Ages of the Earth and Humans: No Answers in Genesis or Ellen White. Part III
by Ervin Taylor, July 6, 2016: In Part I of this discussion, we posed the question: Why would the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist (Adventist) denomination at the General Conference (GC) level insist on supporting a Fundamentalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives?
First-time readers may assume that we must be talking about the 19th-Century Adventist denominational leadership. Normally, one would assume that those responsible for the administration of a 21st-Century church body which proclaims that it is concerned with “Present Truth” would willingly accept the most current understanding of the history of our planet based on the best current scientific evidence. Unfortunately, we are not talking about a 19th-Century situation.
In 2015, the current GC leadership, having consolidated its power for five years and having been recently reappointed by a nomination process which was then ratified by a non-secret vote, was able to engineer the passage of a revised wording of a statement declaring that the Creation of all life forms occurred “recently,” i.e., several thousands of years ago, and was accomplished in six literal days.
Most readers are aware that the revised wording of official Adventist Belief Number 6 dramatically conflicts with the contemporary scientific understanding of the nature of the time frame of the development of the earth and the evolution of its many living forms. The two major components of the contemporary scientific consensus involving the history of our planet include related, but very different, bodies of data.
The first deals with what the community of researchers undertaking the study of the biological sciences currently understand to be the mechanisms or processes by which life forms on earth have changed over time, i.e., evolved. The second community of scientists deals with an entirely different body of data which is used to determine the time frame during which the earth itself and life forms on our planet evolved.
In this discussion, we will focus our attention on the second body of scientific data that inform our modern understanding of the age of the earth and life forms on our planet, especially with reference to the human species. Thus the title of these series of discussions: “Ages of the Earth and Humans.” The core of the scientific body of research of this topic is based on geochronological research. As has been emphasized in the previous discussions, these studies have little, if anything, to do with current scientific understandings of biological evolutionary processes.
The development of a detailed chronometric time scale for geology and paleontology is one of the great achievements of 20th-Century science on which 21st-Century science continues to build. The quantification of this time scale is largely based on various types of isotopic dating methods. Employing this vast corpus of modern geochronological data, it is possible to definitively conclude that the development of earth’s life forms occurred over billions of years while the group of animals from which human life forms evolved and the evolution of humans themselves occurred over multiple millions of years.
Our first question is thus focused on the historical background of why the current leadership of the church incorporated an official belief into the list of Fundamental Beliefs which is in such dramatic contrast with a well-established contemporary scientific consensus. It is as if some thought that a religious community needed to state that they did not believe in the germ theory of disease because the Bible says that God sent plagues.
With all this as background, we will here briefly examine the first part of the historical contexts to provide one interpretation of why the current leadership of the corporate Adventist denomination continues to object to the reality of the existence of “Deep Time” in the geological record. We originally expected to be able to complete this discussion in three parts, but suggestions from several individuals have necessitated some expansion in the text, and thus we will conclude this discussion in Part IV.
In Parts I and II, we briefly reviewed important background elements of this topic. We noted that from the middle of the 19th Century into the early 20th Century many conservative Christian bodies had accepted the view that the Genesis “days” were understood to be symbolic representations of long geological periods. Noah’s flood was interpreted as affecting only the ancestors of the individuals about which the biblical narratives were concerned. A “world-wide flood” would be a flood that affected their world. No individual living in the ancient world of the Bible had any idea of the size of the earth.
In the early decades of the 20th Century, the general acceptance of these ideas within many Christian bodies was directly challenged by the emergence of a major reactionary religious movement which had its roots in the United States at the end of the 19th Century. This movement within American Protestantism became known as Fundamentalism, based on the title of a 12-volume work which appeared between 1917 and 1919.
Fundamentalism arose in opposition to what were referred to as “Modernists” within several American Protestant denominations. One of the elements of this reactionary development which was particularly highlighted was the Fundamentalist view which posited 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. With regard to the Genesis account, there was also the tendency to interpret various statements literally and to assume that the writer of Genesis used terms that had meanings as they would be interpreted by modern readers, not by an ancient Hebrew reader.
During the middle- to late-19th Century, while the early developments we have been reviewing were occurring, the Sabbatarian Adventist movement was coalescing into yet another American Protestant denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Although the majority of the doctrinal positions that it adopted had been held by one or more existing Christian bodies, the initial formulations of several of its unique doctrines and doctrinal emphases were profoundly influenced and confirmed by the views and experiences of one of its co-founders, Ellen Gould Harmon-White.
The understandings that she included in her early writings concerning what we would today refer to as earth and early human history were taken largely from conventional understandings of her conservative religious upbringing and environment. These views were supplemented in some cases by imagery that she obtained from her own vivid out-of-body experiences most often referred to as “visions.” She believed that these visions came directly from God, some of which, she said, were mediated by angels. In reporting the substance of some of these visions in writing, she often employed the phrase “I was shown . . .”
For example, as we have previously noted, she stated that in one of her visions 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.
Presumably, that figure was derived by her from the margins of the King James English translation of the Bible. It is possible that, at least in her early experiences, she was not aware that these figures were not part of the biblical text, but that they had been added during the last quarter of the 17th Century. In this connection, we should note that there is no explicit statement in any biblical text that addresses the age of the universe or our solar system, (the nature of which, of course, the ancient Hebrews and early Christians had no knowledge), or of the part of the planet of which the ancient Hebrews were aware, or the life forms present in that region of the planet with which they were familiar. The “about 6,000 years” expression derives from the calculations of scholars such as James Ussher whose dates were the ones included, until recently, in the margins of the King James Version of the bible.
It is important to note that how she interpreted the opening chapters of Genesis was a relatively minor background element that became embedded into the fabric of her evolving master Adventist narrative or religious world view: “The Great Controversy.” This theme was reworked several times over three decades in her writings before being assembled into a single treatment by her and her collaborators/editors.
White died in 1915, and between that event and the late 1940s, we have noted that classical Adventism solidified into a tightly integrated, interlocking theological system. Meanwhile, schisms within several major Protestant churches had split them into separate Liberal and Fundamentalist segments. During this period, several Adventist church leaders proclaimed that Adventism clearly was aligned with those denominations in the Fundamentalist camp and, with several important exceptions, conventional Adventism continued to emphasize many Fundamentalist elements in its public evangelism and official pronouncements well into the 1960s.
At about this time, a number of conservative Protestants preferred to call themselves “Evangelicals” since, among other objections, they took issue with the Fundamentalists’ refusal to participate with other Christians in various outreach and even evangelistic enterprises. For example, Billy Graham identified himself as an Evangelical and not as a Fundamentalist, even though much of his theology was Fundamentalist.
