White’s own statements does not work with this. Selected Messages, book 1, pages 19-22
Nor does she ever claim to be prophetic, in the Biblical sense, not because she was modest, but because she did not believe herself to be such a person.
When asked to settle differences of Biblical understanding, she pointed the questioners back to the Bible. When asked about dietary practices, she offered that the questioner might self asses whether the food was beneficial by eating it.
What Sister White was for the first 75 years of the Seventh-day Adventist church was a uniquely living symbol confirming God’s embrace of the little flock no matter their struggles, which were, indeed, endless.
Is it not more than sufficient to sense her confirmation still, living in her memory.
As I noted about Flannery O’Conner’s writing last evening over dinner with friends, the truth is in the story, not in the facts. We have the story of God’s gracious embrace of Seventh-day Adventism through the life of Sister White; the facts not so much. And that is fine. The same is true of the Biblical writers as well, she has said.
My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.
John Dominic Crossan
The conversations on this blog brought to mind John Dominic Crossan’s views on Biblical interpretation. The quote above sums them up nicely, I think, although perhaps it was unnecessary for him to comment on the literalist’s intelligence. 🙂
Michael,
They did not tell them symbolically. They believed them. Jesus Christ retells ‘the beginning’ as it is written. Jesus Christ spoke literally about Noah and the flood, Cain and Abel, Sodom and Lot’s wife, Manna in the wilderness; as He said, ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’
As he said, the scripture can not be broken Your hermeneutic does not account for Jesus Christ the literalist. Maybe the Christ of the bible isn’t very important to your faith.
Perhaps we are each looking at Jesus’s teaching idiosyncratically, William. When I think about His teachings what seems central to me is his telling of stories symbolically (to teach a lesson and help His followers understand the essence of the truths He was trying to impart). You know them, too- The Prodigal Son,The Story of the Talents, The Rich Man and Lazarus, to name several. And then there were all those similes and metaphors- referring to himself as The Door, etc. I don’t claim to know the mind and mystery of Jesus. As a man I don’t know whether He thought all the Old Testament stories that He used were what you call “true.” and actually happened as written in scripture. Perhaps he did. Maybe he didn’t and used them because they were familiar and were useful in pointing out truths about the life of the spirit. Perhaps we can both agree that what a story or other illustration teaches us may be more important than the actual story. To toss your words back at you, William, in the gentlest of ways, maybe its time that you give more credence to “Jesus Christ the symbolist and story teller.”
MIchael,
I’m the only one of us that can fully embrace Jesus Christ the symbolist and story teller. Because it’s obvious He believed the bible stories were true. The symbolic in Jesus’ stories loses its significance if its all just myth – not literal truth. The truth of myth is mushy and nebulous. The truth of true stories has substance and gravitas. Real like a cornerstone the builder’s rejected. Real like the stone which God will keep you from dashing your foot against. It doesn’t hurt if you stub your toe – it was an anthropomorphic rock and a symbolic toe. To you the resurrection is a symbol of hope. I see a real, gaping wound in the side of the living, breathing, Jesus Christ. My resurrection hope is embodied in a living, breathing King. He is the symbol of all my hopes.
I am impressed by the enthusiastic embrace by many of those making comments on this thread of a postmodern approach to the interpretation of biblical writers and, for Adventists, Ellen G White (EGW). If I understand this view correctly, that the bible and EGW have some facts wrong is of little consequence. The main point is the bible has the big picture correct. It is the “spirit” of the bible and EGWr contributions that is important. Whether some “minor” factual details happen to be in wrong. for example, Creation in seven literal days, and axes floating and Jesus walking on water–these might be the consequence of an overactive imagination and were included because it made for a good story We can ignore these kinds of reports because whether they happened or not is not important. Let’s not worry about these problems. Let’s move on.. I must say that this sounds like a good idea. Let’s all become post-modernists.
Erv,
Is the Resurrection just the figment of overactive imaginations? The literal six-day creation and the literal walking on water might be good storytelling, but the Resurrection is simply impossible. How does a man lay down His life and take it up again? Walking on water is nothing compared to raising yourself from death.