As was typical with a number of both Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant denominations during the first three decades of the 20th Century, Adventists created a number of colleges as a means of protecting their youth from what were considered the baleful influences of secular colleges and universities and as a means of providing their clergy with a year or two of post-secondary education. At first, all of these Adventist institutions were unaccredited and could be accurately described essentially as Bible colleges. For example, the purpose of many of these institutions was clearly reflected in their names, which often included the word “Missionary.”
It is suggested that it is probable that Seventh-day Adventism to this day would have remained characterized as a fully Fundamentalist faith community if not for one unanticipated consequence of an emphasis that came into Adventism in the post-Civil War period. Without the existence of this emphasis, some suggest that it is likely that Adventism would much longer have continued to maintain its cult-like characteristics and would never have developed any sizable group which would begin to call for a reexamination of the traditional Adventist understandings of a number of theological and scientific topics in light of the most recent scientific, historical and theological scholarship.
It was the emphasis on physical wellness which, in turn, resulted in the development of Adventist-sponsored health institutions that set into motion a process which we will be outlining in this discussion. As the research that the distinguished American historian of science Ronald Numbers presented in his seminal volume Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White has detailed, the views of Ellen White and the Adventist emphasis on health and wellness were certainly not unique, since initiatives advancing “health reform” were widespread in the United States during the 19th Century. Both the physical and psychological problems that plagued Ellen White through most of her life also may have played a part in the development of this emphasis within the Adventist tradition.
As is well known, Adventism developed its first major health/medical operation in Battle Creek, Michigan. It was known initially as the Western Health Reform Institute, which opened in 1866. Under the supervision of John Harvey Kellogg MD, it was expanded within a few years into a widely known major health institution and spa, the Battle Creek Sanitarium.
Although Kellogg had originally been a protégé of James and Ellen White, following the death of James in 1881, Ellen began to become estranged from Kellogg. The role of her son, William (“Willie”) White, in causing his mother to begin to harbor doubts about Kellogg’s orthodoxy is still to be determined. However, what is clear is that for the first, but not only, time, the Adventist medical and clerical establishments became at loggerheads over which group should exercise dominance in terms of deciding the direction that the church should take in its relationship with the secular world outside of Adventist enclaves.
The centerpiece in Kellogg’s Adventist medical empire was the Battle Creek Sanitarium and Hospital. A suspicious fire in 1902 essentially destroyed the property. The structure was rebuilt and much enlarged, but, in the meantime, the headquarters of the Adventist church was moved to a suburb of Washington DC. It is suspected that this shift was largely designed to distance corporate Adventism from the influence of Kellogg and his supporters in Battle Creek.
Beyond this, it was thought necessary to accomplish the vilification of Kellogg in the eyes of the Adventist public. To accomplish their plan, his detractors in the Adventist clerical establishment charged him with advocating pantheism. This has been widely viewed as a smokescreen to hide the actual reason for removing him. In fact, what was at stake was who would control the future direction of the church. Kellogg lost.
Following Kellogg’s excommunication, a large segment of medical professionals at the Battle Creek Sanitarium followed Kellogg’s lead. Despite this loss or perhaps in response to it, the church leadership continued to see the value of maintaining the Adventist corporate presence in the medical field as part of the vision that Adventist clinics and health-related institutions could serve as the “entering wedge” for Adventist evangelism. With the urging of Ellen White, the church leadership agreed that it was necessary to establish as quickly as possible an institution for the training of loyal Adventist physicians. Such an institution was founded in Loma Linda, California, in 1906 as the College of Medical Evangelists (CME) and chartered as a medical college in 1909.
Readers to this point might wonder what a recitation of all of this history of Adventist medical work has to do with our topic. How does it relate to a process which would ultimately result in the rise of a segment within Adventism which would begin to call publicly for a reexamination of a number of traditional Adventist theological and scientific understandings? This, in turn, will provide a perspective on why the current GC leadership has determined to “double down” on its attempts to force the Adventist Church to accept a fundamentalist position on earth history.
A review of the rise of those interested in reexamining the basis of the traditional Adventist understanding of earth and human history and an interpretation of the reasons for the recent actions of GC church authorities with regard to this topic will be presented in Part IV.
Ervin Taylor is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology and Past Director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of California, Riverside. He is also currently a Visiting Professor at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA and Visiting Scientist at the Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the University of California, Irvine. He has served as the Executive Editor of Adventist Today.
If you appreciated this piece, please consider giving a donation to Adventist Today to keep this quality of content available!
It is eminently evident that the major impediment to the acceptance of modern science by Adventism’s comservative leadership, is EGW’s pronouncements on the age of the earth.
These brethren not only believe in the inerrancy of scripture but the total inerrancy of every EGW pronouncement. Like the Catholic hierarchy elevating
Jesus’ mother to sainthood and more, EGW is venerated like Adventism’s VIRGIN MARY.
This despite Walter Rea’s now decades old damning indictment of widespread plagiarism. More and more evidence also emerges of the enormous role exerted by “.literary assistants”, “collaborators/editors”.
In perusing her works it is hard to know what is truly original with her.
Her signature work, the Great Controversy portrays a God, more concerned with his image, his “vindication” as she calls it, that the well being of humanity.
Meanwhile God’s entourage of extraterrestrials, the “universe” as she calls it, sits stony faced, sullen, silent, unmoved, uncaring in the face of six thousand years (sixty thousand??) of “blood and guts”
Are not the Angels complicit in mankind’s misery, when as “jurors” in this conflict, they fail to provide a verdict in the face of overwhelming evidence.
EGW’s GC is deeply flawed and makes no sense.
It should be jettisoned along with her “six thousand years” fallacy!
Robin you are right that there may be Adventists who believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible and EG White. However you forgot to mention another group, those adventists, especially on this site, who believe in the total inerrancy and infallibility of science and scientists. These priests of science are given such homage and reverence that resembles the homage of infallibility given to the Pope by the catholic laity. Scence is in effect the new religion of the 21st century.
Peter,
I would agree with you on your comments on science IF what science finds, reveals, discovers were all dubious and unverifiable facts. Sure, some may be, since science always starts with some new hypotheses that not always can be verified objectively right away, or end up even being proven false. This is what science does!
But, would you agree that in most of its discoveries science actually brings to knowledge a very big amount of information that was not yet known? I don’t credit any wisdom to people who keep trying to completely sweep science under the rug. And for many Adventists the rug has already been touching the ceiling for quite a while.
The earth is not flat, the earth is not the center of the solar system, this computer is not fake – and millions of other things we could mention because science worked and worked right for us.
Therefore, science should not be vilified as if it is something bad, or always wrong in its results. Our lives basically depend on scientific knowledge in many ways nowadays. But, when it comes to scientific findings that may challenge some biblical writings or data, “Oh no”…. it’s even a sin to look at them. Some people are almost paranoid about this. Why?
“EGW’s GC is deeply flawed and makes no sense.”
Well, … apparently the author made a “post-mortem” revision, and a new book was published, “The Great Hope”….
I wonder what happened to the Christian ethics… First, plagiarism, now someone re-arranging the book and still keeping the same author’s name. Come on… Those people can’t think outside the “boox”….
No denominational employee has challenged EGW’s pronouncements and escaped unscathed. With the true Fundamentalists she rivals the Catholics in their veneration of her. For a perfect example of someone who most frequently quotes her in speech and writings, look no further than the current church’s esteemed leader.
Dr. Taylor,
Jesus of Nazareth’s hermeneutic is much more compatible with the six-day literal interpretation of the Genesis account, than it is with ‘deep time’ evolutionary understanding of the creation. You keep talking like the ‘fundamentalists’ are hijacking the church’s hermeneutic. Perhaps the church is clinging to Jesus Christ’s understanding of the authority of scripture.
Why do you suppose Seventh-day Adventists keep the Sabbath? Other ‘fundamentalists’ don’t. Don’t you suppose it is because Jesus Christ kept it? Why else would we disagree with all of Christendom?
Jesus grounded all of His teaching’s in the scripture. Scripture was persuasive. The miracles were the corroborating witness: “Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake”.
I’ll ask you to explain how much authority does Jesus Christ retain if He is an ignorant man? If He believed the scripture only because He didn’t know any better? He doesn’t sound like the personality that created all things, seen and unseen, in the beginning.
I assert the Adventists need to clarify their dependence Jesus Christ’s example as the foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic. If that is what was voted in San Antonio the church took a step in the right direction.
Ameb (about the San Antonio vote thing.) 🙂
I may not know much more than many of these people that are commenting on this site, but I really do believe the writings of Ellen White. Not because that she spoke of prophecies (I do believe them too though), but because she also urges us to read the bible for ourselves. Never once does she try glorifying herself of her own writings.
Oh…and about the plagiarism thing (I saw other comments about her plagiarizing from other people), the law that talked about the things of plagiarism, and also the works needing to be cited from the original sources, were being created just around the same time she wrote many of her letters. If everyone actually read her writings earnestly without a “judg-y” point of view, they will see that she actually followed the rules, for writings being properly cited, later on. Of course, it took awhile for her to cite everyrhing that she wrote about…nonetheless she actually finished everything correctly. That’s why she didn’t have any legal trouble with her writings guys. I know, for a fact, that her writings hold true even to this day.
Elaine has called attention to a very revealing Adventist institutional taboo: No SDA denominational employee who has challenged EGW pronouncements has escaped unscathed. This has certainly been true for the last 50-70 years.
However, I would suspect that it would also be correct to say that it was not true in the very earliest period of denominational history. The sociological and ecclesiological dynamic of when and under what conditions this taboo emerged would certainly be the subject of an interesting historical article.
It would also be very interesting to contrast and compare the internal reactions in the leadership of other America-founded sects such as in Mormonism, the Watchtower movement (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and Christian Science if their founding prophets or leaders views are questioned.
Elaine is also certainly correct in her observation concerning the orientation of the current GC President.
Before I departed the Adventist church some 50 years ago, I spent a few years reevaluating what to do with my awareness of the fairyland of Adventist tenets, including its rabid defense of medieval cosmology. I considered how I might hang on and be an advocate for change. Ellen White and the Adventist perception of her, in the end, killed any notion of that possibility. I was a minister. Not toeing the party line, if I revealed my intent, would result in my being fired. I had no interest in upsetting the hierarchy, along with and the uninformed faithful Adventists, and I didn’t want anyone deciding my fate. So I left with integrity intact.
I harbor no anger directed to Ellen White. She was a self-proclaimed seer with all the liabilities that implies. But she has gained a mythical status that has a stranglehold on the church, so that it can never move on without her demythologization, which is unlikely to ever happen. Those employed by the church are doomed to toe the imaginary line of doctrinal correctness. Those Adventists outside the employ of the church are able to ignore its proclaimed orthodoxy without jeopardizing their integrity or paycheck. My guess is the organized church tolerates the latter because of money they contribute or their high social standing.
I have cherished my years of divorce. There is great satisfaction in not having a fantasy religious template imposed on my mind.
God said it took him 6 days to create everything.
Let’s believe God’s words.
Sorry. God said no such thing. A fallible bible writer used “days” as a means of expressing his understanding that his God, the God of the Hebrews, from the beginning was responsible for everything good in the world that he knew. We were not told how it was done or when it was done. We are now just finding out some of how it happened and when. How and when were irrelevant to the main point of the Hebrew Creation stories.
Erv, you wrote “Sorry. God said no such thing. A fallible bible writer used “days” as a means of expressing his understanding that his God”
Sorry Erv but here you show your ignorance of the Bible. It is true that most of the OT was written by fallible bible writers, however there is one portion of the OT that was actually written by God himself and that’s the 10 commandments (on tables of stone with), and in the 4th commandment God clearly wrote(and states) that:
” for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day”
So yes, Daniel is correct, God did say it took six days!!!
We have no idea how long the first days of creation were as the sun was not created until the fourth day! Where was the earth during the first three days?
On the fourth day: “…let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years” Gen 1:14. The Bible does not say how long the first days of creation were.
I think it is really special that Jesus Christ deigned to come down to Earth and give his life to save a bunch of evolved apes. And then to give us fables that allow for us to believe we are created on his image.
And what, pray tell, do you have against evolved apes?
I am unable to perceive anything against them in the previous comment. If anything, it would seem to me that we do our simian ancestors a disservice by not having painted portraits of them in the hallways of our houses. It would almost seem that those who embrace this true origin understanding are somewhat embarrassed by it.
Massive brutes. Should have been in the dinosaur area as food for Tyrannosaurus Rex. Why would we still have apes, and chimps, if they evolved to the human species??
For those who question our Adventist biblical understanding of Genesis and creation my response will mean very little if anything. Foe those who care to know, this is why believing in the biblical creation is so important to me as an Adventist Christian
The importance of biblical creationism is that it answers the fundamental questions of human existence. 1. How did we get here? Where did we come from? 2. Why are we here? Do we have a purpose, and what is the cause of all or our problems? Are the issues of sin and salvation important? 3. What happens to us when we die? Is there life after death? Genesis is the foundation for the rest of Scripture, in which these questions are answered. Genesis has been likened to the root of a tree in that it is the anchor of Scripture and provides its spiritual life-blood. If you cut the root from a tree, the tree dies. If you discredit Genesis, you remove the authoritative value of all Scripture.