I think if we all become post-modernists, the first thing we will do is deconstruct the Resurrection. The word ‘resurrection’ will mean one thing to one reader and another thing to another reader. Each one will exercise their sovereign power of choice over meaning itself. What is truth? That will depend on what you think. The big picture is the one you paint.
I will make a prophecy. When we are all post-modern Jesus will return. His question will be answered: Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
Mr Abbott said: ” The word ‘resurrection’ will mean one thing to one reader and another thing to another reader. Each one will exercise their sovereign power of choice over meaning itself. What is truth? That will depend on what you think. The big picture is the one you paint.”
Exactly. Mr. Abbott has grasped the nature of post-modern truth. Truth is what you (meaning plural you) think it is. There is no universal standard. Each individual must decide for her or herself.
Now before someone yells “heresy” just think. Is not “Truth” what each one us thinks it is? What is the standard against which your and my truth is to be judged? Well, the traditionalist among us will say: “To the Law and Testimony,” i.e., the bible. OK, great. But who’s interpretation of the bible are we going to accept?
I hope even a fundamentalist will understand the problem.
Erv,
The post-modern problem is obvious. Post-modernists do not believe in the God of the bible. They believe in the interpretation – their own private interpretation. I quote you here, ” Is not “Truth” what each one us thinks it is? What is the standard against which your and my truth is to be judged?
Compare your words to Pilate’s examination of Christ Jesus: Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?
Who will judge Pilate’s, Herod’s & Judas’ interpretation? Who can say, this is an evil interpretation? “What is truth, Erv?”
What is Truth? Sorry, the answer to that question is above my pay grade.
Erv, you were bought with a price. Pay grade? Just tell me how Jesus answers the question.
Can anyone help me to understand what is meant by ” A Kingdom of Priests”? And what is its importance?
In my view, if every one in a nation is a priest, it is just as good as if everyone is an ordinary person. The priesthood will lose its importance. To me, it is just as telling me you will pave my streets with gold. If gold becomes so plentiful that you can pave the streets with it, then it has no more value than asphalt or concrete, except that if you burnish the golden surface to highly, more people will fall more often on it, than on asphalt.
Yes, Nathaniel, many have ‘slipped’ on the streets of gold idea. I hope I don’t slip up in attempting an answer to your question re ‘kingdom of priests.’
I found that specific reference in Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. …
Seems Plan A didn’t work out so well.
Peter develops the idea in Christian terms. 1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;…
And John calls them ‘kings and priests.’ Rev 1.6 & 5.10.
I think it all relates to Melchizedek, the high priest whose name means king of righteousness. He was a type of Christ, according to Hebrews 6.20- 7.3 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, ……;
2 …….; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Now here’s the rub. Hebrews also says in Heb 3:14 ‘For we are made partakers of Christ…’ Ergo, if partakers of Christ, then we are also made kings and priests, after the order of Melchizedek. Yes, its a bit too mystical for some. But no need to take my word for it. Study Hebrews.
Serge and Nathaniel,
It better not be too mystical for any believer. Serge has absolutely unlocked the meaning of ‘a nation of priests and kings’.
At the center of Christian worship is the communion. The eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ. To eat the bread that comes down from heaven. To eat the sacrifice as priests must eat the sacrifice. The ‘type’ of Christ is the sacrifice. The ‘type’ of Israel is the bride. So you have the one flesh again and again. Partakers of Christ. To be mystically joined to Him in his death and life.
Absolutely the key to understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ, Serge offers us a much better hermeneutic than Hanson, who suggests that God’s first intention was a nation of priests, but that failure of God’s plan, caused God to institute plan ‘B’ which was the Aaronic priesthood. The only plan God ever had was the ‘Lamb, slain from the foundation of the earth’ Ponder the mystery of our ‘priestly’ part in Him and His great sacrifice.
Thank you Serge. Thou are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek
William, ‘flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee.’ The beautiful gift, the eucharist, is not always so valued as your words have powerfully described. To reinforce the supremacy and centrality of such ‘communion’ with the divine, I’d like to quote the greatest of the NT mystics:
John 6. 48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
…
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Serge, Yes, Melchizedek, a type of Jesus Christ, is God (like unto the Son of God, is God). Eternal. Abraham met him and paid Him tithes of all;, As was Paul accosted on the Road to Damascus. Jesus the Christ, is Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Melchizedek, and IAM that IAM,,,,,,,, On God, with many transformations. Praise Him.