Biblical creationism answers the question of the condition of the human race. It deals with the fall of man but also leaves us with the hope of redemption. It is important that we understand we are unified in one man, Adam—a literal, real-life person. If Adam is not a literal person, then we have no plausible explanation for how sin entered into the world.
We must look to biblical creationism as the basis for our value system. The creation narrative must be factual and not just a story, for if it is fictional, then the values it imports are man-reasoned, subject to change as man “evolves,” and therefore invalid.
Biblical creationism is important because it is the only system that answers the basic questions of life and gives us significance greater than ourselves. It should be clear to all Christians that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive and stand in opposition to one another.
Sam, how does a creation myth answer” the fundamental questions of human existence. 1. How did we get here? Where did we come from? 2. Why are we here?” You seem like an intelligent person. Do you compartmentalize facts of current cosmology in one alcove and religious belief in another? If you do, that is fine with me. Just confess it. To me, they are mutually exclusive without special handling.
In my purview, there are a myriad of unanswerable questions, three of which you have enumerated. Why are you gleaning from an allegory (Genesis creation story) what appears to be a factual solution? That can’t be done, without special handling (compartmentalization, for example).
Could you ever say, “I don’t know,” and enjoy the honesty of it? Manufactured answers are a placebo for the masses. Why do you need one? You and I motor on toward death and what we carry in our minds are the myths that facilitates and ease our trip. I’m making the trip just fine without a clue as to why we are here, our source and the reason for it all. “Vanity of vanity, all is vanity the Teacher says (Eccl: 1:2).
Living life fully is the best answer for being here. “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.” (Eccl. 8:15)
I don’t expect you to be like me, just wondering.
“The creation narrative must be factual and not just a story”
Some of the greatest religions cannot be based on facts; Christianity is no exception. Facts require evidence, and who is there to give absolute proof that the creation stories, whether from the Hebrew Bible or other beliefs, cannot be proved. Where is your evidence that both origin stories in the Bible are both 100% factual?
If they are both factual, while contradictory, why is faith necessary? Does it take faith to know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? That the moon has distinct cycles? If faith is not needed for religion, then it is no longer faith, but facts that should be recognized by all humans.
Evolution is all around us: humans and animals and plants evolve by methods both natural and man-made. Such a limited concept of evolution disparages what man has discovered about himself and his world to what was known eons ago.
Did Jesus believe in Creation as outlined in the Bible?
Before anyone can answer Mr. Sherwin’s question, it would be important to know whether he accepts the view of historic Christianity that Jesus was 100% human and 100% God?
Given that we have no record of Jesus commenting on the subject the question would seem unanswerable. But Jesus did offer much hope about the future – that much is undeniable. This knowledge enables us to place discussions such as this in proper context – allowing us to enjoy pondering, (and occasionally discovering) mysteries in our universe without fear of “losing faith”.
Erv.
Let’s pretend Richard Sherwin is asking you. How would you answer his question? You believe Jesus Christ was wholly man and wholly God, don’t you?
That is what the historic confessions of the Christian Church state. Who am I to disagree with the traditions of the Christian Church.
Erv,
I am curious. Why is Richard’s question not worth answering?
Who said anything about not responding to Mr. Sherwin’s question? However, any answer would be meaningless to him unless a responder would know whether he does or does not accept the opinion of the historic Christian Church that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine. Once he responds, I will be happy to offer my opinion concerning his question.
Just how is creation outlined in the bible? Genesis communicates to us and to all humankind, but it was not written to us, it was written to ancient Israel. It is Gods revelation of himself to Israel and secondarily through Israel to everyone else. Since it was written to ancient Israel, it was in a language that most of us do not understand, hence, it requires translation. Translators cannot convey a words meaning from a source language to a target language without first determining what they think a text means to say. What they think it means is influenced by their cultural beliefs. Language, however, is not the only aspect that needs to be translated. All language is imbedded in culture. Consequently, you must translate language in the context of the culture in which it was written.
The people of the ancient Near East did not know that the earth was spherical, to them it looked flat. They did not know the rotated on its axis, to them the sun, moon, and stars moved around the earth. They did not see the sun as a burning ball of gas. They believed that the sky was a solid material, solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as hold back the waters above.
continued
Genesis I is ancient cosmology. But many Christians approach Genesis as if it is modern cosmology. The problem is we cannot translate their cosmology into our cosmology. If one accepts Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology. God communicated his revelation to ancient Israel in terms they understood, their cultural beliefs. For example, the ancient world believed that the seat of intelligence and emotion was in the internal organs, especially the heart. Most Bible translations use the word “mind” when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails. In the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. Just
When we try to understand the creation stories in the context of their culture, we can begin to see that there are other ways of thinking about these stories.
PPriest,
Your 2-part comment sounds rational to me and would fit into a rational faith. Perhaps God didn’t use 21st century scientific language because it wouldn’t have made any sense to them. It also would have been quite primitive by His standards. We still know little about time or space but just enough to say we don’t need a creator. We might also conclude that God didn’t think it was necessary to give a full explanation but only wanted them to understand what it meant–He created them personally.
Bugs/Larry Boshell said on July 7, 2016 at 1:52 pm
“You and I motor on toward death and what we carry in our minds are the myths that facilitates and ease our trip. I’m making the trip just fine without a clue as to why we are here, our source and the reason for it all. “Vanity of vanity, all is vanity the Teacher says (Eccl: 1:2).”
And yet, Brother Larry, you quote scripture and took time to respond to my prior comments. I thank you for your response. You are right in using a journey as an illustration for life. May you always have peace in your “trip”, journey. This is why I “motor” on and I blog, respond, pray, share, and listen!
Jude, in scripture, has been one of those wise counselors in my journey of faith . He told us we must contend for the faith that was entrusted to the saints. How can we contend for that faith, if we do not know what the saints believed? We are warned that people would be following these things (as so many are today), but Jude instructs us not to do so.
Jude 3 “Dear friends, I’ve dropped everything to write to you about this life of salvation that we have in common. I have to write insisting–begging– that you fight with everything you have in you for this faith entrusted to us as a gift to guard and cherish.”
God’s answers to the questions we have need to be studied, shared and respected.
Peace…
Sam, are you acknowledging that the journey of faith is different than the journey of the mind? And that they coexist without interference?
Larry, the journey of faith and the mind cannot be separated if our goal is to have the mind of Christ. First Corinthians 2:12 says, “Now we (followers of Christ) have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.” The end of verse 16 adds, “But we have the mind of Christ.” That is, our spirit-man has a mind that is of Christ; that agrees with Christ Jesus and the Word of God. We have to let His Spirit rule and lead us, and we have to get our fleshly “mind” to agree with His mind. Set your mind on the Word and listen to that “inner witness” that longs to obey the Lord and desires to please Him.
Philippians 4:8 gives us a list of things that are worth thinking about: Whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable and worthy of praise. Thinking on these things will contribute to the renewal of our minds. In my own search for freedom in my mind, I discovered a process that works to change the way I think: It begins with a thought. If I think it and pray over it, long enough, you come to believe that it is true. Once you believe it’s true, it becomes a reality to you. Once it is a reality, you live it out, and as you live it out, it becomes You. Try it!
Mr. Geli says: “It begins with a thought. If I think it and pray over it, long enough, you come to believe that it is true. Once you believe it’s true, it becomes a reality to you. Once it is a reality, you live it out, and as you live it out, it becomes You.” Precisely! I had a friend who was a Mormon. He expressed to me the same idea almost in the same words that Mr. Geli used. This procedure is an excellent way to confirm your current views. Now as a means of determining if these views are valid . . . Well . . .
Erv, you wrote “Sorry. God said no such thing (in six days). A fallible bible writer used “days” as a means of expressing his understanding that his God”
Sorry Erv but here you show your ignorance of the Bible. It is true that most of the OT was written by fallible bible writers, however there is one portion of the OT that was actually written by God himself and that’s the 10 commandments (on tables of stone with), and in the 4th commandment God clearly wrote(and states) that:
” for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day”
So yes, Daniel is correct, God did say it took six days!!!
Ah, I kind of hate to be the bearer of, shall we say, contradictory information.
If Peter will take the time to look at the text of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:4-21, he will find that it says that the Sabbath is related to the Exodus, not the Creation. In the Deuteronomy version, there is absolutely no hint of a six-day Creation. (Actually, there are three versions, the one in Deuteronomy and two in Exodus, Chapter 20 and Chapter 34.)
Now it would appear that we have a problem. Thus the question: Which version of the Ten Commandments do you say God wrote Him/Herself on tables of stone?
No specific days nor Sabbath was mentioned in the “other creation story” in Genesis 2; the one that is very rarely mentioned. Why? Is it not a valid account?
Ervin Taylor said on July 8, 2016 at 10:41 am
“This procedure is an excellent way to confirm your current views. Now as a means of determining if these views are valid . . . Well . . .”
You surprise me Dr. Taylor! With a background and concentration in social and cultural anthropology I would assume that you would be better able to react on a more focused understanding of one or more topical areas, which may include the cross-cultural study of theology, learning theories, politics, economic systems, psychology, etc.
I believe in a God who gives me intelligence—the capacity to learn. I also believe that true learning takes place when there is a change in behavior. I learn from experience, ideas, scripture, and great books, even on anthropology.
What I remember learning from your field of anthropology made me a better student and later on teacher of the Bible, Pastor, and Chaplain. Careful record-keeping, attention to details, analytical reading, and clear thinking were taught to me by anthropological courses. Social ease in strange situations, critical thinking, and strong skills in oral and written expression are cultivated by anthropological training.
All this serves me well to this day in “determining if these views are valid”.
I encourage you to do as I am trying to do:
Proverbs 7:1-3
“My son, keep my words
and store up my commands within you.
2 Keep my commands and you will live;
guard my teachings as the apple of your eye.
Ervin
Spoken like a true literalist! The two differing recordings have different meanings. The first sees Sabbath as a memorial of creation when God rested. The second version uses Sabbath as a rest from slavery in Egypt and the promised land to come. The third reason for Sabbath referred to throughout the Bible and especially in Heb. 4 is that it is symbolic of our rest in Christ righteousness and no fear for Judgment Day.
Like a literalist, you read the Bible to be taken in absolute terms and therefore not worthy of our trust–this is how it sounds.
We do not know what “deep time” means. God created time for created beings–His is different from our version and experience of time. A day in the Bible seems to be used for a specific time and not necessarily a 24-hour day as we have today. In putting that into a doctrine is not biblical.
My main reason for not taking Darwinian evolution seriously is because it places human sin after death. If that is true, then Christianity’s dependence on Christ for salvation can’t be true. It also presents a god creating by violence before sin. And this is not a good god or one who loves.
Thirdly, contemporary science does not have most of the answers about the universe. If based on observation it cannot be called science in the belief of Darwinian evolution (as opposed to other forms of evolution that is continuous and observable). Is the basis on which dating is determined absolute or is
If your deep faith…
Ervin, (con’t)
or are the dating methods based on what is happening today and in the last say 20,000 years?
Is it possible that in the “old earth” material did not decompose the same as today? Or was the “chaotic earth” before that even more different? Could an adversary use created beings to make his own “world?”
If science can speculate on what it knows, is it wrong for creationists to speculate? Evidence: we are here and we can create.
And here is my big question: If your deep faith in science is so strong, how could it possibly accept a Messiah that was dead on a cross resurrected on the third day? That is the wildest unscientific story I have ever heard. Please answer–do you believe in the resurrection based on your belief in science? How could you deny one without the other?
What matters is that the disciples and those they told DID believe in the Resurrection; the one sole belief that initiated Christianity. If you read the Gospels, no one reported actually SEEING Jesus resurrected, only that the tomb was empty and he was later seen by others in different places. They believed WITHOUT actually seeing it; Christians believe it by faith.
The Bible is filled with stories that lack scientific proof; which is why Christianity is correctly labeled “faith.” If there is evidence, faith is unnecessary
Elaine,
What is evidence?
“scientific consensus” sounds like an oxymoron to me. True science comprises empirical data, not a bunch of people in a room agreeing to something, like the global warming hoaxers do.
“…first deals with what the community of researchers undertaking the study of the biological sciences currently understand to be…” Community (the singular subject)…understands (the correct verb). “Researchers” as the object of the preposition can’t be the subject and have any determination on the verb. In the same paragraph, the author uses the same construction and uses the correct subject-verb.
“Currently” is an overused, throw-away word. If it’s happening, “now” is understood.
May I express my appreciation to Mr. Hawley for his corrections. I will try harder next time to get the grammar and syntax right. It’s a hopeful sign that he did not catch any misspellings.
Very humorous, one scholar arrogantly taking another to task for improper grammar and syntax.
May I respond to Mr. Calahan: I did not think that Mr. Hawley’s comments were arrogantly expressed. That what scholar’s do. If they are of the opinion that another scholar has made an error, they point it out. No problem.
Ervin:
Did you purposely ignore my questions?