Think resurrection. Think, the cosmos. Think eternity. What will be your role?? Heaven is not a everlasting holiday, reward for being a sinner on Earth. Heaven (cosmos) is the homestead of Jesus Christ, God. There will be assigned roles for everyone. To be like Him, is everlasting assigned activity,
no one sleeps, no deadbeats allowed. The everlasting creation will require lesser Gods, to maintain and
manage unusual situations on every planet with created life. Ever expanding Universes and Galaxies
with unknown life will have their resident God. The magnificent breathtaking ever changing panoramic scenes to delight the senses of our spiritual bodies. Transitioning from Star to Star, effortlessly, as did the Angels, from Heaven to Earth. Our God, Jesus is perpetually active, and so will we, never tired, with
every continuing day a delightful experience, as we interact with each other, and with God’s love, carry out our assignments with grace.
I think we are all aware that as Adventists we do not subscribe to “inerrancy.” This stance is not the result of post modernism, but from taking Bible study seriously. Those who know the Bible well, know that there is a variety of literary devices and literary forms used. We know that the various author’s personalities and sometimes foibles are seen in and through the text.
The Bible is both a human and Divine revelation.
Regarding the Creation story, here we see that it is a polemic against the creation myths of that nations. It also is amazingly scientifically in harmony with what we know (which is very little) of the development of our planet and life on its surface.
As Genesis One has it, the Universe was a creation from a zero point singularity. “Let there be light” and the inflation of the Cosmos began.
The description of the early earth as being a water world and that a super continent ( “let a dry land appear” ) was created is noteworthy. The sequence of creation in Genesis follows perfectly the sequence in the fossil record.
Even the very early appearance of land plants in Genesis has now been confirmed through paleontological investigation. (see below)
The point is that we should allow Genesis One speak and avoid imposing an interpretation on it.
Charles H. Wellman, Peter L. Osterloff, and Uzma Mohiuddin, “Fragments of the Earliest Land Plants,” Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 282-285
http://www.nature…
darrellindensmith
You bring up thee best point in this discussion and one I was taught in college. Our church has never claimed biblical inerramcy, something most of these writers either don’t know or have ignored.
God did not dictate it.
A wise person once wrote: “God is not on trial in the Bible.” (EGW) and an even wiser One said: “You think you know the Scriptures, but they are all about Me.” (Jesus on the OT)
I am a perfect predictor of the future. Some would call me a prophet.
Don’t believe it? Look:
• Donald Trump will say something divisive or offensive tomorrow.
• Ben Carson will say something wacky or weird tomorrow.
• Hillary Clinton will say something dubious or insincere tomorrow.
• AToday will post something informative or insightful tomorrow.
Just watch and see if I’m not right!
I knew it was you norma when I saw krystal ball posting. They can’t ban a girl troll like you.
Thank you, William,Earl and Serge for your thoughts, expositions and explanations on the “Kingdom and Nation of Priests”.
May I add my bit. In Egypt,where Moses grew up and was educated, the priests and the king enjoyed the highest regard among the people. When Joseph came to honour, and was executing his plan for the survival of the country, he exempted the priests’ property from acquisition. When Moses fled Egypt, and went to Midian, he attached himself to Jethro, the Priest, and married his daughter. Back in Egypt, the kings were not simply kings – they were Priest-kings. When Moses organised the nation of Israel, he appointed his tribe the leaders, by appointing them priests and deputy priests, supported by all the other tribes. They were the elites of Israel. According to Deuteronomy, Israel was supposed to become high above all other nations: “in praise and in fame and in honour”. Deut 26:19. To be a nation of priests is to be a nation above all other nations. This is another case for not reading and interpreting everything in the Bible literally.
Whom will this “nation of priests” minister to?
“The unfallen worlds of the galaxies”, opines my good friend. Are we still in the Bible?