Ervin, i have a bro. in law who is a multi language scholar who drives the whole family absolutely
nuts, because he constantly corrects everyone. i ignore his arrogance.
Until age 11, the magical path for reaching God was through closed eyes. That was all shattered one Sabbath when I opened my eyes and the elder praying the divine service prayer had open eyes fixed on me through his entire prayer. The bible is a book of magic separate from whatever is termed science. Matthew 27:52 and billions of humans raised instantaneously defy explanation. The phrase, “And God said” becomes nonsensical if God is replaced with I. Bugs/Larry Boshell’s responses for his eloquent yet witty language; those who are experts in their chosen occupations; and others make this interesting and enjoyable reading. However, I think like almost everyone else nothing I have ever read here has changed my mind or belief system.
The Adventist position on the age of the earth is consistent with the Bible and with many notable scientists. Similar to Ussher, Isaac Newton worked out a chronology of the earth based on the chronology of the Bible which agrees roughly with Ussher. The ‘days’ in Genesis must be literal days for there to be consistency in the theology of the Bible and with Jesus himself said about the creation. If we accept the Bible as true then where do you begin to question what part of the Genesis account is literal and what part is ‘allegory’? it is a recipe for speculation and confusion. Prior to the mid19th century most scientists accepted the Biblical chronology . Why did that change? There was a uniformitarian doctrine (millions of years of very slow changes) accepted by a some geologists which won the day through convincing argument rather than hard evidence. This laid the foundation for Darwin’s theory of evolution which was equally lacking in hard evidence but based on unscientific extrapolation from a few observations such as seasonal beak variations in finches. Molecular biology and the glaring lack of fossil evidence should have long disposed of evolution but through ‘scientific consensus’ and propaganda it persists. The devil is in the details literally. Only eternity will tell the harm that evolutionary theory has done to the souls of mankind. Stifling faith in the Creator, belittling His power and authority and creating seeming justification for atheism.
Isaac Newton also spent years as an alchemist seeking to create gold from other stuff as well as studying prophecy to calculate the date for the Second Coming (2012 or 2034 or 2060). He was a mathematical and physics genius and a devout Christian who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. His outside interests reflected the values and beliefs of his time, has nothing to do with now except as curious artifact and evidence of the limitations of intelligence. He was a dilettante outside the realm of math and physics.
What is “consistent with the Bible” is a fool’s paradise of opinions because it lacks even a smidgen of unity, every word written for the context of the times of the author(s), none more recent than about two thousand years ago. You have a preconception that must find words and kindred spirits to justify. Beliefs contrary to facts can never be retrofitted to transform them into facts. You will never find or accumulate serious evidence to even slightly challenge what wise, honest, serious, family people, many serious Christians maintain is a scientific estimation of the actual epochal age of the earth and universe.
Remember, Darwin, trained as a doctor and then a minister, went on the Beagle expedition seeking evidence for creationism and held back his notes for a number of years in doubt of his conclusions and concern for their effect on the public.
Similarly current cosmology is beset with the same assumptions that befell the uniformitarian geologists. So we end up with billions of years of universe history based on the size of the universe and our perceptions and ideas about light and time and gravity. It is interesting to me from a prophetic point of view that all this is happening at this point in earth’s history, quite in keeping with what the Bible predicted. As Jesus said ‘ when the sun of man comes will he find faith on the earth?’. As a scientist and engineer I have no problem submitting science to the Biblical test because science is not the objective and unbiased pursuit of knowledge that it is often purported to be. It is done by fallible people who have agendas. Peer review has become peer pressure. Romans 1. Several creationist astronomers have proposed models for explaining the astronomical phenomena in the context of the ‘young’ earth and universe. There are many problems with the Big bang theory as well but many scientists do not dare speak about them. It seems to me that pandering to the scientific consensus is a dangerous approach to science. The church needs to do more to develop sound scientific creationist models even while we are essentially walking by faith. God gives enough scientific and other evidences on which to anchor our faith. http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth; http://www.creationastronomy.com/; https://answersingenesis…
Anthony, I’m curious as to what other “notable scientists” (beyond Isaac Newton who died in 1727) take positions consistent with the Adventist position on the age of the earth.
May I add a second to art.klym request for examples of “notable scientists” currently living and research active in the late 20th and 21st Centuries whose writings would support positions in agreement with or consistent with the officially proclaimed Adventist position on the age of the life on earth. Those who are members of the United States National Academies of Science or Engineering, or Medicine would certainly be considered “notable scientists.” And there are such equivalent academies in other Western nations. Prediction: There are none for very good reasons.
Hi EM,
You ask, “Please answer–do you believe in the resurrection based on your belief in science? How could you deny one without the other?”
If you don’t mind, I’d like to respond, though Erv certainly needs no help from me and no doubt may have a much better answer.
To your question about whether there is a scientific explanation for the resurrection, the answer is, Yes.
That said, the methods of science have yet to postulate what that explanation may be.
Resurrection is not a topic of widespread interest. In fact, it is akin to the explanation for how amino acids were originally animated. It is a really hard question, and not many scientists are devoted to it at this time. And it has surely not been demonstrated in a lab.
When it comes to life, what is now possible and vastly more relevant is to describe and confirm observationally evolutionary changes in all life forms managed by DNA, itself a discovery younger than quite a few AT readers and contributors.
The simple reality is that humans can observe God through observing Natural Revelation just as they can observe God through observing Special Revelation.
The same one God.
The challenge is to not let presuppositions about God becloud what God would have us to see. Considering the Three Angels’ Message, it appears that the clouds of presuppositional thinking will universally haunt us right up until the First Angel puts an end to it at some future time.
And by the way, EM,
John wasn’t the first to hint at the limits of presuppositional thinking. Paul blatantly declared in writing to the Corinthians that all spiritual knowledge, all spiritual practices, and all spiritual prophecies are doomed to be fully replaced by faith, hope, and love, all of which endure and all of which exceed the bounds of presuppositional thinking. Paul introduces this as ‘a more excellent way.’
So when we feel the dissonance, we do well to seek to harmonize our presuppositions first, rather than argue over our mere observations.
At one level or another, we are all scientists. Just like we are all theologians, including Atheists too I’m thinking.
And faith is revealed in the humble acceptance of the other in love, Paul and Jesus agree, I believe.
It is ironic for some to realize that 50 years ago in a ‘behavioral science’ class at a Seventh-day Adventist university I learned that science believes it observes that every person at every moment is behaving in what that person senses to be is in their own individual unique best self-interest. And because it is a Seventh-day Adventists university I came to believe we are created this way.
How does that feel as a presupposition, EM?
I wonder if we should worry to much about the Seventh-day Adventist creed. After all, isn’t a creed a statement that explains what a group believes at a certain point of time? Isn’t it the best that the group can come up with to teach its children and new converts? It is a rather daunting task to state in a brief yet coherent manner not only what it believes,, but by exclusion what it doesn’t. Look at the Apostles Creed. One English translation that I read said: He suffered
unto Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into Heaven….”. Not many of us believe in a universe that is similar to an apartment building with hell in the basement, earth on the first floor, and Heaven on the top floor. But that is ok, the Apostle’s Creed is a group statement. It worked fine. If the Adventist creed doesn’t describe exactly how some members believe, it’s fine. It may be the best that the GROUP can do. Can’t we think of it as a working hypothesis and not a document carved in stone? Why the constant bickering? In time, when thinking shifts,perhaps the group will move toward a more adequate statement of what it
means to be created by God.
What is an executive editor doing writing stuff like this damaging the adventist position? Has AT gone the way Of Spectrum? What is going on?
Dr. What about Exodus 20:1, 8-11 where God spoke to the Israelite nation saying,”Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy. For in six days God created the heaven and the earth….” There are problems with evolution. How can the “big bang,” make something out of nothing? Where are the missing links in the fossil record? The systems in the body that keeps us alive is to complicated to happen from just chance. Just asking.
There are currently Intelligent Design Scientist who believe the earth was created. The Institute of Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, Creation Research society, and Answers In Genesis provide creation and flood models you to consider. I wonder if any of the atheist and theistic creationist have read some of the research or heard their presentations? I have. One example. Steven Austin, a Geologist with the Institute of Creation Research has been doing research on the Mount St. Helen’s recovery from it’s 1980’s eruption. From his research Dr. Austin has proposed several models that support the potential world wide flood, how rock layers are laid down rapidly, the quick formation of coal, and river systems can be formed in just a few hours or days. Footprints in the Ash by John Morris PH.D in Geological Engineering, Dr. Steven Austin Geology, (printed, 2003) DVD presentation Mount St. Helens Modern Day Evidence for the World Wide Flood Hosted by Dr. Stephen Austin, The flood Geology DVD Series. Something for you to think about and respond to.
To propose a model is light years from overwhelming and acceptable evidence. Anyone can propose and answer, just as there are many simple answers to complex questions that are usually wrong. When Creation “Ministries” (that’s an interesting title for science studies) publish their findings in a reputable science journal, they will have achieved more than what has been recognized so far. This entity is a church-funded one that has long been seeking answers that will validate the Biblical story. It originated with answers seeking explanations. It is not enough for the church to have all the answers; they want acceptance of world scientists and will keep studying as long as church continues to fund.
Danny Bell, you have raised some great questions.
And Elaine has provided great answers to these questions.
This still just seems that with lack of empirical or in some cases any data, religion is used within an attempt in the scientific method to prove science? While science being a tool and religion a belief within such concept.
This fails in concept, approach, application and definition; but maybe I am just a simpleton. I do have to rely on HIM for everything.
I wonder how many Creations Scientist have submitted their research to “reputable science journals” and have been rejected. I think of Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed. Are you willing to look at the book Footprints in The Ashes? I figured your answer would be along Elaine’s line. Is there a research paper or book that answers Steven Austin’s proposed models for a fast formation of the earth and world wide flood based on his studies of the 1980’a Mount St. Helen’s eruptions? If it’s written for the non scientist layman, I’m willing to read it. Maybe there’s a DVD out there that I can look at. Have a good day and keep smiling.
Finding holes, cracks, in current scientific expression isn’t difficult. However, Creationism inserted into them doesn’t produce legitimate alternatives. Scott, there is a breathless sense of hope you demonstrate that reveals your isolation in fairy land.
Your charge that good research papers have been ignored by ingrained, conspiratorial, dedicated anti-creationists. To do that you have to assume the research ignorers are a corrupt body, without honesty and integrity, committed to an unsupportable proposition (like yourself about Creationism). You have an “axe to grind” and you seek compatriot grinders regardless of the paucity of their data to support an unsupportable proposition.
The scientific community is made up of humans, with foibles, but most with integrity, many devout Christians who honestly evaluate all data. When they see you and others prying with popsicle sticks in the cracks of their work, they see it as a futile religious enterprise.
Gather a massive amount of powerful data that actually challenges current science, supporting Creationism, and present it to the scientific community. Quit breathlessly pining and moping. If it is scientifically convincing you will be heard.
Larry, you sure hit me with a broadside which brought a smile to my face. Maybe I am digging with little popsicles, but I see some pretty big cracks in the models to support evolution. How can one get a bang out nothing that creates life out of nothing? Where’s the missing links in the fossil record? Has the big bang been reproduced in the laboratory? Were we there to see the formation of the Grand Canyon? I’m just asking questions. No, I’m not moping and pining, just smiling and singing. Thank you.
A written reply on forum is absent an important clue as to the intent of the writer. That is, the visual cue(s) present in the face of the writer. I usually write with a trace of a smile on my face. Scott, your humorous reply (laughing) indicates you are replying in kind and you are one of the few that have me pegged! Yes, my “broadside” had a bit of intended humor!
However, are you amassing the powerful data you believe is available to verify a legitimate creation theory? Raising questions isn’t “data.” Many scientists wrinkle their disbelief brows about the “out of nothing” big bang, but without subversion of the remainder of massive ancient evidence. We are there at the creation of the Grand Canyon. The layers speak clearly and loudly of formation eons.
If the Bible is the “Word of God” for history, than it follows it should be in practice, too. You should practice the complex cleansing rituals spelled out in the Pentateuch. You can own slaves. Multiple wives aren’t condemned (splain that to your wife, if you have one)!
Finding holes in current scientific understandings as proof of its inadequacy is a two edged sword. Creationism has chasms in its explanations. What is the source of enough water to cover the earth for Noah? Where did it go? Why did God truncate the view of the universe by creating it so old when it is so young? Tricky Guy! God spoke and it happened? Out of nothing? Real scientists can come up with an infinite list of chasms.
Is nothing the existence of empty space? Was that created or filled at point, or both? Actually I think that all scientists can come up with a pretty large list of chasms. On many instances they do; some they don’t. The real question is why?
Does the earth not hold sufficient near surface water to cover the land? Are we obligated to take the extra responsibility and accountability of slaves and multiple wives? Is the obligation and command to Love just one as CHRIST Loved the Church not enough? We maybe have that little thing with Caesar and laws also and a SACRIFICE to remove the need for cleansing rituals?
Raising questions does prove lack of “data”. At some point in time does raising issues in theorem not disprove theory? Does disproof of mutual exclusion not represent inclusion? Does disproof of inclusion not result in exclusion? Try comparing creation to science within such. Are they mutually exclusive in intent, approach and resultant? Remember one is a tool and the other ranges from a concept to a way of life. One is how and why; the other is our intent to define “whats” through observation. I don’t see many hows and whys answered with the tool, because we are still asking the questions.
I can empathize with those who like Ervin want to push back against others who question the genuineness of their Christian experience just because of not holding a belief in a recent creation of life on this earth. I can understand resentment against those who claim that natural evidence proves the Genesis account is literal history.
However, I wish that Ervin and like folk would have a less negative judgement (as far as I can tell) of the sanity of some of us who have chosen to believe that the Genesis story reflects actual history. Some of us have also studied the natural evidence for many years and have concluded that those who claim that the case for a deep-time history of life on earth is undisputable are far more confident of being right than they deserve to be. There are those of us that acknowledge that a deep-time model of life on earth can accommodate most of the natural evidence without great difficulty. We might also agree that limiting science with naturalism of some variety is appropriate. On the other hand we might argue that God acts are reasonable to consider in a broader realm of nature study and natural history. Some of us do not believe that the possibility has been eliminated of a model (in this broader realm of nature study) accommodating both most of the raw natural evidence and a rather literal take on Genesis. We also are inclined to push back at those who imply that we are ignorant and unaware of the evidence they claim is overwhelming.
I just noticed a comment from Mr. Smith: “I wish that Ervin and like folk would have a less negative judgement (as far as I can tell) of the sanity of some of us who have chosen to believe that the Genesis story reflects actual history.” I don’t recall ever questioning the “sanity” of those believing that the “Genesis story reflects actual history.” I have certainly questioned a number of other characteristics of such individuals, but I truly can’t recall saying that they were “crazy.” If Mr. Smith or anyone else could point to a comment to that effect, I would be very grateful, so I can retract it since I would not agree with such a statement, if indeed I had ever suggested that..
Point well taken Erwin. “Sanity” was too harsh a word. Also I did not have a specific quote in mind. Please accept my apology. Perhaps “rationality” or “mental clarity” would have been better terms. You notice I was not limiting my comment to just you anyway. Also I did try to acknowledge that the negative judgment seems equally or more severe aimed in your direction and often is not just a questioning of mental clarity but of spiritual commitment as well.
Nevertheless, I stand by my thought that I find it unpleasant when folk state or imply that the natural evidence is so strong for the deep-time model of life on earth, that it is indisputable. When someone claims the natural evidence is indisputable or overwhelming or something similar, it is not a great leap to suppose they have a low opinion of the mental clarity of anyone who would dispute the conclusions they are drawing from it. As one who would dispute claims of certainty made for the deep-time history of life on earth, I am doubtless more likely to notice what could be taken to be negative judgements from those who imply certainty for that model. However, I do notice the negativity going in the other direction also – and cringe.
When was the FB stating that Creation was six literal days, required of new baptismal candidates? That was never a requirement for millions who were baptized into the Adventist church. Will ALL Adventists now be required to sign such a statement? When changes are made will all members be required to sign the new beliefs to retain membership? Why is agreeing that God is the Creator insufficient without such details?
SDA philosophy was borne out of the Great Disappointment of date setting for the return of Jesus Christ in 1844. Establishment of a tenet, the Investigative Judgment, of which the rest of Christendom does not find
scriptural evidence for, and is a continuing reason many consider SDA a cult. Now the SDA GC president Ted Wilson is repeating the mistake of setting dates (6 thousand years since creation) and insisting any member of SDA who doesn’t accept his belief, is not an SDA, and isn’t eligible for bapism membership?? Talk of shooting yourself in the big toe, again, over date setting. God wishes mankind not be ignorant, and ignoring scientific knowledge that has provided the massive technology of every type, to improve mans physical life, especially the knowledge and evidence of geology, anthropology, astronomy, and fossil record, is downright stupid, when all the rest of the world’s 7 billion people do.
Mr. Calahan has expressed a truly original idea: that in the GC President and his supporters placing in the GC Fundamental Beliefs listing the dogma of a recent (<6000-10,000 year) and 6 day creation, they have adopted a modern version of "date setting" which, on many occasions we have been warned against doing. First class suggestion! Jolly good!. Obviously an inspired idea. All should applaud his originality.
I have never heard from Pastor Wilson forcing me to sign a statement in support of a 6 day creation. He might have talked about it for pastors, teacher, etc.
First they asked for affirmation of leaders, then pastors, they they requested agreement by the teachers; but when they came for me, there was no one to stand for me. (poor paraphrase, but present truth.
Elaine does it again! If I am that mentally acute at her age, it will be a minor miracle.
Maybe a little backwards and self apparent though? First HE gave us teachers, then pastors and then leaders. Then as we grew we affirmed through HIS guidance; especially those that stand for poor us.
Maybe HE sent many to stand for poor us all along; we just never saw or appreciated them, nor HIM?
If “conviction” is talking about Elaine, I certainly agree.
Luke 10:
17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
I assume we are all in this same boat or maybe we missed the boat?
Which of the spiritual “seventy” are you? Sir, there is doubt the Holy Spirit has given up
reaching you, recognizing it is impossible to reach a perfected saint.
I am not one of the 70, but even they were told to not rejoice about anything except that their name is written in the book. We are all in that same boat.
Dr Taylor’s pit of Adventist Belief Number 6 against contemporary scientific understanding, for which he uses the mere consensus of the latter worldview to support evolution (the millions of years kind), is misdirected for the following reason: the consensus he speaks of is a consensus of assumptions and belief rather than anything empirical.
Trevor,
I agree with you that an appeal to a consensus of opinion is never a suitable substitute for empirical evidence. That is, taking a vote does not change reality. True.
Contemporary biblical understanding, unfortunately, has no empirical basis for truth finding. That is why there are multiple trains of thought that arise from reading scripture.
Measuring the age of the earth is exceptionally empirical. There are multiple ways of actually measuring and calculating what is changing right before our eyes and then using those actual measurements to measure, not guess at, the age of everything from the universe or a grain of sand. These measurements document the age of the earth itself and virtually every and any element for which an age is desired, including present life forms and life forms long extinct.
Dr. Taylor was, perhaps, not wanting to be combative by offering the gentle support implied by consensus.
The only way for the earth to be 6,000 years old is if God had created it ex nihilo to be as old as it measures to be and did so 6,000 years ago.
This is not beyond God to have been able to do this, but to what end? May of us are willing to consider your empirical biblical evidence for believing that the character of the God of the Great Controversy is validated by God having played a massive trick on humanity at this point in human history, and not before.